[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