51102 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU74 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Hine’s Emerald 

Dragonfly 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

designating critical habitat for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora 

hineana) under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, 

approximately 13,221 acres (ac) (5,350 

hectares (ha)) in 22 units fall within the 

boundaries of our critical habitat 

designation. The critical habitat units 

are located in Cook, DuPage, and Will 

Counties in Illinois; Alpena, Mackinac, 

and Presque Isle Counties in Michigan; 

and Door and Ozaukee Counties in 

Wisconsin. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

October 5, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Rogner, Chicago Ecological Services 

Field Office, 1250 S. Grove, Suite 103, 

Barrington, IL 60010 (telephone: 847– 

381–2253, extension 11; facsimile: 847– 

381–2285). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat in this 

rule. For information on the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly, please refer to our 

proposed critical habitat rule, which we 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 26, 2006 (71 FR 42442); the final 

listing determination, published on 

January 26, 1995 (60 FR 5267); or the 

Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly 

(Somatochlora hineana Williamson) 

Recovery Plan (Service 2001). 

Previous Federal Actions 

For information about previous 

Federal actions for the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly, see our proposed critical 

habitat rule for the species (71 FR 

42442). On March 20, 2007, we 

published a notice that included 

revisions to the proposed critical 

habitat, announced the availability of 

the draft economic analysis (DEA), and 

reopened the public comment period 

(72 FR 13061). Because we needed to 

meet our settlement agreement’s 

deadline of submitting a final rule to the 

Federal Register by May 7, 2007, the 

comment period was reopened for only 

14 days. Subsequently, we negotiated a 

new settlement agreement with the 

plaintiffs (The Center for Biodiversity et 

al.) to submit a final rule to the Federal 

Register by August 23, 2007. Therefore, 

on May 18, 2007, we published an 

additional notice that reopened the 

comment period on the proposal, 

revisions to the proposal, and the draft 

economic analysis for an additional 45 

days (72 FR 28026). That comment 

period ended on July 2, 2007. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public on our proposed designation 

of critical habitat for the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly (71 FR 42442) and our draft 

economic analysis (72 FR 13061; 72 FR 

28026). We contacted appropriate 

Federal, State, and local agencies; 

scientific organizations; and other 

interested parties and invited them to 

comment on the proposed rule. We also 

issued press releases and published 

legal notices in the Daily American 

Republic, Kansas City Star, Ozaukee 

News-Graphic, St. Ignace News, Door 

County Advocate, Alpena News, 

Ozaukee Press, and Joliet Herald News 

newspapers. We held one public 

hearing, on August 15, 2006, in 

Romeoville, Illinois. 

During the comment period that 

opened on July 26, 2006, and closed on 

September 25, 2006, we received 35 

comments directly addressing our 

proposed critical habitat designation: 6 

from peer reviewers, 4 from Federal 

agencies, and 25 from organizations or 

individuals. During the comment 

periods from March 20, 2007 through 

April 3, 2007, and May 18, 2007 through 

July 2, 2007, we received 16 comments 

directly addressing the proposed critical 

habitat designation and the draft 

economic analysis. Of these latter 

comments, 2 were from Federal agencies 

and 14 were from organizations or 

individuals. 

In total, 23 commenters supported the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly and 10 

opposed the designation. Ten 

commenters, including three peer 

reviewers, supported exclusion of one 

or more particular units as identified in 

the proposed rule, and 5 commenters 

opposed exclusion of one or more 

particular units. Eighteen letters were 

either neutral or expressed both support 

of and opposition to certain portions of 

the proposal. Responses to comments 

are grouped by those received from peer 

reviewers, States, and the public, in the 

following sections. We grouped public 

comments into 10 general issues 

specifically relating to the proposed 

critical habitat designation and draft 

economic analysis. We have 

incorporated comments into this final 

rule as appropriate. We did not receive 

any requests for additional public 

hearings. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), and current Department of the 

Interior guidance, we solicited expert 

opinions from seven knowledgeable 

individuals with scientific expertise that 

included familiarity with the species, 

the geographic region in which the 

species occurs, and/or conservation 

biology principles. We received 

responses from six of the peer 

reviewers. We reviewed all comments 

we received from the peer reviewers for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

critical habitat. We have addressed peer 

reviewer comments in the following 

summary and have incorporated them 

into this final rule as appropriate. 

The peer reviewers generally 

concurred with our methods and 

conclusions and provided additional 

information, clarifications, and 

suggestions to improve this final critical 

habitat rule. Three of the six peer 

reviewers specifically stated that they 

support our proposed designation of 

critical habitat, and one expressed 

concern that designation may be 

premature because the population status 

of the Hine’s emerald dragonfly in 

Missouri and Michigan is not well 

understood. Information provided by 

peer reviewers included suggestions for 

conducting research on dispersal and 

habitat use that would better inform 

future Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

conservation efforts, as well as 

comments on how to improve critical 

habitat rules. Peer reviewers also made 

suggestions and provided language to 

clarify biological information or make 

the proposed rule easier to understand. 

Several of the peer reviewers provided 

editorial comments that we have 

addressed in the body of this rule. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

(1) Comment: One peer reviewer (as 

well as three other commenters) 

suggested that we should designate 

foraging areas (farmlands, pastures, old 

fields, ponds, and/or surface waters) as 

critical habitat. 

Our response: Although adult Hine’s 

emerald dragonflies have been observed 

foraging near or in these types of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51103 

habitats, the importance of such habitats 

in meeting the daily dietary needs of the 

dragonfly is still unknown. Dispersal 

areas are present in many of the 

designated critical habitat units, as they 

contain open areas that serve as 

corridors that are used by the dragonfly. 

In most of the units, dispersal areas are 

not limiting. 

(2) Comment: One peer reviewer 

suggested that we use caution when 

accepting identifications of early instar 

(defined as the developmental stage on 

an insect between molts of its 

exoskeleton) larvae. 

Our response: We agree that 

identifications of Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly based on early instar larvae 

should be made with caution. Early 

instar larvae have been used in Missouri 

to document the presence of the species 

at new localities or to identify new 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly breeding 

habitat. Identifications of early instar 

larvae were made by the two leading 

experts on Somatochlora species larvae: 

Dr. Tim Cashatt and Mr. Tim Vogt. 

These two experts wrote the definitive 

key to final instar larvae for the genus 

(Cashatt and Vogt 2001, pp. 94–97). 

These experts have also positively 

identified early instar larvae of Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly by examining more 

larval specimens than any other 

recognized dragonfly larvae expert. 

Cashatt and Vogt (2001, pp. 94–97) 

confirmed early instar larvae 

identification by rearing some 

individuals to a final stage; this allowed 

preliminary determinations of the 

species to be confirmed. Identification 

of early instar larvae by these two 

recognized experts constitutes the best 

scientific data available. 

(3) Comment: One peer reviewer 

commented that when the species’

recovery plan was developed, the 

network of sites in Missouri was not 

known and, had the sites been known, 

this may have led to different recovery 

criteria, which may have influenced the 

identification of critical habitat from a 

scientific perspective. 

Our response: Different recovery 

criteria may have been developed for 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly had more sites 

been known in Missouri at the time the 

recovery plan was drafted. However, 

such changes to the species’ recovery 

criteria would not have influenced our 

decision regarding designation of 

critical habitat in Missouri. We based 

the exclusion of Missouri sites on: (1) 

Current implementation of State and 

Federal management plans for the 

species; and (2) Missouri Department of 

Conservation’s (MDC) implementation 

of successful conservation efforts on 

some private lands. The existing 

successful partnerships among State 

agencies and private property owners 

could be negatively affected by a critical 

habitat designation, and this could 

jeopardize future cooperative 

conservation efforts. We used all 

available data and information—

including both the recovery plan and 

additional information gained since its 

development—to determine which areas 

are essential to the conservation of the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly. We will work 

with the Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly 

Recovery Team in reevaluating recovery 

criteria when the overall status of the 

species is reexamined in a 5-year 

review. 

(4) Comment: One peer reviewer 

commented that he is reluctant to 

assume that Hine’s emerald dragonflies 

do not forage and roost in the forest 

canopy. 

Our response: Hine’s emerald 

dragonflies will use trees for roosting. 

Researchers have also observed Hine’s 

emerald dragonflies foraging along the 

forest edge. Given that members of the 

genus Somatochlora commonly forage 

at treetop level along roads and utility 

rights of way, and dragonflies often 

perch in vegetation to avoid predation 

during their sensitive teneral stage (softbodied stage immediately after molt), it 

is possible that Hine’s emerald 

dragonflies may utilize forest canopies 

to a greater extent than previously 

observed. There is no good information, 

however, to define the degree to which 

Hine’s emerald dragonflies may use 

these habitats for foraging and roosting. 

We based our criteria to include up to 

328 feet (ft) (100 meters (m)) of closed 

canopy forest around breeding habitat 

on observations made by one of the 

leading species experts (T. Vogt, 

Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources, in litt. March 2007); this is 

the best information we have available 

to date. 

(5) Comment: One peer reviewer 

commented that in Missouri the small 

populations in identified sites may be 

elements of larger metapopulations. 

These individual elements, because they 

are so small, are probably extirpated 

fairly frequently even in the absence of 

human disturbance. For this reason, it 

would seem prudent to conserve 

suitable but currently unoccupied sites, 

since dispersal to such unoccupied sites 

must be important to the maintenance of 

the metapopulation. This does not 

necessarily mean that such sites should 

be designated as critical habitat for the 

species. 

Our response: While the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora 

hineana Williamson) Recovery Plan 

recognizes that the patchy nature of 

habitat in Illinois and Wisconsin 

suggests metapopulation in those two 

States, only three sites were known in 

Missouri at the time the Recovery Plan 

was written (Service 2001). We do not 

have adequate information to determine 

if the small populations of Hine’s 

emerald dragonflies in Missouri are part 

of one or more metapopulations. Such a 

hypothesis is best tested by conducting 

various genetic analyses; genetic 

analyses of populations in Missouri will 

be initiated in the summer of 2007. 

Until such genetic analyses are 

conducted, it is difficult to assess the 

status of the Missouri populations of 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly in relation to 

the overall distribution of the species. 

(6) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that the rationales for exclusions 

are not easy to understand. 

Our response: In this rule, we have 

attempted to further clarify the rationale 

for our exclusions and why these 

exclusions are important to the overall 

conservation of the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly. 

(7) Comment: One peer reviewer 

commented that exclusion of the 

Missouri units based solely on the fact 

that the habitat is surrounded by 

contiguous forest does not seem 

justified. Without knowing anything 

about the dispersal ability of the 

species, that fact alone seems 

insufficient to conclude that such 

populations may not be important in the 

long-term survival of the species in 

Missouri. 

Our response: We have described our 

reasons for excluding Missouri units 

from the critical habitat designation 

under the Exclusions section of this 

rule. We excluded those areas on the 

basis of existing conservation plans and 

partnerships, and not based on the fact 

that most sites are surrounded by 

contiguous, closed canopy forest. 

(8) Comment: One peer reviewer 

suggested that we should include 

unoccupied habitat in areas that may 

serve as dispersal corridors or establish 

connectivity between sites in the critical 

habitat designation. 

Our response: We attempted to 

include areas that will serve as dispersal 

corridors that are contiguous with 

occupied habitat within our critical 

habitat units. However, little is known 

about what factors are essential to 

enable the species to disperse. We 

designated areas that were occupied at 

the time of listing and not now occupied 

in order to allow for connectivity 

between units. We also included habitat 

out to the average dispersal distance of 

the species in order to maintain this 

dispersal capability. Not all unoccupied 

sites may be suitable for dispersal 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51104 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

corridors, however. We do not have 

enough scientific information to assess 

the importance of dispersal corridors to 

the conservation of the species. There 

are multiple reasons why Hine’s 

emerald dragonflies may be absent from 

sites, even those that have all the 

necessary habitat requirements. Another 

peer reviewer noted that reasons such as 

interspecific interactions (e.g., with 

other dragonflies) could preclude Hine’s 

emerald dragonflies in sites that have all 

the necessary habitat requirements. For 

example, in Missouri, the distribution of 

the Hine’s emerald dragonfly may be 

dictated in part by the presence of large 

dragonfly predators that have been 

observed preying on individuals of the 

same genus (Somatochlora) as the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly. 

(9) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that designation of critical habitat 

for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly is 

premature because of the lack of 

knowledge on the status and population 

structure of the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly. 

Our response: The Service is under a 

court order to complete the designation 

of critical habitat and submit a final rule 

to the Federal Register by August 23, 

2007. Consequently, we must proceed 

with the critical habitat process for this 

species based on the best scientific data 

that is available, as required by the Act. 

(10) Comment: One peer reviewer 

asked if management plans exist for any 

of the areas in Wisconsin identified in 

the proposal. 

Our response: Lands owned by 

resource and conservation agencies in 

critical habitat units in Wisconsin do 

not have existing management plans 

that specifically address the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly. Those entities with 

conservation plans for their properties 

have included protective measures to 

conserve wetland habitat and thereby 

are helping to conserve the dragonfly. 

Those plans, however, do not 

specifically identify conservation 

measures for the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly. 

(11) Comment: One peer reviewer 

recommended that research be 

conducted on dispersal, particularly 

female dispersal, and that we consider 

radio tracking, as has been done with 

Aeshnids (darners). 

Our response: Research on dispersal 

is a task identified in the Hine’s 

Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora 

hineana Williamson) Recovery Plan 

(Service 2001). The Hine’s Emerald 

Dragonfly Recovery Team and species 

experts are assessing the feasibility of 

using a similar methodology as was 

used to radio track Aeshnids. 

General Comments 

Issue 1: Biological Justification and 

Methodology Used 

(1A) Comment: Several individuals 

commented that the proposal did not 

address groundwater recharge areas. 

Our response: In accordance with 

section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in 

determining what areas are critical 

habitat, we shall consider those physical 

and biological features that are essential 

to the conservation of the species. Some 

groundwater recharge areas may be 

included within a critical habitat unit if 

they co-occur with the biological and 

physical features essential to the 

conservation of Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly. Any Federal actions that may 

affect critical habitat, irrespective of its 

location inside or outside of a critical 

habitat unit, are subject to section 7 

consultation. This would include 

Federal actions that affect groundwater 

recharge to any of the critical habitat 

units. 

(1B) Comment: One individual 

expressed that we did not show that the 

best available scientific data support the 

inclusion of the rail line in Illinois Units 

1 and 2. 

Our response: The rail line in Illinois 

Units 1 and 2 does not contain the 

primary constituent elements and, 

therefore, does not meet the definition 

of critical habitat. Therefore, we have 

not designated it as critical habitat. As 

stated in the proposal and this final 

rule, critical habitat does not include 

human-made structures existing on the 

effective date of a final rule and not 

containing one or more of the primary 

constituent elements. However, work 

performed on the rail line would be 

subject to the provisions of section 7 if 

that work could have adverse effects on 

designated critical habitat or the 

dragonfly. 

(1C) Comment: One individual stated 

that it is not clear whether Wisconsin 

Unit 11 (containing Kellner’s Fen) is 

sufficiently inclusive, and that this unit 

should also include the surrounding 

transitional habitat that may also 

contain primary constituent elements. 

Our response: In designating critical 

habitat at Kellner’s Fen, we used the 

same criteria we used for all the other 

units. We designated areas containing 

the primary constituent elements for the 

dragonfly, including wetland (fen) areas, 

shrubby areas, and 100 m into adjacent 

forest habitat. The map in the Federal 

Register is generalized, and does not 

show the habitat variations that actually 

exist within the unit. 

(1D) Comment: One comment 

disputes the accuracy of the report’s 

statement that adult dragonflies are 

active mid-June to mid-August. 

Our response: According to the 

Recovery Plan (Service 2001), larvae 

begin to emerge as adult, possibly as 

early as late May in Illinois and late 

June in Wisconsin and continue to 

emerge through the summer (Vogt and 

Cashatt 1994; Mierzwa et al. 1997). The 

adults’s know flight season lasts up to 

early October in Illinois (Voght and 

Cashatt 1994) and to late August in 

Wisconsin (Voght and Cashatt 1994). 

Fully adult Hine’s emerald dragonflies 

can live at least 14 days and may live 

4 to 6 weeks. 

Issue 2: Procedural and Legal 

Compliance 

(2A) Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that excluding Forest Service 

land was inappropriate as the Forest 

Service did not consult with the Service 

under section 7 of the Act. Two 

commenters mentioned a specific 

example, the Sprinkler Project on the 

Hiawatha National Forest, where they 

believed consultation was not 

completed. Further, the commenters 

suggested that designating critical 

habitat would ensure future 

consultation between the Service and 

Forest Service. 

Our response: The Service has a 

cooperative relationship with the 

Hiawatha and Mark Twain National 

Forests, both of which are actively 

involved in endangered species 

management and recovery. Through this 

cooperative relationship, the Forest 

Service consistently consults on projects 

that may affect listed species, including 

the Hine’s emerald dragonfly. The 

Forest Service recently completed 

section 7 consultation on Mark Twain’s 

and Hiawatha’s Land and Resource 

Management Plans. Several other 

informal and formal consultations have 

also been completed, including 

consultation on the Sprinkler Project in 

2006. Section 7 consultation and 

conservation of Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly will continue even with 

exclusion of Forest Service lands from 

critical habitat designation. 

(2B) Comment: One individual 

commented that the proposed rule states 

that the conservation role of Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly critical habitat units 

is to support ‘‘viable core area 

populations,’’ but that the proposed rule 

did not provide sufficient information to 

allow commenters to determine whether 

the proposed units actually contain 

areas that support such Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly populations. 

Our response: ‘‘Viable’’ means 

capable of living, developing, or 

reproducing under favorable conditions. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51105 

We have used the best scientific and 

commercial information available to 

determine what conditions are favorable 

to Hine’s emerald dragonfly, and the 

proposal provided information on the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. We identified areas that are 

known to contain these features, 

provided descriptions of the features in 

each unit, and are designating only 

those units that contain the features that 

are essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

(2C) Comment: One commenter 

questioned the legality of the critical 

habitat designation in regards to takings. 

Our response: The designation of 

critical habitat does not mean that 

private lands will be taken by the 

Federal government or that other legal 

uses will be restricted. We evaluated 

this rule in accordance with Executive 

Order (E.O.) 12630, and we believe that 

the critical habitat designation for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly will not have 

significant takings implications. We do 

not anticipate that property values, 

rights, or ownership will be materially 

affected by the critical habitat 

designation. 

Issue 3: Exclusions 

(3A) Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that Michigan Units 1, 2, and 

3 should not be excluded, because these 

units contain areas not covered by 

Federal or State management plans. 

Our response: The entire acreage 

encompassed by Michigan Units 1 and 

2, including some small areas of nonFederal land, are excluded from the 

final Hine’s emerald dragonfly critical 

habitat designation. The non-Federal 

lands within these units are small in 

size relative to the unit’s overall size. 

The larger landscapes in these two 

critical habitat units are managed by the 

Hiawatha National Forest. The 

Hiawatha National Forest’s Land and 

Resource Management Plan provides for 

the management and protection of 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly habitat that 

will facilitate the recovery of the 

species. Although those non-Federal 

lands may provide suitable habitat and 

primary constituent elements for 

colonizing dragonflies from adjacent 

National Forest land, their contribution 

to the overall recovery and conservation 

of the species is considered minute 

compared to the surrounding lands 

managed by the Hiawatha National 

Forest. 

We have determined that adequate 

management and protection of Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly habitat in Michigan 

Unit 3 is not provided by current State, 

Federal, or private management plans. 

Therefore, this unit was not excluded 

from the final critical habitat 

designation. 

(3B) Comment: The Forest Plans for 

the Mark Twain and Hiawatha National 

Forests do not justify excluding these 

areas from critical habitat. Although the 

Forest Plan may address conservation of 

the Hine’s emerald dragonfly, they 

would not provide for consultation with 

the Service on future Forest Service 

actions that may destroy or adversely 

modify the dragonfly’s habitat. 

Furthermore, while the Service 

recognizes logging as a threat to the 

species, the Forest Service has recently 

proposed timber cutting to protect the 

species. Neither the Forest Service nor 

the Service has produced evidence that 

this logging proposed under the 

Hiawatha Forest Plan is likely to benefit 

the dragonfly. 

Our response: The commenter is 

correct that a separate section 7 

consultation addressing critical habitat 

would not be required in any excluded 

areas. However, as these excluded areas 

are currently occupied, activities that 

could impact Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

(including its habitat) would still 

require a species-specific consultation. 

Based on the Forest Plans, the Forest 

Service not only has solidified its 

dedication to protect the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly and its habitat, but also has 

committed to help recover the species. 

The Forest Service commitment and 

ongoing partnership with us provide 

greater benefit to the species and its 

habitat than would critical habitat 

designation. Consequently, we disagree 

with the commenter that important 

breeding and foraging habitat for Hine’s 

emerald dragonflies on the two national 

forests will not be protected without 

critical habitat designation. 

If not conducted in a way that is 

sensitive to Hine’s emerald dragonflies, 

logging could be detrimental to the 

species’ habitat. At the same time, 

Hine’s emerald dragonflies need open 

areas for foraging. Some areas on the 

Hiawatha National Forest adjacent to 

breeding habitat have closed canopies 

that could benefit from various forest 

management practices. Additionally, 

there are sites for Hine’s emerald 

dragonflies on the Hiawatha and Mark 

Twain National Forests that would 

benefit from adding more direct 

dispersal corridors between breeding 

sites. Timber removal may be 

appropriate for such situations. National 

Forest land provides important Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly breeding sites, and 

the maintenance, management, and 

protection of these areas will be 

achieved by implementing the Land and 

Resource Management Plans on the two 

forests. 

(3C) Comment: One commenter stated 

that excluding habitat on lands owned 

by the State of Missouri would lead to 

no net conservation benefit to the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly. Designating CH 

would not harm our good working 

relationship with the MDC. 

Our response: MDC owns and 

manages all fens on Missouri State lands 

with Hine’s emerald dragonflies. The 

MDC currently implements various 

habitat management and conservation 

actions to sustain and enhance the 

species at these fens. Furthermore, MDC 

has recently updated its Conservation 

Area Plans and the Husman Fen Natural 

Area Plan to incorporate additional 

conservation measures for the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly that will ensure the 

long-term management and 

maintenance of fens. The benefits to the 

species resulting from conservation 

measures being implemented by MDC 

would exceed any benefit to the species 

gained from the designation of critical 

habitat. Additionally, in their comments 

on the proposal, MDC requested they be 

excluded from the critical habitat 

designation because they anticipate 

some negative effects of designation. 

Because of their implementation of 

management plans for the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly, we are able to 

accommodate this request. 

(3D) Comment: One commenter 

expressed that the perception of public 

hostility does not justify excluding 

private property. That commenter 

believed that the lack of support from 

the general public was due to the 

Service’s failure to properly educate 

private landowners on the minor impact 

of designating critical habitat on their 

property. The commenter stated that the 

exclusion of all private property in 

Missouri from critical habitat 

designation without a unit-by-unit 

consideration of conservation benefits 

and landowner amenability is arbitrary. 

Our response: We have multiple 

examples where researchers have been 

denied access to private land to survey 

potentially new Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly sites. In other cases, 

landowners who have documented 

Hine’s emerald dragonflies on their 

property have been reluctant or 

apprehensive about taking advantage of 

multiple landowner incentive programs 

available to them due to false 

perceptions of critical habitat. 

We, Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

researchers, and personnel of the MDC’s 

Private Land Services Division have 

extended considerable effort in 

providing private landowners with 

information on the Hine’s emerald 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51106 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

dragonfly and outlining various 

landowner incentive programs. Despite 

the combined outreach efforts of 

multiple individuals, there is 

documented opposition by private 

landowners within the dragonfly’s range 

in Missouri that is difficult to overcome. 

The designation of critical habitat on 

private property in Missouri would only 

exacerbate negative attitudes towards 

federally listed species. 

We considered the conservation 

benefits of designating critical habitat 

for each unit under private ownership, 

as well as the benefits of excluding the 

area from critical habitat. We weighed 

the benefits of each, and concluded, 

using the discretion afforded to us 

under the Act, that actions for the 

conservation of the species would be 

best realized if the lands were excluded. 

Based on past experience and a strong 

working relationship between the MDC 

personnel and private landowners, we 

believe that private landowners are 

much more amenable to a partnership 

that emphasizes a cooperative working 

relationship rather than a fear of 

regulatory control. 

(3E) Comment: One commenter 

expressed that Illinois Unit 2 should be 

excluded from the critical habitat 

designation, under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, because the substantial benefits of 

exclusion outweigh any potential 

benefits of designation and the 

exclusion will not result in the 

extinction of the species. 

Our response: While the Service 

recognizes the cooperation of the 

landowners in Illinois Unit 2, formal 

conservation agreements or management 

plans have not been prepared for this 

unit and, therefore, the future 

management and protection of this unit 

are unknown. The landowners of this 

unit are in the very initial stages of 

developing a Habitat Conservation Plan 

for the species. This Habitat 

Conservation Plan, however, is not 

complete enough at this time to allow us 

to evaluate the conservation benefits to 

the species. 

(3F) Comment: One commenter stated 

that Commonwealth Edison’s right-ofway in Illinois Units 1–5 and 7 should 

be excluded because designation of 

these areas would put Commonwealth 

Edison’s normal operations at severe 

risk. Another commenter expressed that 

in Illinois Units 1 and 2, the generating 

station, rail line, and land adjacent to 

those structures should be excluded. 

Our response: To the greatest extent 

possible, we avoided including 

developed areas containing buildings, 

rail lines, electrical substations, and 

other urban infrastructure within 

critical habitat units. Where we have not 

been able to map out these structures we 

have excluded them by text. As stated 

in this rule, 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 (see definition of 

‘‘primary constituent elements’’ in 

subsequent section). Therefore, humanmade structures including utility poles, 

power lines, rail lines, and the 

generating station are not included in 

the critical habitat designation. 

However, areas around the human-made 

structures that consist of habitat 

containing the primary constituent 

elements of Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

habitat are included in the designation. 

Although Commonwealth Edison has 

been a valued partner in the 

conservation of Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly, and is one of the parties 

involved in the preparation of a Habitat 

Conservation Plan for the species, no 

management plans for their right of way 

currently exist. 

(3G) Comment: Three commenters 

expressed that the life of a forest plan 

is likely shorter than the time it will 

take to recover the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly. They added that there is no 

guarantee that the forest plans would be 

in place or implemented in the future. 

Therefore, they question the exclusion 

of Forest Service land in Michigan and 

Missouri. 

Our response: The intended cycle of 

National Forest plans is 10–15 years. 

The Mark Twain and Hiawatha National 

Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plans were approved in 2005 and 2006, 

respectively. As identified in the Hine’s 

Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora 

hineana Williamson) Recovery Plan, 

anticipated recovery of the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly could occur as early 

as 2019 (Service 2001). While we concur 

that it is likely that current management 

plans for the Mark Twain and Hiawatha 

National Forests will expire before the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly can be 

recovered, we believe that the track 

record of cooperation between us and 

the two national forests outlines the 

Forest Service’s commitment to the 

conservation of federally listed species 

under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the 

Act. Once the current plans have 

expired, we are confident that both the 

Mark Twain and Hiawatha National 

Forests will complete consultation on 

the new plans. These consultations will 

further ensure that actions outlined in 

future land and resource management 

plans will not jeopardize the continued 

existence of any federally listed species, 

including the Hine’s emerald dragonfly. 

We believe that standards and 

guidelines established for the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly will continue to 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species until it is recovered and 

removed from the list of federally 

protected species. If plans change such 

that it affects our balancing, we will 

reconsider whether to designate critical 

habitat in these areas. 

(3H) Comment: One commenter 

expressed that we should exclude 

Illinois Units 1, 2, and 3 because of 

long-term stakeholder commitment and 

the Habitat Conservation Plan that is 

being written. 

Our response: Though we are pleased 

with the progress made to date on the 

Habitat Conservation Plan, it is still far 

from complete. It is too early to judge 

its ultimate outcome. At this early stage, 

the developing Habitat Conservation 

Plan is not complete enough for us to 

evaluate whether habitat for the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly would be 

appropriately managed. Generally we do 

not consider excluding an area from 

critical habitat based on a draft Habitat 

Conservation Plan until the 

conservation measures have been 

determined, an environmental analysis 

has been completed and released for 

public review, and we have determined 

that issuing the associated incidental 

take permit would not result in a 

jeopardy or adverse modification 

finding for the species or its critical 

habitat. Therefore, we are not excluding 

Illinois Units 1, 2, and 3 at this time. 

When the Habitat Conservation Plan is 

completed, we will be able to evaluate 

its conservation benefits to the species 

and, if appropriate, revise the critical 

habitat designation to exclude this unit. 

(3I) Comment: One commenter 

concluded that there is no reasonable 

basis for excluding privately owned 

sites in Missouri and designating 

Illinois Units 1 and 2. Excluding units 

in Missouri suggests that similarly 

situated parties are being treated 

differently. 

Our response: Threats identified for 

the Hine’s emerald dragonfly on private 

land in Missouri are addressed through 

close coordination among personnel 

with the MDC’s Private Land Services 

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 privately owned 

fens occupied by the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly that benefit the species and 

alleviate potential threats. 

One site on private property in 

Missouri is owned and managed by The 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51107 

Nature Conservancy through the 

implementation of a site-specific plan 

(The Nature Conservancy 2006, pp. 1–

4) that maintains fen habitat. One site 

under private ownership is a designated 

State Natural Area that is managed by 

the MDC through a site-specific plan 

(Missouri Natural Areas Committee 

2007). This plan ensures that the 

integrity of the fen is maintained 

(Missouri Natural Areas Committee 

2007). However, at this time there are no 

conservation plans in place for Illinois 

Units 1 and 2 that would guide the 

implementation of similar measures. In 

addition, Illinois Unit 1 is a publicly 

owned site. 

(3J) Comment: One commenter was 

concerned with the exclusion of large 

areas of lands in Michigan and Missouri 

based solely on the existence of 

management plans. The commenter 

suggested that given the uncertainties 

surrounding funding and 

implementation, the Service should 

consider designating these areas. 

Another commenter opposed exclusion 

of Michigan Units because the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly is mobile, and 

designation of all possible habitat areas 

is necessary to support increased 

numbers of the species. Furthermore, 

the commenter suggested that, by 

excluding critical habitat areas, we 

spent more time and money on the 

designation process. 

Our response: While available 

funding will likely impact the amount 

of Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

conservation work that occurs in any 

one year, we are confident that the 

Forest Service will continue to place a 

high emphasis and priority on their 

obligation to contribute to the 

conservation of the species. In addition, 

State land management agencies in 

Missouri are committed to the 

implementation of recovery actions 

outlined in their management plans. 

Because of this commitment, land 

management agencies in Missouri and 

Michigan are already actively 

implementing conservation actions for 

the Hine’s emerald dragonfly and fen 

habitat. The designation of critical 

habitat would not influence them to act 

more proactively. 

In evaluating which areas to exclude, 

we requested and reviewed management 

plans and other relevant information. 

This analysis was conducted for all of 

the Hine’s emerald dragonfly habitat 

areas we identified as meeting the 

definition of critical habitat. For 

excluded units, more time was spent on 

reviewing pertinent information, 

addressing public comments, and 

incorporating public input than for 

designated critical habitat units. This, 

however, was not due to the exclusion 

process, but rather to the amount of 

pertinent information available for these 

units (Forest Service Land and Resource 

Management Plans, other management 

plans, etc.) and the large number of 

public comments associated with 

exclusion. The evaluation and 

incorporation of relevant information 

and public comment was a necessary 

part of our critical habitat designation. 

Issue 4: Economic Issues 

(4A) Comment: The proposed critical 

habitat rule states that ‘‘[t]o the extent 

that designation of critical habitat 

provides protection, that protection can 

come at significant social and economic 

cost’’ (71 FR 42443). Two commenters 

contend that there is no evidence that 

‘‘social or economic’’ costs apply to the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly critical habitat 

designation and that some private 

landowners have recognized that critical 

habitat designation poses no social or 

economic threat. Furthermore, the 

economic and social benefits of critical 

habitat designation are ignored. 

Response: The draft economic 

analysis evaluates the potential 

economic costs associated with critical 

habitat designation, and also discuses 

the benefits of critical habitat 

designation. Based on our economic 

analysis, estimated future costs 

associated with conservation efforts for 

the dragonfly in areas designated as 

critical habitat range from $16.8 million 

to $47.9 million (undiscounted) over the 

next 20 years. The present value of these 

impacts, applying a 3 percent discount 

rate, is $13.4 million to $35.6 million 

($0.9 million to $2.4 million 

annualized); or $10.7 million to $26.0 

million, applying a 7 percent discount 

rate ($1.0 million to $2.5 million 

annualized). 

The published economics literature 

has documented that social welfare 

benefits can result from the 

conservation and recovery of 

endangered and threatened species. In 

its guidance for implementing Executive 

Order 12866, OMB acknowledges that it 

may not be feasible to monetize, or even 

quantify, the benefits of environmental 

regulations due to either an absence of 

defensible, relevant studies or a lack of 

resources on the implementing agency’s 

part to conduct new research. Rather 

than rely on economic measures, the 

Service believes that the direct benefits 

of the proposed rule are best expressed 

in biological terms that can be weighed 

against the expected cost impacts of the 

rulemaking. Critical habitat designation 

may also generate ancillary benefits. 

Critical habitat aids in the conservation 

of species specifically by protecting the 

primary constituent elements on which 

the species depends. To this end, 

critical habitat designation can result in 

maintenance of particular 

environmental conditions that may 

generate other social benefits aside from 

the preservation of the species. That is, 

management actions undertaken to 

conserve a species or habitat may have 

coincident, positive social welfare 

implications, such as the preservation of 

open space in a region. While they are 

not the primary purpose of critical 

habitat, these ancillary benefits may 

result in gains in employment, output, 

or income that may offset the direct, 

negative impacts to a region’s economy 

resulting from actions to conserve a 

species or its habitat. It is often difficult 

to evaluate the ancillary benefits of 

critical habitat. To the extent that the 

ancillary benefits of the rulemaking may 

be captured by the market through an 

identifiable shift in resource allocation, 

they are factored into the overall 

economic impact assessment. For 

example, if habitat preserves are created 

to protect a species, the value of existing 

residential property adjacent to those 

preserves may increase, resulting in a 

measurable positive impact. Ancillary 

benefits that affect markets are not 

anticipated in this case and therefore are 

not quantified.’’

(4B) Comment: One commenter 

suggested that the proposal was 

premature and legally deficient because 

it lacked an economic analysis. 

Our response: Pursuant to the Act, 

and clarified in our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, we are 

required to, ‘‘after proposing 

designation of [a critical habitat] area, 

consider the probable economic and 

other impacts of the designation upon 

proposed or ongoing activities.’’ The 

purpose of the draft economic analysis 

is to determine and evaluate the 

potential economic effects of the 

proposed designation. In order to 

develop an economic analysis of the 

effects of designation critical habitat, we 

need to have identified an initial 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

Following publication of the critical 

habitat proposal for the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly, we developed a draft 

economic analysis of the proposed 

designation that was made available for 

public review and comment on March 

20, 2007, for 14 days, and reopened for 

public review and comment on May 18, 

2007, for 45 days. On the basis of 

information received during the public 

comment periods, we may, during the 

development of our final critical habitat 

determination, find that areas proposed 

are not essential, are appropriate for 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51108 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Act, or are not appropriate for 

exclusion. An area may be excluded 

from critical habitat if it is determined 

that the benefits of such exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of including a 

particular area as critical habitat, unless 

the failure to designate such area as 

critical habitat will result in the 

extinction of the species. We have not, 

however, excluded any areas from the 

final designation based on economic 

reasons. 

(4C) Comment: One commenter 

expressed that Midwest Generation’s 

rail line and immediately adjoining 

areas in Illinois Units 1 and 2 should be 

excluded from critical habitat based on 

economic impacts, and they provided 

an independent economic analysis of 

alternative coal delivery systems. 

Our response: On March 20, 2007, we 

issued an economic analysis that 

addressed these issues. As stated above 

and in the proposed rule ‘‘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.’’ The rail line is not part of 

Illinois Units 1 and 2 because it was 

excluded by text from the proposal rule 

and from this final rule. Areas around 

the rail line that are not human-made 

but contain at least one primary 

constituent element are included. We 

determined that the relatively minor 

economic costs as described in the draft 

economic analysis do not justify 

excluding those areas from critical 

habitat. 

(4D) Comment: One commenter 

expressed concerns about the effects of 

critical habitat designation on the future 

of the State snowmobile trail system in 

Door County, Wisconsin, and on 

improvements to, and installation of, 

new trails. Concerns include loss of the 

State trail corridor, which could 

bankrupt snowmobile clubs in the area, 

and loss of associated tourist revenue in 

Door County. 

Our response: While the designation 

of critical habitat for the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly does not directly affect private 

landowners without a Federal nexus, it 

does alert them to the presence of an 

endangered species on their land and 

the need to ensure that their activities 

are consistent with the conservation of 

the species. Snowmobiling activity on 

upland areas in the winter will not 

affect the dragonfly, as adults are not 

flying in winter and the larval stage 

overwinters in crayfish burrows in 

wetlands. Construction and 

maintenance of snowmobile trails in 

upland locations at any time of year are 

not anticipated to affect the dragonfly. If 

construction and maintenance activities 

are planned in or near wetland areas 

occupied by the dragonfly, measures 

should be taken to preclude adversely 

affecting the wetlands or their 

hydrology. The Service’s Green Bay 

Ecological Services Field Office can be 

contacted for guidance on ways to 

preclude harm to the dragonfly’s habitat 

(by calling 920–866–1717). As we 

anticipate that snowmobiling activities 

will not be adversely affected by 

designation of critical habitat, we do not 

anticipate impacts to tourist revenues 

associated with snowmobiling in Door 

County. 

(4E) Comment: One commenter stated 

that it was unclear from information in 

the economic analysis whether a 

determination had been made regarding 

exclusion of additional areas from the 

designation of critical habitat for all or 

some of the units in Illinois based on 

economic impact. 

Our response: The purpose of the 

economic analysis is to identify and 

analyze the potential economic impacts 

associated with the proposed critical 

habitat designation for the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly. The economic 

analysis did not make a determination 

about any exclusions. The economic 

analysis is conducted to inform the 

Secretary’s decision about exclusions. 

The final determination is made in this 

rule. Based on the information in the 

draft economic analysis and the 

comments received during the public 

comment period, we are not excluding 

any areas based on economic impacts. 

(4F) Comment: One comment asserts 

that there is little (if any) economic 

activity in Alpena, Mackinac, or Presque 

Isle Counties in Michigan. The comment 

asserts that declining populations in 

these counties is evidence of minimal 

economic activity. 

Our response: The methodology used 

to obtain land values is discussed in 

Section 2.1 of the economic analysis, 

and the land values for each potential 

critical habitat units are presented in 

Exhibit 2–3. These values reflect the 

level of actual economic activity in 

these counties. The land in the three 

Michigan counties that coincides with 

the study area is valued at $1,430 per ac 

in Alpena County; $4,380 per ac in 

Presque Isle County; and $1,510 per ac 

in Mackinac County. The land value 

estimates for economic impacts in these 

counties (for units MI 3, MI 4, MI 5, and 

MI 6) were obtained from local zoning 

and tax assessor officials in these 

counties. The price of land in the 

present constitutes the expected value 

of current and potential future values of 

that land. Each of the proposed critical 

habitat units are near waterfront access 

and roads, which may make them 

valuable now or in the future. 

(4G) Comment: Two comments state 

that the economic analysis fails to 

define an appropriate baseline, 

specifically: (1) The analysis of future 

conservation measures as co-extensive 

is unjustified; and (2) the inclusion of 

past costs associated with the proposed 

critical habitat as consequences of the 

critical habitat designation is erroneous. 

Our response: (1) The economic 

analysis includes co-extensive costs 

because courts and the public have 

asked to see us display all of the costs 

of critical habitat, whether or not these 

costs are co-extensive with other causes. 

(2) The economic analysis explains why 

past costs are included in the 

introduction of Chapter 1. The 

retrospective analysis of past costs is 

included to provide context for future 

costs, and in some cases to help predict 

them. The Service is not suggesting that 

these costs are a result of the critical 

habitat designation. Reporting of past 

costs is also reviewed in Section 1.4, 

where their inclusion is justified on the 

basis that past costs may have 

contributed to the efficacy of the Act in 

that area. 

(4H) Comment: Two comments state 

that the economic analysis does not 

include benefits in the analysis. The unquantified benefits they list are: 

protection of ecosystem services; 

increased recreational and wildlife 

opportunities; reduced flood risks; 

concurrent conservation of other 

species; enhanced groundwater 

recharge; mosquito reduction; existence 

value of the dragonfly; protection of 

other species; wetland protection; 

decreased use of pesticides, chemicals, 

and herbicides; and potentially higher 

property values. One of the comments 

provides testimony of landowners who 

want to preserve the dragonfly on their 

property as evidence of existence value. 

This comment then proceeds to list 

several non-use valuation techniques. 

Another comment argues that the 

benefits should be expressed in 

monetary terms rather than in biological 

terms. 

Our response: Potential benefits from 

critical habitat designation are 

discussed in Section 1.4 of the 

economic analysis, which recognizes 

the valuation methodologies discussed 

by the commenter. The section then 

describes the policy of the Service 

whereby benefits are expressed in 

biological terms. This section also 

discusses how ancillary benefits are not 

expected in the case of the Hine’s 

Emerald Dragonfly. The Federal Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

acknowledged that it may not be 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51109 

feasible to monetize or quantify benefits 

because there may be a lack of credible, 

relevant studies, or because the agency 

faces resource constraints that would 

make benefit estimation infeasible (U.S. 

OMB, ‘‘Circular A–4,’’ September 17, 

2003, available at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/ 

a004/a-4.pdf.). 

(4I) Comment: One comment states 

that the economic analysis does not 

explain how the results of the analysis 

will be used in the critical habitat 

designation process. 

Our response: In the introduction to 

Chapter 1, the Framework for Analysis 

states that the economic analysis will be 

used to weigh the benefits of excluding 

particular proposed critical habitat areas 

against the benefits of including them. 

(4J) Comment: One comment states 

that the economic analysis does not 

consider the effects of other land use 

regulations that may affect how land can 

be developed or used, and that value 

losses attributed to critical habitat 

designation may be improperly 

attributed. 

Our response: Land use regulations 

and how they affect land values are 

discussed in Section 2.1 of the 

economic analysis, in the context of 

Exhibit 2–3. First, the analysis explains 

that present land values will reflect the 

opportunities for development of that 

land. In this way, the present value of 

land incorporates all current and 

expected future regulatory constraints 

upon land use (Freeman 2003). 

As an illustration, consider three 

identical parcels, one which housing 

can be built on with certainty, one 

which may or may not be subject to 

regulatory constraints that prohibit the 

construction of housing, and one where 

housing construction is absolutely 

prohibited. The price of the parcel 

where housing can be built (with 

certainty) will incorporate the option 

value for that housing and will sell for 

the highest price. The parcel where 

housing may or may not be built due to 

uncertainties about future regulation 

will sell for less than the parcel on 

which housing can be built with 

certainty, but will sell for more than the 

parcel where no housing can be built. 

The market price for land is net of the 

expected effect of current or future 

regulations. As described in Section 2.1 

of the economic analysis, the GIS 

process for determining land values 

took into account zoning regulations 

and ownership types before determining 

land values from tax parcel records and 

interviews with zoning and planning 

officials. Impacts in this analysis are 

predicted using the best publicly 

available data for reasonably foreseeable 

land uses. 

(4K) Comment: One comment argues 

that the assumption that the value of 

land is immediately lost is erroneous 

because there is imperfect information 

in markets. 

Our response: Section 2.1 of the 

economic analysis provides an 

explanation of how real estate markets 

work, and how current prices are the 

market’s best prediction of future land 

values. It is correct that all consumers 

are not perfectly informed about 

products in a marketplace. In the real 

estate market, a lack of knowledge can 

result in a higher or lower property 

value. In the case of a newly regulated 

market, this would mean that buyers 

would still be willing to pay too much 

for the property. 

The goal of the analysis in Section 2.1 

is to predict the market equilibrium 

outcome. Limited information among 

buyers may cause them to pay too much 

for the property in the short run, but 

once the market is informed, everyone 

will pay the true (lower) market 

equilibrium value. There are many 

studies that have empirically shown 

that, though there may be imperfect 

information among some potential 

buyers, real estate markets respond 

quickly to changes in land use 

regulation (Kiel 2005; Guttery et al. 

2000). The assumptions used in this 

analysis are based on the best available 

information. 

(4L) Comment: One comment states 

that the economic analysis improperly 

inflates the lost value of development 

because including all land values as lost 

development values assumes that these 

lands are certain to be developed, and 

there is no certainty that the land will 

be developed. 

Our response: Section 2.1 of the 

economic analysis addresses this in its 

discussion of how real estate prices 

adjust to expectations about future 

property uses. This analysis does not 

assume that all lands are certain to be 

developed. The present price per parcel 

of land incorporates the expected value 

of potential current and future uses of 

that land, regardless of when, or if, the 

land is ever developed. If current and 

potential uses are taken away, or if the 

quality of the land declines, the price of 

the land parcel will decrease (Quigley 

and Rosenthal 2005; Kiel and McClain 

1995). Even the perception that the 

quality of the land may change can 

affect real estate values (Kiel and 

McClain 1996). Land that can be 

developed will command a higher price 

because it could be developed (even if 

it is never developed), and it is that 

expected value that the analysis 

considers. 

(4M) Comment: One comment states 

that the economic analysis fails to 

establish a proper baseline because it 

does not consider potential regulatory 

changes or changes in market demand. 

The comment does not specify what 

specific changes are likely other than 

potential changes due to global warming 

or peaked oil production. A similar 

comment suggests that the assumption 

that a dolomite mine in Illinois Unit 2 

will close because of critical habitat 

designation does not consider the 

impact of unknown future events. 

Our response: Section 2.1 of the 

economic analysis reviews the data 

sources and analytic procedures used to 

assess the potential value losses over the 

next 20 years. These data are the best 

data that are publicly available and as 

such provide the basis for the prediction 

of impacts for reasonably foreseeable 

land uses under expected future 

conditions. While costs attributable to 

critical habitat may result from other 

factors, we cannot speculate about 

future events. We must use the best 

information available to us at the time 

of the analysis. 

(4N) Comment: One comment states 

that the economic analysis estimates of 

lost property values are incorrect 

because the analysis does not consider 

changes to the value of properties 

outside the study area. The comment 

argues that if some parcels of land are 

removed from the market, then other 

parcels of land will increase in value by 

the amount of the decrease in land value 

lost, so that the net economic effect will 

be zero change. 

Our response: The potential for land 

use restrictions to affect neighboring 

properties is a valid concern. If there are 

no substitute parcels available in the 

vicinity of the parcel to be regulated (no 

other land that could be sold), then the 

price for land in that location will be 

driven up, and there will be a net gain 

for surrounding landowners, which 

could offset (fully or partially) the loss 

of value for the critical habitat units. 

However, if substitute parcels of land 

are plentiful in the vicinity of the 

critical habitat, then the consumer will 

have many options to choose from, and 

will not have to pay a higher price for 

substitute parcels, hence there will be 

no increase in surrounding land values 

(Quigley and Swoboda 2006). 

Section 2.1 of the economic analysis 

discusses the possibility that the 

amount of land available for 

development in the vicinity of the study 

area could be very limited. However, the 

area of land under consideration for 

designation as well as the value of that 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51110 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

land indicates that there will not be a 

significant impact on the local real 

estate market. That is, the amount of 

land that could be removed from 

development is not believed to be 

enough to increase surrounding land 

values. Results from sampling multiple 

listing services in Michigan and 

Wisconsin indicate that limiting 

residential development on vacant 

parcels will not have a substantial 

impact on the local land markets. That 

is, prices of surrounding parcels are 

unlikely to change and it is unlikely that 

there will be welfare changes because 

there are many substitute parcels for the 

critical habitat units. 

Sampling of Alpena County, Michigan 

found 146 parcels; the 50 sampled 

parcels had an average size of 24.5 ac, 

and an average asking price of 

approximately $68,000. Sampling of 

Mackinac County, Michigan found 229 

parcels; the 50 sampled parcels had an 

average size of 5.8 acres, and an average 

asking price of approximately $90,000. 

Sampling of Presque Isle County, 

Michigan found 255 parcels; the 50 

sampled parcels had an average size of 

23 ac, and an average asking price of 

approximately $81,000. Sampling of the 

Door County (Wisconsin) Realtors 

Multiple Listing Service found 

approximately 550 vacant parcels of 

various sizes; the 50 sampled properties 

had an average size of 4.15 ac and an 

average asking price of approximately 

$66,000. This information is now 

included in Section 2.1. 

(4O) Comment: One comment states 

that the limitation on resource 

extraction values in Illinois Unit 2 

would not have had an effect because 

the losses in value would be offset by 

increases in values to competitors. The 

comment says that the analysis does not 

consider whether other companies will 

profit if Material Services Corporation 

cannot mine the parcel in critical 

habitat. The comment also argues that 

the DEA does not consider the fact that 

there may be lower cost companies that 

would profit more if the limitation were 

passed. 

Our response: The magnitude of the 

dolomite deposits in Illinois Unit 2 

relative to the rest of the Illinois 

dolomite market is discussed in Section 

2.2.1 of the DEA. The annual revenue 

from the dolomite mine in Illinois Unit 

2 is estimated to be $500,000. As noted 

in the report, the annual extraction of 

dolomite in Illinois has an approximate 

value of $470 million. Approximate 

dolomite revenues for Will County 

specifically (the county containing the 

mine in Illinois Unit 2) are $94 million. 

While losses of $500,000 per year to the 

mining company will be substantial, the 

expected revenues from this single mine 

are not significant relative to the entire 

market. That is, not allowing the 

dolomite in Illinois Unit 2 to be mined 

will not cause prices faced by 

competing companies to change; 

competitors will make no offsetting 

welfare gains (Just et al. 2004). 

The commenter suggests that other 

companies may be able to compensate 

for decreased mining activity in Illinois 

Unit 2 by increasing operations at other 

facilities, and that there will be no net 

loss to society. The commenter is 

correct that any shortfall due to the 

mine being unable to operate will likely 

be made up by other places (especially 

since the magnitude of the mine is small 

relative to the overall market). There 

will still be, however, the lost resource 

value for the company that is not 

allowed to mine this specific property. 

The comment also contends that 

another mine may have lower costs, and 

that increased operations at that mine 

may be more efficient. At this time, 

there are no publicly available data 

concerning different cost structures for 

dolomite mining companies. 

(4P) Comment: One comment states 

that the DEA does not consider 

alternative uses for the land in Illinois 

Unit 2 if the mine is not allowed to 

operate. The comment suggests that 

there might be wildlife viewing values 

for the property, or that the limitation 

on the mine would make nearby house 

values increase. 

Our response: The commenter makes 

a valid point; alternate land uses are not 

considered in this estimation for this 

proposed unit. In section 2.2.1 of the 

DEA, the analysis reports the mitigation 

costs of conservation that would be 

required to offset mining activities as 

well as the value lost if mining is not 

allowed. If mining is not allowed, there 

may be other uses for the property, but 

the values of the uses will be negligible 

compared to the lost mining resource 

value. It is unlikely that there could be 

significant economic benefits from 

preserving this parcel from mining. 

Visual inspection of Exhibit 1 in 

Appendix F shows that Illinois Unit 2 

is located in an industrial corridor. In 

fact, the area proposed for the mine is 

surrounded by previously mined areas 

and industrial or transportation 

facilities. These location specifics make 

it unlikely that residential property 

values would be increased if the mine 

does not operate; there are no houses 

nearby and the effect of the industrial 

corridor that the mine is a part of will 

have a value dampening effect. There is 

not likely to be any increase in wildlife 

viewing values from a critical habitat 

designation, as the designation does not 

make any private land available to the 

public for wildlife viewing, nor does it 

increase the ability of the public to view 

wildlife on public lands where such 

viewing would be available even absent 

the designation. 

(4Q) Comment: One comment states 

that the economic analysis fails to 

include other alternatives to deep water 

wells as potential means to offset 

decreases in the water table. This 

comment argues that water conservation 

measures and storm water conservation 

regulations should be included as 

alternative water management strategies 

in the analysis. 

Our response: Section 3.1 of the DEA 

describes the threat of water depletion 

and Section 3.1.1 discusses residential 

consumption and the methodology that 

was taken to calculate estimated costs 

for deep aquifer well drilling. The 

section contends that one potential 

remedy for depletion of groundwater 

levels (and subsequent habitat impacts) 

is to drill municipal wells into the deep 

aquifer to meet current and future water 

demands, as discussed by the Service. 

Other adaptive behaviors may be 

feasible, but there are no publicly 

available data available to model them. 

(4R) Comment: One comment states 

that the estimation of costs to drill deep 

aquifer wells assumes that these wells 

would not be drilled for population 

increases if critical habitat designation 

did not occur; and thus their inclusion 

inflates the cost estimates. 

Our response: The argument that deep 

aquifer wells may be drilled regardless 

of the habitat designation is valid. The 

analysis does assume that new wells 

will be drilled in response to population 

growth. However, the analysis states 

that the presence of critical habitat 

could prompt new wells to be drilled 

into the deep aquifer instead of the 

upper aquifer. The estimated impact 

due to critical habitat designation is the 

projected difference between the cost of 

deep and upper aquifer wells for future 

population growth. Section 3.1.1 of the 

DEA discusses residential consumption 

of water and how population growth 

estimates are used to predict the number 

of new wells that will be needed. It is 

not known whether any new wells will 

be drilled, and if drilled, whether they 

will be drilled into the upper or lower 

aquifer (though upper aquifer wells are 

less expensive). It is for this reason that 

both a low (no deep aquifer well costs) 

estimate is included with a high 

estimate (which assumes all deep 

aquifer costs are in response to the 

dragonfly). The range of costs between 

the low (zero) and high estimates spans 

the potential costs for water use 

mitigation that may occur in these 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51111 

proposed critical habitat units. The use 

of a range of estimates addresses the 

concerns about the uncertainty of 

whether deep aquifer wells would be 

drilled or not in response to population 

increases. 

(4S) Comment: One comment states 

that the inclusion of invasive species 

control costs as co-extensive is 

inappropriate, since other species may 

have been affected. 

Our response: The economic analysis 

discusses invasive species control 

measures and costs in Section 6.3. 

Invasive species control was listed as a 

threat to the species and a potential 

adverse affect to critical habitat in the 

proposed rule. Invasive species control 

has been ongoing in most critical habitat 

units and will continue regardless of the 

presence of Hine’s emerald dragonfly or 

the designation of critical habitat. 

(4T) Comment: One comment 

addresses the estimation of impacts 

from the Interstate-355 extension in 

Chapter 2 of the DEA. This comment 

states that ‘‘total costs for I–355-related 

development activities range from a low 

of $11.8 million to a high of $18 million. 

This number includes opportunity costs 

to vehicles that have to slow down due 

to the presence of the dragonfly, since 

the Illinois Department of 

Transportation (IDOT) chose to build 

the road through dragonfly habitat 

* * *.’’ The comment also states that 

the costs that are discussed will occur 

before the designation takes place. The 

comment then states that the DEA does 

not consider the possibility that IDOT 

could have decided to not build this 

road due to the presence of the 

dragonfly. 

Our response: In Section 2.3.2 of the 

DEA, past costs are estimated to be $1.8 

million (undiscounted), as shown in 

Exhibit 2–7. Future costs are estimated 

to be $2.3 million (undiscounted) as 

shown in Exhibit 2–8. The economic 

analysis does not address speed limits 

on roads through dragonfly habitat in 

this section. The costs for the interstate 

extension do not involve any traffic 

slowing costs, since the interstate 

extension is being built eight feet higher 

than it otherwise would be built to 

avoid dragonfly collisions (hence 

avoiding the need for a limited speed 

zone); see Section 2.3.2. The costs to 

build the roadway higher are included 

in the analysis. Opportunity costs from 

lost time due to speed limits to avoid 

take of dragonflies are estimated for 

other units—IL 7, WI 4, and WI 5. (The 

costs for the I–355 extension are in unit 

IL 4.) 

The comment that these costs will be 

realized before designation is partially 

correct. Exhibit 2–7 displays the costs of 

mitigation and conservation through 

2006. The costs in Exhibit 2–8 include 

costs incurred from 2007 through 2026. 

These costs include costs incurred in 

the current year, since this is an ongoing 

project, and costs may be incurred 

during the proposal period. Most of the 

dragonfly-specific costs are attributed to 

the future period (2007–2026). 

The economic analysis does not 

provide economic estimates for a 

scenario in which the overpass is not 

built. The overpass construction was 

substantially underway when the 

proposed rule considering designation 

was published. Since the Illinois Tollway Authority had made several 

conservation and mitigation efforts for 

the dragonfly, these impacts were 

included in the analysis. 

(4U) Comment: One comment states 

that the economic analysis fails to 

include all the relevant information 

concerning travel time lost due to speed 

limitations on passenger trains in the 

analysis. Specifically, the comment 

states that the analysis does not include 

time lost for riders of METRA commuter 

trains, nor does it consider the value of 

passenger time lost (as well as 

additional fuel costs) for deceleration in 

preparation for, and acceleration after, 

the limited speed zone. 

Our response: The commenter raises 

some valid concerns. The economic 

estimates (Section 5.1) were based upon 

the best publicly available data at the 

time. Newly available ridership 

information for METRA (which was 

initially omitted) and actual ridership 

information for AMTRAK (which had 

been overestimated by a factor of five by 

the AMTRAK source IEc contacted 

initially), and adding in the time value 

lost and additional fuel costs due for 

acceleration and deceleration, increases 

the vehicle slowing costs for Illinois 

unit 7 from $12.6 million to $13.7 

million (undiscounted). This 

corresponds to an increase in costs from 

$9.7 million to $10.5 million 

(discounted at 3 percent), and from $7.1 

million to $7.8 million (discounted at 7 

percent). These cost increases are 

insufficient to change the rank orderings 

of units by level of impact for the highend estimates (see Exhibit ES–6). 

(4V) Comment: One comment states 

that the value of increased train carbon 

emissions from the deceleration and 

acceleration are also not quantified for 

these actions. 

Our response: The commenter is 

correct; the economic analysis does not 

quantify increased emission levels due 

to deceleration and acceleration. The 

marginal quantities of emissions are not 

likely to be substantial. In addition, 

there is no emission trading market for 

mobile source diesel fuel emissions. In 

the absence of such a market, cost 

estimates for additional carbon 

pollution would be speculative. 

(4W) Comment: One comment states 

that the economic analysis does not 

include the costs in increased traffic 

congestion from train riders switching 

to commuting by car that a speed 

limitation on AMTRAK and METRA 

commuter rail trains passing through 

Illinois Unit 7 would generate. 

Our response: The commenter is 

correct. This comment is concerned 

with the estimation of values in Exhibit 

5–3, Section 5.1 of the DEA. New 

calculations based on information 

obtained during the comment period 

quantified the increased delay for 

causing the AMTRAK and METRA to 

decelerate from 79 miles per hour (mph) 

to 15 mph, travel 15 miles per hour for 

one quarter mile, then accelerate back to 

a speed of 79 mph. 

The estimated time delays are 

minimal and thus unlikely to be 

sufficient to cause many travelers to 

switch to automobile travel. The 

additional time taken for deceleration 

would be 36 seconds. The additional 

time taken for traveling 15 mph for one 

quarter mile (mi) would be 45 seconds. 

The increase in travel time for 

acceleration would be 40 seconds. The 

total (an additional two minutes and 

one second) of travel time is highly 

unlikely to cause train travelers to 

switch to travel by automobile, 

especially since the road that runs 

parallel to the track that would have the 

speed limits will be subject to the same 

speed limit as well; travel times on the 

roadway will increase by at least 3.25 

minutes. These estimates, and their 

derivation, are discussed in Section 5.1 

The economic literature on mode-split 

indicates that an increase in travel time 

on a commuter train is unlikely to cause 

much of a shift to car use. Mode-split 

studies measure how sensitive travelers 

are to changes in the cost of traveling. 

An increase of ten percent of travel time 

on a commuter train during peak 

commuting time will cause a one 

percent increase in demand for 

commuting by automobile (Lago and 

McEnroe 1981). The additional delay in 

unit IL 7 may cause a small increase in 

travel by car. However, the literature 

indicates that commuters who travel by 

rail are not very sensitive to small 

increases in travel times. The estimated 

change in demand cited above is 

illustrative of general behavior; there are 

no publicly available models or data for 

modeling this specific situation. 

(4X) Comment: One comment 

questions the accuracy of projected cost 

estimates in Exhibit 4–8 relative to the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51112 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

information provided. The comment is 

specifically concerned with the dates of 

anticipated costs from 2011–2014 and 

from 2007–2026. 

Our response: The costs that the 

comment is concerned with are listed in 

Exhibit 4–8, Section 4.3 of the DEA. 

These estimates were obtained from 

documents provided by Midwest 

Generation concerning costs they have 

incurred and expect to incur for work 

done on the railroad line in Illinois 

Units 1 and 2. The calculations used to 

spread costs over the periods 2011–2014 

and 2007–2026 were not presented in 

the draft economic analysis. These 

calculations are now included in 

Exhibit 4–8. 

Future (long-term) rehabilitation costs 

from 2011 to 2014 are listed in a 

document submitted by Midwest 

Generation during the public comment 

period. The document is entitled ‘‘List 

of Midwest Generation’s Environmental 

Activities Associated with the Rail Line 

and HED Commitments.’’ The end of the 

first paragraph of that document 

concludes: ‘‘Long term maintenance 

items should be implemented in the 

four to seven year range * * *.’’ Four 

years from the final rule is 2011 and 

seven years from the proposed rule is 

2014. Accordingly, the long-term 

rehabilitation costs are spread over 

those years. These are the costs 

estimated to take place from 2011 to 

2014. 

(4Y) Comment: One comment states 

that railroad maintenance and culvert 

maintenance should not be considered 

threats. The comment states, ‘‘The 

Service contends that this process is 

maintenance that the railroad would 

have to do regardless of the dragonfly, 

but recognizes that undercutting, 

combined with the construction of 

approximately 4 new French drains, and 

regular culvert maintenance may be 

potential options for mitigating the 

hydraulic pumping problem.’’

Our response: Specific types of 

railroad maintenance, combined with 

undercutting, are listed in Section 5.2 of 

the DEA as mitigation measures that 

respond to the specific threat of the 

hydraulic pumping of sediments. As 

discussed in Chapter 4 of the DEA, 

maintenance activities may also pose 

threats to critical habitat. A clarifying 

sentence has been added to the 

referenced paragraph in the DEA: 

‘‘While regular maintenance may help 

mitigate the hydraulic pumping 

problem, maintenance activities may 

still pose a threat to critical habitat. An 

additional clarifying footnote was added 

following this sentence: ‘‘There are 

types and methods of railroad 

maintenance that may be employed 

without threatening the dragonfly or its 

habitat; Section 4.3 addresses the 

additional costs of performing such 

dragonfly sensitive maintenance.’’

(4Z) Comment: One comment states 

there is no concession stand in unit WI 

5. 

Our response: This apparent error 

occurs in Section 2.2.3 There is an 

interpretive center/gift store located in 

WI 5. This store is referred to as a 

‘‘concession’’ in local zoning 

documents. This confusion has been 

clarified in the text. 

Issue 5: Site-Specific Issues 

(5A) Comment: Two commenters 

suggested that we designate multiple 

areas of unoccupied habitat in 

Michigan, including the Stonington 

Peninsula, Garden Peninsula, 

Munuscong Bay, Drummond Island, 

Pointe Aux Chenes River, Wilderness 

State Park, and others. Additionally, the 

commenters suggested we designate 

multiple areas in Michigan where the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly has been 

observed on site or within two mi of a 

known locality. 

Our response: We did not designate 

unoccupied habitat listed by the 

commenters because there are no 

current or historic records documenting 

the presence of the species at these sites. 

In 2006, the Hiawatha National Forest 

conducted surveys on the Stonington 

Peninsula and did not document the 

presence of Hine’s emerald dragonflies 

from this locality. 

With regard to sites where the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly has been observed or 

where it was observed within a 2-mi 

radius, we used the methodology 

outlined under the section of this rule 

on ‘‘Criteria Used to Identify Critical 

Habitat’’. In drawing the outer boundary 

of a unit, we extended the unit 

boundary from the dragonfly larval 

habitat up to 100 meters where the PCEs 

are found unless we reached areas that 

did not contain the PCEs before that 100 

meters, such as a closed canopy forest, 

roadway, or another natural or humanmade break in habitat. This is to provide 

foraging areas for the species. A small 

number of dragonfly observations do not 

fall within a critical habitat unit. For 

instance, a one-time observation of a 

single foraging Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

would not provide enough information 

to adequately determine the location of 

the core breeding habitat. We believe 

that there could be undiscovered Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly breeding sites in 

Michigan, but using the best scientific 

data currently available, we have 

identified the six breeding areas in 

Michigan of which we are aware. 

Issue 6: Effects of Critical Habitat 

Designation 

(6A) Comment: One private 

landowner was concerned that the 

designation of critical habitat may affect 

current or planned activities. 

Specifically, the commenter was 

concerned about delays or disruptions 

to future plans to expand or enhance an 

existing rail line, which would require 

Federal permits. 

Our response: Critical habitat 

designation does not preclude 

development. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to consult 

with the Service to ensure that actions 

they fund, authorize, permit, or 

otherwise carry out will not jeopardize 

the continued existence of any listed 

species or adversely modify designated 

critical habitat. If the Federal action 

agency determines that a project may 

adversely affect a listed species or 

designated critical habitat, formal 

consultation is required. There is a 

designated period of time in which to 

consult (90 days), and beyond that, 

another set period of time for the 

Service to prepare a biological opinion 

(45 days). The analysis of whether the 

proposed action would likely jeopardize 

the continued existence of the species or 

adversely modify designated critical 

habitat is contained in the biological 

opinion. If a jeopardy or adverse 

modification determination is made, the 

biological opinion must identify any 

reasonable and prudent alternatives that 

could allow the project to move 

forward. 

Issue 7: Philosophy on Utility of Critical 

Habitat 

(7A) Comment: Two commenters 

expressed that they disagree with the 

statement in the proposal that critical 

habitat designations are driven by 

litigation and courts rather than biology. 

They argue that while many critical 

habitat designations are the result of 

litigation, it is only to the extent that the 

Service fails to meet its statutory 

obligation to designate critical habitat 

concurrently with listing and that it is 

a burden imposed by an unambiguous 

statutory mandate, not by litigation. 

Our response: The section in the 

proposed rule that contained these 

statements (‘‘The Role of Critical Habitat 

in Actual Practice of Administering and 

Implementing the Act’’) has been 

removed from this final rule. 

(7B) Comment: Two commenters 

suggested that critical habitat 

designation is strongly associated with 

species recovery and that the Service 

must consider the role of critical habitat 

in the recovery of the species. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51113 

Our response: We agree that we must 

consider the role of critical habitat in 

the recovery of species. The Ninth 

Circuit Court’s decision in Gifford 

Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th 

Cir 2004) (hereinafter Gifford Pinchot) 

requires consideration of the recovery of 

species. Thus, under this court ruling, 

and our implementation of Section 7 of 

the Act, critical habitat designations 

may provide greater benefits to the 

recovery of a species. Also, we have 

found that critical habitat designations 

serve to educate landowners, State and 

local governments, and the public 

regarding the potential conservation 

value of the areas designated. 

(7C) Comment: One commenter 

expressed that the Hawaii example in 

the proposal does not prove that 

excluding areas from critical habitat 

provides superior conservation benefits 

to designating critical habitat. 

Our response: Each exclusion from 

critical habitat designation is considered 

on its own merits, after balancing the 

benefits of designation against the 

benefits of exclusion, and also 

considering whether the exclusion will 

result in the extinction of the species. 

Issue 8: Unoccupied Habitat 

(8A) Comment: Two commenters 

suggested that the Service consider 

designating areas that would contribute 

to the species’ recovery through 

reintroduction, introduction, and 

augmentation efforts, as recommended 

in the species’ recovery plan. 

Our response: Although introductions 

and reintroductions were identified as 

being potentially important in the 2001 

recovery plan, the Service 

acknowledged that additional surveys 

needed to be completed (Service 2001, 

p. 59). Since the recovery plan was 

written, additional Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly breeding sites were identified 

in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, and 

Wisconsin. Other unidentified sites may 

also exist in these States. Therefore, at 

this time we believe that introduction 

into unoccupied, potential habitat or 

reintroduction of dragonflies into 

additional historically occupied, but 

currently unoccupied, habitat may not 

be necessary to recover the species. As 

additional research is conducted on the 

population structure and status of the 

species, the Service will consider the 

necessity of introduction and 

reintroduction of the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly. 

Issue 9: Mapping 

(9A) Comment: Some commenters 

stated that the maps and descriptions of 

critical habitat units lacked sufficient 

detail to determine what essential 

features are included, what the 

surrounding land uses are, whether 

specific properties are included, and 

whether certain structures are included. 

Furthermore, they state that the maps 

should be provided in geological 

information system and aerial 

photography formats. 

Our response: The scale of the maps 

prepared under the parameters for 

publication within the Code of Federal 

Regulations may not be detailed enough 

to allow landowners to determine 

whether their property is within the 

designation. Therefore, when the final 

rule is published, we will provide more 

detailed maps on our web site to better 

inform the public. We also provided 

contact information for anyone seeking 

assistance with the proposed critical 

habitat. Therefore, we believe we made 

every effort to provide avenues for 

interested parties to obtain information 

concerning our proposal and supporting 

information. 

Issue 10: General Comments and Other 

Relevant Issues 

(10A) Comment: One commenter 

stated that critical habitat designation is 

a ‘‘waste of taxpayers’ time and money.’’

Our response: The designation of 

critical habitat for federally listed 

species is a requirement under section 

4(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

(10B) Comment: One commenter 

expressed that the presence of habitat 

should have stopped the Interstate–355 

(I–355) construction project. The 

commenter added that projects like the 

I–355 expansion project show that 

designation of critical habitat is 

justified. 

Our response: 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, and are 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat. 

The I–355 project required a permit 

from the Army Corp of Engineers, which 

established a Federal nexus, and was 

addressed under a formal consultation, 

pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act. As 

part of that formal consultation, 

conservation measures were agreed to 

that require the project proponent to 

fund actions to conserve the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly and its habitat. The 

Service concluded that the I–355 project 

would not jeopardize the continued 

existence of the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly. 

(10C) Comment: One commenter 

stated that the designation of critical 

habitat should recognize the importance 

of protecting genetic diversity through 

habitat conservation. Specifically, the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly population in 

Illinois may contain greater genetic 

diversity than the other populations. 

Thus, the importance of protecting 

habitats in this State is heightened. 

Our response: Genetic analysis is 

identified as a task in the Hine’s 

Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora 

hineana Williamson) Recovery Plan 

(Service 2001). We are attempting to 

acquire funding to complete genetic 

analysis in order to better understand 

the population structure of the species. 

The designation of critical habitat was 

based on the best available information. 

All currently occupied areas in Illinois 

are included in the critical habitat 

designation for this and other reasons. 

(10D) Comment: Two commenters 

stated that the Service must address 

Executive Order 13211 and prepare a 

Statement of Energy Effects, if 

applicable. Also, the Service must offer 

an opportunity to comment on any 

Statement of Energy Effects before 

making a final determination on the 

designation. 

Our response: Executive Order 13211 

was addressed in the Economic 

Analysis that was announced in the 

Notice of Availability published on 

March 20, 2007, and is addressed again 

in this final rule. 

(10E) Comment: One commenter is 

concerned that the proposal infers that 

Midwest Generation’s train traffic is 

contributing to mortality of Hine’s 

emerald dragonflies and that rail line 

operations are increasing sediment 

deposition. 

Our response: Vehicular impacts to 

Hine’s emerald dragonflies, including 

collisions resulting in mortality, have 

been documented in areas within the 

species’ range. However, since Midwest 

Generation limits the speed of its trains 

to 4 to 6 mph in Illinois Units 1 and 2, 

we have determined that train traffic in 

these units is not resulting in direct 

mortality of Hine’s emerald dragonflies. 

We believe that sediment being 

released from the rail line ballast in 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51114 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Illinois Units 1 and 2 may be impacting 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly larval habitat. 

This potential threat is currently being 

assessed and will be addressed in the 

Habitat Conservation Plan under 

development for these units. 

(10F) Comment: One commenter 

expressed that human-made structures 

should be a part of critical habitat. 

Our response: We only include areas 

that contain at least one of the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. Humanmade structures are not essential 

features of the species’ habitat. 

Comments From States 

Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the 

Secretary shall submit to the State 

agency a written justification for his/her 

failure to adopt regulation consistent 

with the agency’s comments or petition. 

Comments were received from the 

Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources (ILDNR), MDC, Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources 

(MIDNR) and Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality (MIDEQ). 

Comments supporting the proposed rule 

were received from the ILDNR and 

MDC. Additional comments received 

from States regarding the proposal to 

designate critical habitat for the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly are addressed below. 

(1) State Comment: The Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources 

commented that Michigan Units 3, 4, 

and 5 are partially owned by their 

agency. As these areas are owned by the 

State they are afforded protection under 

land management policies. 

Our response: In general, we 

considered excluding State lands from 

the final critical habitat designation. 

Mud Lake/Snake Island Fens, a portion 

of Michigan Unit 3, is owned by MDNR 

and is a designated natural area. Much 

of Michigan Unit 4 is part of 

Thompson’s Harbor State Park. A 

portion of Michigan Unit 5, 

approximately 65 acres, is state forest 

land and managed under Forest 

Certification Work Instructions. State 

ownership and the various designations 

bestowed upon these lands may afford 

some nonspecific protection for Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly and its habitat. 

However, we only excluded State or 

Federal lands that had management 

plans identifying necessary management 

and protection efforts for Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly or the PCEs. Therefore, 

Michigan Units 3, 4, and 5 are included 

in the final critical habitat designation. 

(2) State Comment: The Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) emphasized that the State of 

Michigan has assumed the Federal 

Clean Water Act section 404 program 

that provides wetland fill permits. The 

MDEQ avers that a State, not a Federal, 

permit is issued; thus, section 7 

consultation is not required. However, 

when reviewing a permit application 

that could affect a federally listed 

species or critical habitat, the MDEQ 

coordinates with the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) and the Service. The MDEQ 

may incorporate appropriate measures 

into a permit, thereby avoiding or 

minimizing impacts to listed species 

and addressing Federal concerns. The 

MDEQ cannot issue a permit over the 

objection of the USEPA Regional 

Administrator. 

Our response: We appreciate MDEQ’s 

dedication to and cooperation in 

conserving federally listed species. We 

agree that the approach outlined above 

is the process we currently use in 

reviewing section 404 permit 

applications under the state-assumed 

program in Michigan. 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule 

The area contained in Wisconsin Unit 

1 has been amended. The map and the 

description of the area for Wisconsin 

Unit 1 were accurate in the proposed 

rule; however, the acreage for the unit 

was incorrect. The error was due to 

using information from an earlier, larger 

draft of the map for this unit. Therefore, 

the acreage has been corrected from 503 

ac (204 ha) in the proposed rule to 157 

ac (64 ha) in the final rule. 

As discussed in the July 26, 2006, 

proposal (71 FR 42442), additional sites 

in Wisconsin were evaluated to 

determine if they contain the features 

that are essential for the conservation of 

the Hine’s emerald dragonfly. Based on 

our evaluation of research results from 

2006 fieldwork, we have determined 

that Kellner’s Fen in Door County, 

Wisconsin, contains the features that are 

essential to the conservation of Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly. Adult Hine’s 

emerald dragonflies have been observed 

in this area and breeding habitat exists 

in this unit, although breeding has not 

yet been confirmed. We announced the 

proposed addition of this unit in the 

Federal Register on March 20, 2007, 

and are adding this unit to the critical 

habitat designation. The additional 

critical habitat unit, Wisconsin Unit 11, 

is described in the unit descriptions 

below. 

We are excluding Michigan Units 1 

and 2 (Hiawatha National Forest lands), 

and all Missouri Units (1–26), from the 

final designation of critical habitat 

because we believe that the benefits of 

excluding these specific areas from the 

designation outweigh the benefits of 

including 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. These 

exclusions are discussed in more detail 

in the Exclusions section below. 

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) which 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 that are 

necessary to bring any endangered or 

threatened species to the point at which 

the measures provided pursuant to 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 

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 are likely to 

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 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51115 

data available, habitat areas that provide 

essential life cycle needs of the species 

(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).) 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 that was not occupied at 

the time of listing will likely, but not 

always, be essential to the conservation 

of the species and, therefore, is typically 

included in the critical habitat 

designation. 

Our Policy on Information Standards 

Under the 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 (P.L. 106–554; 

H.R. 5658) and our associated 

Information Quality Guidelines, provide 

criteria, establish procedures, and 

provide guidance to ensure that our 

decisions 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, we primarily use 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 (HCP), or other species 

conservation planning efforts if new 

information available to these planning 

efforts calls for a different outcome. 

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 

designate as critical habitat, we consider 

those physical and biological features 

(PCEs) 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 

the historic geographical and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

The specific PCEs required for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly are derived 

from the biological needs of this species 

as described in the proposed critical 

habitat designation published in the 

Federal Register on July 26, 2006 (71 FR 

42442). 

Primary Constituents for the Hine’s 

Emerald Dragonfly 

Pursuant to our regulations, we are 

required to identify the known physical 

and biological features (PCEs) essential 

to Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

conservation. All areas designated as 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly critical habitat 

are occupied, within the species’

historic geographic range, and contain 

sufficient PCEs to support at least one 

life history function. 

This designation is designed for the 

conservation of those areas containing 

PCEs necessary to support the life 

history functions that were the basis for 

the designation. Because not all life 

history functions require all the PCEs, 

not all critical habitat will contain all 

the PCEs. 

Units occupied at the time of listing 

are designated based on sufficient PCEs 

being present to support one or more of 

the species’ life history functions. All 

units designated for this species contain 

all PCEs and support multiple life 

processes. 

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 Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly’s PCEs are: 

(1) For egg deposition and larval 

growth and development: 

(a) 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 burrows maintained by 

crayfish 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, escape from male 

harassment, and predator avoidance 

(especially during the vulnerable teneral 

stage): 

(a) Natural plant communities near 

the breeding/larval habitat which may 

include fen, 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). 

Each of the areas designated in this 

rule that were occupied at the time of 

listing has been determined to contain 

sufficient PCEs to provide for one or 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51116 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

more of the life history functions of the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly. 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 designating critical habitat in 

areas we have determined were 

occupied at the time of listing, and that 

contain sufficient PCEs to support life 

history functions essential to the 

conservation of the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly. Lands are designated based 

on sufficient PCEs being present to 

support the life processes of the species. 

All lands designated as critical habitat 

for this species contain all PCEs and 

support multiple life processes. We are 

also designating areas that were not 

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 the 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 Hine’s 

Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora 

hineana Williamson) Recovery Plan 

(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 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 kilometers (km)) of the outer 

boundary of the core area (Mierzwa et 

al. 1995, 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 human-made barriers. When 

assessing wetland complexes in 

Wisconsin and Michigan we 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. 

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 (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 critical habitat 

boundaries, we made every effort to 

avoid including developed areas such as 

buildings, paved areas, and other 

structures and features that lack the 

PCEs for the species. The scale of the 

maps we have 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 final rule are 

excluded from this rule by text and are 

not designated as critical habitat. 

Therefore, Federal actions limited to 

these areas would not trigger section 7 

consultation, unless they affect the 

species and/or PCEs in critical habitat. 

Units were identified based on 

sufficient PCEs being present to support 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly life processes. 

All units contain all PCEs and support 

multiple life processes. 

A brief discussion of each area 

designated as critical habitat is provided 

in the unit descriptions below. 

Additional detailed documentation 

concerning the essential nature of these 

areas is contained in our supporting 

record for this rulemaking. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the areas determined to 

be occupied at the time of listing 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species and whether 

they 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. As discussed in more 

detail in the proposed critical habitat 

designation (July 16, 2006; 71 FR 42442) 

and in the unit descriptions below, we 

find that the areas we are designating 

may require special management 

considerations or protections due to 

threats to the species or its habitat. Such 

management considerations and 

protections include: management of 

invasive species and all terrain vehicle 

use and protection of habitat from 

threats of commercial and residential 

development, alteration of water 

regimes, contamination, and 

recreational activities. 

Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating 22 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 PCEs 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. 

Table 1 shows the units that were 

occupied at the time of listing and those 

that are currently occupied but were not 

identified at the time of listing. Table 2 

identifies the areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat but were 

excluded from final critical habitat 

based on their species-specific 

management plans or partnerships. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51117 

TABLE 1.—UNITS THAT WERE OCCUPIED BY THE HINE’S EMERALD DRAGONFLY AT THE TIME OF LISTING OR ARE

CURRENTLY OCCUPIED

Unit Occupied at 

time of listing 

Occupied 

currently Acres/hectares 

Illinois Unit 1 ................................................................................................................................ X ........................ 419/170 

Illinois Unit 2 ................................................................................................................................ X ........................ 439/178 

Illinois Unit 3 ................................................................................................................................ X ........................ 337/136 

Illinois Unit 4 ................................................................................................................................ X ........................ 607/246 

Illinois Unit 5 ................................................................................................................................ X ........................ 326/132 

Illinois Unit 6 ................................................................................................................................ X ........................ 387/157 

Illinois Unit 7 ................................................................................................................................ X ........................ 480/194 

Michigan Unit 3 ............................................................................................................................ ........................ X 50/20 

Michigan Unit 4 ............................................................................................................................ ........................ X 959/388 

Michigan Unit 5 ............................................................................................................................ ........................ X 156/63 

Michigan Unit 6 ............................................................................................................................ ........................ X 220/89 

Wisconsin Unit 1 .......................................................................................................................... ........................ X 157/64 

Wisconsin Unit 2 .......................................................................................................................... X ........................ 814/329 

Wisconsin Unit 3 .......................................................................................................................... X ........................ 66/27 

Wisconsin Unit 4 .......................................................................................................................... ........................ X 407/165 

Wisconsin Unit 5 .......................................................................................................................... X ........................ 3,093/1,252 

Wisconsin Unit 6 .......................................................................................................................... X ........................ 230/93 

Wisconsin Unit 7 .......................................................................................................................... X ........................ 352/142 

Wisconsin Unit 8 .......................................................................................................................... ........................ X 70/28 

Wisconsin Unit 9 .......................................................................................................................... ........................ X 1,193/483 

Wisconsin Unit 10 ........................................................................................................................ ........................ X 2,312/936 

Wisconsin Unit 11 ........................................................................................................................ ........................ X 147/59 

TABLE 2.—AREAS DETERMINED TO MEET THE DEFINITION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE HINE’S EMERALD DRAGONFLY

THAT WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION

Geographic area 

Definitional 

areas (acres/ 

hectares) 

Area excluded 

from final 

designation 

(acres/hectares) 

Reason* 

Michigan Unit 1 ......................................................................................................................... 9,452/3,825 All ..................... 1 

Michigan Unit 2 ......................................................................................................................... 3,511/1,421 All ..................... 1 

Missouri Unit 1 .......................................................................................................................... 90/36 All ..................... 1 

Missouri Unit 2 .......................................................................................................................... 34/14 All ..................... 1 

Missouri Unit 3 .......................................................................................................................... 18/7 All ..................... 2, 3 

Missouri Unit 4 .......................................................................................................................... 14/6 All ..................... 1 

Missouri Unit 5 .......................................................................................................................... 50/20 All ..................... 1 

Missouri Unit 6 .......................................................................................................................... 22/9 All ..................... 2, 3 

Missouri Unit 7 .......................................................................................................................... 33/13 All ..................... 1 

Missouri Units 8, 9, 10 .............................................................................................................. 333/135 All ..................... 1, 2, 3 

Missouri Unit 11 ........................................................................................................................ 113/46 All ..................... 1, 2, 3 

Missouri Unit 12 ........................................................................................................................ 50/20 All ..................... 2, 3 

Missouri Unit 13 ........................................................................................................................ 30/12 All ..................... 2, 3 

Missouri Unit 14 ........................................................................................................................ 14/5 All ..................... 2, 3 

Missouri Unit 15 ........................................................................................................................ 11/4 All ..................... 2, 3 

Missouri Unit 16 ........................................................................................................................ 4/2 All ..................... 1 

Missouri Units 17 and 18 .......................................................................................................... 224/91 All ..................... 1, 2, 3 

Missouri Units 19 and 20 .......................................................................................................... 115/47 All ..................... 2, 3 

Missouri Unit 21 ........................................................................................................................ 6/2 All ..................... 1 

Missouri Unit 22 ........................................................................................................................ 32/13 All ..................... 1 

Missouri Units 23 and 24 .......................................................................................................... 75/31 All ..................... 1 

Missouri Unit 25 ........................................................................................................................ 33/13 All ..................... 1 

Missouri Unit 26 ........................................................................................................................ 5/2 All ..................... 1 

Total ................................................................................................................................... 14,269/5,774 14,269/5,774 .... ........................

* 1 = species specific management plan in place; 2 = potential loss of partnership with private land owner; 3 = existing strong working relationship between MDC and private land owners. 

Table 3 provides the approximate area 

encompassed within each critical 

habitat unit determined to meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51118 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3.—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS DESIGNATED FOR THE HINE’S EMERALD DRAGONFLY

Unit 

State land 

(acres/ 

hectares) 

Local and 

private land 

(acres/ 

hectares) 

Total (acres/ 

hectares) 

Illinois Unit 1 ................................................................................................................................ ........................ 419/170 419/170 

Illinois Unit 2 ................................................................................................................................ ........................ 439/178 439/178 

Illinois Unit 3 ................................................................................................................................ ........................ 337/136 337/136 

Illinois Unit 4 ................................................................................................................................ ........................ 607/246 607/246 

Illinois Unit 5 ................................................................................................................................ ........................ 326/132 326/132 

Illinois Unit 6 ................................................................................................................................ ........................ 387/157 387/157 

Illinois Unit 7 ................................................................................................................................ 130/53 350/142 480/194 

Michigan Unit 3 ............................................................................................................................ 23/9 27/11 50/20 

Michigan Unit 4 ............................................................................................................................ 875/354 84/34 959/388 

Michigan Unit 5 ............................................................................................................................ 65/26 91/37 156/63 

Michigan Unit 6 ............................................................................................................................ ........................ 220/89 220/89 

Wisconsin Unit 1 .......................................................................................................................... 42/17 115/47 157/64 

Wisconsin Unit 2 .......................................................................................................................... 32/13 782/316 814/329 

Wisconsin Unit 3 .......................................................................................................................... ........................ 66/27 66/27 

Wisconsin Unit 4 .......................................................................................................................... ........................ 407/165 407/165 

Wisconsin Unit 5 .......................................................................................................................... 816/330 2277/922 3,093/1,252 

Wisconsin Unit 6 .......................................................................................................................... 200/81 30/12 230/93 

Wisconsin Unit 7 .......................................................................................................................... ........................ 352/142 352/142 

Wisconsin Unit 8 .......................................................................................................................... ........................ 70/28 70/28 

Wisconsin Unit 9 .......................................................................................................................... 684/277 509/206 1,193/483 

Wisconsin Unit 10 ........................................................................................................................ 1512/612 800/324 2,312/936 

Wisconsin Unit 11 ........................................................................................................................ ........................ 147/59 147/59 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 4,379/1,772 8,842/3,578 13,221/5,350 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, 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 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 PCEs in this unit 

that may require special management 

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 or its 

PCEs. 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 HCP 

that is being pursued by a large 

partnership, which includes the 

landowners of this unit. Though we are 

pleased with the progress made to date 

on the HCP, it is still far from complete. 

It is too early to judge its ultimate 

outcome. 

Illinois Unit 2—Will County, Illinois 

Illinois Unit 2 consists of 439 ac (178 

ha) in Will County, Illinois. This unit 

was 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 

PCEs in this unit that may require 

special management 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 HCP that is being pursued by a large 

partnership, which includes the 

landowners of this unit. Though we are 

pleased with the progress made to date 

on the HCP, it is still far from complete. 

It is too early to judge its ultimate 

outcome. 

Illinois Unit 3—Will County, Illinois 

Illinois Unit 3 consists of 337 ac (136 

ha) in Will County, Illinois. This unit 

was 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 

PCEs in this unit that may require 

special management include ecological 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51119 

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 current management plan is 

in place, it does not specifically address 

the Hine’s emerald dragonfly. This unit 

also consists of a utility easement that 

contains electrical transmission and 

distribution lines. This unit is planned 

to be incorporated in a HCP that is being 

pursued by a large partnership, which 

includes the landowners of this unit. 

Though we are pleased with the 

progress made to date on the HCP, it is 

still far from complete. It is too early to 

judge its ultimate outcome. 

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 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 PCEs in this unit 

that may require special management 

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 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 

PCEs in this unit that may require 

special management 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 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 

PCEs in this unit that may require 

special management 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 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 PCEs in this unit 

that may require special management 

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 ILDNR. 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 an HCP that is being pursued by a 

large partnership, which includes the 

landowners of this unit. Though we are 

pleased with the progress made to date 

on the HCP, it is still far from complete. 

It is too early to judge its ultimate 

outcome. 

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 but is currently occupied. 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. This unit is essential to the 

conservation of the species because it 

provides habitat essential to 

accommodate populations of the species 

to meet the conservation principles of 

redundancy and resiliency throughout 

the species range. 

Michigan Unit 4—Presque Isle County, 

Michigan 

Michigan Unit 4 consists of 959 ac 

(388 ha) in Presque Isle County in the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51120 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

northern lower peninsula of Michigan. 

This area was not known to be occupied 

at the time of listing but is currently 

occupied. 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 MIDNR, the 

remainder of the unit is privately 

owned. This unit is essential to the 

conservation of the species because it 

provides habitat essential to 

accommodate populations of the species 

to meet the conservation principles of 

redundancy and resiliency throughout 

the species range. 

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 but is currently occupied. 

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 habitats 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 majority of the 

site is privately owned and the 

remaining acreage is owned by the State 

of Michigan. This unit is essential to the 

conservation of the species because it 

provides habitat essential to 

accommodate populations of the species 

to meet the conservation principles of 

redundancy and resiliency throughout 

the species range. 

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 but is currently occupied. 

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. This unit is essential to 

the conservation of the species because 

it provides habitat essential to 

accommodate populations of the species 

to meet the conservation principles of 

redundancy and resiliency throughout 

the species range. 

Wisconsin Unit 1—Door County, 

Wisconsin 

Wisconsin Unit 1 consists of 157 acres 

(64 hectares) on Washington Island in 

Door County, Wisconsin. This unit was 

not known to be occupied at the time of 

listing but is currently occupied. 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 

PCEs 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. A portion of one State Natural 

Area owned by the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources occurs 

within the unit; the remainder of the 

unit is privately owned. This unit is 

essential to the conservation of the 

species because it provides habitat 

essential to accommodate populations 

of the species to meet the conservation 

principles of redundancy and resiliency 

throughout the species range. 

Wisconsin Unit 2—Door County, 

Wisconsin 

Wisconsin Unit 2 consists of 814 acres 

(329 hectares) in Door County, 

Wisconsin. This unit was 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 PCEs that may 

require special management include 

loss of habitat due to residential 

development, invasive plants, alteration 

of wetland hydrology, contamination of 

the surface and ground water, and 

logging. The majority of the land in this 

unit is owned by The Nature 

Conservancy and other private 

landowners with a small portion of the 

unit owned by the State. 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 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 

occupied at the time of listing. Unit 4 

was not known to be occupied at the 

time of listing but is currently occupied. 

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 units. Adult numbers recorded from 

these units vary. 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 (egglaying), 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, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51121 

emergent aquatic marsh, and northern 

sedge meadow. Known threats to the 

PCEs that may require special 

management 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. 

Unit 4 is essential to the conservation of 

the species because it provides habitat 

essential to accommodate populations 

of the species to meet the conservation 

principles of redundancy and resiliency 

throughout the species range. 

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 but is currently occupied. All 

PCEs for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

are present in this unit. Numerous male 

and female adults as well as ovipositing 

have 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 

PCEs 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. This unit is essential to the 

conservation of the species because it 

provides habitat essential to 

accommodate populations of the species 

to meet the conservation principles of 

redundancy and resiliency throughout 

the species range. 

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 but is currently occupied. 

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 PCEs 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. This unit is essential to 

the conservation of the species because 

it provides habitat essential to 

accommodate populations of the species 

to meet the conservation principles of 

redundancy and resiliency throughout 

the species range. 

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 but is currently occupied. 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, 

as well as larvae. 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. The majority of area 

in the unit is State land and the 

remainder of the land is privately 

owned. This unit is essential to the 

conservation of the species because it 

provides habitat essential to 

accommodate populations of the species 

to meet the conservation principles of 

redundancy and resiliency throughout 

the species range. 

Wisconsin Unit 11—Door County, 

Wisconsin 

Wisconsin Unit 11 consists of 

approximately 147 acres (59 hectares) in 

Door County, Wisconsin. This unit was 

not known to be occupied at the time of 

listing but is currently occupied. All 

PCEs for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

are present in this unit. Adults have 

been observed in this unit over multiple 

years. Male patrolling behavior has been 

observed, and crayfish burrows are 

present. The unit consists of larval and 

adult habitat, including a floating sedge 

mat and lowland and upland conifer 

and deciduous forest. This unit is 

essential to the conservation of the 

species because it provides for the 

redundancy and resilience of 

populations in this portion of the 

species’ range, where habitat is under 

threat from multiple factors. All land in 

the unit is privately owned. The 

northern portion of the unit is owned by 

the Door County Land Trust. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) 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. Decisions by the 5th and 9th 

Circuit Court of Appeals have 

invalidated our definition of 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’

(50 CFR 402.02) (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)), and we do not rely 

on this regulatory definition when 

analyzing whether an action is likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Under current national policy 

and the statutory provisions of the Act, 

we determine 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 PCEs 

to be functionally established) to serve 

its intended conservation role for the 

species. 

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with the 

Service on any action that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. This is a 

procedural requirement only, as any 

conservation recommendations in a 

conference report or opinion are strictly 

advisory. However, once a species 

proposed for listing becomes listed, or 

proposed critical habitat is designated 

as final, the full prohibitions of section 

7(a)(2) apply to any discretionary 

Federal action. 

The primary utility of the conference 

procedures is to allow a Federal agency 

to maximize its opportunity to 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51122 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

adequately consider species proposed 

for listing and proposed critical habitat 

and to avoid potential delays in 

implementing their proposed action 

because of the section 7(a)(2) 

compliance process, if we list those 

species or designate critical habitat. We 

may conduct conferences either 

informally or formally. We typically use 

informal conferences as a means of 

providing advisory conservation 

recommendations to assist the agency in 

eliminating conflicts that the proposed 

action may cause. We typically use 

formal conferences when we or the 

Federal agency believes the proposed 

action is likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species 

proposed for listing or adversely modify 

proposed critical habitat. 

We generally provide the results of an 

informal conference in a conference 

report, while we provide the results of 

a formal conference in a conference 

opinion. We typically prepare 

conference opinions on proposed 

species or critical habitat in accordance 

with procedures contained at 50 CFR 

402.14, as if the proposed species were 

already listed or the proposed critical 

habitat was already designated. We may 

adopt the conference opinion as the 

biological opinion when the species is 

listed or 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)). 

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 the 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, 

we document compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 

our 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, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. We 

define ‘‘Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ 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; 

• Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction; 

• Are economically and 

technologically feasible; and 

• Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the listed species or 

destroying or adversely modifying 

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 we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

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. 

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 U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers under section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 

seq.) or a permit from us under section 

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act) or involving some 

other Federal action (such as funding 

from the Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Aviation 

Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) are 

also 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 ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

For the reasons described in the 

Director’s December 9, 2004, 

memorandum, the key factor related to 

the adverse modification determination 

is whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would continue to serve 

its intended conservation role for the 

species, or would retain its current 

ability for the primary constituent 

elements to be functionally established. 

Activities that may destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat are those that 

alter the PCEs to an extent that 

appreciably reduces the conservation 

value of critical habitat for the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly. 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, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

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 not using road salt would result 

in an increased degree of threat to 

human safety and alternative de-icing 

methods are not feasible) 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 larvae, reduce 

detritus that provides cover for larvae, 

and reduce flora and fauna necessary for 

the species to complete its life cycle. 

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 larvae. 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 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51123 

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 sediment deposition to levels 

that would adversely affect the 

organisms’ 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 the conditions 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 stream, streamlet, and fen 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 

could negatively impact the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly and their prey base 

and/or 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 highspeed railroad and vehicular traffic. 

These activities may adversely affect 

dispersal, resulting in reduced fitness 

and genetic exchange within 

populations and potentially 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. 

Application of Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary must designate and revise 

critical habitat 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 

broad discretion as to which factors to 

use and how much weight will be given 

to any factor. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in 

considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

must identify the benefits of including 

the area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, determine whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of designation. If we consider 

an exclusion, 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. In addition, we are 

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 when it is complete. Based on 

public comment on that document, the 

proposed designation itself, and the 

information in the final economic 

analysis, the Secretary may exclude 

from critical habitat additional areas 

beyond those identified in this 

assessment under the provisions of 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. This is also 

addressed in our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. 

Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat 

Regulatory Benefits 

The consultation provisions under 

section 7(a) of the Act constitute the 

regulatory benefits of critical habitat. As 

discussed above, Federal agencies must 

consult with us on actions that may 

affect critical habitat and must avoid 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. Prior to our designation 

of critical habitat, Federal agencies 

consult with us on actions that may 

affect a listed species and must refrain 

from undertaking actions that are likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species. Thus, the analysis of effects 

to critical habitat is a separate and 

different analysis from that of the effects 

to the species. Therefore, the difference 

in outcomes of these two analyses 

represents the regulatory benefit of 

critical habitat. For some species, and in 

some locations, the outcome of these 

analyses will be similar, because effects 

on habitat will often result in effects on 

the species. However, the regulatory 

standard is different: the jeopardy 

analysis looks at the action’s impact on 

survival and recovery of the species, 

while the adverse modification analysis 

looks at the action’s effects on the 

designated habitat’s contribution to the 

species’ conservation. This will, in 

many instances, lead to different results 

and different regulatory requirements. 

Once an agency determines that 

consultation under section 7 of the Act 

is necessary, the process may conclude 

informally when we concur in writing 

that the proposed Federal action is not 

likely to adversely affect critical habitat. 

However, if we determine through 

informal consultation that adverse 

impacts are likely to occur, then we 

would initiate formal consultation, 

which would conclude when we issue 

a biological opinion on whether the 

proposed Federal action is likely to 

result in destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

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. We suggest 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the proposed Federal action only when 

our biological opinion results in an 

adverse modification conclusion. 

We believe that in many instances the 

regulatory benefit of critical habitat is 

low when compared to voluntary 

conservation efforts or management 

plans. The conservation achieved 

through implementing HCPs or other 

habitat management plans is typically 

greater than what we achieve through 

multiple site-by-site, project-by-project, 

section 7 consultations involving 

consideration of critical habitat. 

Management plans may commit 

resources to implement long-term 

management and protection to 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51124 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

particular habitat for at least one and 

possibly additional listed or sensitive 

species. Section 7 consultations commit 

Federal agencies to preventing adverse 

modification of critical habitat caused 

by the particular project only, and not 

to providing conservation or long-term 

benefits to areas not affected by the 

proposed project. Thus, any HCP or 

management plan that considers 

enhancement or recovery as the 

management standard will often provide 

as much or more benefit than a 

consultation for critical habitat 

designation conducted under the 

standards required by the ninth circuit 

in the Gifford Pinchot decision. 

In providing the framework for the 

consultation process, the previous 

section applies to all the following 

discussions of benefits of inclusion or 

exclusion of critical habitat. 

The process of designating critical 

habitat as described in the Act requires 

that the Service identify those lands on 

which are found the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species which may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. In 

identifying those lands, the Service 

must consider the recovery needs of the 

species, such that the habitat that is 

identified, if managed, could provide for 

the survival and recovery of the species. 

Furthermore, once critical habitat has 

been designated, Federal agencies must 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act to ensure that their 

actions will not adversely modify 

designated critical habitat or jeopardize 

the continued existence of the species. 

As noted in the Ninth Circuit’s Gifford 

Pinchot decision, the Court ruled that 

the jeopardy and adverse modification 

standards are distinct, and that adverse 

modification evaluations require 

consideration of impacts to the recovery 

of species. Thus, through the section 

7(a)(2) consultation process, critical 

habitat designations provide recovery 

benefits to species by ensuring that 

Federal actions will not destroy or 

adversely modify designated critical 

habitat. 

The identification of those lands that 

are necessary for the conservation of the 

species can, if managed, provide for the 

recovery of a species and is beneficial. 

The process of proposing and finalizing 

a critical habitat rule provides the 

Service with the opportunity to 

determine lands essential for 

conservation as well as identify the 

primary constituent elements or features 

essential for conservation on those 

lands. The designation process includes 

peer review and public comment on the 

identified features and lands. This 

process is valuable to land owners and 

managers in developing conservation 

management plans for identified lands, 

as well as any other occupied habitat or 

suitable habitat that may not have been 

included in the Service’s determination 

of essential habitat. 

However, the designation of critical 

habitat does not require that any 

management or recovery actions take 

place on the lands included in the 

designation. Even in cases where 

consultation has been initiated under 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act, the end result 

of consultation is to avoid jeopardy to 

the species and adverse modification of 

its critical habitat, but not specifically to 

manage remaining lands or institute 

recovery actions on remaining lands. 

Conversely, management plans institute 

proactive actions over the lands they 

encompass intentionally to remove or 

reduce known threats to a species or its 

habitat and, therefore, implement 

recovery actions. We believe that the 

conservation of a species and its habitat 

that could be achieved through the 

designation of critical habitat, in some 

cases, is less than the conservation that 

could be achieved through the 

implementation of a management plan 

that includes species-specific provisions 

and considers enhancement or recovery 

of listed species as the management 

standard over the same lands. 

Consequently, implementation of any 

HCP or management plan that considers 

enhancement or recovery as the 

management standard will often provide 

as much or more benefit than a 

consultation for critical habitat 

designation conducted under the 

standards required by the Ninth Circuit 

in the Gifford Pinchot decision. 

Conservation Partnerships on NonFederal Lands 

Most federally listed species in the 

United States will not recover without 

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 (90 

to 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 are 

essential to our understanding the status 

of species on non-Federal lands, and 

necessary for us to implement recovery 

actions such as reintroducing listed 

species and restoring and protecting 

habitat. 

Many non-Federal landowners derive 

satisfaction from contributing to 

endangered species recovery. We 

promote these private-sector efforts 

through the Department of the Interior’s 

Cooperative Conservation philosophy. 

Conservation agreements with nonFederal landowners (HCPs, safe harbor 

agreements, other conservation 

agreements, easements, and State and 

local regulations) enhance species 

conservation by extending species 

protections beyond those available 

through section 7 consultations. In the 

past decade, we have encouraged nonFederal landowners to enter into 

conservation agreements, based on the 

view that we can achieve greater species 

conservation on non-Federal land 

through such partnerships than we can 

through regulatory methods (61 FR 

63854; December 2, 1996). 

Many private landowners, however, 

are wary of the possible consequences of 

attracting endangered species to their 

property. Mounting evidence suggests 

that some regulatory actions by the 

Federal Government, while wellintentioned 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. This 

perception results 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). 

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 

outcome is greatly amplified in 

situations where active management 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51125 

measures (such as reintroduction, fire 

management, control of invasive 

species) are necessary for species 

conservation (Bean 2002). We believe 

that the judicious use of excluding 

specific areas of non-federally owned 

lands from critical habitat designations 

can contribute to species recovery and 

provide a superior level of conservation 

than critical habitat alone. 

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(a)(2) of the 

Act, can sometimes be 

counterproductive to its intended 

purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus the 

benefits of excluding areas that are 

covered by partnerships or voluntary 

conservation efforts can often be high. 

Educational Benefits 

A benefit of including lands in critical 

habitat is that 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, critical habitat designation 

always has educational benefits; 

however, in some cases, they may be 

redundant with other educational 

effects. For example, HCPs have 

significant public input and may largely 

duplicate the educational benefits of a 

critical habitat designation. A second 

benefit of including lands in critical 

habitat is that the designation of critical 

habitat would inform State agencies and 

local governments about areas that 

could be conserved under State laws or 

local ordinances. 

Benefits of Excluding Lands With 

Approved Management Plans 

The benefits of excluding lands 

within approved long-term management 

plans from critical habitat designation 

include relieving landowners, 

communities, and counties of any 

additional regulatory burden that might 

be imposed by critical habitat. Many 

conservation plans provide conservation 

benefits to unlisted sensitive species. 

Imposing an additional regulatory 

review as a result of the designation of 

critical habitat may undermine 

conservation efforts and partnerships in 

many areas. Designation of critical 

habitat within the boundaries of 

management plans that provide 

conservation measures for a species 

could be viewed as a disincentive to 

entities currently developing these 

plans or contemplating them in the 

future, because one of the incentives for 

undertaking conservation is greater ease 

of permitting where listed species will 

be affected. Addition of a new 

regulatory requirement would remove a 

significant incentive for undertaking the 

time and expense of management 

planning. 

A related benefit of excluding lands 

within management plans from critical 

habitat designation is the unhindered, 

continued ability it gives us to seek new 

partnerships with future plan 

participants, including States, counties, 

local jurisdictions, conservation 

organizations, and private landowners, 

which together can implement 

conservation actions that we would be 

unable to accomplish otherwise. 

Designating lands within approved 

management plan areas as critical 

habitat would likely have a negative 

effect on our ability to establish new 

partnerships to develop these plans, 

particularly plans that address 

landscape-level conservation of species 

and habitats. By preemptively excluding 

these lands, we preserve our current 

partnerships and encourage additional 

conservation actions in the future. 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act 

We are excluding 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. The conservation actions planned 

and implemented for the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly on Mark Twain National 

Forest, Hiawatha National Forest, 

Missouri state owned lands, and 

through MDC’s coordination with 

private landowners in Missouri provide 

greater conservation benefit to the 

species than would designating these 

areas as critical habitat. 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 reviewed 

relevant information concerning other 

critical habitat units to determine 

whether any other units, or portions 

thereof, should be excluded from the 

final designation. No other units were 

excluded from the final designation. 

Federal Land Management Plans— 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act 

Hiawatha National Forest, Michigan 

Michigan units 1 and 2 are on 

Hiawatha National Forest lands. The 

Hiawatha National Forest contains 

895,313 ac (362,320 ha) of land in the 

eastern portion of the Upper Peninsula 

of Michigan; it is broken into an east 

and west unit and contains a diversity 

of upland and wetland community 

types. In 2006, the Hiawatha National 

Forest revised its Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Hiawatha Forest 

Plan) (United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) 2006). The 

Hiawatha Forest Plan guides the 

National Forest’s activities over the next 

15 years. We completed a section 7 

consultation for the Hiawatha 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 Hiawatha Forest Plan contains 

management direction that serves 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 the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly (Table 4). Standards as listed 

in the Hiawatha Forest Plan are required 

courses of action. An amendment to the 

Forest Plan is required to change a 

standard and this would trigger 

consultation with us under section 7 of 

the Act. Guidelines are also strongly 

adhered to, and may only be modified 

if site-specific conditions warrant a 

modification and a rationale for a 

deviation is given in a National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) document. Again, 

section 7 consultation would be 

conducted, and the Service would 

review a guideline deviation if one or 

more listed species were likely to be 

impacted by the specific project. 

Standards and guidelines are not 

voluntary actions, but rather strong 

commitments by the Hiawatha National 

Forest to a particular management 

direction. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51126 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES IN THE HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST 2006 FOREST PLAN (USDA 

2006) THAT PROTECT HINE’S EMERALD DRAGONFLY AND THEIR HABITAT

2006 Forest plan management direction Conservation for Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

Protect all known Hine’s emerald dragonfly breeding areas (standard) .. Protect breeding areas. 

Implement signed recovery plans for threatened and endangered species (standard).Protect, restore, or enhance breeding areas; locate new sites; identify 

foraging habitat; encourage coordination. 

Cross-country OHV travel prohibited except in designated OHV area 

(standard).

Protect breeding and foraging areas. 

Wetland roads, or trail crossings, will preserve drainage (standard) ...... Protect breeding and foraging areas. 

Motorized trails should be located away from Designated Wilderness 

and semi-primitive management areas (guideline).

Protect breeding and foraging areas; some breeding areas are within 

Designated Wilderness Area. 

Manage wilderness Areas to protect biological and physical factors and 

Wilderness values while accommodating recreational use (guideline).

Protect breeding and foraging areas. 

Vegetation management activities should be designed to minimize adverse impacts on recreation use and wildlife populations (guideline).Protect, enhance or create new breeding and foraging areas. 

Excavated soil material (including spoils, drilling mud, etc.) should be 

deposited in upland locations (guideline).

Protect breeding areas. 

Clear-cutting should not occur next to woodland ponds (guideline) ........ Protect breeding and foraging areas. 

Road obliteration will include removing bridges, culverts and fill from 

streams, floodplains and wetlands to re-establish natural drainage 

and restore wetlands (guideline).

Protect, enhance, or restore breeding and foraging areas. 

Deference should be afforded to implementing conservation measures 

for federal threatened and endangered species when and where they 

conflict with conservation measures for unlisted species (guideline).

Protect breeding and foraging areas. 

Non-native invasive plants within element occurrences of threatened 

and endangered and Regional Forester Sensitive Species should be 

eliminated or controlled (guideline).

Protect, enhance, or restore breeding and foraging areas. 

For all threatened and endangered species, special closure orders may 

be used to protect known breeding areas, nests, and denning sites 

(guideline).

Protect breeding and foraging areas. 

Spread of existing non-native invasive species is controlled using permissible mechanical, biological, and chemical controls (guideline).Protect, enhance or restore breeding and foraging areas. 

Habitat in Wilderness Areas may be manipulated to correct conditions 

resulting from human influence or to protect threatened and endangered species (guideline).

Enhance and restore existing habitat, create additional habitat; some 

breeding areas are located in a designated Wilderness Area. 

In Candidate Research Natural Areas (CRNA), motorized use should 

be prohibited except for emergency or administrative situations 

(guideline).

Protect breeding and foraging areas; one breeding area is located within a CRNA. 

Common variety mineral pits will not be developed (guideline) .............. Protect breeding and foraging areas. 

Although multiple standards and 

guidelines within the Hiawatha Forest 

Plan relate to the 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 (USDA 

2006, p. 26). These two standards 

provide greater benefit to the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly than critical habitat 

designation. While critical habitat 

designation triggers the prohibition of 

destruction or adverse modification of 

that habitat, it does not require specific 

actions to restore or improve habitat. 

The Hiawatha Forest Plan not only will 

prevent destruction of important Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly habitat, but also 

would require additional conservation 

actions to help recover the species. 

In addition, several activities show 

the Hiawatha National Forest’s 

commitment to the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly and other listed species 

conservation. Over the last five years the 

Hiawatha National Forest 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 National 

Forest 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. The 

conservation measures as outlined 

above provide greater benefit to the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly than would 

designating critical habitat on the 

Hiawatha National Forest. Thus the 

relative benefits of designation of these 

lands would be diminished and limited. 

(1) Benefits of Designation. 

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 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51127 

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 by designating critical habitat. 

(2) Benefits of Exclusion. 

The long standing cooperative 

working relationship between the 

Service and Hiawatha National Forest 

has lead to the identification and 

implementation of various recovery 

actions for listed species, including 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly. With the 2006 

Forest Plan revision, the Hiawatha 

National Forest reaffirmed and 

formalized their commitment to 

recovering endangered species by 

stating that they will implement the 

Recovery Plans for all listed species. 

The benefits of these recovery activities 

exceed the benefits of critical habitat 

designation. Exclusion would further 

enhance the cooperative working 

relationship with the Forest Service by 

focusing on activities that are designed 

to protect and recover Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly. 

(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh 

the Benefits of Designation. 

We believe that a critical habitat 

designation for the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly in areas being managed by the 

Hiawatha and Mark Twain Forest Plans 

would provide a relatively low level of 

additional regulatory conservation 

benefit to the species and its PCEs 

beyond what is already provided by 

existing section 7 consultation 

requirements due to the physical 

presence of the species. Any minimal 

conservation benefits that would be 

gained from consulting on critical 

habitat would be outweighed by the 

benefits of avoiding the additional costs 

(staff time and money) of designating 

and consulting on critical habitat. These 

costs, while not significant, are 

avoidable, create very little additional 

benefits to the species, and could be 

better used to effectuate conservation 

measures on the ground. As such, 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. Further, 

exclusions will continue to enhance the 

partnership efforts with the Forest 

Service that are focused on conservation 

of the species on the Hiawatha National 

Forest. 

(4) Exclusions Will Not Result in 

Extinction of the Species. 

We believe that exclusion of Michigan 

units 1 and 2 in Hiawatha National 

Forest from critical habitat will not 

result in the extinction of the 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 PCEs for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly. If these units 

were designated as critical habitat, the 

designation would not have required the 

implementation of conservation efforts. 

As such, there is no reason to believe 

that this exclusion would result in 

extinction of the species. We therefore 

have excluded the Hiawatha and Mark 

Twain National Forests from the final 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Mark Twain National Forest, Missouri 

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 in Mark 

Twain National Forest. The Mark Twain 

National Forest contains approximately 

1.5 million ac (607,028 ha) of land in 

southern and central Missouri. In 2005, 

Mark Twain National Forest revised its 

Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Mark Twain Forest Plan) (USDA 2005, 

Chapter 2, pp. 1–14). That Forest Plan, 

through implementation of the 

standards and guidelines established for 

the Hine’s emerald dragonfly, addresses 

threats to the species on Mark Twain 

National Forest 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 that the implementation of the 

Mark Twain Forest 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 (Table 4). The Plan 

also contains standards and guidelines 

to protect soil productivity and water 

quality while implementing all 

management actions. An amendment to 

the Mark Twain Forest Plan is required 

to change a standard and this would 

trigger consultation with us under 

section 7 of the Act. Guidelines are also 

strongly adhered to and may only be 

modified if site-specific conditions 

warrant and rationale for a deviation is 

given in a NEPA document. Again 

section 7 would be conducted and the 

Service would review a guideline 

deviation if listed species were likely to 

be impacted by the specific project. 

Standards and guidelines are not 

voluntary actions, but rather strong 

commitments by the Mark Twain 

National Forest to a particular 

management direction. The specific 

standards and guidelines (USDA 2005, 

Chapter 2, p. 8) for the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly and its habitat are 

summarized in Table 5. 

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES IN THE MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST 2005 FOREST PLAN

(USDA 2005) THAT PROTECT HINE’S EMERALD DRAGONFLY AND THEIR HABITAT

2005 Forest plan management direction Conservation for Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

Control nonnative, invasive and/or undesirable plant species in fen 

habitats through the most effective means possible while protecting 

water quality (standard).

Protect, enhance, or restore breeding and foraging areas. 

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).

Protect, restore, or enhance breeding and foraging areas. 

Prohibit vehicle and heavy equipment use in fens, unless needed to 

improve Hine’s emerald dragonfly habitat (standard).

Protect, restore, or enhance breeding and foraging areas. 

Control unauthorized vehicle access to fens (standard) .......................... Protect the species and its breeding and foraging habitat. 

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).

Protect breeding and foraging areas. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51128 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES IN THE MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST 2005 FOREST PLAN

(USDA 2005) THAT PROTECT HINE’S EMERALD DRAGONFLY AND THEIR HABITAT—Continued 

2005 Forest plan management direction Conservation for Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

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).

Protect breeding and foraging areas. 

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 

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 firedependent wetland communities with a 

fire regime similar to that with which 

the communities evolved (USDA 2005, 

Chapter 2, pp. 13–14). 

Implementing the Mark Twain Forest 

Plan’s standards and guidelines will 

maintain the natural hydrology, restore 

natural fire regimes, and control 

undesirable plant species to maintain 

breeding and foraging habitat 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 Hine’s 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 fens, and 

construct fences to exclude all-terrain 

vehicles (ATVs) and feral hogs from 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 removal and exclusion 

measures will minimize threats from 

feral hogs and beavers. In 2005, beavers 

were effectively removed from Missouri 

Unit 5 where floodwater associated with 

a beaver dam threatened the integrity of 

the adjacent fen. 

We believe that the standards and 

guidelines outlined in the Mark Twain 

Forest 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. The conservation measures as 

outlined above provide greater benefit to 

the Hine’s emerald dragonfly than 

would designating critical habitat on the 

Mark Twain National Forest. Thus the 

relative benefits of designation of these 

lands are diminished and limited. 

(1) Benefits of Designation. 

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 has already 

demonstrated its 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 in 

designated critical habitat would be 

minimal because the Forest is 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 Exclusion. 

The longstanding cooperative working 

relationship between the Service and 

the Mark Twain National Forest has 

lead to the identification and 

implementation of various recovery 

actions for listed species, including the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly. Mark Twain 

National Forest is actively 

implementing actions to conserve the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly on their lands, 

reinforcing their commitment to actions 

outlined in the Forest Plan. The benefits 

of these recovery activities exceed the 

benefits of critical habitat designation. 

Exclusion would further enhance the 

cooperative working relationship with 

the Forest Service by focusing on 

activities that are designed to protect 

and recover the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly. 

(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh 

the Benefits of Designation. 

We find that the benefits of 

designating critical habitat for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly in Mark 

Twain National Forest in Missouri are 

small in comparison to the benefits of 

exclusion. Exclusion will enhance the 

partnership efforts with the Forest 

Service focused on conservation of the 

species in the State, and will ensure 

conservation benefits for the species 

beyond those that could be required 

under a critical habitat designation. 

(4) Exclusions Will Not Result in 

Extinction of the Species. 

We believe that exclusion of Missouri 

units 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 (in part), 11 (in part), 

21, 23, 24, 25, and 26 in Mark Twain 

National Forest from critical habitat will 

not result in the extinction of the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly because current 

conservation efforts under the Land and 

Resource Management Plan for the Mark 

Twain National Forest adequately 

protect essential Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly habitat and go beyond this to 

provide appropriate management to 

maintain and enhance the PCEs for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly. If these units 

were designated as critical habitat, the 

designation would not have required the 

implementation of conservation efforts. 

As such, there is no reason to believe 

that this exclusion would result in 

extinction of the species. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51129 

State Land Management—Exclusions 

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

We are excluding all State-owned 

land in Missouri under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act based on conservation measures 

addressed in species-specific 

management plans for state-managed 

lands and Missouri’s state-wide Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly recovery plan. 

Missouri is the only state within the 

range of the Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

that has management plans that 

specifically address conservation of the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly on state lands. 

Missouri units 16, 17, 18, and 22 are 

under MDC ownership and Unit 14 is 

privately owned but managed by MDC. 

Threats identified on land owned and 

managed by MDC are feral hogs, habitat 

fragmentation, road construction and 

maintenance, all terrain vehicles, beaver 

dams, and management conflicts. 

In regard to Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

conservation, the MDC has: 

(1) Developed management plans for 

the five conservation areas where the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly has been 

documented (Missouri Natural Areas 

Committee 2007; Missouri Department 

of Conservation 2007a, 1–4 pp.; 2007b, 

1–3 pp.; 2007c, 1–4 pp.) 

(2) Formulated best management 

practices (Missouri Department of 

Conservation 2007d, 1–2 pp.) and 

department guidelines (Missouri 

Department of Conservation 2007e, 1–3 

pp.); and 

(3) Developed a state-wide recovery 

plan for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

(Missouri Department of Conservation 

2007f, 1–33 pp.). 

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 and 

the state recovery plan for the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly 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. 

In addition to site-specific plans, 

there is also a state-wide recovery plan 

(Missouri Department of Conservation 

2007f) outlines objectives for conserving 

the Hine’s emerald dragonfly on state 

managed and privately owned property 

in Missouri (Table 6). The recovery plan 

includes a budget for Fiscal Years 2006 

to 2012, showing MDC’s commitment to 

acquire the funds necessary to 

implement these actions. The MDC 

coordinated closely with the Service in 

developing the site-specific plans and 

the state-wide Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

recovery plan and the recommended 

conservation measures within it. We 

believe that by implementing those 

recommended conservation actions in 

Missouri we can achieve recovery of the 

species in the state. 

TABLE 6.—SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES IN MDC’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RECOVERY OF HINE’S EMERALD DRAGONFLY

AND OZARK FEN COMMUNITIES IN MISSOURI (FY08–FY12) 

MDC recovery plan objective Conservation benefit for Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

Maintain the natural integrity of Ozark fen communities by decreasing 

exotic, feral, domestic, and undesirable native animal and plant populations specifically when those populations threaten Ozark fens, associated natural communities, and habitats essential for the life requirements of the dragonfly.

Protect, restore, or enhance breeding and foraging areas. 

Restore local hydrology and protect groundwater contribution areas by 

eliminating past drainage improvements and ensuring developments 

do not adversely affect fen recharge areas.

Protect, enhance, or restore breeding and foraging areas. 

Prohibit vehicle operation in fens unless specifically authorized or prescribed for Ozark fen restoration actions and Hine’s emerald dragonfly habitat improvement projects.Protect breeding and foraging areas. 

Ensure that recreational overuse does not impact Ozark fen communities.Protect breeding and foraging areas. 

Develop public outreach materials and solutions to advance the conservation of Hine’s emerald dragonfly and Ozark fen communities.Protect, enhance, or restore breeding and foraging areas. 

Manage fire-dependent wetland communities with a fire regime similar 

to that in which the natural communities evolved and developed.

Protect, enhance, or restore breeding and foraging areas. 

Monitor fen water quality, identify potential pollutants, and develop 

strategies to abate damages.

Protect, enhance, or restore breeding and foraging areas. 

Increase connectivity within Ozark fen complexes .................................. Enhance breeding and foraging areas. 

Numerous agencies and groups are 

working together to alleviate threats to 

the Hine’s emerald dragonfly in 

Missouri. These cooperating partners 

include conservation 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). 

We believe that management 

guidelines outlined in the conservation 

area plans and natural area plans, the 

BMPs, the state-wide recovery plan for 

the Hine’s emerald dragonfly, and the 

close coordination among the various 

agencies mentioned above (plus other 

identified species experts as needed), 

adequately address identified threats to 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly and its habitat 

on MDC lands. The conservation 

measures as outlined above provide 

greater benefit to the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly than would designating 

critical habitat on Missouri statemanaged lands. Thus the relative 

benefits of designation of these lands are 

diminished and limited. 

(1) Benefits of Designation. 

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 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51130 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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 MDC 

has already demonstrated its knowledge 

and understanding of essential habitat 

for the species through active recovery 

efforts and consultation. 

Furthermore, the benefits of including 

State-managed lands in Missouri in 

designated critical habitat would be 

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 could be required 

if critical habitat were designated. 

(2) Benefits of Exclusion. 

Excluding State-owned lands in 

Missouri from critical habitat 

designation will sustain and enhance 

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 MDC is 

committed to continued conservation 

for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

through its state management plan for 

the 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. 

(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh 

the Benefits of Designation. 

We find that the benefits of 

designating critical habitat for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly on State lands 

in Missouri are small in comparison to 

the benefits of exclusion. Exclusion will 

enhance the partnership efforts with 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. 

(4) Exclusions Will Not Result in 

Extinction of the Species. 

We believe that excluding the 

Missouri units under MDC ownership 

(units 16, 17, 18, and 22) and Unit 14, 

that is privately owned but managed by 

MDC, from critical habitat would not 

result in the extinction of Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly because current 

conservation efforts under the 

Conservation and Natural Area Plans 

and other Plans by the MDC adequately 

protect essential Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly habitat and provide 

appropriate management to maintain 

and enhance the PCEs for the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly. In addition, 

conservation partnerships on nonFederal 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 exclusion would result 

in extinction of the species. 

Private Land Management—Exclusions 

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

We are excluding all private land in 

Missouri under section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

based on the cooperative conservation 

partnership with private landowners in 

Missouri. 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. 

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. The plan includes 

management goals that specifically 

address the Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

and its habitat: (1) Sustain the high 

quality fen complex, with a full suite of 

fen biota; (2) Restore the fen system in 

suitable drained fields at the north end 

of Doe Run lands; and (3) Ensure the 

long term viability of healthy 

populations of the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly. 

Threats to the species 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 are addressed in the Missouri 

Department of Conservation’s state-wide 

recovery plan for the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly (Missouri Department of 

Conservation 2007f, 1–33pp) and 

through close coordination between 

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 dragonflies that 

benefit the species and alleviate 

potential threats. The Missouri 

Department of Conservation (2007d, 1–

2pp) has developed BMPs for the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly, which further 

displays the agencies dedication to 

conserving the species and its habitat on 

both State and private land. These BMPs 

and close coordination with MDC’s 

Recovery Leader for Hine’s emerald 

dragonflies have resulted in the 

implementation of various activities on 

private property to benefit the species or 

minimize potential threats. Current and 

ongoing conservation actions on private 

lands include the following: Developing 

private land partner property plans; 

providing landowners with technical 

support through ongoing site visits; 

providing grazing and forage harvesting 

recommendations to minimize potential 

fen damage; excluding heavy equipment 

from fen habitat; placing signs on fen 

habitat alerting land owners to the 

sensitivity of this natural community; 

providing public land owners with 

public outreach regarding the life 

history requirements of Hine’s emerald 

dragonflies and the sensitivity of its 

unique habitat; providing 

recommendations on the control of 

beavers, which are harmful to delicate 

fen habitat; providing education on the 

need and correct use of prescribed fire; 

excluding livestock from fens and other 

wetland types; restoring fens and 

wetlands by restoring hydrology or 

controlling invasive species and woody 

brush invasion; applying appropriate 

nutrient and pest management on 

adjacent agricultural fields to reduce 

runoff; implementing practices that 

control erosion and prevent sediment 

delivery to wetlands; and when 

applicable, facilitating the transfer of 

property from private to public 

ownership. Although implementing 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly BMPs on 

private land is voluntary, the best way 

we have found to ensure effective 

conservation on private lands is through 

such voluntary actions. Private 

landowners are generally more receptive 

to voluntary conservation actions on 

their lands than they are to regulated 

actions or perceived regulation. The 

MDC has successfully conducted 

conservation actions on many private 

land parcels and has dedicated 

numerous staff hours to these actions 

(Table 7). 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51131 

TABLE 7.—SUMMARY OF PRIVATE LAND INITIATIVES AND AVERAGE ANNUAL EXPENDITURE FOR HINE’S EMERALD

DRAGONFLY CONSERVATION MEASURES CONDUCTED BY MDC STAFF ON PRIVATE LANDS (SINCE 2005) 

Conservation action Average annual expenditure since 2005 

(in MDC staff hours) 

Landowner technical support in the form of in-field consultation, correspondence, and 

other communications. Includes operations that effect private land fens that are 

known Hine’s emerald dragonfly sites or potential sites.

250 hours. 

Farm plan development and fen restoration planning for private landowners. Includes 

the development of planning documents for private landowners that have Ozark 

fens.

75 hours. 

Grazing system and forage harvesting recommendations to private landowners. Many 

Missouri fens are located in pastures or hay meadows. Maintaining stocking rates 

at suitable levels benefits Ozark fens and limits pressures associated with woody 

encroachment.

50 hours. 

Technical support to landowners directly related to beaver control within Ozark fen 

communities.

25 hours. 

Technical assistance to landowners regarding fencing options to exclude cattle or 

combat possible ATV incursions.

25 hours. 

Coordination with utility companies applying herbicides or operating mowing equipment on rights-of-way that cross private lands—activities that have the potential to 

damage fen communities and Hine’s emerald dragonfly habitats.

50 hours. 

Fen restoration demonstration projects including woody encroachment clearing and 

herbicide application; often in direct coordination with private land partners.

50 hours plus herbicide and application expenses of 

$2500.00. 

Demonstration exotics control including herbicide application and integrated pest 

management strategy development. Willow encroachment, reed canary grass control, and multi-flora rose control within fens on private lands. Several private land 

fens have characteristic infestations of undesirable species; MDC staff have applied 

herbicides to problem exotic invasive plant species to ensure fen habitats are suitable for Hine’s emerald dragonfly.

25 hours. 

Coordination with private landowners to ensure Hine’s emerald dragonfly habitat is 

not impacted by pasture renovation activities; includes delineation of habitat areas 

with private land partners.

15 hours (There have only been a few opportunities for 

this action). 

Signage placement on private land fens. Signage is placed on some fens when requested by private landowners or to engender support and understanding for fen 

restoration projects.

15 hours. 

Installation of firelines, in cooperation with private landowners, on burn units that include fen communities.15 hours. 

Coordination with landowners interested in selling property with Ozark fens and wetland habitats that have the potential to support Hine’s emerald dragonfly. Includes 

close communications with landowners; interagency coordination and technical assistance; coordination with surveyors, real estate lawyers, and biologists.

40 hours. 

Presentation and outreach events directed to landowners with Hine’s emerald dragonfly populations or Ozark fen natural communities.40 hours. 

Media contacts (radio, television, printed media) and coordination directly related to 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly recovery.

80 hours. 

Coordination with conservation agents, often regarding private land fens that may be 

threatened by ATV activities.

40 hours. 

Patrols and enforcement operations ................................................................................ 50 hours. 

Effective measures will continue to be 

incorporated to minimize threats from 

feral hogs and beavers by implementing 

MDC’s state-wide recovery plan for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly (Missouri 

Department of Conservation 2007f, 1–

3pp) and by providing technical 

assistance and implementation 

assistance 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. 

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. Implementing the actions 

outlined in Missouri Department of 

Conservation’s state-wide recovery plan 

for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly and 

ongoing coordination among the MDC’s 

PLS Division, MDC’s Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly recovery coordinator, and the 

appropriate utility maintenance 

company and its contractors will 

continue to minimize potential threats 

(Missouri Department of Conservation 

2007f, 1–3pp). 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 issue will 

continue to be addressed by close 

coordination between new landowners 

and MDC’s PLS Division or their Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly recovery coordinator. 

The landowner’s access to grants and 

technical assistance from multiple 

landowner incentive programs 

administered through the MDC, NRCS, 

and the Service’s Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program will remain a main 

focus of outreach to potential new 

private property owners. Unit 14 is 

under private ownership but is a 

designated State Natural Area (Missouri 

Natural Areas Committee 2007). An 

updated plan developed for the area 

ensures that the integrity of the fen is 

maintained (Missouri Natural Areas 

Committee 2007). 

Personnel from MDC are currently 

working in cooperation with private 

landowners that have important fen 

habitat on their lands that support 

Hine’s emerald dragonflies. This direct 

work with private landowners allows 

for effective maintenance and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51132 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

enhancement of Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly habitat in the state. MDC is 

also working toward establishing new 

landowner relationships and 

cooperative management programs that 

will provide important contributions to 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly recovery. 

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 are minimized. The 

conservation measures as outlined 

above provide greater benefit to the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly than would 

designating critical habitat on private 

lands in Missouri. Thus the relative 

benefits of designation of these lands are 

diminished and limited. 

(1) Benefits of Designation. 

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. 

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, 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 

several of the privately owned areas in 

Missouri in designated critical habitat 

would have been 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 could 

be required if critical habitat were 

designated. 

(2) Benefits of Exclusion. 

We view the continued cooperative 

conservation partnerships with private 

landowners to be essential for the 

conservation of the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly in Missouri. The designation 

of critical habitat on private lands in 

Missouri would harm ongoing and 

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 would 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, 

designation of critical habitat would 

likely hamper the conservation actions 

that have been initiated for the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly on private land 

through various landowner incentive 

programs. The MDC has a longstanding 

history of working with private 

landowners in Missouri, especially 

regarding the conservation of federally 

listed species. Of the 26 units being 

excluded 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 staff 

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. 

Close coordination between the two 

agencies for actions that could benefit 

the species on private land will 

continue. The designation of critical 

habitat for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

on private land in Missouri would 

significantly hinder the ability to 

implement those landowner incentive 

programs with multiple landowners, 

which would negate conservation 

benefits already initiated for the species 

or those planned in the future. 

The Hine’s emerald dragonfly, along 

with other federally listed species, is 

such a contentious issue in Missouri 

that the species is viewed negatively by 

many private landowners. Multiple 

private landowners have been contacted 

by MDC personnel to obtain permission 

to survey the species on their property. 

In some 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 would be designated as 

critical habitat (Bob Gillespie, MDC, 

pers. comm. June 2005). 

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 currently occupied habitat on 

privately owned land occurs. The 

designation of critical habitat on such 

sites would have dissolved developing 

partnerships and prevented the 

initiation of additional conservation 

actions. Additionally, it is likely that the 

designation of critical habitat on private 

land in Missouri would have ended the 

cooperation associated with 

conservation actions already underway 

(Missouri Department of Conservation, 

in litt. 2007). 

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, 

pp. 31–32), 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 Exclusion Outweigh 

the Benefits of Inclusion. 

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 exclusion. Exclusion will enhance the 

partnership efforts with private 

conservation groups and private 

landowners 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. 

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 extra outreach efforts 

associated with critical habitat and 

additional section 7 requirements (in 

the limited situations where there is a 

Federal nexus), are negated by the loss 

of current and future conservation 

partnerships, especially given that 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51133 

access to private property and the 

possible discovery of additional sites in 

Missouri could help facilitate recovery 

of the species. 

(4) The Exclusions Will Not Result in 

Extinction of the Species. 

We believe that excluding the 

Missouri units in private ownership 

(units 2 (in part), 4, 6, 8 (in part), 9, 10, 

11 (in part), 12, 13, 15, 19, and 20) from 

critical habitat would not result in the 

extinction of Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

because current conservation efforts 

under The Nature Conservancy’s 

Management Plan for Grasshopper 

Hollow adequately protect essential 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly habitat and 

provide appropriate management to 

maintain and enhance the PCEs for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly. In addition, 

conservation partnerships on nonFederal lands are important 

conservation tools for this species in 

Missouri that could be negatively 

affected by the designation of critical 

habitat in Missouri, where there is an 

established negative sentiment toward 

federal regulation for endangered 

species by some private landowners. As 

such, there is no reason to believe that 

this exclusion would result in 

extinction of the species. 

Our economic analysis indicates an 

overall low cost resulting from the 

designation. Therefore, we have found 

no areas for which the economic 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of designation, and so have not 

excluded any areas from this 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly based on 

economic impacts. In addition, we 

anticipate no impact to national 

security, Tribal lands, or HCPs from this 

critical habitat designation, and have 

not excluded any lands based on those 

factors. 

Economic Analysis 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us 

to designate critical habitat on the basis 

of the best scientific information 

available and to consider the economic 

and other relevant impacts of 

designating a particular area as critical 

habitat. We may exclude areas from 

critical habitat upon a determination 

that the benefits of such exclusions 

outweigh the benefits of specifying such 

areas as critical habitat. We cannot 

exclude such areas from critical habitat 

when such exclusion will result in the 

extinction of the species concerned. 

Following the publication of the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

we conducted an economic analysis to 

estimate the potential economic effect of 

the designation. The draft analysis was 

made available for public review on 

March 20, 2007. We accepted comments 

on the draft analysis until April 3, 2007. 

The primary purpose of the economic 

analysis is to estimate the potential 

economic impacts associated with the 

designation of Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

critical habitat. This information is 

intended to assist the Secretary in 

making decisions about whether the 

benefits of excluding particular areas 

from the designation outweigh the 

benefits of including those areas in the 

designation. This economic analysis 

considers the economic efficiency 

effects that may result from the 

designation, including habitat 

protections that may be co-extensive 

with the listing of the species. It also 

addresses distribution of impacts, 

including an assessment of the potential 

effects on small entities and the energy 

industry. This information can be used 

by the Secretary to assess whether the 

effects of the designation might unduly 

burden a particular group or economic 

sector. 

This analysis focuses on the direct 

and indirect costs of the rule. However, 

economic impacts to land use activities 

can exist in the absence of critical 

habitat. These impacts may result from, 

for example, local zoning laws, State 

and natural resource laws, and 

enforceable management plans and best 

management practices applied by other 

State and Federal agencies. Economic 

impacts that result from these types of 

protections are not included in the 

analysis as they are considered to be 

part of the regulatory and policy 

baseline. 

The draft economic analysis forecasts 

the costs associated with conservation 

activities for the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly would range from $16.8 

million to $46.7 million in 

undiscounted dollars over the next 20 

years. In discounted terms, potential 

economic costs are estimated to be $13.3 

to $34.5 million (using a 3 percent 

discount rate) and $10.5 to $25.2 

million (using a 7 percent discount 

rate). In annualized terms, potential 

costs are expected to range from $0.8 to 

$2.3 million annually (annualized at 3 

percent) and $0.9 to $2.4 million 

annually (annualized at 7 percent). The 

Service did not exclude any areas based 

on economics. 

A copy of the economic analysis with 

supporting documents is included in 

our administrative record and may be 

obtained by contacting the Field 

Supervisor, Chicago, Illinois Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) or by 

downloading from the Internet at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ 

Endangered. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this document is a significant 

rule because it may raise legal and 

policy issues. Based on our draft 

economic analysis, potential postdesignation (2007–2026) costs are 

estimated to range from $16.8 to $46.6 

million in undiscounted 2006 dollars. In 

discounted terms, potential economic 

costs are estimated to be $13.3 to $34.5 

million (using a 3 percent discount rate) 

and $10.5 to $25.2 million (using a 7 

percent discount rate). In annualized 

terms, potential costs are expected to 

range from $0.8 to $2.3 million annually 

(3 percent) and $0.9 to $2.4 million 

annually (at 7 percent). Therefore, we 

do not believe that the designation of 

critical habitat for the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly would result in an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more or affect the economy in a 

material way. Due to the timeline for 

publication in the Federal Register, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has not formally reviewed the 

rule or accompanying draft economic 

analysis. 

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. Because the 

determination of critical habitat is a 

statutory requirement under 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. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51134 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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 effect of the rule on small 

entities (small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Based upon our draft economic 

analysis of the designation, we provide 

our analysis for determining whether 

the designation of critical habitat for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly would result 

in a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This determination is subject to revision 

based on comments received as part of 

the final rulemaking. According to the 

Small Business Administration (SBA), 

small entities include small 

organizations, such as independent 

nonprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions, including 

school boards and city and town 

governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents, as well as small 

businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small 

businesses include manufacturing and 

mining concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term significant economic 

impact is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly critical habitat designation 

would affect a substantial number of 

small entities, we considered the 

number of small entities affected within 

particular types of economic activities 

(such as residential and commercial 

development). We considered each 

industry or category individually to 

determine if certification is appropriate. 

In estimating the numbers of small 

entities potentially affected, we also 

considered whether their activities have 

any Federal involvement; some kinds of 

activities are unlikely to have any 

Federal involvement and so will not be 

affected by the designation of critical 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat 

only affects activities conducted, 

funded, permitted, or authorized by 

Federal agencies; non-Federal activities 

are not affected. 

Federal agencies must consult with us 

if their activities may affect designated 

critical habitat. Consultations to avoid 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat would be incorporated 

into the existing consultation process. 

In our draft economic analysis, we 

evaluated the potential economic effects 

on small business entities resulting from 

conservation actions related to the 

listing of the Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

and designation of its critical habitat. 

This analysis estimated prospective 

economic impacts due to the 

implementation of Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly conservation efforts in six 

categories: development activities, water 

use, utility and infrastructure 

maintenance, road and railway use, 

species management and habitat 

protection activities, and recreation. The 

following is a summary of information 

contained in the draft economic 

analysis: 

(a) Development Activities 

According to the draft economic 

analysis, the forecast cost of Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly development-related 

losses ranges from $13.0 to $22.6 

million (undiscounted) over 20 years, or 

$10.1 to 15.9 million assuming a 3 

percent discount rate and $8.0 to $11.2 

assuming a 7 percent discount rate. The 

costs consist of the following: (1) Losses 

in residential land value in Wisconsin 

and Michigan due to potential 

limitations on residential development; 

(2) impacts to Material Services 

Corporation (MSC) quarrying operations 

in Illinois; and (3) dragonfly 

conservation efforts associated with the 

construction of the Interstate 355 

Extension. Given the small average size 

and value of private land parcels in 

Wisconsin and Michigan, the noninstitutional landowners (those for 

which land value losses were computed; 

institutionally owned properties do not 

have assessed property values) are most 

likely individuals, who are not 

considered small entities by the SBA. 

MSC has 800 employees in Illinois and 

Indiana, and was recently purchased by 

Hanson, PLC, which has more than 

27,000 employees worldwide. The SBA 

Small Business Standard for Crushed 

and Broken Limestone Mining and 

Quarrying industry sector is 500 

employees. Therefore, MSC is not 

considered a small entity. The 

conservation-related costs associated 

with the construction of the Interstate 

355 Extension are borne by the Illinois 

Tollway Authority. The Illinois Tollway 

Authority does not meet the definition 

of a small entity. As a result of this 

information, we have determined that 

the designation of critical habitat for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly is not 

anticipated to have a significant effect 

on a substantial number of small 

development businesses. 

(b) Water Use 

According to the draft economic 

analysis, the forecast cost of Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly water use-related 

losses range from $46,000 to $7.0 

million (undiscounted) over 20 years, or 

$33,000 to $5.4 million assuming a 3 

percent discount rate and $21,000 to 

$4.0 million assuming a 7 percent 

discount rate. Public water systems may 

incur costs associated with drilling deep 

water aquifer wells. The USEPA Agency 

has defined small entity water systems 

as those that serve 10,000 or fewer 

people. None of the municipalities that 

could be required to construct deep 

aquifer wells as a result of conservation 

efforts for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

has populations below 10,000. As a 

result of this information, we have 

determined that the designation of 

critical habitat for the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly is not anticipated to have a 

substantial effect on a substantial 

number of small municipalities. 

(c) Utility and Infrastructure 

Maintenance 

According to the draft economic 

analysis, the forecast cost of Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly utility and 

infrastructure maintenance-related 

losses is estimated to be $1.5 million 

(undiscounted) over 20 years, or $1.3 

million assuming a 3 percent discount 

rate and $1.1 million assuming a 7 

percent discount rate. The costs are 

associated with necessary utility and 

infrastructure maintenance using 

dragonfly-sensitive procedures. Within 

the designated critical habitat units, 

Commonwealth Edison is responsible 

for electrical line maintenance, county 

road authorities for road maintenance, 

and Midwest Generation for railroad 

track maintenance in Illinois Units 1 

and 2. Neither company is considered a 

small entity. As a result of this 

information, we have determined that 

the designation of critical habitat for the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51135 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly is not 

anticipated to have a significant effect 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

(d) Road and Railway Use 

According to the draft economic 

analysis, the forecast cost of Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly road and railway userelated losses range from $1.7 to $15.0 

million (undiscounted) over 20 years, or 

$1.5 to $11.7 million assuming a 3 

percent discount rate and $1.3 to $8.8 

million assuming a 7 percent discount 

rate. The costs are associated with 

necessary railway upgrades for 

dragonfly conservation. Midwest 

Generation is responsible for railroad 

track improvements in Illinois. Neither 

Midwest Generation nor the individual 

travelers who would be affected by 

slower road speeds are considered small 

entities. As a result of this information, 

we have determined that the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly is not 

anticipated to have a significant effect 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

(e) Species Management and Habitat 

Protection Activities 

According to the draft economic 

analysis, the forecast cost of Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly species management 

and habitat protection-related losses is 

estimated at $886,000 (undiscounted) 

over 20 years, or $710,000 assuming a 

3 percent discount rate and $563,000 

assuming a 7 percent discount rate. The 

costs primarily consist of species 

monitoring, maintenance of habitat, 

invasive species and feral hog control, 

and beaver dam mitigation. Species 

management and habitat protection 

costs will be borne by The Nature 

Conservancy (Wisconsin chapter), The 

Ridges Sanctuary, the Service, the U.S. 

Forest Service, the MIDNR, and the 

MDC. None of those entities meets the 

definition of a small entity. As a result 

of this information, we have determined 

that the designation of critical habitat 

for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly is not 

anticipated to have a significant effect 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

(f) Recreation 

According to the draft economic 

analysis, the forecast cost of Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly recreation-related 

losses are estimated at $19,000. 

Recreational off-road vehicles and 

equestrian activities have the potential 

to alter Hine’s emerald dragonfly habitat 

and extirpate populations. The costs are 

associated with mitigating the effects of 

those recreational activities. Those costs 

will be borne by the MIDNR, MDC, the 

U.S. Forest Service, and various county 

police departments. None of those 

entities meets the definition of a small 

entity. As a result of this information, 

we have determined that the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly is not 

anticipated to have a significant effect 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Based on the previous, sector-bysector analysis, we have determined that 

this critical habitat designation would 

not result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 on 

regulations that significantly affect 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. This final 

rule is considered a significant 

regulatory action under E.O. 12866 due 

to potential novel legal and policy 

issues, but it is not expected to 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. Appendix A of the 

draft economic analysis provides a 

discussion and analysis of this 

determination. The Midwest Generation 

facilities that rely on the transportation 

of coal through Illinois Units 1 and 2 

generate 1,960 megawatts of electricity. 

The dragonfly conservation measures 

advocated by the Service, however, are 

not intended to alter the operation of 

these facilities. Rather, the 

recommended conservation activities 

focus on improving maintenance and 

railway upgrades. Thus, no energyrelated impacts associated with Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly conservation 

activities within critical habitat units 

are expected. As such, the designation 

of critical habitat is not expected to 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use and a Statement of 

Energy Effects is not required. 

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, or 

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; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children 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 nonFederal 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. Non-Federal 

entities that receive Federal funding, 

assistance, permits, or otherwise require 

approval or authorization from a Federal 

agency for an action may be indirectly 

impacted by the designation of critical 

habitat. However, the legally binding 

duty to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal agency. 

Furthermore, to the extent that nonFederal 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) As discussed in the draft economic 

analysis of the designation of critical 

habitat for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly, 

the impacts on nonprofits and small 

governments are expected to be 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51136 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

negligible. It is likely that small 

governments involved with 

development and infrastructure projects 

will be interested parties or involved 

with projects involving section 7 

consultations for the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly within their jurisdictional 

areas. Any costs associated with this 

activity are likely to represent a small 

portion of a local government’s budget. 

Consequently, we do not believe that 

the designation of critical habitat for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly will 

significantly or uniquely affect these 

small governmental entities. As such, a 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(‘‘Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights’’), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly in a Takings 

Implications Assessment (TIA). The TIA 

concludes that the designation of 

critical habitat for this species does not 

pose significant takings implications for 

lands within or affected by the 

designation. 

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 

final critical habitat designation with 

appropriate State resource agencies in 

Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The 

designation of critical habitat in areas 

currently occupied by the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly may impose nominal 

additional regulatory restrictions to 

those currently in place and, therefore, 

may have 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 PCEs 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 longrange 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 are 

designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act. This final rule 

uses standard property descriptions and 

identifies the PCEs 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 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

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 of the species and no tribal 

lands that are unoccupied areas that are 

essential for the conservation of the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly. Therefore, 

critical habitat for the Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly has not been designated on 

Tribal lands. 

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 FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT 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. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[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 § 17.11(h), the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife, revise the 

entry for ‘‘Dragonfly, Hine’s emerald’’

under ‘‘INSECTS’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51137 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where 

endangered or 

threatened 

Status When 

listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

* * * * * * * 

INSECTS

* * * * * * * 

Dragonfly, Hine’s emerald.Somatochlora hineana U.S.A. (AL, IL, IN, MI, 

MO, OH, and WI).

NA .................... E .................. 573 17.95(i) NA 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. In § 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: 

§ 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; and Door and 

Ozaukee Counties, Wisconsin, on the 

maps below. 

(2) The PCEs of critical habitat for the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly are: 

(i) For egg deposition and larval 

growth and development: 

(A) 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 burrows maintained by 

crayfish 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 

include fen, 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 PCEs, 

such as buildings, lawns, old fields, hay 

meadows, fallow crop fields, manicured 

lawns, pastures, piers and docks, 

aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the 

land on which such structures are 

located. We define ‘‘old field’’ here as 

cleared areas that were formerly forested 

and may have been used as crop or 

pasture land that currently support a 

mixture of native and non-native herbs 

and low shrubs. ‘‘Fallow field’’ is 

defined as a formerly plowed field that 

has been left unseeded for a season or 

more and is presently uncultivated. 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 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51138 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3ER05SE07.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51139 

(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, 

SE1⁄4 NE1⁄4 Sec. 28, NE1⁄4 SE1⁄4 Sec. 28, 

NW1⁄4 NW1⁄4 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, NW1⁄4

E1⁄2 Sec. 10, E1⁄2 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, SW1⁄4 Sec. 26, 

NW1⁄4 SE1⁄4 Sec. 26, E1⁄2 Sec. 34, W1⁄2

NW1⁄4 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, S1⁄2

NE1⁄4 Sec. 24, W1⁄2 SW1⁄4 Sec. 24, SE1⁄4

Sec. 24 and T37N, R11E, SW1⁄4 SW1⁄4

Sec. 17, Sec. 19, NW1⁄4 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, NW1⁄4 Sec. 15, 

NW1⁄4 SW1⁄4 Sec. 15, S1⁄2 NE1⁄4 Sec. 16, 

SW1⁄4 Sec. 16, N1⁄2 SE1⁄4 Sec. 16, SE1⁄4

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, S1⁄2 Sec. 16, S1⁄2

NE1⁄4 Sec. 17, N1⁄2 SE1⁄4 Sec. 17, N1⁄2

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, W1⁄2 Sec. 1, Sec. 

2, N1⁄2 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 critical 

habitat Units 1 through 7 (Illinois Map 

1) follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51140 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(7) 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 critical 

habitat Unit 3 (Michigan Map 1) 

follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3ER05SE07.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51141 

(8) 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, 

SW1⁄4 SW1⁄4 Sec. 14, SW1⁄4 NW1⁄4 Sec. 

15, NE1⁄4 SW1⁄4 Sec. 15, NW1⁄4 SE1⁄4 Sec. 

15, NW1⁄4 SW1⁄4 Sec. 15, SE1⁄4 SE1⁄4 Sec. 

15, NW1⁄4 NE1⁄4 Sec. 16, NE1⁄4 NW1⁄4

Sec. 16, SE1⁄4 NE1⁄4 Sec. 16, and NW1⁄4

NW1⁄4 Sec. 23. It also contains portions 

of T34N, R7E, all 1⁄4 sections in Secs. 15, 

all 1⁄4 sections in Sec. 16, SE1⁄4 and 

SW1⁄4 Sec. 9, SW1⁄4 Sec. 10, SW1⁄4 Sec. 

14, NE1⁄4 Sec. 22, NW1⁄4 and NE1⁄4 Sec. 

23 of the Thompson’s 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 critical 

habitat Unit 4 (Michigan Map 2) 

follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3ER05SE07.002</GPH>
51142 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(9) 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, SE1⁄4

SW1⁄4 Sec. 9. It also contains portions of 

T31N, R9E, NW1⁄4 SW1⁄4 Sec. 9, NE1⁄4

SW1⁄4 Sec. 9, SW1⁄4 SW1⁄4 Sec. 9, SW1⁄4

SE1⁄4 Sec. 9; and portions of T31N, R9E, 

NE1⁄4 NW1⁄4 Sec. 16, NW1⁄4 NE1⁄4 Sec. 

16, NW1⁄4 NW1⁄4 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 critical 

habitat Unit 5 (Michigan Map 3) 

follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3ER05SE07.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51143 

(10) 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, SW1⁄4 SE1⁄4 Sec. 27. It 

also contains portions of T31N, R9E, 

NW1⁄4 SE1⁄4 Sec. 27, NE1⁄4 SW1⁄4 Sec. 27, 

SE1⁄4 SW1⁄4 Sec. 27, SE1⁄4 SE1⁄4 Sec. 27; 

portions of T31N, R9E, NE1⁄4 NW1⁄4 Sec. 

34, NW1⁄4 NE1⁄4 Sec. 34, NE1⁄4 NE1⁄4 Sec. 

34; and portions of T31N, R9E, NW1⁄4

NW1⁄4 Sec. 35, NE1⁄4 NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4 NE1⁄4

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 critical 

habitat Unit 6 (Michigan Map 4) 

follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3ER05SE07.004</GPH>
51144 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(11) Wisconsin Unit 1, Door County, 

Wisconsin. 

(i) Wisconsin Unit 1: Washington 

Island, Door County. Located in T33N, 

R30E, W1⁄2 and NE1⁄4 Sec. 4, SE1⁄4 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 critical 

habitat Unit 1 (Wisconsin Map 1) 

follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3ER05SE07.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51145 

(12) Wisconsin Unit 2, Door County, 

Wisconsin. 

(i) Wisconsin Unit 2: Door County. 

Located in T32N, R28E, SE1⁄4 Sec. 11, 

NW1⁄4 Sec. 13, NE1⁄4 Sec. 14 of the 

Ellison Bay 7.5′ USGS topographic 

quadrangle, and in T32N, R28E, W1⁄2

Sec. 13, E1⁄2 Sec. 14, NE1⁄4 Sec. 23, 

portions of each 1⁄4 of Sec. 24, N1⁄2 Sec. 

25, and T32N, R29E, S1⁄2 Sec. 19, W1⁄2

Sec. 29, NE1⁄4 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 critical 

habitat Unit 2 (Wisconsin Map 2) 

follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3ER05SE07.006</GPH>
51146 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3ER05SE07.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51147 

(13) Wisconsin Units 3 through 7, 

Door County, Wisconsin. 

(i) Wisconsin Unit 3: Door County. 

Located in T31N R28E, S1⁄2 S10, NE1⁄4

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, SW1⁄4 and S1⁄2

Sec. 15, portions of each 1⁄4 of Sec. 22, 

and N1⁄2 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, S1⁄2 Sec. 20, E1⁄2

Sec. 29, NW1⁄4 and S1⁄2 Sec. 28, N1⁄2 and 

SE1⁄4 Sec. 33, and W1⁄2 Sec. 34. It also 

is located in T30N, R28E, W1⁄2 Sec. 3, 

E1⁄2 and SW1⁄4 Sec. 4, SE1⁄4 Sec. 8, Sec. 

9, N1⁄2 Sec. 10, W1⁄2 and SE1⁄4 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 21⁄4 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, SW1⁄4

Sec. 13, and N1⁄2 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 critical 

habitat Units 3 through 7 (Wisconsin 

Map 3) follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3
51148 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(14) Wisconsin Unit 8, Door County, 

Wisconsin. 

(i) Wisconsin Unit 8: Door County. 

Located in T28N, R27E, S1⁄2 Sec. 16, 

N1⁄2 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 critical 

habitat Unit 8 (Wisconsin Map 4) 

follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3ER05SE07.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51149 

(15) Wisconsin Unit 9, Door County, 

Wisconsin. 

(i) Wisconsin Unit 9: Door County, 

Wisconsin. Located in T27N, R24E, 

SE1⁄4 Sec.16, E1⁄2 Sec. 20, portions of 

each 1⁄4 of Secs. 21, 28 and 33, NW1⁄4

and S1⁄2 Sec. 34. Also located in T26N, 

R24E, NW1⁄4 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 critical 

habitat Unit 9 (Wisconsin Map 5) 

follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3ER05SE07.009</GPH>
51150 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(16) Wisconsin Unit 10, Ozaukee 

County, Wisconsin. 

(i) Wisconsin Unit 10: Ozaukee 

County. Located in T11N, R21E, E1⁄2 of 

Sec. 20, portions of each 1⁄4 of Sec. 21, 

W1⁄2 Sec. 28, Sec. 29, E1⁄2 Sec. 30, E1⁄2

and portions of NW1⁄4 and SW1⁄4 Sec. 

31, Sec. 32, and W1⁄2 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 critical 

habitat Unit 10 (Wisconsin Map 6) 

follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3ER05SE07.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51151 

(17) Wisconsin Unit 11, Door County, 

Wisconsin. 

(i) Wisconsin Unit 11: Door County. 

Located in T27N, R26E, SE1⁄4 Sec. 11, 

Sec. 12, NW1⁄4 Sec. 13, and NE1⁄4 Sec. 

14 of the Sturgeon Bay East 7.5′ USGS 

topographic quadrangle. Lands are 

located south of County Road TT, east 

of Mathey Road, north of Buffalo Ridge 

Trail, west of Lake Forest Park Road 

(also County Road TT), about 11⁄2 miles 

west of the City of Sturgeon Bay, and 

include portions of Kellner’s Fen. 

(ii) Note: Map of Wisconsin critical 

habitat Unit 11 (Wisconsin Map 7) 

follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3ER05SE07.011</GPH>
51152 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 20, 2007. 

Todd Willens, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 07–4194 Filed 9–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES3ER05SE07.012</GPH>