[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68985-69007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23945]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0164; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BA16
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for the Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(Act), as amended, for the Miami tiger beetle (Cicindelidia floridana),
a beetle species from Miami-Dade County, Florida. The effect of this
regulation will be to add this species to the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to
this species.
DATES: This rule becomes effective November 4, 2016.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/. Comments and
materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in
preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments, materials, and documentation that we
considered in this rulemaking will be available by appointment, during
normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida
Ecological Services Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960;
telephone 772-562-3909; facsimile 772-562-4288.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roxanna Hinzman, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services
Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, by telephone 772-562-
3909 or by facsimile 772-562-4288. Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, a
species may warrant protection through listing if it is endangered or
threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be
completed by issuing a rule.
The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, we may
determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based
on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. We have determined that the threats
to the Miami tiger beetle consist of habitat loss, degradation, and
fragmentation, and proposed future development of habitat (Factor A);
collection, trade, and sale (Factor B); inadequate protection from
existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and a small isolated
population with a restricted geographical range, limited genetic
exchange, and restricted dispersal potential that is subject to
demographic and environmental stochasticity, including climate change
and sea level rise (Factor E).
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers
to comment on our listing proposal. We also considered all other
comments and information received during the comment period.
Previous Federal Action
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Miami tiger
beetle (80 FR 79533), published on December 22, 2015, for a detailed
description of previous Federal actions concerning this species. We
will also be proposing a designation of critical habitat for the Miami
tiger beetle under the Act in the near future.
Background
The discussion below incorporates revisions to the discussion in
the proposed listing rule for the Miami tiger beetle (80 FR 79533;
December 22, 2015) on taxonomy, distribution, and population estimates
and status based on internal and peer review and public comments.
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for discussion of the
species' description, habitat, and biology.
Taxonomy
Determining the taxonomy of a plant or animal and the relationship
that this plant or animal has with similar, closely related members of
its taxon involves the review of comparative morphology and descriptive
characteristics, geographic range and separation of members,
reproductive capabilities between members, and the genetic
distinctiveness between them. Together the available information is
assessed to determine the validity of a species.
The Miami tiger beetle (Cicindelidia floridana Cartwright) is a
described species in the Subfamily Cicindelinae of the Family Carabidae
(ground beetles). Previously, tiger beetles were considered a separate
family, but are now classified as a subfamily of the family Carabidae
on the basis of recent genetic studies and other characters (Bousquet
2012, p. 30). The Miami tiger beetle is in the C. abdominalis group
that also includes the eastern pinebarrens tiger beetle (C.
abdominalis), scabrous tiger beetle (C. scabrosa), and Highlands tiger
beetle (C. highlandensis). New treatments of tiger beetles (Bousquet
2012, p. 30; Pearson et al. 2015, p. 138) have also elevated most of
the previous subgenera of tiger beetles to genera, resulting in a
change of the genus of the tiger beetles in the C. abdominalis group
from Cicindela to Cicindelidia. These genera were originally proposed
by Rivalier (1954,
[[Page 68986]]
entire) and are widely used by European scientists (Wiesner 1992,
entire), but are considered subgenera by many American scientists. The
return to Rivalier's system has also been supported by genetic evidence
(Pearson et al. 2015, p. 16).
The four species in the Cicindelidia abdominalis group all share a
small body size (7-11 mm (0.28-0.43 in) long) and orange underside, and
they occur in inland sandy habitats. The four beetles maintain separate
ranges along the U.S. east coast and exhibit a significant gradient in
range size: The eastern pinebarrens tiger beetle occurs from New York
south along the coastal plain to north Florida; the scabrous tiger
beetle is present throughout much of peninsular Florida, south to Ft.
Lauderdale; the Highlands tiger beetle is restricted to the Lake Wales
Ridge of Highlands and Polk Counties, Florida; and the Miami tiger
beetle is found only in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
The Miami tiger beetle was first documented from collections made
in 1934, by Frank Young (see Distribution, below). There were no
observations after this initial collection, and the species was thought
to be extinct until it was rediscovered in 2007, at the Zoo Miami Pine
Rockland Preserve in Miami-Dade County. The rediscovery of a Miami
tiger beetle population provided additional specimens to the 1934
collection and prompted a full study of its taxonomic status, which
elevated it to a full species, Cicindelidia floridana (Brzoska et al.
2011, entire).
The Miami tiger beetle is distinguished from the three other
species of the abdominalis group based on: (1) Morphology (color,
maculation (spots or markings), and elytral (modified front wing)
microsculpture); (2) distribution; (3) habitat requirements; and (4)
seasonality (Brzoska et al. 2011, entire; Bousquet 2012, p. 313;
Pearson et al. 2015, p. 138). This array of distinctive characters is
comparable to the characters used to separate the other three species
of the C. abdominalis group.
Although color is often variable and problematic as a sole
diagnostic trait in tiger beetles, it is useful when combined with
other factors (Brzoska et al. 2011, p. 4). In comparison with the
closely related scabrous tiger beetle, the Miami tiger beetle has a
green or bronze-green elytra, rarely with a post median marginal spot,
and without evidence of a middle band, while the scabrous tiger beetle
has a black elytra, with a post median marginal spot, usually with a
vestige of a middle band (Brzoska et al. 2011, p. 6) (see Brzoska et
al. 2011 for detailed description, including key). There are also
noticeable differences in the width of the apical lunule (crescent
shape), with the Miami tiger beetle's being thin and the scabrous tiger
beetle's medium to thick.
In addition, the Miami tiger beetle has a narrower, restricted
range where its distribution does not overlap with the other three
species in the C. abdominalis group (i.e., the Miami tiger beetle has
only been documented in Miami-Dade County). The Miami tiger beetle also
occupies a unique habitat type (i.e., pine rockland versus scrub or
open sand and barren habitat). These habitats also provide different
larval microhabitat, which has been recognized as an important factor
that separates species (T. Schultz, 2016, pers. comm.).
Lastly, the Miami tiger beetle has a broader period of adult
activity than the ``late spring to mid-summer'' cycle that is observed
in the scabrous tiger beetle (Brzoska et al. 2011, p. 6) (see also
Distribution, Habitat, and Biology sections, below). Adult Miami tiger
beetles have been observed from early May through mid-October; this is
an unusually long flight period that suggests either continual
emergence or two emergence periods (Brzoska et al. 2011, p. 6). In
summary, the Miami tiger beetle is recognized as a distinct full
species, based upon its differences in morphology, distribution,
habitat, and seasonality (Brzoska et al. 2011, entire; Bousquet 2012,
p. 313; Pearson et al. 2015, p. 138).
Genetics information is also commonly used to identify taxonomic
relatedness. Genetic analyses for the Miami tiger beetle to date are
limited to one non-peer-reviewed study, and available techniques (e.g.,
genomics, which can better study the process of speciation) are
evolving. A limited genetic study using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)
suggested that the eastern pinebarrens tiger beetle, Highlands tiger
beetle, scabrous tiger beetle, and Miami tiger beetle are closely
related and recently evolved (Knisley 2011a, p. 14). As with other
similar Cicindela groups, these three sister species were not clearly
separable by mtDNA analysis alone (Knisley 2011a, p. 14). The power of
DNA sequencing for species resolution is limited when species pairs
have very recent origins, because in such cases new sister species will
share alleles for some time after the initial split due to persistence
of ancestral polymorphisms, incomplete lineage sorting, or ongoing gene
flow (Sites and Marshall 2004, pp. 216-221; McDonough et al. 2008, pp.
1312-1313; Bartlett et al. 2013, pp. 874-875). Changing sea levels and
coincidental changes in the size of the land mass of peninsular Florida
during the Pleistocene Era (2.6 million years ago to 10,000 years ago)
is thought to be the key factor in the very recent evolutionary
divergence and speciation of the three Florida species from C.
abdominalis (Knisley 2015a, p. 5; Knisley 2015b, p. 4).
Despite the apparent lack of genetic distinctiveness from the one
non-peer-reviewed, limited genetic study, tiger beetle experts and
peer-reviewed scientific literature agree that, based on the
morphological uniqueness, geographic separation, habitat
specialization, and extended flight season, the Miami tiger beetle
warrants species designation (Brzoska et al. 2011, entire; Bousquet
2012, p. 313; Pearson et al. 2015, p. 138). The most current peer-
reviewed scientific information confirms that Cicindelidia floridana is
a full species, and this taxonomic change is used by the scientific
community (Brzoska et al. 2011, entire; Bousquet 2012, p. 313; Pearson
et al. 2015, p. 138; Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS),
2016, p. 1).
The ITIS was created by a White House Subcommittee on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Dynamics to provide scientifically credible taxonomic
information and standardized nomenclature on species. The ITIS is
partnered with Federal agencies, including the Service, and is used by
agencies as a source for validated taxonomic information. The ITIS
recognizes the Miami tiger beetle as a valid species (ITIS, 2016, p.
1). Both the ITIS (2016, p. 1) and Bousquet (2012, p. 313) continue to
use the former genus, Cicindela (see discussion above). The Florida
Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) (2016, p. 16) and NatureServe (2015, p.
1) also accepts the Miami tiger beetle's taxonomic status as a species;
however, FNAI uses the new generic designation, Cicindelidia. In
summary, although there is some debate about the appropriate generic
designation (Cicindelidia versus Cicindela), based upon the best
available scientific information, the Miami tiger beetle is a valid
species.
Distribution
Historical Range
The historical range of the Miami tiger beetle is not completely
known, and available information is limited based on the single
historical observation prior to the species' rediscovery in 2007. It
was initially documented from collections made in 1934 by Frank Young
within a very restricted range in the northern end of the Miami Rock
[[Page 68987]]
Ridge, in a region known as the Northern Biscayne Pinelands. The
Northern Biscayne Pinelands, which extend from the city of North Miami
south to approximately SW. 216th Street, are characterized by extensive
sandy pockets of quartz sand, a feature that is necessary for the Miami
tiger beetle (Service 1999, p. 3-162). The type locality (the place
where the specimen was found) was likely pine rockland habitat, though
the species is now extirpated from the area (Knisley and Hill 1991, pp.
7, 13; Brzoska et al. 2011, p. 2; Knisley 2015a, p. 7). The exact
location of the type locality in North Miami was determined by Rob
Huber, a tiger beetle researcher who contacted Frank Young in 1972.
Young recalled collecting the type specimens while searching for land
snails at the northeast corner of Miami Avenue and Gratigny Road (119th
Street), North Miami. Huber checked that location the same year and
found that a school had been built there. A more thorough search for
sandy soil habitats throughout that area found no potential habitat
(Knisley and Hill 1991, pp. 7, 11-12). Although the contact with Young
did not provide habitat information for the type locality, a 1943 map
of habitats in the Miami area showed pine rockland with sandy soils
reaching their northern limit in the area of the type locality (Knisley
2015a, p. 27), and Young's paper on land snails made reference to pine
rockland habitat (Young 1951, p. 6). Recent maps, however, show that
the pine rockland habitat has been mostly developed from this area, and
remaining pine rockland habitat is mostly restricted to sites owned by
Miami-Dade County in south Miami (Knisley 2015a, p. 7).
In summary, it is likely that the Miami tiger beetle historically
occurred throughout pine rockland habitat on the Miami Rock Ridge.
Given the lack of recorded collection of the species for nearly 70
years, it may have always had a localized distribution (Schultz, 2016,
pers. comm.).
Current Range
The Miami tiger beetle was thought to be extinct until 2007, when a
population was discovered at the Richmond Heights area of south Miami,
Florida, known as the Richmond Pine Rocklands (Brzoska et al. 2011, p.
2; Knisley 2011a, p. 26). The Richmond Pine Rocklands is a mixture of
publicly and privately owned lands that retain the largest area of
contiguous pine rockland habitat within the urbanized areas of Miami-
Dade County and outside of the boundaries of Everglades National Park
(ENP). Surveys and observations conducted at Long Pine Key in ENP have
found no Miami tiger beetles, and habitat conditions are considered
unsuitable for the species (Knisley 2015a, p. 42; J. Sadle, 2015, pers.
comm.). At this time, the Miami tiger beetle is known to occur in only
two separate locations within pine rockland habitat in Miami-Dade
County. The Richmond population occurs on four contiguous parcels
within the Richmond Pine Rocklands: (1) Zoo Miami Pine Rockland
Preserve (Zoo Miami) (293 hectares (ha); 723 acres (ac)), (2) Larry and
Penny Thompson Park (121 ha; 300 ac), (3) U.S. Coast Guard property
(USCG) (96 ha; 237 ac), and (4) University of Miami's Center for
Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing property (CSTARS) (31 ha;
76 ac) (see Table 1 in Supporting Documents on http://www.regulations.gov). The second population, which was recently
identified (September 2015) is within approximately 5.0 km (3.1 mi) of
the Richmond population and separated by urban development (D. Cook,
2015a, pers. comm.). Based on historical records, current occurrences,
and habitat needs of the species (see Habitat section, below), the
current range of the species is considered to be any pine rockland
habitat (natural or disturbed) within the Miami Rock Ridge (Knisley
2015a, p. 7; CBD et al. 2014, pp. 13-16, 31-32).
Miami tiger beetles within the four contiguous occupied parcels in
the Richmond population are within close proximity to each other. There
are apparent connecting patches of habitat and few or no barriers
(contiguous and border each other on at least one side) between
parcels. Given the contiguous habitat with few barriers to dispersal,
frequent adult movement among individuals is likely, and the occupied
Richmond parcels probably represent a single population (Knisley 2015a,
p. 10). Information regarding Miami tiger beetles at the new location
is very limited, but beetles here are within approximately 5.0 km (3.1
mi) of the Richmond population and separated by ample urban
development, which likely represents a significant barrier to
dispersal, and the Miami tiger beetles at the new location are
currently considered a second population.
The Richmond population occurs within an approximate 2-square-
kilometer (km\2\) (494-ac) block, but currently much of the habitat is
overgrown with vegetation, leaving few remaining open patches for the
beetle. Survey data documented a decline in the number of open habitat
patches, and Knisley (2015a, pp. 9-10) estimated that less than 10
percent of the mostly pine rockland habitat within this area supports
the species in its current condition.
Population Estimates and Status
The visual index count is the standard survey method that has been
used to determine presence and abundance of the Miami tiger beetle.
Using this method, surveyors either walk slowly or stand still in
appropriate open habitats, while taking a count of any beetle
observations. Although the index count has been the most commonly used
method to estimate the population size of adult tiger beetles, various
studies have demonstrated it significantly underestimates actual
numbers present. As noted earlier, several studies comparing various
methods for estimating adult tiger beetle abundance have found numbers
present at a site are typically two to three times higher than that
produced by the index count (Knisley and Schultz 1997, p. 15; Knisley
2009, entire; Knisley and Hill 2013, pp. 27, 29). Numbers are
underestimated because tiger beetles are elusive, and some may fly off
before being detected while others may be obscured by vegetation in
some parts of the survey area. Even in defined linear habitats like
narrow shorelines where there is no vegetation and high visibility,
index counts produce estimates that are two to three times lower than
the numbers present (Knisley and Schultz 1997, p. 152).
Information on the Richmond population size is limited because
survey data are inconsistent, and some sites are difficult to access
due to permitting, security, and liability concerns. Of the occupied
sites, the most thoroughly surveyed site for adult and larval Miami
tiger beetles is the Zoo Miami parcel (over 30 survey dates from 2008
to 2014) (Knisley 2015a, p. 10). Adult beetle surveys at the CSTARS and
USCG parcels have been infrequent, and access was not permitted in 2012
through early summer of 2014. In October 2014, access to both the
CSTARS and USCG parcels was permitted, and no beetles were observed
during October 2014 surveys. As noted earlier, Miami tiger beetles were
recently found at Larry and Penny Thompson Park (D. Cook, 2015b, pers.
comm.); however, thorough surveys at this location have not been
conducted. For details on index counts and larval survey results from
the three surveyed parcels (Zoo Miami, USCG, and CSTARS), see Table 2
in Supporting Documents on http://www.regulations.gov.
Raw index counts found adults in four areas (Zoo A, Zoo B, Zoo C,
and
[[Page 68988]]
Zoo D) of the Zoo Miami parcel. Two of these patches (Zoo C and Zoo D)
had fewer than 10 adults during several surveys at each location. Zoo
A, the more northern site where adults were first discovered, had peak
counts of 17 and 22 adults in 2008 and 2009, but declined to 0 and 2
adults in six surveys from 2011 to 2014, despite thorough searches on
several dates throughout the peak of the adult flight season (Knisley
2015a, pp. 9-10). Zoo B, located south of Zoo A, had peak counts of 17
and 20 adults from 2008 to 2009, 36 to 42 adults from 2011 to 2012, and
13 and 18 adults in 2014 (Knisley 2015a, pp. 9-10). These surveys at
Zoo A and Zoo B also recorded the number of suitable habitat patches
(occupied and unoccupied). Surveys between 2008 and 2014 documented a
decline in both occupied and unoccupied open habitat patches. Knisley
(2015, pp. 9-10) documented a decrease at Zoo A from 7 occupied of 23
patches in 2008, to 1 occupied of 13 patches in 2014. At Zoo B, there
was a decrease from 19 occupied of 26 patches in 2008, to 7 occupied of
13 patches in 2014 (Knisley 2015a, pp. 9-10). Knisley (2015a, p. 10)
suggested this decline in occupied and unoccupied patches is likely the
result of the vegetation that he observed encroaching into the open
areas that are required by the beetle.
At the CSTARS site, the only survey during peak season was on
August 20, 2010, when much of the potential habitat was checked. This
survey produced a raw count of 38 adults in 11 scattered habitat
patches, with 1 to 9 adults per patch, mostly in the western portion of
the site (Knisley 2015a, p. 10). Three surveys at the USCG included
only a portion of the potential habitat and produced raw adult counts
of two, four, and two adults in three separate patches from 2009, 2010,
and 2011, respectively (Knisley 2015a, p. 10). Additional surveys of
the CSTARS and the USCG parcels on October 14 to 15, 2014, surveyed
areas where adults were found in previous surveys and some new areas;
however, no adults were observed. The most likely reasons for the
absence of adults were because counts even during the peak of the
flight season were low (thus detection would be lower off-peak), and
mid-October is recognized as the end of the flight season (Knisley
2014a, p. 2). As was noted for the Zoo Miami sites, habitat patches at
the CSTARS and USCG parcels that previously supported adults seemed
smaller due to increased vegetation growth, and consequently these
patches appeared less suitable for the beetle than in the earlier
surveys (Knisley 2015a, p. 10).
Surveys of adult numbers over the years, especially the frequent
surveys in 2009, did not indicate a bimodal adult activity pattern (two
cohorts of adults emerge during their active season) (Knisley 2015a, p.
10). Knisley (2015a, p. 10) suggests that actual numbers of adult Miami
tiger beetles could be two to three times higher than indicated by the
raw index counts. Several studies comparing methods for estimating
population size of several tiger beetle species, including the
Highlands tiger beetle, found total numbers present were usually more
than two times that indicated by the index counts (Knisley and Hill
2013, pp. 27-28). The underestimates from raw index counts are likely
to be comparable or greater for the Miami tiger beetle, because of its
small size and occurrence in small open patches where individuals can
be obscured by vegetation around the edges, making detection especially
difficult (Knisley 2015a, p. 10).
Surveys for larvae at the Zoo Miami parcel (Zoos A and B) were
conducted for several years during January when lower temperatures
would result in a higher level of larval activity and open burrows
(Knisley and Hill 2013, p. 38) (see Table 2 in Supporting Documents on
http://www.regulations.gov). The January 2010 survey produced a count
of 63 larval burrows, including 5 first instars, 36 second instars, and
22 third instars (Knisley 2013, p. 4). All burrows were in the same
bare sandy patches where adults were found. In March 2010, a followup
survey indicated most second instar larvae had progressed to the third
instar (Knisley 2015a, p. 11). Additional surveys to determine larval
distribution and relative abundance during January or February in
subsequent years detected fewer larvae in section Zoo B: 5 larvae in
2011, 3 larvae in 2012, 3 and 5 larvae in 2013, 3 larvae in 2014, and
15 larvae in 2015 (Knisley 2013, pp. 4-5; Knisley 2015c, p. 1). The
reason for this decline in larval numbers (i.e., from 63 in 2010, to 15
or fewer in each survey year from 2011 to 2015) is unknown. Possible
explanations are that fewer larvae were present because of reduced
recruitment by adults from 2010 to 2014, increased difficulty in
detecting larval burrows that were present due to vegetation growth and
leaf litter, environmental factors (e.g., temperature, precipitation,
predators), or a combination of these factors (Knisley 2015a, pp. 10-
11).
Larvae, like adults, also require open patches free from vegetation
encroachment to complete their development. The January 2015 survey of
Zoo B observed vegetation encroachment, as indicated by several of the
numbered tags marking larval burrows in open patches in 2010 covered by
plant growth and leaf litter (Knisley 2015c, p. 1). No larvae were
observed in the January 2015 survey of Zoo A (Knisley 2015c, p. 1).
Knisley (2015c, p. 3) reported that the area had been recently burned
(mid-November) and low vegetation was absent, resulting in mostly bare
ground with extensive pine needle coverage below trees, which made the
identification of previous open patches with adults difficult.
Surveys for the beetle's presence outside of its currently known
occupied range found no Miami tiger beetles at a total of 42 sites (17
pine rockland sites and 25 scrub sites) throughout Miami-Dade, Broward,
Palm Beach, and Martin Counties (Knisley 2015a, pp. 9, 41-45). The
absence of the Miami tiger beetle from sites north of Miami-Dade was
probably because it never ranged beyond pine rockland habitat of Miami-
Dade County and into scrub habitats to the north (Knisley 2015a, p. 9).
Sites without the Miami tiger beetle in Miami-Dade County mostly had
vegetation that was too dense and were lacking the open patches of
sandy soil that are needed by adults for oviposition and larval habitat
(Knisley 2015a, pp. 9, 41-45).
The Miami tiger beetle is considered as one of two tiger beetles in
the United States most in danger of extinction (Knisley et al. 2014, p.
93). The viability of the remaining population is unknown, as no
population viability analysis is available (B. Knisley, 2015d, pers.
comm.). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)
(2012, p. 89) regarded it as a species of greatest conservation need.
The Miami tiger beetle is currently ranked S1 and G1 by the FNAI (2016,
p.16), meaning it is critically imperiled globally because of extreme
rarity (5 or fewer occurrences, or fewer than 1,000 individuals) or
because of extreme vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or
manmade factor.
In summary, the overall population size of the Miami tiger beetle
is exceptionally small and viability is uncertain. Based upon the index
count data to date, it appears that the two populations exist in
extremely low numbers (Knisley 2015a, pp. 2, 10-11, 24).
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on December 22, 2015 (80 FR 79533),
we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
[[Page 68989]]
proposal by February 22, 2016. We also contacted appropriate Federal
and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal.
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the
Miami Herald. We held a public hearing on January 13, 2016.
Peer Reviewer Comments
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from seven knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
tiger beetles and their habitat, biological needs, and threats. We
appreciate the responses received from five of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of the
Miami tiger beetle. All peer reviewers supported the endangered
listing, and four of the five specifically stated that the best
available scientific information was used in the proposed listing. The
peer reviewers concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided
additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the
final rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following
summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
(1) Comment: One peer reviewer recommended the immediate use of
fire management in pine rockland habitat for the Miami tiger beetle.
Our Response: We also recognize, as discussed below (see Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species), the need for better land management,
including the use of prescribed fire, additional survey and life-
history data, further investigation into laboratory rearing for
possible reintroduction, more extensive genetic analysis, and
designation of critical habitat.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that one of the most relevant
ecological factors that separate tiger beetle species is soil type and
microhabitat of the larvae, and the limestone substrate of the Miami
tiger beetle as opposed to the sandy habitats of the scabrous tiger
beetle (C. scabrosa) reflect subsequent adaptation to a local habitat
following a geographic separation.
Our Response: We have modified the language under Taxonomy above to
incorporate this statement regarding larval microhabitat.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the lack of collection
of the Miami tiger beetle for decades after its initial discovery may
indicate that it has always been very localized in its distribution.
Our Response: We have modified the language under Distribution
above to incorporate this statement regarding a localized distribution.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that development in and
around Miami tiger beetle habitat will present a decline to habitat
quality through runoff from structures.
Our Response: We have modified Factor A below to incorporate this
information.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the negative impact of
pesticides may be increased with the spread of the Zika virus.
Our Response: We have incorporated this information under Factor E
below.
Comments From States
The Miami tiger beetle occurs only in Florida, and we received one
comment letter from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWC). FWC stated its plans to continue working with
stakeholders to assess known and potential Miami tiger beetle habitat,
conduct surveys, and advise on issues relating to Miami tiger beetle
conservation and habitat management.
Comments From the Public
During the comment period for the proposed listing rule, we
received a total of 73 comments from local governments, nongovernmental
organizations, and private citizens. Of these 73 comments, 65 indicated
support of the proposed listing. We appreciate all comments and have
incorporated them into the final rule or responded to them below, as
appropriate.
(6) Comment: Several commenters questioned the taxonomy as a result
of Choate's work, use of best scientific and commercial data,
morphological characteristics, and seasonality of the Miami tiger
beetle.
Our Response: In accordance with section 4 of the Act, we are
required to make listing determinations on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards under the Act (published in the Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section
515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated
Information Quality Guidelines (www.fws.gov/informationquality/),
provide criteria and guidance, and establish procedures to ensure that
our decisions are based on the best scientific data and commercial data
available.
The Taxonomy section above discusses the taxonomic designation of
the Miami tiger beetle. The most currently peer-reviewed scientific
information confirms that the Miami tiger beetle is a full species, and
this taxonomic designation is used by the scientific community (Brzoska
et al. 2011, entire; Bousquet 2012, p. 313; Pearson et al. 2015, p.
138; ITIS, 2016, p. 1; FNAI 2016, p. 16; NatureServe 2015, p. 1). The
works referenced by commenters (Choate 1984 and 2003) pre-date the
rediscovery of the Miami tiger beetle in 2007 and do not include the
most currently accepted taxonomic standing of the species. Prior to the
rediscovery, the species had not been observed since its original
collection in 1934. Choate did not examine specimens of the Miami tiger
beetle when he synonymized it with the scabrous tiger beetle
(NatureServe 2015, p. 1).
Brzoska et al. (2011, entire) established taxonomic criteria and
did not intend for color and other morphological features to be used in
isolation as intended in the taxonomic criteria set. Color and
maculation are commonly used to identify tiger beetles, especially in
combination with geographic range and habitat (Knisley and Schultz
1997, pp. 5-10; Pearson et al. 2015, pp. 19-20). Color, morphological
features (post median marginal spot, middle band, and apical (apex, the
top or highest part forming a point) lunule (crescent-shaped),
distribution, seasonality, and habitat type of the Miami tiger beetle
are only used in combination to differentiate it from the scabrous
tiger beetle (Brzoska et al. 2011, entire), so minor overlap in
individual features, such as post median marginal spot as noted by the
commenters, is not necessarily a uniquely identifying feature until
taken into consideration with the other identifying factors.
Regarding color, all specimens of the Miami tiger beetle observed
by Brzoska et al. (2011, entire) were bright metallic green dorsally on
the head, pronotum, and elytron, while the scabrous tiger beetle is
metallic black dorsally, with only a few individuals having a greenish
head and pronotum (prominent plate-like structure that covers all or
part of the thorax). Likewise, no Miami tiger beetles had a thick
lunule or a middle band. This suite of characteristics identified by
Brzoska et al. (2011, entire), clearly differentiate the Miami tiger
beetle from the scabrous tiger beetle. Since Brzoska et al. (2011,
entire), there has been no debate in the
[[Page 68990]]
scientific literature about the taxonomic characters used to identify
the Miami tiger beetle as a species, and to our knowledge all
literature since Brzoska et al. (2011, entire) recognize it as a valid
species (Bousquet 2012, p. 313; Pearson et al. 2015, p. 138; ITIS 2016,
p. 1; FNAI 2016, p. 16; NatureServe 2015, p. 1).
Finally, we agree that there is some overlap in the adult activity
period between the Miami tiger beetle and its closely related sister
species, the scabrous tiger beetle; however, the adult flight season
for the Miami tiger beetle extends into October, while that of the
scabrous tiger beetle, which is far more widespread and has been
collected on a more routine basis, does not. The Miami tiger beetle has
been observed during October surveys for three separate years (2008,
2009, and 2011). Seasonality is only one of several factors used to
differentiate the Miami tiger beetle from the scabrous tiger beetle.
(7) Comment: Three commenters stated that the genetic study on the
Miami tiger beetle should not be rejected.
Our Response: We agree that distinct differences in DNA can be
helpful in delineating species. The single genetic study that is
available on the Miami tiger beetle was used in the listing
determination process and is discussed in Taxonomy above. This genetic
study concluded that the Miami, Highlands, scabrous, and eastern
pinebarrens tiger beetles are all closely related, recently evolved,
and not clearly separable by the mtDNA analysis conducted. This finding
is not uncommon among closely related Cicindela groups (Woodcock and
Knisley 2009, entire; Knisley 2011a, p. 14). The lack of genetic
distinctiveness in the study does show that the mtDNA markers used
(cytochrome b and cytochrome oxidase subunit 1) were not in agreement
with the morphological, seasonal, ecological, and geographic criteria
that have been used to identify the species (Choate 1984, entire;
Brzoska et al. 2011, entire), but this finding is not necessarily an
indication that they are not separate species.
Determining the taxonomy of a species and its evolutionary
relationships with similar, closely related members of its taxon
involves the review of comparative morphology and descriptive
characteristics, geographic range and separation of members,
reproductive capabilities between members, and the genetic
distinctiveness between them. Together the available information is
assessed to determine the validity of a species. This determination is
not based on any one single factor in isolation, but rather on the
weight of evidence from the suite of factors available. The identifying
criteria that clearly define the sister species used in the genetic
study (Choate 1984, entire; Brzoska et al. 2011, entire) have been peer
reviewed and are accepted in the scientific literature (Bousquet 2012,
p. 313; Pearson et al. 2015, p. 138; ITIS 2016, p. 1; FNAI 2016, p. 16;
NatureServe 2015, p. 1). As suggested by one peer reviewer, an analysis
using nuclear DNA, with multiple different genes, instead of the two
that were used in the genetic analysis, may be more useful in the case
of these closely related sister species.
(8) Comment: Five commenters provided information on observations
of Miami tiger beetles at the following locations: University of Miami,
Zoo Miami, Larry and Penny Thompson Park, Gold Coast Railroad Museum,
U.S. Coast Guard, and an undisclosed location, miles away from the
Richmond Pine Rocklands.
Our Response: The proposed rule listed the Miami tiger beetle as
occurring on Zoo Miami, the University of Miami CSTARS Campus, Larry
and Penny Thompson Park, the U.S. Coast Guard, and an undisclosed
location within approximately 5 km (3 mi) of the Richmond Pine
Rocklands. The Gold Coast Railroad Museum was not included in the
proposed rule because it is the first reported observation of Miami
tiger beetles. Since receiving this information, we have searched
scientific and commercial data to validate this location. The Gold
Coast Railroad Museum parcel is within close proximity to known
occupied sites within the Richmond Pine Rocklands. Because of the
contiguous habitat with few barriers to dispersal, many of the parcels
within the Richmond Pine Rocklands are suitable or potentially suitable
for the Miami tiger beetle.
(9) Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that the proposed
rule lacked specificity in range or habitat boundaries for the Miami
tiger beetle, which presents uncertainty for anyone planning
development within the range of the species. So that the economic
consequence of the rule can be appropriately evaluated, one commenter
requested that the Service collect more survey data to better delineate
habitat boundaries and make this data available for review and comment,
prior to publication of a final rule.
Our Response: Under the Endangered Species Act, listing
determinations must be made based on the best available scientific and
commercial information. Economic and other potential impacts are not
considered in the listing determination, but rather in the
consideration of exclusion of areas from critical habitat under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, when in the process of designating critical habitat
for a species. As discussed below (see Critical Habitat), we have found
that critical habitat is not determinable at this time.
The Distribution section, above, discusses the historical and
current range of the Miami tiger beetle. Additionally, we are
continuing to study and define the specificity in range and habitat
boundaries for the Miami tiger beetle.
(10) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule did not
appropriately capture the single-season survey data points collected by
Miami-Dade County and Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden, which provide
some perspective on the population of the Miami tiger beetle in the
Richmond Pine Rocklands.
Our Response: We received the survey data points collected by
Miami-Dade County and others on January 29, 2016, after the proposed
listing rule publication on December 22, 2015. Our description of the
species' extant occurrences within the Richmond Pine Rocklands in the
Distribution section above is consistent with the new data presented to
us by Miami-Dade County (i.e., the Miami tiger beetle is known from
four contiguous parcels within the Richmond Pine Rocklands: Zoo Miami
Pine Rockland Preserve, Larry and Penny Thompson Park, University of
Miami's Center for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing, and
U.S. Coast Guard).
(11) Comment: One commenter stated that we incorrectly reported
that no robber flies have been observed in areas where the Miami tiger
beetles occur.
Our Response: We have revised Factor C below to include
observations of potential predators, such as robber flies.
(12) Comment: One commenter recommended 12 pine rockland sites
throughout Miami-Dade County be thoroughly surveyed for the Miami tiger
beetle.
Our Response: We support further surveys for the species at sites
throughout Miami-Dade County and appreciate the list provided of areas
to target.
(13) Comment: Two commenters stated that the range of the Miami
tiger beetle is unknown and improperly assumed to be limited. Both
questioned why we did not reference Choate's (2003) field guide, which
lists the scabrous tiger beetle as occurring in Miami-Dade County.
Our Response: Since Choate's published work considered the Miami
[[Page 68991]]
tiger beetle a synonym for the scabrous tiger beetle, then it is
logical that he listed the distribution as within Miami-Dade County. We
used the more recent publication by Brzoska et al. (2011, entire) that
elevated the Miami tiger beetle to species and is widely accepted in
the scientific literature (Bousquet 2012, p. 313; Pearson et al. 2015,
p. 138; ITIS 2016, p. 1; FNAI 2016, p. 16; NatureServe 2015, p. 1).
(14) Comment: Two commenters stated that the surveying efforts have
been inadequate to conclude that the Miami tiger beetle is rare.
Our Response: Surveys (during the summers of 2008 and 2010) for the
Miami tiger beetle have included 42 sites (17 pine rockland sites and
25 scrub sites) throughout Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Martin
Counties (Knisley 2015a, pp. 9, 41-45). To date, the Miami tiger beetle
is known to occur in only two small populations: The Richmond Pine
Rocklands and an undisclosed pine rockland within 5 km (3.1 mi) of the
Richmond population and separated by urban development. Limitations to
surveys are noted above in Population Estimates and Status.
(15) Comment: Four of the comments received raised a question about
the habitat of the type locality.
Our Response: The original description of the Miami tiger beetle
(Cartwright 1939, p. 364) provided no detailed information regarding
habitat type, other than being in Miami, Florida. Based on later
correspondence between tiger beetle researchers and the collector of
the type specimen, the general area of the collection was narrowed down
to the vicinity of Gratigny Road and present-day Barry University
(Brzoska et al. 2011, pp. 1-2). This general area was just north
(approximately 2.2 km (1.4 mi)) of the northern extent of the pine
rocklands on the Miami Rock Ridge in the 1940s (Davis 1943, entire),
approximately 10 years after the collection from the type locality. In
the 1980s and 1990s, collectors did look for the species in this
general location, but this area was fully developed, with no remaining
natural habitat. Based on the habitat types of the other closely
related Cicindelidia that occur in Florida, it was assumed that the
Miami tiger beetle, too, likely occupied scrub habitats. The species
was then rediscovered in 2007 from pine rockland habitat. Based on
historical photos and documents on Barry University (http://www.barry.edu/about/history/historic-photo-tour/ [accessed April 27,
2016]; Rice 1989, pp. 7, 10), there is evidence that the land currently
occupied by Barry University had pine habitat with abundant pine trees
and sandy soils. While this information is not irrefutable proof that
it was pine rockland habitat, this area is consistent with the habitat
type at the known currently occupied locations.
(16) Comment: One commenter stated that data do not support the
conclusion that collection is a threat to the Miami tiger beetle.
Our Response: Based on data from other insects, including tiger
beetles, we consider collection to be a significant threat to the Miami
tiger beetle in light of the few known remaining populations, low
abundance, and highly restricted range. Since publication of the
proposed rule, we have received information on known unpermitted
collection of Miami tiger beetles (Wirth, 2016a, pers. comm.). This new
information is incorporated under Factor B below.
(17) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that disease and
predation was not identified as a threat for the Miami tiger beetle.
Our Response: This topic is addressed under Factor C. below. We
concluded that potential impact from predators or parasites to the
Miami tiger beetle is unknown at this time, and, therefore it was not
identified as a threat in the listing determination. However, Factor C
below has been updated to include new observations on potential
predators at a location known to have Miami tiger beetles.
(18) Comment: One commenter stated that existing regulatory
mechanisms are adequate to protect the Miami tiger beetle, citing
existing critical habitat for other listed species.
Our Response: These topics are discussed under Factor D below. The
Miami tiger beetle is far rarer (i.e., fewer populations with fewer
individuals within a limited distribution) than any of the other listed
species with critical habitat that occur within pine rocklands in
Miami-Dade County. As an unlisted species, the Miami tiger beetle is
afforded limited protection from sections 7 and 10 of the Act based on
its co-occurrence with listed species or their critical habitat;
however, effects determinations and minimization and avoidance criteria
for any of these listed species are unlikely to be fully protective.
Critical habitat designations for other species also would not afford
the beetle protections from take.
(19) Comment: One commenter stated that Miami-Dade County's
regulatory and land protection programs protect Miami tiger beetle
habitat. The commenter also specified that county's Environmentally
Endangered Lands (EELs) program should be included under Factor A.
Our Response: This topic, including EELs, is addressed under Factor
D below. Because Miami-Dade County's Natural Forested Communities
(NFCs) designation allows for partial development of pine rockland
habitat and there is known unpermitted development and destruction of
pine rockland that continues to occur, the regulation is not fully
protective against loss of Miami tiger beetles or their habitat. The
county's EELs program funds the acquisition and maintenance of pine
rockland habitat. Because these lands are not burned as frequently as
needed to maintain suitable beetle habitat, they are not included in
the discussion under Factor A, Conservation Efforts to Reduce the
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range. We have incorporated this clarification into the
final rule under Factor D below.
(20) Comment: One commenter stated that listing could be counter-
productive to conducting valuable prescribed burns and habitat
management by the Florida Forest Service.
Our Response: We agree that habitat management, including fire
break and trail maintenance, prescribed fire, and mechanical and
chemical treatment, is highly valuable for the Miami tiger beetle, but
disagree that listing could be counter-productive to implementing
prescribed burns or other habitat management activities by the Florida
Forest Service. The Act requires us to make a determination using the
best available scientific and commercial data after taking into account
those efforts, if any, being made by any State, or any political
subdivision of a State to protect such species, whether by predatory
control, protection of habitat and food supply, or other conservation
practices, within any area under its jurisdiction. Further, the listing
of a species does not obstruct the development of conservation
agreements or partnerships to conserve the species. Once a species is
listed as either endangered or threatened, the Act provides many tools
to advance the conservation of listed species. Conservation of listed
species in many parts of the United States is dependent upon working
partnerships with a wide variety of entities, including the voluntary
cooperation of non-Federal landowners.
(21) Comment: One commenter stated that the best available science
does not indicate that few, small, isolated populations are a threat
for the Miami tiger beetle. They concluded that the Miami tiger beetle
can persist in the long term with relatively small populations, and
that we fail to explain
[[Page 68992]]
why the Miami tiger beetle requires a different population target than
other beetles.
Our Response: We acknowledge that populations of some tiger beetle
species (e.g., northeastern beach, puritan, and Highlands tiger
beetles) are able to persist with low population size, while other
populations (e.g., Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetles) have been
extirpated. One peer reviewer stated that, given the small population
sizes, the Miami tiger beetle could be extirpated by environmental
fluctuations. Another peer reviewer stated that the vulnerability of
the Miami tiger beetle is clearly established in the proposed rule due
to the few remaining small populations and little remaining habitat.
Given that the Miami tiger beetle is known only from two remaining
isolated populations with few individuals, any significant decrease in
the population size could easily result in extinction of the species.
This issue is discussed under Factor E, below.
The proposed rule set no specific population target for the Miami
tiger beetle. The species is considered rarer than any of the listed
tiger beetle species (Knisley et al. 2014, p. 106). In an evaluation on
the status of 62 tiger beetles in the United States, the Miami tiger
beetle was considered as one of two tiger beetles most in danger of
extinction (Knisley et al. 2014, p. 93). Florida Natural Areas
Inventory (2016, p. 16) considered the species extremely vulnerable to
extinction. One peer reviewer stated that the Miami tiger beetle is
probably the most endangered species of tiger beetle in North America.
Survey data to date indicate that the two populations exist in
extremely low numbers. This topic is discussed under Population
Estimates and Status above.
(22) Comment: One commenter stated that pesticide exposure in the
Richmond Pine Rocklands is largely mitigated by current efforts to
protect the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly. The commenter states
that we fail to present the differing opinion on pesticides from
Knisley (2014).
Our Response: We acknowledge that Miami-Dade Mosquito Control's
(MDMCs) recent implementation of truck-based spray buffers around
critical habitat for the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly have
greatly reduced pesticide exposure to the Miami tiger beetle, and
mosquito control is currently not considered a major threat for the
known populations at this time. However, the current spray buffers are
not regulations and are subject to change based on human health
concerns, which is likely with the spread of the Zika virus as pointed
out by one peer reviewer (see peer review comment (5) above). In
addition, if the Miami tiger beetle was found to occur on habitat that
is not protected by the butterfly's critical habitat, then exposure is
possible. This topic is discussed under Factor E, below.
Regarding the Service not disclosing a differing opinion by Knisley
(2014), it is unclear which Knisley (2014) opinion is referenced by the
commenter. The supplemental documents provided by the commenter do not
include a Knisley (2014) reference that addresses pesticides. Knisley's
(2015a, pp. 15-16) species assessment on the Miami tiger beetle, which
was modified from a Service species assessment, identified pesticides
as a potential threat.
(23) Comment: One commenter stated that our analysis on the threat
of climate change failed to present evidence on how the Miami tiger
beetle is affected, since it has survived operations of a former naval
air station, hurricanes, and operations by Zoo Miami. In addition, the
commenter stated that, under most climate change predictions, Miami-
Dade County's efforts should protect the pine rockland habitat from
saltwater intrusion and must be included as the best available data.
Our Response: We agree that the Miami tiger beetle has survived
operations of a former naval air station, hurricanes, and operations by
Zoo Miami; however, we do not know the impact of these events on the
Miami tiger beetle, because no surveys were conducted until after its
rediscovery in 2007. All of the projected climate change scenarios
indicate negative effects on pine rockland habitat throughout Miami-
Dade County. This includes everything from rising temperatures,
increased storm frequency and severity, changes in rainfall patterns,
rising sea levels, and ``coastal squeeze,'' which occurs when the
habitat is pressed between rising sea levels and coastal development.
Even before projected inundation, pine rocklands are likely to undergo
transitions including increased salinity in the water table and soils,
which would cause vegetation shifts and potential impacts to the
beetle. This issue is addressed in Factor E below. The commenter did
not provide a reference to support its statement that Miami-Dade
County's efforts should protect the pine rockland habitat from
saltwater intrusion. Based on the best available scientific and
commercial data available, we consider climate change a threat to the
Miami tiger beetle.
(24) Comment: One commenter identified an editorial error under
Factor A of the proposed rule (80 FR 79533, December 22, 2015; page
79540), which states that the two known populations of the Miami tiger
beetle occur within the Richmond Pine Rocklands.
Our Response: We acknowledge that this was an editorial error, as
the Miami tiger beetle is known from two populations, only one of which
is found within the Richmond Pine Rocklands. We have revised this text
under Factor A, below.
(25) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed listing rule
failed to present the positive examples of using prescribed fire in an
urban landscape in citations from Snyder and URS. The commenter pointed
out that the URS citation discussed the necessity of prescribed fire to
avoid catastrophic risk to surrounding property, including homes, and
even loss of life.
Our Response: We have incorporated these concepts under Factor A
below.
(26) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service has been
presented with the boundary limits of the proposed Miami Wilds
development.
Our Response: We agree that the proposed boundary limits of the
proposed Miami Wilds development have been presented to us. However,
the statement in the proposed rule under Factor A, below, that plans
have yet to be finalized, is accurate, since no formal review of the
project has been initiated by the proposed applicant.
(27) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that routine
operational maintenance in existing and potential future transmission
and distribution right-of-ways (ROW), such as but not limited to
vegetation management and power restoration, may be limited or
hindered. The commenter requested that ``utilities development'' be
excluded from the section 9 prohibited actions and that language be
added indicating that permits will not be required for ROW maintenance
activities.
Our Response: This type of request can be covered under a rule
issued under section 4(d) of the Act, which allows for some ``take'' of
a threatened species when the overall outcome of the allowed actions
are ``necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the
species.'' However, a special rule may not be promulgated for species
listed as endangered, such as the Miami tiger beetle.
We strongly encourage that anyone conducting activities, including
utilities development and maintenance on lands potentially supporting
Miami tiger beetles to consult with the Service on their activities to
ensure they do not jeopardize the continued survival and
[[Page 68993]]
recovery of the beetle and that incidental take may be authorized. The
Miami tiger beetle is one of several federally listed species that
occurs in Miami-Dade County. Consultation could be done on a
programmatic basis for power restoration and routine maintenance of
ROWs for all listed species.
(28) Comment: Three comments received addressed the FWC's
biological status review of the Miami tiger beetle. Two of the comments
questioned how the FWC and Service would coordinate efforts. One of the
commenters stated that the FWC should take the lead without duplication
of efforts at the Federal level.
Our Response: It is our policy to coordinate with the FWC on all
proposed and final listings, and we will continue to do so for all
future actions. As stated in the Previous Federal Actions section of
the proposed rule, the Service was petitioned to list the Miami tiger
beetle. The Service's listing process and the Commission's biological
status review are two separate and independent actions. However, we
have incorporated language under Factor D below to reflect that the FWC
was requested to undertake a biological status review on the Miami
tiger beetle and is currently doing so.
(29) Comment: One commenter requested that any underlying data that
were used in the proposed rule (e.g., field notes; photographs with
notes on use of lighting, equipment, filters, or adjustments; any
statistical analyses, collection, and laboratory data from genetic
work; and peer review comments from Brzoska et al. (2011)) be included
in a re-publication of the proposed rule.
Our Response: In rulemaking decisions under the Act, the Service
makes available all cited literature used that is not already publicly
available. We post grey literature, information from States, or other
unpublished resources on http://www.regulations.gov concurrent with the
Federal Register publication.
(30) Comment: One commenter stated that it was inappropriate to
make references to the Coral Reef Commons proposed development and
habitat conservation plan (HCP) in the proposed rule.
Our Response: Under Factor A below we discuss the threat of
proposed development in the Richmond Pine Rocklands, but we do not
directly use the name ``Coral Reef Commons.'' Information about this
proposed development was cited using the publicly available draft HCP.
This discussion is appropriate and required under section 4 of the Act
(16 U.S.C. 1533), because the proposed development of Coral Reef
Commons is within suitable Miami tiger beetle habitat and, therefore,
must be included in an analysis of the threatened destruction of
habitat.
(31) Comment: Two commenters questioned the peer review of
documents used in the proposed listing rule, the reliance on the work
of Dr. Barry Knisley, and the affiliation between Dr. Knisley and one
of the petitioners.
Our Response: Dr. Knisley is regarded as one of the nation's
foremost experts on tiger beetles generally (e.g., has (co)authored 58
publications including 3 books on tiger beetles) and the Miami tiger
beetle specifically, and he has performed the vast majority of research
on the Miami tiger beetle, including extensive surveys under contract
with the Service. Thus, the heavy reliance on his work in the listing
rule is fully appropriate. Christopher Wirth, one of the petitioners,
was a former student and research assistant under Dr. Knisley; however,
Dr. Knisley is not included as one of the petitioners. As noted by the
commenters, Dr. Knisley has stated that his research focuses on the
conservation of rare tiger beetles and unique natural areas. There is
no basis or evidence to support the commenters' claims of bias on Dr.
Knisley's part.
(32) Comment: Two commenters claim that photographs published in
Brzoska et al. (2011, entire) appear to be digitally enhanced and, if
so, must be fully disclosed. One of these commenters also presents
pictures of the Miami and scabrous tiger beetles from the Florida State
Collection of Arthropods (FSCA) and claims there are no discernible
differences other than color.
Our Response: Photographs of specimens in Brzoska et al. (2011,
entire) were taken by Christopher Wirth. He has informed us that the
photographs were not digitally enhanced, and rely only on reflected
flash lighting (Wirth, 2016b, pers. comm.). In regard to the
photographs taken from the FSCA, it appears that the Miami and scabrous
tiger beetles not only differ in coloration, but also the presence of a
medial spot and thicker apical lunule (crescent shape) in the scabrous
tiger beetle.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
Based on information we received in peer review and public
comments, we made the following changes:
In the Background section:
(1) We included larval microhabitat as an important factor to
differentiate species.
(2) We revised the historical range of the Miami tiger beetle as
possibly localized considering the lack of collection for nearly 70
years.
(3) We updated literature citations to those most currently
available and replaced and removed citations from Duran and Gwiazdowski
(in preparation) and Spomer (2014, pers. comm.), respectively.
In the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section:
(4) We included run-off from potential development as a threat to
habitat quality.
(5) We included discussion of the Zika virus under the potential
for pesticide exposure.
(6) We included new observations of robber fly species in Miami
tiger beetle habitat.
(7) We revised wording related to the location of the two known
Miami tiger beetle populations.
(8) We added a citation and text pertaining to the necessity of
fire to maintain pine rockland habitat.
(9) We included the State of Florida's biological status review of
the Miami tiger beetle.
(10) We included new information on known collection of the Miami
tiger beetle.
(11) We included text regarding maintenance of EELs lands within
Miami-Dade County.
(12) We made minor editorial changes in verb tense, language
clarification, and redundant word usage.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR
part 424 set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on any of the following
five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of
the above threat factors, singly or in combination. Each of these
factors is discussed below:
[[Page 68994]]
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The Miami tiger beetle is threatened by habitat loss and
modification caused by changes in land use and inadequate land
management, including the lack of prescribed burns and vegetation
(native and nonnative) encroachment (discussed separately below).
Habitat loss and modification are expected to continue and increase,
affecting any populations on private lands as well as those on
protected lands that depend on management actions (i.e., prescribed
fire) where these actions could be precluded by surrounding
development.
Habitat Loss
The Miami tiger beetle has experienced substantial destruction,
modification, and curtailment of its habitat and range (Brzoska et al.
2011, pp. 5-6; Knisley 2013, pp. 7-8; Knisley 2015a, p. 11). The pine
rockland community of south Florida, on which the beetle depends, is
critically imperiled globally (FNAI 2013, p. 3). Destruction of the
pinelands for economic development has reduced this habitat by 90
percent on mainland south Florida (O'Brien 1998, p. 208). Outside of
ENP, only about 1 percent of the Miami Rock Ridge pinelands have
escaped clearing, and much of what is left is in small remnant blocks
isolated from other natural areas (Herndon 1998, p. 1).
One of the two known populations of the Miami tiger beetle occurs
within the Richmond Pine Rocklands, on parcels of publicly or privately
owned lands that are partially developed, yet retain some undeveloped
pine rockland habitat. In the 1940s, the Naval Air Station Richmond was
built largely on what is currently the Zoo Miami parcel. Much of the
currently occupied Miami tiger beetle habitat on the Zoo Miami parcel
was scraped for the creation of runways and blimp hangars (Wirth 2015,
entire). The fact that this formerly scraped pine rockland area now
provides suitable habitat for the Miami tiger beetle demonstrates the
restoration potential of disturbed pine rockland habitat (Possley 2015,
entire; Wirth 2015, entire).
Any current known or unknown, extant Miami tiger beetle populations
or potentially suitable habitat that may occur on private lands or non-
conservation public lands, such as elsewhere within the Richmond Pine
Rocklands or surrounding pine rocklands, are vulnerable to habitat
loss. Miami-Dade County leads the State in gross urban density at 8,343
people per square mile (https://www.bebr.ufl.edu/population/publications/measuring-population-density-counties-florida [accessed
May 18, 2016]), and development and human population growth are
expected to continue in the future. By 2025, Miami-Dade County is
predicted to near or exceed a population size of 3 million people
(Rayer and Wang 2016, p. 7). This predicted economic and population
growth will further increase demands for land, water, and other
resources, which will undoubtedly exacerbate the threats to the
survival and recovery of the Miami tiger beetle.
Remaining habitat is at risk of additional losses and degradation.
Of high and specific concern are proposed development projects within
the Richmond Pine Rocklands (CBD et al. 2014, pp. 19-24). In 2013,
plans for potential development on portions of the Zoo Miami and USCG
parcels were announced in local newspapers (Munzenrieder 2013, entire)
and subsequently advertised through other mechanisms (https://www.miamidade.gov/dpmww/SolicitationDetails.aspx?Id=Invitation%20To%20Negotiate%20(ITN)
[accessed April 24, 2014]). The proposed development includes the
following: Theme park rides; a seasonally opened water park; a 400-room
hotel with a Sony Music Theatre performance venue; a 2,900-square meter
(30,000-square feet) retail and restaurant village; an entertainment
center with movie theaters and bowling; an outdoor area for sports; a
landscaped pedestrian and bike path; parking; and a 2.4-km (1.5-mi)
transportation link that unifies the project's parts (Dinkova 2014a, p.
1). The proposed development will require at least a portion of the
USCG parcel, which would occur through purchase or a land swap (Dinkova
2014b, p. 1).
The Service notified Miami-Dade County in a December 2, 2014,
letter about proposed development concerns with potential impacts to
listed, candidate, and imperiled species, including the Miami tiger
beetle. Plans for the proposed development on the Zoo Miami and USCG
parcels have yet to be finalized, so potential impacts to the Miami
tiger beetle and its habitat cannot be fully assessed. However, based
upon available information provided to date, it appears that the
proposed development will impact suitable or potentially suitable
beetle habitat.
In July 2014, the Service became aware of another proposed
development project on privately owned lands within the Richmond Pine
Rocklands. In a July 15, 2014, letter to the proposed developer, the
Service named the Miami tiger beetle (along with other federally listed
and proposed species and habitats) as occurring within the project
footprint, and expressed concern over indirect impacts (e.g., the
ability to conduct prescribed fire within the Richmond Pine Rocklands).
Based upon applicant plans received in May 2015, the proposed project
will contain a variety of commercial, residential, and other
development within approximately 56 ha (138 ac) (Ram 2015, p. 4). It is
unknown if the Miami tiger beetle occurs on the proposed development
site, as only one limited survey has been conducted on a small portion
(approximately 1.7 ha (4.3 ac)) of the proposed development area and
more surveys are needed. Based upon available information, it appears
that the proposed developments will likely impact suitable or
potentially suitable beetle habitat, because roughly 13 ha (33 ac) of
the proposed development are planned for intact and degraded pine
rocklands (Ram 2015, p. 91). The Service has met with the developers to
learn more about their plans and how they will address listed,
candidate, and imperiled species issues; negotiations are continuing,
and a draft habitat conservation plan has been developed (Ram 2015,
entire).
Given the species' highly restricted range and uncertain viability,
any additional losses are significant. Additional development might
further limit the ability to conduct prescribed burns or other
beneficial management activities that are necessary to maintain the
open areas within pine rockland habitat that are required by the
beetle. The pattern of public and private ownership presents an urban
wildland interface, which is a known constraint for implementing
prescribed fire in similar pine rockland habitats (i.e., at National
Key Deer Refuge and in southern Miami-Dade County) (Snyder et al. 2005,
p. 2; Service 2009, p. 50; 79 FR 47180, August 12, 2014; 79 FR 52567,
September 4, 2014). The Florida Department of Forestry has limited
staff in Miami-Dade County, and they have been reluctant to set fires
for liability reasons (URS 2007, p. 39) (see ``Land Management,''
below). In addition to constraints with fire management, run-off from
development (e.g., structures, asphalt, concrete) into adjacent pine
rockland habitat will likely increase and further alter the habitat
quality (Schultz, 2016, pers. comm.).
In summary, given the Miami tiger beetle's highly restricted range
and uncertain viability, any additional losses of habitat within its
current range present substantial threats to its survival and recovery.
[[Page 68995]]
Land Management
The threat of habitat destruction or modification is further
exacerbated by a lack of adequate fire management (Brzoska et al. 2011,
pp. 5-6; Knisley 2013, pp. 7-8; Knisley 2015a, p. 2). Historically,
lightning-induced fires were a vital component in maintaining native
vegetation within the pine rockland ecosystem, as well as for opening
patches in the vegetation required by the beetles (Loope and Dunevitz
1981, p. 5; Slocum et al. 2003, p. 93; Snyder et al. 2005, p. 1;
Knisley 2011a, pp. 31-32). Open patches in the landscape, which allow
for ample sunlight for thermoregulation, are necessary for Miami tiger
beetles to perform their normal activities, such as foraging, mating,
and oviposition (Knisley 2011a, p. 32). Larvae also require these open
patches to complete their development free from vegetation
encroachment.
Without fire, successional change from tropical pineland to
hardwood hammock is rapid, and displacement of native plants by
invasive, nonnative plants often occurs, resulting in vegetation
overgrowth and litter accumulation in the open, bare, sandy patches
that are necessary for the Miami tiger beetle. In the absence of fire,
pine rockland will succeed to tropical hardwood hammock in 20 to 30
years, as a thick duff layer accumulates and eventually results in the
appearance of organic rich humic soils rather than organic poor mineral
soils (Alexander 1967, p. 863; Wade et al. 1980, p. 92; Loope and
Dunevitz 1981, p. 6; Snyder et al. 1990, p. 260). Fire is not only a
necessity for maintaining pine rockland habitat, but also for
preventing catastrophic loss to surrounding property and life in an
urban landscape (URS 2007, p. 38). Studies and management plans have
emphasized the necessity of prescribed fire in pine rockland habitat
and highlighted it as preferential, compared to the alternatives to
prescribed fire (e.g., herbicide application and mechanical treatment)
(Snyder et al. 2005, p. 1; URS 2007, p. 39).
Miami-Dade County has implemented various conservation measures,
such as burning in a mosaic pattern and on a small scale, during
prescribed burns, to help conserve the Miami tiger beetles and other
imperiled species and their habitats (URS, 2007, p. J. Maguire, 2010,
pers. comm.). Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation staff has burned
several of its conservation lands on fire return intervals of
approximately 3 to 7 years. However, implementation of the county's
prescribed fire program has been hampered by a shortage of resources,
logistical difficulties, smoke management, and public concern related
to burning next to residential areas (Snyder et al. 2005, p. 2; FNAI
2010, p. 5). Many homes and other developments have been built in a
mosaic of pine rockland, so the use of prescribed fire in many places
has become complicated because of potential danger to structures and
smoke generated from the burns. The risk of liability and limited staff
in Miami-Dade County has hindered prescribed fire efforts (URS 2007, p.
39). Nonprofit organizations, such as the Institute for Regional
Conservation, have faced similar challenges in conducting prescribed
burns, due to difficulties with permitting and obtaining the necessary
permissions, as well as hazard insurance limitations (Bradley and Gann
2008, p. 17; G. Gann, 2013, pers. comm.). Few private landowners have
the means or desire to implement prescribed fire on their property, and
doing so in a fragmented urban environment is logistically difficult
and costly (Bradley and Gann 2008, p. 3). Lack of management has
resulted in rapid habitat decline on most of the small pine rockland
fragments, with the disappearance of federally listed and candidate
species where they once occurred (Bradley and Gann 2008, p. 3).
Despite efforts to use prescribed fire as a management tool in pine
rockland habitat, sites with the Miami tiger beetle are not burned as
frequently as needed to maintain suitable beetle habitat. Most of the
occupied beetle habitat at Miami-Dade County's Zoo Miami parcel was
last burned in January and October of 2007; by 2010, there was
noticeable vegetation encroachment into suitable habitat patches
(Knisley 2011a, p. 36). The northern portion (Zoo A) of the Zoo Miami
site was burned in November 2014 (Knisley 2015c, p. 3). Several
occupied locations at the CSTARS parcel were burned in 2010, but four
other locations at CSTARS were last burned in 2004 and 2006 (Knisley
2011a, p. 36). No recent burns are believed to have occurred at the
USCG parcel (Knisley 2011a, p. 36). The decline in adult numbers at the
two primary Zoo Miami patches (A and B) in 2014 surveys, and the few
larvae found there in recent years, may be a result of the observed
loss of bare open patches (Knisley 2015a, p. 12; Knisley 2015c, pp. 1-
3). Surveys of the CSTARS and USCG parcels in 2014 found similar loss
of open patches from encroaching vegetation (Knisley 2015a, p. 13).
Alternatives to prescribed fire, such as mechanical removal of
woody vegetation, are not as ecologically effective as fire. Mechanical
treatments do not replicate fire's ability to recycle nutrients to the
soil, a process that is critical to many pine rockland species (URS
2007, p. 39). To prevent organic soils from developing, uprooted woody
debris requires removal, which adds to the required labor. The use of
mechanical equipment can also damage soils and inadvertently include
the removal or trampling of other nontarget species or critical habitat
(URS 2007, p. 39).
Nonnative plants have significantly affected pine rocklands
(Bradley and Gann 1999, pp. 15, 72; Bradley and Gann 2005, numbers not
applicable; Bradley and van der Heiden 2013, pp. 12-16). As a result of
human activities, at least 277 taxa of nonnative plants have invaded
pine rocklands throughout south Florida (Service 1999, p. 3-175).
Neyraudia neyraudiana (Burma reed) and Schinus terebinthifolius
(Brazilian pepper), which have the ability to rapidly invade open
areas, threaten the habitat needs of the Miami tiger beetle (Bradley
and Gann 1999, pp. 13, 72). S. terebinthifolius, a nonnative tree, is
the most widespread and one of the most invasive species. It forms
dense thickets of tangled, woody stems that completely shade out and
displace native vegetation (Loflin 1991, p. 19; Langeland and Craddock
Burks 1998, p. 54). Acacia auriculiformis (earleaf acacia), Melinis
repens (natal grass), Lantana camara (shrub verbena), and Albizia
lebbeck (tongue tree) are some of the other nonnative species in pine
rocklands. More species of nonnative plants could become problems in
the future, such as Lygodium microphyllum (Old World climbing fern),
which is a serious threat throughout south Florida.
Nonnative, invasive plants compete with native plants for space,
light, water, and nutrients, and make habitat conditions unsuitable for
the Miami tiger beetle, which responds positively to open conditions.
Invasive nonnatives also affect the characteristics of a fire when it
does occur. Historically, pine rocklands had an open, low understory
where natural fires remained patchy with low temperature intensity.
Dense infestations of Neyraudia neyraudiana and Schinus
terebinthifolius cause higher fire temperatures and longer burning
periods. With the presence of invasive, nonnative species, it is
uncertain how fire, even under a managed situation, will affect habitat
conditions or Miami tiger beetles.
Management of nonnative, invasive plants in pine rocklands in
Miami-Dade County is further complicated because the vast majority of
pine rocklands are
[[Page 68996]]
small, fragmented areas bordered by urban development. Fragmentation
results in an increased proportion of ``edge'' habitat, which in turn
has a variety of effects, including changes in microclimate and
community structure at various distances from the edge (Margules and
Pressey 2000, p. 248); altered spatial distribution of fire (greater
fire frequency in areas nearer the edge) (Cochrane 2001, pp. 1518-
1519); and increased pressure from nonnative, invasive plants and
animals that may out-compete or disturb native plant populations.
Additionally, areas near managed pine rockland that contain nonnative
species can act as a seed source of nonnatives, allowing them to
continue to invade the surrounding pine rockland (Bradley and Gann
1999, p. 13).
Conservation Efforts To Reduce the Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range
In 2005, the Service funded the Institute for Regional Conservation
(IRC) to facilitate restoration and management of privately owned pine
rockland habitats in Miami-Dade County. This initiative included
prescribed burns, nonnative plant control, light debris removal,
hardwood management, reintroduction of pines where needed, and
development of management plans. The Pine Rockland Initiative includes
10-year cooperative agreements between participating landowners and the
Service/IRC to ensure restored areas will be managed appropriately
during that time. Although most of these objectives regarding nonnative
plant control, creation of firebreaks, removal of excessive fuel loads,
and management plans have been achieved, IRC has not been able to
conduct the desired prescribed burns, due to logistical difficulties as
discussed above (see ``Land Management''). IRC has recently resolved
some of the challenges regarding contractor availability for prescribed
burns and the Service has extended IRC's funding period through August
2016. Results from anticipated fire management restoration activities
will be available in the fall of 2016.
Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden, with the support of various
Federal, State, local, and nonprofit organizations, has established the
``Connect to Protect Network.'' The objective of this program is to
encourage widespread participation of citizens to create corridors of
healthy pine rocklands by planting stepping stone gardens and rights-
of-way with native pine rockland species, and restoring isolated pine
rockland fragments. Although these projects may serve as valuable
components toward the conservation of pine rockland species and
habitat, they are dependent on continual funding, as well as
participation from private landowners, both of which may vary through
time.
Summary of Factor A
We have identified a number of threats to the habitat of the Miami
tiger beetle that occurred in the past, continue currently, and are
expected to impact the species in the future. Habitat loss,
fragmentation, and degradation, and associated pressures from increased
human population, are major threats; these threats are expected to
continue, placing the species at greater risk. The species' occurrence
on pine rocklands that are partially protected from development (see
``Local'' under Factor D, below) tempers some impacts, yet the threat
of further loss and fragmentation of habitat remains. Various
conservation programs are in place, and while these help to reduce some
threats of habitat loss and modification, these programs are limited in
nature. In general, available resources and land management activities
(e.g., prescribed fire and invasive plant control) on public and
private lands are inadequate to prevent modification and degradation of
the species' habitat. Therefore, based on our analysis of the best
available information, the present and future loss and modification of
the species' habitat are major threats to the Miami tiger beetle
throughout its range.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Collection
Rare beetles, butterflies, and moths are highly prized by
collectors. Tiger beetles are the subject of more intense collecting
and study than any other single beetle group (Pearson 1988, pp. 123-
124; Knisley and Hill 1992a, p. 9; Choate 1996, p. 1; Knisley et al.
2014, p. 94). Interest in the genus Cicindela (and Cicindelidia) is
reflected in a journal entitled ``Cicindela,'' which has been published
quarterly since 1969 and is exclusively devoted to the genus. Tiger
beetle collecting and the sale and trade of specimens have increased in
popularity in recent years (Knisley et al. 2014, p. 138). Among the
professional researchers and many amateurs that collect tiger beetles
are individuals that take only small numbers; however, there are also
avid collectors who take as many specimens as possible, often for sale
or trade. At present, it is estimated that nationally 50 to 100
individuals collect tiger beetles, and approximately 50 individuals are
avid collectors (Knisley 2015b, p. 14). Knowledge of and communication
with many of these collectors suggest sale and trading of specimens has
become much more common in recent years. The increased interest in
collecting, along with photographing specimens, seems to have been
stimulated in part due to the publication of the tiger beetle field
guide (Pearson et al. 2006, entire). Collectors are especially
interested in the less common forms, and may have little regard for
their conservation (Knisley 2015b, p. 14). Recently, there was posting
on social media from a tiger beetle collector with images of several
rare species, including nine specimens of the Miami tiger beetle that
are thought to have been collected at Zoo Miami (Wirth, 2016a, pers.
comm.). There is ample evidence of collectors impacting imperiled and
endangered butterflies (Gochfeld and Burger 1997, pp. 208-209) and even
contributing to extirpations (Duffey 1968, p. 94). For example, the
federally endangered Mitchell's satyr (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii)
is believed to have been extirpated from New Jersey due to
overcollecting (57 FR 21567, May 20, 1992; Gochfeld and Burger 1997, p.
209).
Collection is a serious threat to the Miami tiger beetle due to the
species' extreme rarity (a factor that increases demand by collectors)
and vulnerability (i.e., uncertain status and viability with just two
known populations and few individuals). Collection is especially
problematic if adults are taken prior to oviposition or from small,
isolated, or poor-quality sites. Because no large, high-quality sites
are currently known, any collection can have serious ramifications on
the survival of the remaining population(s).
The recent description of the species did not disclose the exact
locations of occurrence, due to concerns with collection (Brzoska et
al. 2011, p. 5); however, it is now believed that occurrences at Zoo
Miami, USCG, and CSTARS in the Richmond population are fairly well
known, especially in the tiger beetle collecting community (B. Knisley,
2014b, pers. comm.). We have no specific information on the collection
pressure for the Miami tiger beetle, but it is expected to be high
based upon what has transpired in comparable situations with other
federally listed and imperiled tiger beetles and butterflies both
nationwide and in Florida. For example, the federally endangered Ohlone
tiger beetle (Cicindela ohlone) was collected from its type locality in
California after its
[[Page 68997]]
description in the scientific literature (66 FR 50340, October 3, 2001)
(Knisley 2015a, p. 14). Similarly, overcollection of the Highlands
tiger beetle may have contributed to the extirpation of that species
from its type locality in Florida (Knisley and Hill 1992a, p. 9). An
estimated 500 to 1,000 adult Highlands tiger beetles had been collected
at this site during a several year period after its initial discovery
(Knisley and Hill 1992a, p. 10).
Markets currently exist for tiger beetles. Specimens of two Florida
tiger beetles, the Highlands tiger beetle, a Federal candidate species,
and the scabrous tiger beetle are regularly offered for sale or trade
through online insect dealers (The Bugmaniac 2015 and eBay 2015).
Considering the recent rediscovery of the Miami tiger beetle and
concerns regarding its continued existence, the desirability of this
species to private collectors is expected to increase, which may lead
to similar markets and increased demand.
Another reason it is not possible to assess actual impacts from
collection is that known occurrences of the Miami tiger beetle are not
regularly monitored. Two known occurrences on the USCG and CSTARS
parcels are gated and accessible only by permit, so collection from
these sites is unlikely unless authorized by the property owners.
However, other occupied and potential habitats at neighboring and
surrounding areas are much more accessible. Risk of collection is
concerning at any location and is more likely at less secure sites.
Collection potential at Zoo Miami and other accessible sites is high,
in part because it is not entirely gated and only periodically
patrolled (Knisley, 2014b, pers. comm.). Most of the remaining pine
rockland habitat outside of ENP in Miami-Dade County is owned by the
County or in private ownership and not regularly monitored or
patrolled.
We consider collection to be a significant threat to the Miami
tiger beetle in light of the few known remaining populations, low
abundance, and highly restricted range. Even limited collection from
the remaining populations could have deleterious effects on
reproductive and genetic viability of the species and could contribute
to its extinction. Removal of adults early in the flight season or
prior to oviposition can be particularly damaging, as it further
reduces potential for successful reproduction. A population may be
reduced to below sustainable numbers (Allee effect) by removal of
females, reducing the probability that new occurrences will be founded.
Small and isolated occurrences in poor habitat may be at greatest risk
(see Factor E discussion, below) as these might not be able to
withstand additional losses. Collectors may be unable to recognize when
they are depleting occurrences below the thresholds of survival or
recovery (Collins and Morris 1985, pp. 162-165).
With regard to scientific research, we do not believe that general
techniques used to date have had negative impacts on the species or its
habitat. Visual index surveys and netting for identification purposes
have been performed during scientific research and conservation efforts
with the potential to disturb or injure individuals or damage habitat.
Limited collection as part of laboratory rearing studies or taxonomic
verification has occurred at some sites, with work authorized by
permits. Based on the extreme rarity of the species, various collecting
techniques (e.g., pitfall traps, Malaise traps, light traps) for other
more general insect research projects should be considered a potential
threat.
Summary of Factor B
Collection interest in tiger beetles, especially rare species, is
high, and markets currently exist. While it is not possible to quantify
the impacts of collection on the Miami tiger beetle, collection of the
Highlands tiger beetle has been documented in large numbers, and
collection is currently occurring. The risk of collection of the Miami
tiger beetle from both occupied and other potential habitat is high, as
some sites are generally accessible and not monitored or patrolled. Due
to the combination of few remaining populations, low abundance, and
restricted range, we have determined that collection is a significant
threat to the species and could potentially occur at any time. Even
limited collection from the remaining populations could have negative
effects on reproductive and genetic viability of the species and could
contribute to its extinction.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
There is no evidence of disease or pathogens affecting the Miami
tiger beetle, although this threat has not been investigated. Parasites
and predators, however, have been found to have significant impacts on
adult and larval tiger beetles. In general, parasites are considered to
have greater effects on tiger beetles than predators (Nagano 1982, p.
34; Pearson 1988, pp. 136-138). While parasites and predators play
important roles in the natural dynamics of tiger beetle populations,
the current small size of the Miami tiger beetle populations may render
the species more vulnerable to parasitism and predation than
historically, when the species was more widely distributed and,
therefore, more resilient.
Known predators of adult tiger beetles include birds, lizards,
spiders, and especially robber flies (family Asilidae) (Pearson et al.
2006, p. 183). Researchers and collectors have often observed robber
flies in the field capturing tiger beetles out of the air. Pearson
(1985, pp. 68-69; 1988, p. 134) found tiger beetles with orange
abdomens (warning coloration) were preyed upon less frequently than
similar-sized tiger beetles without the orange abdomens. His field
trials also determined that size alone provided some protection from
robber flies, which are usually only successful in killing prey that is
smaller than they are. This was the case with the hairy-necked tiger
beetle (Cicindela hirticollis) being attacked at a significantly higher
rate than the larger northeastern beach tiger beetle in Maryland
(Knisley and Hill 2010, pp. 54-55).
On the basis of these field studies, it was estimated that robber
flies may cause over 50 percent mortality to the hairy-necked tiger
beetle and 6 percent to the northeastern beach tiger beetle population
throughout the flight season (Knisley and Hill 2010, pp. 54-55). The
small body size of the Miami tiger beetle, even with its orange
abdomen, suggests it would be susceptible to robber fly attack. A few
species of robber flies (Polacantha gracilis, Triorla interrupta,
Efferia sp., and Diogmites sp.) have been observed in pine rocklands
where the Miami tiger beetle is present (Mays and Cook 2015, p. 5; J.
Kardys, 2016, pers. comm.); however, they are a common predator of the
closely related Highlands tiger beetle (Knisley and Hill 2013, p. 40).
In 24 hours of field study, Knisley and Hill (2013, p. 40) observed 22
attacks by robber flies on Highlands tiger beetles, 5 of which resulted
in the robber fly killing and consuming the adult beetles.
Most predators of adult tiger beetles are opportunistic, feeding on
a variety of available prey and, therefore, probably have only a
limited impact on tiger beetle populations. However, predators, and
especially parasites, of larvae are more common, and some attack only
tiger beetles. Ants are regarded as important predators on tiger
beetles, and although not well studied, they have been reported having
significant impact on first instar larvae of some Arizona tiger beetles
(Cicindela spp.) (Knisley and Juliano 1988, p. 1990). A study with the
Highlands tiger beetle found ants accounted for 11 to 17 percent of
larval mortality at several sites, primarily involving first instars
(Knisley and Hill
[[Page 68998]]
2013, p. 37). During surveys for the Miami tiger beetle, various
species of ants were commonly seen co-occurring in the sandy patches
with adults and larvae, but their impact, if any, is unknown at this
time.
Available literature indicates that the most important tiger beetle
natural enemies are tiphiid wasps and bombyliid flies, which parasitize
larvae (Knisley and Schultz 1997, pp. 53-57). The wasps enter the
larvae burrows, and paralyze and lay an egg on the larvae. The
resulting parasite larva consumes the host tiger beetle larva.
Bombyliid flies (genus Anthrax) drop eggs into larval burrows with the
resulting fly larvae consuming the tiger beetle larva. These
parasitoids accounted for 20 to 80 percent mortality in larvae of
several northeastern tiger beetles (Pearson and Vogler 2001, p. 172).
Parasitism from bombyliid flies accounted for 13 to 25 percent
mortality to larvae of the Highlands tiger beetle at several sites
(Knisley and Hill 2013, p. 37). Generally, these rates of parasitism
are similar to those reported for other species of tiger beetles (Bram
and Knisley 1982, p. 99; Palmer 1982, p. 64; Knisley 1987, p. 1198). No
tiphiid wasps or bombyliid flies were observed during field studies
with the Miami tiger beetle (Knisley 2015a, p. 15); however, tiphiid
wasps are small, secretive, and evidence of their attacks is difficult
to find (Knisley 2015b, p. 16).
Summary of Factor C
Potential impacts from predators or parasites to the Miami tiger
beetle are unknown. Given the small size of the Miami tiger beetle's
two populations, the species is likely vulnerable to predation and
parasitism.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service to take into
account ``those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign
nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to
protect such species. . . .'' In relation to Factor D, we interpret
this language to require the Service to consider relevant Federal,
State, and Tribal laws, plans, regulations, and other such mechanisms
that may minimize any of the threats we describe in threat analyses
under the other four factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the
species. We give strongest weight to statutes and their implementing
regulations and to management direction that stems from those laws and
regulations. An example would be State governmental actions enforced
under a State statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
Federal
The Miami tiger beetle currently has no Federal protective status
and has limited regulatory protection in its known occupied and
suitable habitat. The species is not known to occur on National
Wildlife Refuge System or National Park Service land. The Miami tiger
beetle is known to occur on USCG lands within the Richmond Pinelands
Complex, and there are limited protections for the species on this
property; any USCG actions or decisions that may have an effect on the
environment would require consideration and review under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). No Federal
permit or other authorization is currently needed for potential impacts
to known occurrences on county-owned and private land. The Miami tiger
beetle could be afforded limited protections from sections 7 and 10 of
the Act based on its co-occurrence with listed species or their
critical habitat, if applicable, within the Richmond Pine Rocklands,
including species such as the Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly
(Strymon acis bartrami), Florida leafwing butterfly (Anaea troglodyta
floridalis), Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus), Brickellia
mosieri (Florida brickell-bush), Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter's
small-flowered flax), Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea (deltoid
spurge), and Polygala smallii (tiny polygala). However, effect
determinations and minimization and avoidance criteria for any of these
listed species are unlikely to be fully protective to the Miami tiger
beetle considering its extreme rarity. The listed species have broader
distributions that allow for more flexibility with appropriate
conservation measures. In contrast, with only two known populations and
few remaining adults, the Miami tiger beetle has a much lower threat
tolerance. Although the beetle is not currently federally protected,
the Service has met with Miami-Dade County, the USCG, the University of
Miami, and potential developers to express our concern regarding
listed, proposed, candidate, and imperiled species in the Richmond Pine
Rocklands, including the Miami tiger beetle. We have recommended that
management and habitat conservation plans include and fully consider
this species and its habitat.
State
The Miami tiger beetle is not currently listed as endangered or
threatened by the State of Florida, so there are no existing
regulations designated to protect it. The Miami tiger beetle is
recognized as a species of greatest conservation need by the FWC (FWC
2012, p. 89). Species of greatest conservation need designation is part
of the State's strategy to recognize and seek funding opportunities for
research and conservation of these species, particularly through the
State Wildlife Grants program. The list is extensive and, to date, we
are unaware of any dedicated funding from this program for the beetle.
The State was also petitioned and has started a biological status
review of the species. The Miami tiger beetle is not known to occur on
lands owned by the State of Florida; however, not all State-owned pine
rockland parcels have been adequately surveyed. It is possible that
some State-owned parcels do provide potentially suitable habitat for,
and support occurrences of, the Miami tiger beetle.
Local
In 1984, section 24-49 of the Code of Miami-Dade County established
regulation of County-designated Natural Forested Communities (NFCs),
which include both pine rocklands and tropical hardwood hammocks. These
regulations were placed on specific properties throughout the county by
an act of the Board of County Commissioners in an effort to protect
environmentally sensitive forest lands. The Miami-Dade County
Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) has regulatory
authority over NFCs, and is charged with enforcing regulations that
provide partial protection on the Miami Rock Ridge. Miami-Dade Code
typically allows up to 20 percent of a pine rockland designated as NFC
to be developed, and requires that the remaining 80 percent be placed
under a perpetual covenant. In certain circumstances, where the
landowner can demonstrate that limiting development to 20 percent does
not allow for ``reasonable use'' of the property, additional
development may be approved. NFC landowners are also required to obtain
an NFC permit for any work within the boundaries of the NFC on their
property. The NFC program is responsible for ensuring that NFC permits
are issued in accordance with the limitations and requirements of the
code and that appropriate NFC preserves are established and maintained
in conjunction with the issuance of an NFC permit. The NFC program
currently regulates approximately 600 pine rockland or pine rockland/
hammock properties, comprising approximately 1,200 ha
[[Page 68999]]
(3,000 ac) of habitat (J. Joyner, 2013, pers. comm.). When RER
discovers unpermitted activities, it takes appropriate enforcement
action, and seeks restoration when possible. Because these regulations
allow for development of pine rockland habitat, and because unpermitted
development and destruction of pine rockland continues to occur, the
regulations are not fully effective at protecting against loss of Miami
tiger beetles or their potential habitat.
Under Miami-Dade County ordinance (section 26-1), a permit is
required to conduct scientific research (rule 9) on county
environmental lands. In addition, rule 8 of this ordinance provides for
the preservation of habitat within County parks or areas operated by
the Parks and Recreation Department. The scientific research permitting
effectively allows the County to monitor and manage the level of
scientific research and collection of the Miami tiger beetle, and the
preservation of pine rockland habitat benefits the beetle.
Fee Title Properties: In 1990, Miami-Dade County voters approved a
2-year property tax to fund the acquisition, protection, and
maintenance of environmentally endangered lands (EEL). The EEL Program
identifies and secures these lands for preservation. Under this program
to date, Miami-Dade County has acquired a total of approximately 255 ha
(630 ac) of pine rocklands. In addition, approximately 445 ha (1,550
ac) of pine rocklands are owned by the Miami-Dade County Parks and
Recreation Department and managed by the EEL Program, including some of
the largest remaining areas of pine rockland habitat on the Miami Rock
Ridge outside of ENP (e.g., Larry and Penny Thompson Park, Zoo Miami
pinelands, and Navy Wells Pineland Preserve) (http://www.miamidade.gov/environment/endangered-lands.asp#1 [Accessed May 11, 2016]).
Unfortunately, many of these pine rocklands are not managed to maintain
the open, sparsely vegetated areas that are needed by the beetle.
Summary of Factor D
There are some regulatory mechanisms currently in place to protect
the Miami tiger beetle and its habitat on non-Federal lands. However,
there are no Federal regulatory protections for the Miami tiger beetle,
other than the limited protections afforded for listed species and
critical habitat that co-occur with the Miami tiger beetle. While local
regulations provide some protection, they are generally not fully
effective (e.g., NFC regulations allow development of 20 percent or
more of pine rockland habitat) or implemented sufficiently (e.g.,
unpermitted clearing of pine rockland habitat) to alleviate threats to
the Miami tiger beetle and its habitat. The degradation of habitat for
the Miami tiger beetle is ongoing despite existing regulatory
mechanisms. Based on our analysis of the best available information, we
find that existing regulatory measures, due to a variety of
constraints, are inadequate to fully address threats to the species
throughout its range.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Few, Small, Isolated Populations
The Miami tiger beetle is vulnerable to extinction due to its
severely reduced range, the fact that only two small populations
remain, and the species' relative isolation.
Demographic stochasticity refers to random variability in survival
or reproduction among individuals within a population (Shaffer 1981, p.
131). Demographic stochasticity can have a significant impact on
population viability for populations that are small, have low
fecundity, and are short-lived. In small populations, reduced
reproduction or die-offs of a certain age-class will have a significant
effect on the whole population. Although of only minor consequence to
large populations, this randomly occurring variation in individuals
becomes an important issue for small populations.
Environmental stochasticity is the variation in birth and death
rates from one season to the next in response to weather, disease,
competition, predation, or other factors external to the population
(Shaffer 1981, p. 131). For example, drought or predation, in
combination with a low population year, could result in extirpation.
The origin of the environmental stochastic event can be natural or
human-caused.
In general, tiger beetles that have been regularly monitored
consistently exhibit extreme fluctuations in population size, often
apparently due to climatic or other habitat factors that affect
recruitment, population growth, and other population parameters. In 20
or more years of monitoring, most populations of the northeastern beach
and puritan tiger beetles (Cicindela puritan) have exhibited 2 to 5 or
more fold differences in abundance (Knisley 2012, entire). Annual
population estimates of the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle
(Cicindela albissima) have ranged from fewer than 600 to nearly 3,000
adults over a 22-year period (Gowan and Knisley 2014, p. 124). The
Miami tiger beetle has not been monitored as extensively as these
species, but in areas where Miami tiger beetles were repeatedly
surveyed, researchers found fluctuations that were several fold in
numbers (Knisley 2015a, p. 24). While these fluctuations appear to be
the norm for populations of tiger beetles (and most insects), the
causes and effects are not well known. Among the suggested causes of
these population trends are annual rainfall patterns for the Coral Pink
Sand Dunes tiger beetle (Knisley and Hill 2001, p. 391; Gowan and
Knisley 2014, p. 119), and shoreline erosion from storms for the
northeastern beach and puritan tiger beetles (Knisley 2011b, p. 54). As
a result of these fluctuations, many tiger beetle populations will
experience episodic low numbers (bottlenecks) or even local extinction
from genetic decline, the Allee effect, or other factors. Given that
the Miami tiger beetle is known from only two remaining populations
with few adult individuals, any significant decrease in the population
size could easily result in extinction of the species.
Dispersal and movement of the Miami tiger beetle is unknown, but is
considered to be very limited. A limited mark-recapture study with the
closely related Highlands tiger beetle found that adult beetles moved
no more than 150 m (490 ft), usually flying only 5-10 m (16-33 ft) at a
time (Knisley and Hill 2013). Generally, tiger beetles are known to
easily move around, so exchange of individuals among separated sites
will commonly occur if there are habitat connections or if the sites
are within dispersal range--which is not the case with the population
structure of the Miami tiger beetle. Species in woodland, scrub, or
dune habitats also seem to disperse less than water-edge species
(Knisley and Hill 1996, p. 13). Among tiger beetles, there is a general
trend of decreasing flight distance with decreasing body size (Knisley
and Hill 1996, p. 13). The Miami tiger beetle has a small body size.
Given these factors, dispersal may be limited for the Miami tiger
beetle.
Small, isolated population size was listed as one of several of the
threats in the petition received to list the Miami tiger beetle (CBD et
al. 2014, pp. 17, 30). The effects of low population size on population
viability are not known for tiger beetles, but population viability
analyses for the northeastern beach, puritan, and Coral Pink Sand Dunes
tiger beetles determined that stochasticity, specifically the
fluctuations in population size, was the main factor accounting for the
high risk
[[Page 69000]]
of extinction (Gowan and Knisley 2001, entire; 2005, p. 13; Knisley and
Gowan 2009, pp. 13-23). The long-term monitoring of northeastern beach
and puritan tiger beetles found that, despite the fluctuations, some
small populations with fewer than 50 to 100 adults experienced several
fold declines, but persisted (Knisley 2015b, p. 20). Several Highlands
tiger beetle sites with fewer than 20 to 50 adults were lost over the
past 15-20 years, while several others have persisted during that
period (Knisley 2015b, p. 20). Losses may have been due to habitat
disturbance or low population size effects. Knisley predicts that the
Highlands tiger beetle populations (extinct and extant) are isolated
from each other with little chance for dispersal between populations
and immigration rescues (Knisley, 2015d, pers. comm.). With only two
known populations of the Miami tiger beetle, separated by substantial
urban development, the potential for immigration rescue is low.
Pesticides
Pesticides used in and around pine rockland habitat are a potential
threat to the Miami tiger beetle through direct exposure to adults and
larvae, secondary exposure from insect prey, overall reduction in
availability of adult and larval prey, or any combination of these
factors. The use of pesticides for agriculture and mosquito control
presents potential risks to nontarget insects, especially imperiled
insects (EPA 2002, p. 32; 2006a, p. 58; 2006b, p. 44). The negative
effect of insecticides on several tiger beetle species was suggested by
Nagano (1982, p. 34) and Stamatov (1972, p. 78), although impacts from
pesticides do not appear to be well studied in tiger beetles.
Efforts to control mosquitoes and other insect pests in Florida
have increased as human activity and population size have increased. To
control mosquito populations, organophosphate (naled) and pyrethroid
(permethrin) adulticides are applied by mosquito control districts
throughout south Florida, including Miami-Dade County. These compounds
have been characterized as being highly toxic to nontarget insects by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002, p. 32; 2006a, p. 58;
2006b, p. 44). The use of such pesticides (applied using both aerial
and ground-based methods) for mosquito control presents a potential
risk to the Miami tiger beetle, and this risk may increase with the
spread of any mosquito-borne disease, such as the Zika virus, as
current guidelines to incorporate no-spray buffers around butterfly
critical habitat are not necessarily adhered to if there is a public
health concern (Florida Administrative Code 5E-13.036; Service 2015,
entire).
In order for mosquito control pesticides to be effective, they must
make direct contact with mosquitoes. For this to happen, pesticides are
applied using methods to promote drift through the air, so as to
increase the potential for contact with their intended target organism.
Truck-based permethrin application methods are expected to produce a
swath of suspended pesticides approximately 91 m (300 ft) wide
(Prentiss 2007, p. 4). The extent of pesticide drift from this swath is
dependent on several factors, including wind speed, wind direction, and
vegetation density. Hennessey and Habeck (1989, pp. 1-22; 1991, pp. 1-
68) and Hennessey et al. (1992, pp. 715-721) illustrated the presence
of mosquito spray residues long after application in habitat of the
federally endangered Schaus swallowtail butterfly (Heraclides
aristodemus ponceanus), as well as the Florida leafwing butterfly
(Anaea troglodyta floridalis), Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly,
and other imperiled species. Residues of aerially applied naled were
found 6 hours after application in a pineland area that was 750 m
(2,460 ft) from the target area; residues of fenthion (an adulticide
previously used in the Florida Keys) applied via truck were found up to
50 m (160 ft) downwind in a hammock area 15 minutes after application
in adjacent target areas (Hennessey et al. 1992, pp. 715-721).
More recently, Pierce (2009, pp. 1-17) monitored naled and
permethrin deposition following mosquito control application.
Permethrin, applied by truck, was found to drift considerable distances
from target areas, with residues that persisted for weeks. Permethrin
was detected at concentrations lethal to three butterfly species at a
distance of approximately 227 m (745 ft) away from targeted truck
routes. Naled, applied by plane, was also found to drift into nontarget
areas, but was much less persistent, exhibiting a half-life (time for
half of the naled applied to chemically break down) of approximately 6
hours. To expand this work, Pierce (2011, pp. 6-11) conducted an
additional deposition study in 2010, focusing on permethrin drift from
truck spraying, and again documented low but measurable amounts of
permethrin in nontarget areas. In 2009, Bargar (2012, p. 3) conducted
two field trials that detected significant naled residues at locations
within nontarget areas up to 366 m (1,200 ft) from the edge of zones
targeted for aerial applications. After this discovery, the Florida
Keys Mosquito Control District recalibrated the on-board model
(Wingman, which provides flight guidance and flow rates). Naled
deposition was reduced in some of the nontarget zones following
recalibration (Bargar 2012, p. 3).
In addition to mosquito control chemicals entering nontarget areas,
the toxic effects of such chemicals to nontarget organisms have also
been documented. Lethal effects on nontarget moths and butterflies have
been attributed to fenthion and naled in both south Florida and the
Florida Keys (Emmel 1991, pp. 12-13; Eliazar and Emmel 1991, pp. 18-19;
Eliazar 1992, pp. 29-30). Zhong et al. (2010, pp. 1961-1972)
investigated the impact of single aerial applications of naled on the
endangered Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri)
larvae in the field. Survival of butterfly larvae in the target zone
was 73.9 percent, which was significantly lower than in both the drift
zone (90.6 percent) and the reference (control) zone (100 percent),
indicating that direct exposure to naled poses significant risk to
Miami blue butterfly larvae. Fifty percent of the samples in the drift
zone also exhibited detectable concentrations, once again exhibiting
the potential for mosquito control chemicals to drift into nontarget
areas. Bargar (2012, p. 4) observed cholinesterase activity depression,
to a level shown to cause mortality in the laboratory, in great
southern white (Ascia monuste) and Gulf fritillary butterflies
(Agraulis vanillae) exposed to naled in both target and nontarget
zones.
Based on these studies, it can be concluded that mosquito control
activities that involve the use of both aerial and ground-based
spraying methods have the potential to deliver pesticides in quantities
sufficient to cause adverse effects to nontarget species in both target
and nontarget areas. Pesticide drift at a level of concern to nontarget
invertebrates (butterflies) has been measured up to approximately 227 m
(745 ft) from truck routes (Pierce 2011, pp. 3-5, 7; Rand and Hoang
2010, pp. 14, 23) and 400 m (1,312 ft) from aerial spray zones (Bargar
2012, p. 3). It should be noted that many of the studies referenced
above dealt with single application scenarios and examined effects on
only one or two butterfly life stages. Under a realistic scenario, the
potential exists for exposure to all life stages to occur over multiple
applications in a season. In the case of a persistent compound like
permethrin, whose residues remain on
[[Page 69001]]
vegetation for weeks, the potential exists for nontarget species to be
exposed to multiple pesticides within a season (e.g., permethrin on
vegetation coupled with aerial exposure to naled).
Prior to 2015, aerial applications of mosquito control pesticides
occurred on a limited basis (approximately two to four aerial
applications per year since 2010) within some of Miami-Dade County's
pine rockland areas. The Miami tiger beetle is not known to occupy any
of these aerial spray zone sites, but any unknown occupied sites could
have been exposed, either directly or through drift. The Richmond Pine
Rocklands region is not directly treated either aerially or by truck
(C. Vasquez, 2013, pers. comm.), so any potential pesticide exposure in
this area would be through drift from spray zones adjacent to the
Richmond area. Pesticide drift from aerial spray zones to the two known
populations of Miami tiger beetles is unlikely, based on the
considerable distance from spray zone boundaries to known occurrences
of the beetle (estimated minimum distances range from 2.0-3.0 km (1.2-
1.9 mi) from the Richmond population and 434 m (0.3 mi) for the second
population). In the past, truck-based applications occurred within 227
m (745 ft) of known occupied Miami tiger beetle habitat, a distance
under which pesticide drift at a concentration of concern for nontarget
invertebrates had been measured (Pierce 2011, pp. 3-5, 7; Rand and
Hoang 2010, pp. 14, 23).
For the 2015 mosquito season (May through October), Miami-Dade
Mosquito Control coordinated with the Service to institute 250-m truck-
based and 400-m aerial spray buffers around critical habitat for the
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly, with the exclusion of pine
rocklands in the Navy Wells area, which is not known to be occupied by
the Miami tiger beetle. These newly implemented buffers will also
reduce exposure to any other imperiled species occurring on pine
rockland habitat within Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly critical
habitat, such as the Miami tiger beetle. Assuming that the Miami tiger
beetle is no more sensitive to pesticide exposure than the tested
butterfly species, these spray buffers should avoid adverse impacts to
the Miami tiger beetle population.
Based on Miami-Dade Mosquito Control's implementation of spray
buffers, mosquito control pesticides are not considered a major threat
for the Miami tiger beetle at this time. If these buffers were to
change or Miami tiger beetles were found to occur on habitat that is
not protected by Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly critical habitat,
then the threat of pesticide exposure would have to be reevaluated.
Human Disturbance
Human disturbance, depending upon type and frequency, may or may
not be a threat to tiger beetles or their habitats. Knisley (2011b,
entire) reviewed both the negative and positive effects of human
disturbances on tiger beetles. Vehicles, bicycles, and human foot
traffic have been implicated in the decline and extirpation of tiger
beetle populations, especially for species in more open habitats like
beaches and sand dunes. The northeastern beach tiger beetle was
extirpated throughout the northeast coincidental with the development
of recreational use from pedestrian foot traffic and vehicles (Knisley
et al. 1987, p. 301). Habroscelimorpha dorsalis media (southeastern
beach tiger beetle) was extirpated from a large section of Assateague
Island National Seashore, Maryland, after the initiation of off-highway
vehicle (OHV) use (Knisley and Hill, 1992b, p. 134). Direct mortality
and indirect effects on habitat from OHVs have been found to threaten
the survival of Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle (Gowan and Knisley
2014, pp. 127-128). The Ohlone tiger beetle has been eliminated from
nearly all natural grassland areas in Santa Cruz, California, except
where pedestrian foot traffic, mountain bike use, or cattle grazing has
created or maintained trails and open patches of habitat (Knisley and
Arnold 2013, p. 578). Similarly, over 20 species of tiger beetles,
including Cicindela decemnotata (Badlands tiger beetle) at Dugway
Proving Ground in Utah, are almost exclusively restricted to roads,
trails, and similar areas kept open by vehicle use or similar human
disturbances (Knisley 2011b, pp. 44-45).
Vehicle activity on seldom-used roads may have some negative effect
on the Miami tiger beetle (i.e., lethal impacts to adults or larvae or
impacts to the habitat), but limited field observations to date
indicate that effects are minimal (Knisley 2015a, p. 16). Observations
in 2014 at Zoo Miami found a few adults along a little-used road and
the main gravel road adjacent to interior patches where adults were
more common (Knisley 2015a, p. 16). These adults may have dispersed
from their primary interior habitat, possibly due to vegetation
encroachment (Knisley 2015a, p. 16). Several of the adults at both
CSTARS and the USCG parcels were also found along dirt roads that were
not heavily used and apparently provided suitable habitat.
The parcels that comprise the two known populations of the Miami
tiger beetle are not open to the public for recreational use, so human
disturbance is unlikely. For any unknown occurrences of the species,
human disturbance from recreational use is a possibility, as some of
the remaining pine rockland sites in Miami-Dade County are open to the
public for recreational use. Miami-Dade County leads the State in gross
urban density at 8,343 people per square mile (https://www.bebr.ufl.edu/population/publications/measuring-population-density-counties-florida [accessed May 18, 2016]), and development and human
population growth are expected to continue in the future. By 2025,
Miami-Dade County is predicted to near or exceed a population size of 3
million people (Rayer and Wang 2016, p. 7). With the expected future
increase in human population and development, there will likely be an
increase in the use of recreational areas, including sites with
potentially suitable habitat and unknown occurrences of Miami tiger
beetles. Projected future increases in recreational use may increase
the levels of human disturbance and negatively impact any unknown
occurrences of the Miami tiger beetle and their habitat.
In summary, vehicular activity and recreational use within the
known population of the Miami tiger beetle presents minimal impacts to
the species. However, future negative impacts to unknown beetle
occurrences on lands open to the public are possible and are expected
to increase with the projected future population growth.
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise
Climatic changes, including sea level rise (SLR), are major threats
to Florida, and could impact the Miami tiger beetle and the few
remaining parcels of pine rockland habitat left in Miami-Dade County.
Our analyses include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in
climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate change'' are defined by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ``Climate''
refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather
conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such
measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC
2007a, p. 78). The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in
the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g.,
temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended period,
typically decades or longer, whether the change is due to natural
variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007a, p. 78).
[[Page 69002]]
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been
faster since the 1950s. Based on extensive analyses of global average
surface air temperature, the most widely used measure of change, the
IPCC concluded that warming of the global climate system over the past
several decades is ``unequivocal'' (IPCC 2007a, p. 2). In other words,
the IPCC concluded that there is no question that the world's climate
system is warming. Examples of other changes include substantial
increases in precipitation in some regions of the world and decreases
in other regions (for these and additional examples, see IPCC 2007a, p.
30; Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35-54, 82-85). Various environmental
changes (e.g., shifts in the ranges of plant and animal species,
increasing ground instability in permafrost regions, conditions more
favorable to the spread of invasive species and of some diseases,
changes in amount and timing of water availability) are occurring in
association with changes in climate (see IPCC 2007a, pp. 2-4, 30-33;
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States 2009, pp. 27, 79-
88).
Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most
of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-
20th century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate, and
is ``very likely'' (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher
probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG)
concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities,
particularly carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use (IPCC 2007a,
pp. 5-6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 21-35).
Further confirmation of the role of GHGs comes from analyses by Huber
and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who concluded it is extremely likely that
approximately 75 percent of global warming since 1950 has been caused
by human activities.
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in
temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007,
entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp.
527, 529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield
very similar projections of average global warming until about 2030.
Although projections of the magnitude and rate of warming differ after
about 2030, the overall trajectory of all the projections is one of
increased global warming through the end of this century, even for
projections based on scenarios that assume that GHG emissions will
stabilize or decline. Thus, there is strong scientific support for
projections that warming will continue through the 21st century, and
that the magnitude and rate of change will be influenced substantially
by the extent of GHG emissions (IPCC 2007a, pp. 44-45; Meehl et al.
2007, pp. 760-764; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558; Prinn et al.
2011, pp. 527, 529).
In addition to basing their projections on scientific analyses, the
IPCC reports projections using a framework for treatment of
uncertainties (e.g., they define ``very likely'' to mean greater than
90 percent probability, and ``likely'' to mean greater than 66 percent
probability; see Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 22-23). Some of the IPCC's
key projections of global climate and its related effects include: (1)
It is virtually certain there will be warmer and more frequent hot days
and nights over most of the earth's land areas; (2) it is very likely
there will be increased frequency of warm spells and heat waves over
most land areas; (3) it is very likely that the frequency of heavy
precipitation events, or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy
falls, will increase over most areas; and (4) it is likely the area
affected by droughts will increase, that intense tropical cyclone
activity will increase, and that there will be increased incidence of
extreme high sea level (IPCC 2007b, p. 8, table SPM.2). More recently,
the IPCC published additional information that provides further insight
into observed changes since 1950, as well as projections of extreme
climate events at global and broad regional scales for the middle and
end of this century (IPCC 2011, entire).
Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on
species. These may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may
change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables
such as habitat fragmentation (for examples, see Franco et al. 2006;
IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-14, 18-19; Forister et al. 2010; Galbraith et al.
2010; Chen et al. 2011). In addition to considering individual species,
scientists are evaluating possible climate change-related impacts to,
and responses of, ecological systems, habitat conditions, and groups of
species; these studies include acknowledgement of uncertainty (e.g.,
Deutsch et al. 2008; Euskirchen et al. 2009; McKechnie and Wolf 2009;
Berg et al. 2010; Sinervo et al. 2010; Beaumont et al. 2011; McKelvey
et al. 2011; Rogers and Schindler 2011).
Many analyses involve elements that are common to climate change
vulnerability assessments. In relation to climate change, vulnerability
refers to the degree to which a species (or system) is susceptible to,
and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including
climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the
type, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a
species is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (IPCC
2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19-22). There is no
single method for conducting such analyses that applies to all
situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We use our expert judgment and
appropriate analytical approaches to weigh relevant information,
including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of
climate change.
Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the
only or the best scientific information available for us to use.
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g.,
IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-12). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections
when they are available and have been developed through appropriate
scientific procedures, because such projections provide higher
resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for
analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a
discussion of downscaling). For our analysis for the Miami tiger
beetle, downscaled projections are available.
According to the Florida Climate Center, Florida is by far the most
vulnerable State in the United States to hurricanes and tropical storms
(http://climatecenter.fsu.edu/topics/tropical-weather). Based on data
gathered from 1856 to 2008, Klotzbach and Gray (2009, p. 28) calculated
the climatological probabilities for each State being impacted by a
hurricane or major hurricane in all years over the 152-year timespan.
Of the coastal States analyzed, Florida had the highest climatological
probabilities, with a 51 percent probability of a hurricane (Category 1
or 2) and a 21 percent probability of a major hurricane (Category 3 or
higher). From 1856 to 2008, Florida actually experienced more major
hurricanes than predicted; out of the 109 hurricanes, 36 were major
hurricanes. The most recent hurricane to have major impacts to Miami-
Dade County was Hurricane Andrew in 1992.
[[Page 69003]]
While the species persisted after this hurricane, impacts to the
population size and distribution from the storm are unknown, because no
surveys were conducted until its rediscovery in 2007. Given the few,
isolated populations of the Miami tiger beetle within a location prone
to storm influences (located approximately 8 km (5 mi) from the coast),
the species is at substantial risk from stochastic environmental events
such as hurricanes, storm surges, and other extreme weather that can
affect recruitment, population growth, and other population parameters.
Other processes to be affected by climate change, related to
environmental stochasticity, include temperatures, rainfall (amount,
seasonal timing, and distribution), and storms (frequency and
intensity). Temperatures are projected to rise from 2-5 degrees Celsius
([deg]C) (3.6-9 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) for North America by the
end of this century (IPCC 2007a, pp. 7-9, 13). Based upon predictive
modeling, Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies are
expected to decrease (Knutson et al. 2008, pp. 1-21). By 2100, there
should be a 10-30 percent decrease in hurricane frequency. Hurricane
frequency is expected to drop, due to more wind shear impeding initial
hurricane development. However, hurricane winds are expected to
increase by 5-10 percent. This is due to more hurricane energy
available for intense hurricanes. These stronger winds will result in
damage to the pine rockland vegetation and an increased storm surge
(discussed below). In addition to climate change, weather variables are
extremely influenced by other natural cycles, such as El Ni[ntilde]o
Southern Oscillation, with a frequency of every 4-7 years; solar cycle
(every 11 years); and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation. All of
these cycles influence changes in Floridian weather. The exact
magnitude, direction, and distribution of all of these changes at the
regional level are difficult to project.
The long-term record at Key West shows that sea level rose on
average 0.229 cm (0.090 in) annually between 1913 and 2013 (National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2013, p. 1). This
equates to approximately 22.9 cm (9.02 in) over the last 100 years.
IPCC (2008, p. 28) emphasized it is very likely that the average rate
of SLR during the 21st century will exceed the historical rate. The
IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (2000, entire) presented a
range of scenarios based on the computed amount of change in the
climate system due to various potential amounts of anthropogenic
greenhouse gases and aerosols in 2100. Each scenario describes a future
world with varying levels of atmospheric pollution, leading to
corresponding levels of global warming and corresponding levels of SLR.
The IPCC Synthesis Report (2007a, entire) provided an integrated view
of climate change and presented updated projections of future climate
change and related impacts under different scenarios.
Subsequent to the 2007 IPCC Report, the scientific community has
continued to model SLR. Recent peer-reviewed publications indicate a
movement toward increased acceleration of SLR. Observed SLR rates are
already trending along the higher end of the 2007 IPCC estimates, and
it is now widely held that SLR will exceed the levels projected by the
IPCC (Rahmstorf et al. 2012, p. 1; Grinsted et al. 2010, p. 470). Taken
together, these studies support the use of higher end estimates now
prevalent in the scientific literature. Recent studies have estimated
global mean SLR of 1.0-2.0 m (3.3-6.6 ft) by 2100 as follows: 0.75-1.90
m (2.5-6.2 ft; Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009, p. 21530), 0.8-2.0 m (2.6-
6.6 ft; Pfeffer et al. 2008, p. 1342), 0.9-1.3 m (3.0-4.3 ft; Grinsted
et al. 2010, pp. 469-470), 0.6-1.6 m (2.0-5.2 ft; Jevrejeva et al.
2010, p. 4), and 0.5-1.40 m (1.6-4.6 ft; National Research Council
2012, p. 2).
All of the scenarios, from small climate change shifts to major
changes, indicate negative effects on pine rockland habitat throughout
Miami-Dade County. Prior to inundation, pine rocklands are likely to
undergo habitat transitions related to climate change, including
changes to hydrology and increasing vulnerability to storm surge.
Hydrology has a strong influence on plant distribution in these and
other coastal areas (IPCC 2008, p. 57). Such communities typically
grade from salt to brackish to freshwater species. From the 1930s to
1950s, increased salinity of coastal waters contributed to the decline
of cabbage palm forests in southwest Florida (Williams et al. 1999, pp.
2056-2059), expansion of mangroves into adjacent marshes in the
Everglades (Ross et al. 2000, pp. 101, 111), and loss of pine rockland
in the Keys (Ross et al. 1994, pp. 144, 151-155).
In one Florida Keys pine rockland with an average elevation of 0.89
m (2.9 ft), Ross et al. (1994, pp. 149-152) observed an approximately
65 percent reduction in an area occupied by South Florida slash pine
over a 70-year period, with pine mortality and subsequent increased
proportions of halophytic (salt-loving) plants occurring earlier at the
lower elevations. During this same time span, local sea level had risen
by 15.0 cm (6.0 in), and Ross et al. (1994, p. 152) found evidence of
groundwater and soil water salinization. Extrapolating this situation
to pine rocklands on the mainland is not straightforward, but suggests
that similar changes to species composition could arise if current
projections of SLR occur and freshwater inputs are not sufficient to
prevent salinization.
Furthermore, Ross et al. (2009, pp. 471-478) suggested that
interactions between SLR and pulse disturbances (e.g., storm surges)
can cause vegetation to change sooner than projected based on sea level
alone. Effects from vegetation shifts in the pine rockland habitat on
the Miami tiger beetle are unknown, but because the beetle occurs in a
narrow range and microhabitat parameters are still being studied,
vegetation shifts could cause habitat changes or disturbance that would
have a negative impact on beetle recruitment and survival. Alexander
(1953, pp. 133-138) attributed the demise of pinelands on northern Key
Largo to salinization of the groundwater in response to SLR. Patterns
of human development will also likely be significant factors
influencing whether natural communities can move and persist (IPCC
2008, p. 57; USCCSP 2008, p. 76).
The Science and Technology Committee of the Miami-Dade County
Climate Change Task Force (Wanless et al. 2008, p. 1) recognized that
significant SLR is a very real threat to the near future for Miami-Dade
County. In a January 2008 statement, the committee warned that sea
level is expected to rise at least 0.9-1.5 m (3-5 ft) within this
century (Wanless et al. 2008, p. 3). With a 0.9-1.2 m (3-4 ft) rise in
sea level (above baseline) in Miami-Dade County: ``Spring high tides
would be at about 6 to 7 ft; freshwater resources would be gone; the
Everglades would be inundated on the west side of Miami-Dade County;
the barrier islands would be largely inundated; storm surges would be
devastating; landfill sites would be exposed to erosion contaminating
marine and coastal environments. Freshwater and coastal mangrove
wetlands will not keep up with or offset SLR of 0.6 m (2 ft) per
century or greater. With a 1.5-m (5-ft) rise (spring tides at ~2.4 m
(~8 ft)), Miami-Dade County will be extremely diminished'' (Wanless et
al. 2008, pp. 3-4).
Drier conditions and increased variability in precipitation
associated with climate change are expected to hamper successful
regeneration of forests and cause shifts in vegetation types through
time (Wear and Greis 2012, p. 39). Although it has not been
[[Page 69004]]
well studied, existing pine rocklands have probably been affected by
reductions in the mean water table. Climate changes are also forecasted
to extend fire seasons and the frequency of large fire events
throughout the Coastal Plain (Wear and Greis 2012, p. 43). While
restoring fire to pine rocklands is essential to the long-term
viability of the Miami tiger beetle (see Factor A discussion, above),
increases in the scale, frequency, or severity of wildfires could have
negative effects on the species (e.g., if wildfire occurs over the
entire area occupied by the two known populations during the adult
flight season when adults are present).
To accommodate the large uncertainty in SLR projections,
researchers must estimate effects from a range of scenarios. Various
model scenarios developed at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) and GeoAdaptive Inc. have projected possible trajectories of
future transformation of the south Florida landscape by 2060, based
upon four main drivers: Climate change, shifts in planning approaches
and regulations, human population change, and variations in financial
resources for conservation (Vargas-Moreno and Flaxman 2010, pp. 1-6).
The scenarios do not account for temperature, precipitation, or species
habitat shifts due to climate change, and no storm surge effects are
considered. The current MIT scenarios range from an increase of 0.09-
1.00 m (0.3-3.3 ft) by 2060.
Based on the most recent estimates of SLR and the data available to
us at this time, we evaluated potential effects of SLR using the
current ``high'' range MIT scenario, as well as comparing elevations of
remaining pine rockland fragments and extant occurrences of the Miami
tiger beetle. The ``high'' range (or ``worst case'') MIT scenario
assumes high SLR (1.0 m (3.3 ft) by 2060), low financial resources, a
`business as usual' approach to planning, and a doubling of human
population. Based on this scenario, pine rocklands along the coast in
central Miami-Dade County would become inundated. The ``new'' sea level
(1.0 m (3.3 ft) higher) would come up to the edge of pine rockland
fragments at the southern end of Miami-Dade County, translating to
partial inundation or, at a minimum, vegetation shifts for these pine
rocklands. While sea level under this scenario would not overtake other
pine rocklands in urban Miami-Dade County, including the known
locations for the Miami tiger beetle, changes in the salinity of the
water table and soils would surely cause vegetation shifts that may
negatively impact the viability of the beetle. In addition, many
existing pine rockland fragments are projected to be developed for
housing as the human population grows and adjusts to changing sea
levels under this ``high'' range (or ``worst case'') MIT scenario.
Actual impacts may be greater or less than anticipated based upon high
variability of factors involved (e.g., SLR, human population growth)
and assumptions made in the model.
When simply looking at current elevations of pine rockland
fragments and occurrences of the Miami tiger beetle, it appears that an
SLR of 1 m (3.3 ft) will inundate the coastal and southern pine
rocklands and cause vegetation shifts largely as described above. SLR
of 2 m (6.6 ft) appears to inundate much larger portions of urban
Miami-Dade County. The western part of urban Miami-Dade County would
also be inundated (barring creation of sea walls or other barriers),
creating a virtual island of the Miami Rock Ridge. After a 2-m rise in
sea level, approximately 75 percent of the remaining pine rockland
would still be above sea level, but an unknown percentage of these
fragments would be negatively impacted by salinization of the water
table and soils, which would be exacerbated due to isolation from
mainland fresh water flows. Above 2 m (6.6 ft) of SLR, very little pine
rockland would remain, with the vast majority either being inundated or
experiencing vegetation shifts.
The climate of southern Florida is driven by a combination of
local, regional, and global events, regimes, and oscillations. There
are three main ``seasons'': (1) The wet season, which is hot, rainy,
and humid from June through October; (2) the official hurricane season
that extends 1 month beyond the wet season (June 1 through November
30), with peak season being August and September; and (3) the dry
season, which is drier and cooler, from November through May. In the
dry season, periodic surges of cool and dry continental air masses
influence the weather with short-duration rain events followed by long
periods of dry weather.
Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of
severe storms (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et al. 2002, p.
6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015). Hurricanes and tropical storms can
modify habitat (e.g., through storm surge) and have the potential to
destroy the only known population of the Miami tiger beetle and its
suitable habitat. With most of the historical habitat having been
destroyed or modified, the two known remaining populations of the
beetle are at high risk of extirpation due to stochastic events.
Alternative Future Landscape Models and Coastal Squeeze
The Miami tiger beetle is anticipated to face major risks from
coastal squeeze, which occurs when habitat is pressed between rising
sea levels and coastal development that prevents landward movement
(Scavia et al. 2002, entire; FitzGerald et al. 2008, entire; Defeo et
al. 2009, p. 8; LeDee et al. 2010, entire; Menon et al. 2010, entire;
Noss 2011, entire). Habitats in coastal areas (i.e., Charlotte, Lee,
Collier, Monroe, Miami-Dade Counties) are likely the most vulnerable.
Although it is difficult to quantify impacts due to the uncertainties
involved, coastal squeeze will likely result in losses in habitat for
the beetles as people and development are displaced further inland.
Summary of Factor E
Based on our analysis of the best available information, we have
identified a wide array of natural and manmade factors affecting the
continued existence of the Miami tiger beetle. The beetle is
immediately vulnerable to extinction, due to the effects of few
remaining small populations, restricted range, and isolation. Aspects
of the Miami tiger beetle's natural history (e.g., limited dispersal)
and environmental stochasticity (including hurricanes and storm surge)
may also contribute to imperilment. Other natural (e.g., changes to
habitat, invasive and exotic vegetation) and anthropogenic (e.g.,
habitat alteration, impacts from humans) factors are also identifiable
threats. Climate change, sea-level rise, and coastal squeeze are major
concerns. Collectively, these threats have occurred in the past, are
impacting the species now, and will continue to impact the species in
the future.
Cumulative Effects From Factors A Through E
The limited distribution, small population size, few populations,
and relative isolation of the Miami tiger beetle makes it extremely
susceptible to further habitat loss, modification, degradation, and
other anthropogenic threats. The Miami tiger beetle's viability at
present is uncertain, and its continued persistence is in danger,
unless protective actions are taken. Mechanisms causing the decline of
this beetle, as discussed above, range from local (e.g., lack of
adequate fire management, vegetation encroachment), to regional (e.g.,
development, fragmentation, nonnative species), to global influences
(e.g., climate change, SLR). The synergistic effects of threats
[[Page 69005]]
(such as hurricane effects on a species with a limited distribution
consisting of just two known populations) make it difficult to predict
population viability now and in the future. While these stressors may
act in isolation, it is more probable that many stressors are acting
simultaneously (or in combination) on the Miami tiger beetle.
Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Miami tiger beetle. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation
have destroyed an estimated 98 percent of the historical pine rockland
habitat in Miami-Dade County, with only two known populations
remaining. The threat of habitat loss is continuing from development,
inadequate habitat management resulting in vegetation encroachment, and
environmental effects resulting from climatic change (see discussions
under Factors A and E). Due to the restricted range, small population
size, few populations, and relative isolation (see Factor E),
collection is a significant threat to the species and could potentially
occur at any time (see discussions under Factor B). Additionally, the
species is currently threatened by a wide array of natural and manmade
factors (see Factor E). Existing regulatory mechanisms do not provide
adequate protection for the species (see Factor D). As a result,
impacts from increasing threats, singly or in combination, are likely
to result in the extinction of the species because the magnitude of
threats is high.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that the Miami tiger beetle is
presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire range based on
the severity and immediacy of threats currently affecting the species.
The overall range has been significantly impacted because of
significant habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation of pine
rockland habitat. Newly proposed development is currently threatening
one of only two known populations of this species. The fragmented
nature of Miami-Dade County's remaining pine rockland habitat and the
influx of development around them may preclude the ability to conduct
prescribed burns or other beneficial management actions that are needed
to prevent vegetation encroachment. The two known, small populations of
the Miami tiger beetle appear to occupy relatively small habitat
patches, which make them vulnerable to local extinction from normal
fluctuations in population size, genetic problems from small population
size, or environmental catastrophes. Limited dispersal abilities in
combination with limited habitat may result in local extirpations.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we are listing the Miami tiger beetle as
endangered in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We
find that a threatened species status is not appropriate for the Miami
tiger beetle because of significant habitat loss (i.e., 98 percent of
pine rockland habitat in Miami-Dade County) and degradation; the fact
that only two known small populations of the species remain; and the
imminent threat of development projects in the Richmond pine rocklands.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the
Miami tiger beetle is endangered throughout all of its range, no
portion of its range can be ``significant'' for purposes of the
definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.'' See
the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion
of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of
``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37577).
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final
recovery plan will be available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered) or from our South Florida Ecological Services Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
Following publication of this final listing rule, funding for
recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including
Federal budgets,
[[Page 69006]]
State programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Florida will be eligible
for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the
protection or recovery of the Miami tiger beetle. Information on our
grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found
at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for the Miami tiger beetle. Additionally, we invite
you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes
available and any information you may have for recovery planning
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or
threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is
designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(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 any endangered or threatened species or destroy
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Coast Guard;
issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the Army Corps of
Engineers; and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the
Federal Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of
these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate
or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess,
sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has
been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land
management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes:
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful
activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a final listing
on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of a listed
species. Based on the best available information, the following actions
may potentially result in a violation of section 9, of the Act; this
list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized possession, collecting, trapping, capturing,
killing, harassing, sale, delivery, or movement, including interstate
and foreign commerce, or harming or attempting any of these actions, at
any life stage without a permit (research activities where Miami tiger
beetles are surveyed, captured (netted), or collected will require a
permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act).
(2) Incidental take without a permit pursuant to section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
(3) Sale or purchase of specimens, except for properly documented
antique specimens of this taxon at least 100 years old, as defined by
section 10(h)(1) of the Act.
(4) Unauthorized use of pesticides/herbicides that results in take.
(5) Release of biological control agents that attack any life
stage.
(6) Discharge or dumping of toxic chemicals, silts, or other
pollutants into, or other alteration of the quality of, habitat
supporting the Miami tiger beetles that result in take.
(7) Unauthorized activities (e.g., plowing; mowing; burning;
herbicide or pesticide application; land leveling/clearing; grading;
disking; soil compaction; soil removal; dredging; excavation;
deposition of dredged or fill material; erosion and deposition of
sediment/soil; grazing or trampling by livestock; minerals extraction
or processing; residential, commercial, or industrial developments;
utilities development; road construction; or water development and
impoundment) that take eggs, larvae, or adult Miami tiger beetles or
that modify Miami tiger beetle habitat in such a way that take Miami
tiger beetles by adversely affecting their essential behavioral
patterns, including breeding, foraging, sheltering, or other life
functions. Otherwise lawful activities that incidentally take Miami
tiger beetles, but have no Federal nexus, will require a permit under
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the South
Florida Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Critical Habitat
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as ``(i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed . . . 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 the species at the time it is listed . . . upon a
determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species.'' Section 3(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1532(3)) also defines the terms ``conserve,'' ``conserving,'' and
``conservation'' to mean ``to use and the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to this chapter are no longer necessary.''
In the proposed listing rule (80 FR 79533, December 22, 2015), we
determined that designation of critical habitat for the Miami tiger
beetle was prudent. See the Prudency Determination in the proposed rule
for more information.
Once we determine that the designation is prudent, we must find
whether critical habitat for Cicindelidia floridana is determinable.
Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) state
[[Page 69007]]
that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the
following situations exists: (1) Information sufficient to perform
required analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking; or (2)
the biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to
permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
In our proposed listing rule, we found that critical habitat was
not determinable because the specific information sufficient to perform
the required analysis of the impacts of the designation was lacking. We
are still in the process of obtaining that information, but anticipate
that a proposed rule designating critical habitat for the Miami tiger
beetle will be published before the end of fiscal year 2017.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), need not be prepared in connection
with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
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 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. We are not aware of any Cicindelida
floridana populations on tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
South Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the
South Florida 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 follows:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245;
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding the following entry to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under Insects:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Beetle, Miami tiger.................. Cicindelidia floridana....... U.S.A. (FL)............. E 81 FR [Insert Federal Register page
where the document begins]; October 5,
2016.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: September 21, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-23945 Filed 10-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P