Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 170 (Tuesday, September 7, 2021) 2021 Federal Register, 86 FR 49945-49985; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 7, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49945-49985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19088]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0053; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
RIN 1018-BF38

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia Floridana)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle (Cicindelidia
floridana) under the Endangered Species Act (Act). In total,
approximately 1,977 acres (ac) (800 hectares (ha)) in Miami-Dade
County, Florida, fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical
habitat designation. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would
extend the Act's protections to this species' critical habitat. We also
announce the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
November 8, 2021. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by October 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2021-0053,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking
on ``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2021-0053, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: For the critical habitat
designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps
are generated are included in the decision file for this rulemaking and
are available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2021-0053 and at www.fws.gov/verobeach/. Any supporting information
that we developed for this critical habitat designation will be
available on the Service's website or at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roxanna Hinzman, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Ecological Services Field
Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; telephone 772-562-3909.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call
the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act,
any species that is determined to be a threatened or endangered species
requires critical habitat to be designated, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable. Designations and revisions of critical
habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
What this document does. We propose the designation of critical
habitat for the Miami tiger beetle, which is listed as endangered.
The basis for our action. 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 protections; 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.

[[Page 49946]]

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must make the
designation on the basis of the best scientific data available and
after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on
national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat.
Draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical
habitat. In order to consider the economic impacts of critical habitat
for the Miami tiger beetle, we compiled information pertaining to the
potential incremental economic impacts for this proposed critical
habitat designation. The information we used in determining the
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat is summarized in this
proposed rule (see Consideration of Economic Impacts) and is available
at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0053 and at
the Florida Ecological Services Field Office at http://ww.fws.gov/verobeach/ (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We are soliciting
public comments on the economic information provided and any other
potential economic impact of the proposed designation. We will continue
to reevaluate the potential economic impacts between this proposal and
our final designation.
Public comment. We are seeking comments and soliciting information
from the public on our proposed designation to make sure we consider
the best scientific and commercial information available in developing
our final designation. Because we will consider all comments and
information we receive during the comment period, our final
determination may differ from this proposal. We will respond to and
address comments received in our final rule.
We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our proposal is based on scientifically
sound data and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers to
comment on our specific assumptions and conclusions in this critical
habitat proposal.

Information Requested

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including information to inform the following factors that the
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may
be not prudent:
(a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Miami tiger beetle habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing and that
contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and
why;
(c) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species,
in Miami-Dade County, that should be included in the designation
because they (i) are occupied at the time of listing and contain the
physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation
of the species and that may require special management considerations,
or (ii) are unoccupied at the time of listing and are essential for the
conservation of the species;
(d) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(e) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species. We particularly seek comments:
(i) Regarding whether occupied areas are adequate for the
conservation of the species;
(ii) Providing specific information regarding whether or not
unoccupied areas would, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the
conservation of the species and contain at least one physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species; and
(iii) Explaining whether or not unoccupied areas fall within the
definition of ``habitat'' at 50 CFR 424.02 and why.
(iv) We have identified 14 units in this proposal that were
unoccupied at the time of listing that we find are essential to the
conservation of the Miami tiger beetle. Please provide specific
comments and information on:
Whether each of these units are essential to the
conservation of the Miami tiger beetle and should be included in
critical habitat,
whether there are specific units that are not essential
and should not be included in critical habitat and why, and
whether there are any other specific areas not currently
proposed that are essential to the conservation of the Miami tiger
beetle that should be included in critical habitat.
(3) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species,
i.e., South Florida, that should be included in the designation because
they (a) are occupied at the time of listing and contain the physical
and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the
species and that may require special management considerations, or (b)
are unoccupied at the time of listing and are essential for the
conservation of the species.
(4) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(5) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on Miami tiger beetle and proposed critical habitat.
(6) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable
estimate of the likely economic impacts; any probable economic,
national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area
that may be included in the final designation, in particular, any
impacts on small entities or families; and the benefits of including or
excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
(7) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In particular for those for which you think
we should exclude any additional areas, please provide credible
information regarding the existence of a meaningful economic or other
relevant impact supporting a benefit of exclusion.

[[Page 49947]]

(8) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Please
note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the
action under consideration without providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered in making a final critical
habitat determination
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final designation may differ from this
proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on
that new information), our final designation may not include all areas
proposed, may include some additional areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat, and may exclude some areas if we find the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.

Public Hearing

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public
hearings virtually using webinars that will be announced on the
Service's website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of
these virtual public hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50
CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

On December 22, 2015, we proposed to list the Miami tiger beetle as
an endangered species under the Act (80 FR 79533) in the Federal
Register. On October 5, 2016, we published our final determination in
the Federal Register (81 FR 68985) and added the Miami tiger beetle as
an endangered species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
at 50 CFR 17.11(h). At the time of our proposal we determined that
critical habitat was prudent, but not determinable because we lacked
specific information on the impacts of our designation. In our final
listing rule, we stated we were in the process of obtaining information
on the impacts of the designation. All previous Federal actions are
described in detail in the proposal to list the Miami tiger beetle as
an endangered species under the Act (80 FR 79533, December 22, 2015).
Additional information may be found in the final rule to list the Miami
tiger beetle as an endangered species (81 FR 68985, October 5, 2016).

Critical Habitat

Background

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely, by vagrant individuals). Additionally, our regulations
at 50 CFR 424.02 define the word ``habitat'' as follows: ``for the
purposes of designating critical habitat only, habitat is the abiotic
and biotic setting that currently or periodically contains the
resources and conditions necessary to support one or more life
processes of a species.''
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation also does not allow the
government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not
require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement
measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However,
even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat,
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead,
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied

[[Page 49948]]

by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical
habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1)
which are essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which
may require special management considerations or protection. For these
areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known
using the best scientific and commercial data available, those physical
or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the
species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In
identifying those physical or biological features that occur in
specific occupied areas, we focus on the specific features that are
essential to support the life-history needs of the species, including,
but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological
features, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A
feature may be a single habitat characteristic or a more complex
combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat
characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions.
Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of
conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and
connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. The implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) further
delineate unoccupied critical habitat by setting out three specific
parameters: (1) When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will
first evaluate areas occupied by the species; (2) the Secretary will
consider unoccupied areas to be essential only where a critical habitat
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species; and (3) for an
unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat
based on the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species 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 provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the listing process for the species. Additional
information sources may include any generalized conservation strategy,
criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the species; the
recovery plan for the species; articles in peer-reviewed journals;
conservation plans developed by States and counties; scientific status
surveys and studies; biological assessments; other unpublished
materials; or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
As the regulatory definition of ``habitat'' reflects (50 CFR
424.02), habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of the
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of
the best available information at the time of designation will not
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at the time of those planning
efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the Secretary
may, but is not required to, determine that a designation would not be
prudent in the following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data
available.
As discussed in the final listing rule published on October 5, 2016
(81 FR 68985), there is currently imminent threat of take attributed to
collection or vandalism identified under Factor B for this species.
However, we have determined that the identification and mapping of
critical habitat is not expected to increase any such threat because
the location of the two extant populations of the Miami tiger beetle
are currently known to the scientific community and public. Further, in
our proposed listing determination for this species, we determined that
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range is a threat, and that those threats in some way can be
addressed by section 7(a)(2) consultation measures. Also, the species
occurs wholly in the jurisdiction of the

[[Page 49949]]

United States, and we are able to identify areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat. Therefore, because none of the
circumstances enumerated in our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) have
been met and because the Secretary has not identified other
circumstances for which this designation of critical habitat would be
not prudent, we have determined that the designation of critical
habitat is prudent for the Miami tiger beetle.

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that
may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example,
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of
nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential
to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential
for the Miami tiger beetle from studies of this species' habitat,
ecology, and life history as described below. Additional information
can be found in the final listing rule published in the Federal
Register on October 5, 2016 (81 FR 68985).

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

The Miami tiger beetle is endemic to pine rockland habitat within
the Northern Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge in Miami-Dade
County in South Florida. Descriptions of this habitat and its
associated native plant species are provided in the proposed listing
rule published on December 22, 2015 (80 FR 79533) (see Habitat
section). Additional discussion may be found in the final listing rule
published on October 5, 2016 (81 FR 68985). The Miami tiger beetle
requires open or sparsely vegetated sandy areas within pine rockland
habitat for thermoregulation (regulation of body temperature),
foraging, reproduction, and larval development.
As a group, tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) occupy
ephemeral habitats where local extinction from habitat loss or
degradation is common, so dispersal to establish new populations in
distant habitat patches is a likely life history strategy for most
species (Knisley 2015a, p. 10). Therefore, individuals of the species
must be sufficiently abundant and occur within an appropriate dispersal
distance to adjacent suitable habitat so they can repopulate areas
following local extirpations. Barriers to dispersal can disrupt
otherwise normal metapopulation dynamics and contribute to imperilment.
Development and agriculture have reduced pine rockland habitat by
90 percent in mainland south Florida. Pine rockland habitat decreased
from approximately 183,000 ac (74,000 ha) in the early 1900s to only
3,707 ac (1,500 ha) in 2014 (Possley et al. 2014, p. 154). The largest
remaining intact pine rockland (approximately 5,716 ac (2,313 ha)) is
Long Pine Key in Everglades National Park (Everglades). Outside of the
Everglades, less than 2 percent of pine rocklands on the Miami Rock
Ridge remain, and much of what is left are small remnants scattered
throughout the Miami metropolitan area, isolated from other natural
areas (Herndon 1998, p. 1; URS Corporation Southern 2007, p. 1).
The extreme rarity of high-quality pine rockland habitats
supporting the Miami tiger beetle elevates the importance of remnant
sites that still retain some pine rockland species. We consider pine
rockland habitat to be the primary habitat for the Miami tiger beetle.
We do not have specific information regarding a minimum viable
population size for the Miami tiger beetle or the amount of habitat
needed to sustain a viable population. Recovery plans for Cicindela
puritana (Puritan tiger beetle) and C. dorsalis dorsalis (Northeastern
beach tiger beetle) consider a minimum viable population size to be at
least 500-1,000 adults (Hill and Knisley 1993, p. 23; Hill and Knisley
1994, p. 31). A minimum viable population size of 500 adults was
estimated for the Salt Creek tiger beetle (Cicindela nevadica
lincolniana) (79 FR 26014, May 6, 2014). The best available data
regarding the minimum area and number of individuals necessary for a
viable population for the Miami tiger beetle come from information
regarding the closely related Highlands tiger beetle (Cicindelidia
highlandensis); the information describes estimates of a minimum of 100
adult Highlands tiger beetles in an area of at least 2.5-5.0 ac (1.0-
2.0 ha) (Knisley and Hill 2013, p. 42). This estimate is based on
observations of population stability for the Highlands tiger beetle, as
well as survey data and literature from other tiger beetle species
(Knisley and Hill 2013, p. 42).
The Miami tiger beetle requires open or sparsely vegetated sandy
areas within pine rockland habitat to meet their life-history
requirements, as well as adjacent undeveloped habitat to facilitate
dispersal and protect core habitat. Therefore, based on the information
in the previous paragraph, we identify pine rockland habitats of at
least 2.5-5.0 ac (1.0-2.0 ha) in size as a necessary physical feature
for this species.

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements

Food--Miami tiger beetles are active diurnal predators that use
their keen vision to detect movement of small

[[Page 49950]]

arthropods and run quickly to capture prey with their well-developed
jaws (mandibles). Although we do not have specific information on Miami
tiger beetle diets, observations by various entomologists indicate
small arthropods, especially ants, are the most common prey for tiger
beetles. Over 30 kinds of insects from many families have been
identified as prey for tiger beetles, and scavenging is also common in
some species (Knisley and Schultz 1997, pp. 39, 103; Willis 1967, pp.
196-197). Ants were the most common prey of tiger beetles in Florida
(Choate 1996, p. 2). Miami tiger beetle larvae are sedentary sit-and-
wait predators that capture small prey passing over or near (within a
few inches (in) (centimeters (cm)) their burrows on the soil surface.
Larvae prey on small arthropods, similar to adults. Alterations or
reductions in the prey base through pesticide exposure could affect
foraging in of Miami tiger beetles.
Water--The Miami tiger beetle requires inland sandy pine rockland
habitat that has moderately drained to well-drained terrain. Rainfall
varies from an annual average over 64 in (163 cm) in the northwest
portion of Miami-Dade County to between 48 and 56 in (122 and 143 cm),
respectively, in the rest of the county (Service 1999, p. 3-167). The
water table in the Miami Rock Ridge outside of the Everglades seldom
reaches the surface (Service 1999, p. 3-167). The existence of larvae
in shallow permanent burrows throughout their development makes them
susceptible to changes in groundwater levels. The effects of climate
change and sea level rise, which predict higher intensity storms, more
erratic rainfall (i.e., alterations to the amount and seasonality and
rainfall) and especially changes in water levels due to storm surge and
salinization of the water table, could result in vegetation shifts that
may impact the species. Based on this, we identify water (particularly
appropriate hydrological regimes) as a necessary feature for the Miami
tiger beetle to carry out its life processes.
Light--The Miami tiger beetle requires open areas of pine rockland
habitat with ample sunlight for behavioral thermoregulation, so they
can successfully perform their normal activities, such as foraging,
mating, and oviposition. Vegetation encroachment and lack of adequate
pine rockland management threatens the amount of light necessary for
the Miami tiger beetle. We identify light as a necessary feature for
the Miami tiger beetle to carry out its life processes.
Soil--The Miami tiger beetle is endemic to pine rockland habitat
within the Miami Rock Ridge. The Miami Rock Ridge has oolitic limestone
(composed of spherical grains packed tightly) at or very near the
surface and solution holes occasionally from where the surface
limestone is dissolved by organic acids. There is typically very little
soil development, consisting primarily of accumulations of low-nutrient
sand, marl, clayey loam, and organic debris found in solution holes,
depressions, and crevices on the limestone surface (Florida Natural
Areas Inventory (FNAI) 2010, p. 62). However, sandy pockets can be
found at the northern end of the Miami Rock Ridge (Northern Biscayne
Pinelands), beginning from approximately North Miami Beach and
extending south to approximately SW 216th Street (Service 1999, p. 3-
162).
These sandy substrates provide the appropriate nutrients, moisture
regime, and soil chemistry necessary for Miami tiger beetle
reproduction. Burrows in the sand are used for eggs and developing
larvae. In addition these sandy areas support a community of insect
prey that allows the species to persist. Soil compaction could impact
the species and its habitat. Therefore, we identify substrates derived
from calcareous limestone that provide habitat for the Miami tiger
beetle to carry out its life processes to be a necessary feature for
the Miami tiger beetle.
Summary--Based on the best available information, we conclude that
the Miami tiger beetle requires open sandy areas in pine rockland
habitat with little to no vegetation for thermoregulation, foraging,
egg-laying, and larval development. We identify these characteristics
as necessary physical and biological features for the species.

Cover or Shelter

The life cycle of the Miami tiger beetle occurs entirely within
pine rocklands. Females place a single egg into a shallow burrow dug
into the soil. The egg hatches, apparently after sufficient soil
moisture, and the first instar larva digs a burrow at the site of
oviposition (egg-laying). Larvae are closely associated with their
burrows, which provide cover and shelter for anywhere from 2 months to
1 year or more, depending on climate, food availability, and the number
of cohorts per year (Knisley 2015b, p. 28). Larvae remain in their
burrows until they are adults, only extending beyond the burrow
entrance to subdue arthropod prey. The adult flight period for the
Miami tiger beetle lasts approximately 5 months (mid-May to mid-
October) (Knisley 2015b, p. 27). Both larvae and adults are visual
predators and require open habitat to locate prey. Open areas with
dense vegetation no longer provide suitable habitat. However,
vegetation adjacent to open sandy areas may also be important, as it
may provide thermal refugia for the beetles to escape from high ground
temperatures (Knisley 2014, p. 1). Miami tiger beetle habitat can also
be impacted from trampling, which causes soil compaction and can lead
to lethal impacts to adults or larvae or impacts to their habitat.
Based on the best available information, we conclude that the Miami
tiger beetle requires pine rocklands, specifically those containing
open or sparsely vegetated sandy patches.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring

Miami tiger beetle reproduction and larval development occurs
entirely within pine rocklands. Both larvae and adults occupy the same
habitats--open sandy patches interspersed with vegetation. Vegetation
encroachment into the open sandy habitat patches, barriers to
dispersal, trampling of the surface soil, reductions in prey base, and
collection of beetles are factors that may reduce the reproductive
potential of the species. Therefore, based on the information above, we
identify pine rockland habitats that can support the species growth,
distribution, and population expansion as required for this species.

Habitats Representative of the Historical, Geographical, and Ecological
Distributions of the Species

The Miami tiger beetle continues to occur in pine rockland habitats
that are protected from incompatible human-use, but these areas are
only partially representative of the species' historical, geographical,
and ecological distribution because its range within these habitats has
been reduced. The species is still found in pine rockland habitats,
with open sandy areas of at least 2.5-5.0 ac (1.0-2.0 ha) in size.
Representative pine rocklands are located on Federal, local, and
private conservation lands that implement conservation measures
benefitting the beetle.
Pine rockland is dependent on some degree of disturbance, most
importantly from natural or prescribed fires (Loope and Dunevitz 1981,
p. 5; Snyder et al. 2005, p. 1; Bradley and Saha 2009, p. 4; Saha et
al. 2011, pp. 169-184; FNAI 2010, p. 62). These fires are a vital
component in maintaining native vegetation and creating or maintaining
open or sparsely vegetated sandy areas,

[[Page 49951]]

within this ecosystem. Fires have historically burned in intervals of
approximately 3 to 7 years (FNAI 2010, p. 3) typically started by
lightning strikes during the frequent summer thunderstorms (FNAI 2010,
p. 3). Without fire, successional climax from tropical pineland to
rockland hammock is rapid, and the open areas required by the species
are encroached with vegetation and leaf litter. In addition,
displacement of native species by invasive, nonnative plants often
occurs.
Mechanical control or thinning of pine rockland vegetation may be
another means of maintaining pine rockland habitat, but it cannot
entirely replace fire because it does not have the same benefits
related to removal of leaf litter and nutrient cycling. In addition, it
may lead to trampling of adult or larval tiger beetles. Natural and
prescribed fire remains the primary and ecologically preferred method
for maintaining pine rockland habitat.
Hurricanes and other significant weather events can contribute to
openings in the pine rockland habitat (FNAI 2010, p. 62) needed by the
Miami tiger beetle; however, they can also be a source of significant
and direct risk to the species. Given the few, isolated populations of
the Miami tiger beetle within a location prone to storm influences
(located approximately 5 miles (8 kilometers) 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.
The substantial reduction in the historical range of the beetle in the
past 80 years, and the few remaining populations, make the species less
resilient to impacts than when its distribution was more widespread.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify pine
rockland management through natural or prescribed fire, or other
disturbance regimes that maintain pine rockland habitat, such as
weather events, to be necessary for this species.

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of Miami tiger beetle from studies of the species'
habitat, ecology, and life history. We have determined that the
following physical or biological features are essential to the
conservation of Miami tiger beetle:
1. South Florida pine rockland habitat of at least 2.5 ac (1 ha) in
size that is maintained by natural or prescribed fire or other
disturbance regimes; and
2. Open sandy areas within or directly adjacent to the south
Florida pine rockland habitat with little to no vegetation that allows
for or facilitates normal behavior and growth such as thermoregulation,
foraging, egg-laying, larval development, and habitat connectivity,
which promotes the overall distribution and expansion of the species.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of this species
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce
the following threats: Vegetation encroachment of pine rockland
habitat; loss of pine rockland habitat due to development that further
fragments or degrades the few remaining pine rockland parcels in Miami-
Dade County; collection of the species; climate change and sea level
rise; pesticide exposure; and demographic and environmental
stochasticity. These threats are exacerbated by having only two small
populations in a restricted geographic range, making this species
particularly susceptible to extinction in the foreseeable future. For a
detailed discussion of threats, see Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species in our proposed listing rule published in the Federal Register
on December 22, 2015 (80 FR 79533). Additional information may be found
in the final listing rule published on October 5, 2016 (81 FR 68985).
Some of these threats can be addressed by special management
considerations or protection while others (e.g., sea level rise,
hurricanes, storm surge) are beyond the control of landowners and
managers. However, even when landowners or land managers may not be
able to control all the threats directly, they may be able to address
the impacts of those threats.
Destruction of rock pinelands for economic development has reduced
pine rockland habitat on the Miami Rock Ridge outside of the Everglades
by over 98 percent, and remaining habitat in this area is highly
fragmented. The Miami tiger beetle occurs on a mix of privately and
publicly owned lands, only some of which are managed for conservation.
Any occurrences of the beetle on private land or non-conservation
public land are vulnerable to the effects of habitat degradation if
natural disturbance regimes are disrupted, because the species requires
active management to keep the habitat functional in the absence of such
disturbances. Prolonged lack of fire in pine rockland habitat leads to
vegetation encroachment into the open or sparsely vegetated sandy areas
that are required by the beetle. Further development and degradation of
pine rocklands increases fragmentation and decreases the conservation
value of the remaining functioning pine rockland habitat. In addition,
pine rocklands are expected to be further degraded and fragmented due
to anticipated sea level rise, which would fully or partially inundate
some pine rocklands within the Miami Rock Ridge and cause increases in
the salinity of the water table and soils resulting in vegetation
shifts. Also, portions of the Richmond Pine Rocklands are proposed for
commercial development and some existing pine rockland areas are
projected to be developed for housing as the human population grows and
adjusts to changing sea levels.
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, thus limiting foraging
opportunities, or any combination of these factors. Based on Miami-Dade
Mosquito Control's implementation of spray buffers around pine
rocklands occupied by the Miami tiger beetle, mosquito control
pesticides are not considered a current threat for the species.
However, if these buffers were to change or Miami tiger beetles were
found in habitat without restrictions of pesticide applications, then
the threat of exposure would need to be reevaluated.
The features essential to the conservation of the Miami tiger
beetle (i.e., open or sparsely vegetated areas of pine rockland habitat
that are at least 2.5-5.0 ac (1.0-2.0 ha) in size) may require special
management considerations or protection to reduce threats. Actions that
could ameliorate threats include, but are not limited to:
(1) Restoration and management of existing and potential Miami
tiger beetle habitats throughout the Miami Rock Ridge using prescribed
fire and control of invasive, nonnative plants;
(2) Protection of habitat adjacent to existing and new occurrences
of the species to provide dispersal corridors, support the prey base,
protect core

[[Page 49952]]

habitat, and allow for appropriate habitat management;
(3) Use of pesticide spray buffers to prevent potential exposure to
the species and probable limitation of foraging opportunities; and
(4) Establishment of additional populations within the Miami Rock
Ridge through captive rearing and translocation of laboratory-reared
individuals from wild populations.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered
for designation as critical habitat. We are proposing to designate
critical habitat in areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing in 2016. We also are proposing to
designate specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing because we have determined that a
designation limited to occupied areas would be inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species. Although we do not have definitive
information that these areas were historically or are currently
occupied by the Miami tiger beetle, they are within the historical
range of the species, contain remnant south Florida pine rockland
habitat and the essential physical or biological features, and have
been determined to be essential for the conservation of the species, as
further discussed below. We have determined that it is reasonably
certain that the unoccupied areas will contribute to the conservation
of the species and contain one or more of the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species. We have
also determined that the unoccupied areas fall within the regulatory
definition of ``habitat'' at 50 CFR 424.02 since they have the abiotic
and biotic features that currently or periodically contain the
resources and conditions necessary to support one or more life
processes of the Miami tiger beetle.
The historical range of the Miami tiger beetle is limited to Miami-
Dade County, Florida, specifically within the Northern Biscayne
Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge. Over 98 percent of the Miami Rock
Ridge pine rocklands outside of the Everglades has been lost to
development, reducing the current range of the Miami tiger beetle to
the southern portion of the Northern Biscayne Pinelands, in the
Richmond Pine Rocklands and Nixon Smiley Pineland Preserve.
We anticipate that recovery will require not only continued
protection of the remaining extant populations and remnant pine
rockland habitat but also establishment of populations in additional
areas of Miami-Dade County to ensure there are adequate numbers of
beetles and stable populations occurring over the entire geographic
range of the Miami tiger beetle. This will help to reduce the chance
that catastrophic events, such as storms, will simultaneously affect
all known populations.
The two extant Miami tiger beetle populations are small and at risk
of adverse effects from reduced genetic variation, an increased risk of
inbreeding depression, and reduced reproductive output. In addition,
the two populations are isolated from each other, decreasing the
likelihood that they could be naturally reestablished if extirpation
from one location would occur.
In selecting areas to propose for critical habitat designation, we
used the conservation principles of the ``three R's'': Resiliency,
redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, entire) for
conserving imperiled species. Resiliency is the ability to sustain
populations through the natural range of favorable and unfavorable
conditions. Redundancy ensures an adequate number of sites with
resilient populations such that the species has the ability to
withstand catastrophic events. Representation ensures adaptive capacity
within a species and allows it to respond to environmental changes.
This can be facilitated by conserving not just genetic diversity, but
also the species' associated habitat type variation. Implementation of
this methodology has been widely accepted as a reasonable conservation
strategy (Tear et al. 2005, p. 841).
In order to ensure sufficient representation for the Miami tiger
beetle, we described the physical and biological features (as discussed
above) and identified areas of habitat that contain at least one or
more of the features to provide for reintroduction and expansion of the
Miami tiger beetle. Redundancy is currently low as only two populations
remain, both on remnant pine rockland sites. Redundancy can be improved
through the introduction of additional populations of the Miami tiger
beetle at other pine rockland sites. However, throughout the species'
range, the amount of suitable remaining pine rockland is limited (low
resiliency), and much of the remaining habitat may be significantly
altered due to the effects of climate change over the next century.
Therefore, we reviewed available sites containing pine rockland habitat
within the historical range of the species and evaluated each site for
its potential conservation contribution based on quality of habitat,
spatial arrangement relative to the two extant populations and each
other, and existing protections and management of the habitat and sites
to determine additional areas that are essential for the Miami tiger
beetle's conservation.
Sources of Data To Identify Critical Habitat Boundaries
We have determined that the areas known to be occupied at the time
of listing should be proposed for critical habitat designation.
However, recognizing that occupied habitat alone is not adequate for
the conservation of the Miami tiger beetle, we also used habitat and
historical occurrence data to identify the historical range of the
species and necessary habitat features to help us determine which
unoccupied habitat areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. To determine the general extent, location, and boundaries of
critical habitat, the Service used Esri ArcGIS mapping software for
mapping and calculating areas (Albers Conical Equal Area (Florida
Geographic Data Library), North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) High
Accuracy Reference Network (HARN)) along with the following spatial
data layers:
(1) Historical and current records of Miami tiger beetle
occurrences and distributions found in publications, reports, personal
communications, and associated voucher specimens housed at museums and
private collections (Knisley 2015b, entire);
(2) Geographic information system (GIS) data showing the location
and extent of documented occurrences of pine rockland habitat
(Cooperative Land Cover Version 3.3. FWC and FNAI, 2018);
(3) Aerial imagery (Esri ArcGIS online basemap World Imagery. South
Florida Water Management District GIS Services, Earthstar Geographics,
Miami-Dade County, Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry
of Japan and the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
U.S. Geological Survey, Environmental Protection

[[Page 49953]]

Agency, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
2019.; and
(4) GIS data depicting soils and to determine the presence of
physical or biological features (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2020).
When designating critical habitat, we consider future recovery
efforts and conservation of the species. We have determined that all
currently known occupied habitat should be proposed for critical
habitat designation because any further degradation or loss of the
extant populations or occupied habitat would increase the Miami tiger
beetle's susceptibility to local extirpation and ultimately extinction.
The species occurs in two populations, Richmond and Nixon Smiley,
separated from each other by approximately 3.1 mi (5 km) of urban
development.
We are also including pine rockland habitat within the Richmond
Pine Rocklands directly adjacent to sites with documented occurrences
in the Richmond population. Due to their proximity to documented
occurrences, the continuity of habitat, and presence of all of the
physical or biological features, we have included these acres as part
of the occupied habitat complex for this unit in accordance with 50 CFR
424.12(d). Additionally, we have determined these areas are essential
for the conservation of the species because they protect the occupied
sites within the Richmond population, provide dispersal corridors for
the Richmond population, provide potential habitat for population
expansion, and support prey-base populations. These areas are important
to ensure redundancy for the species, and they improve the species'
viability.
Lastly, we are including other suitable or potentially suitable
pine rockland fragments outside of the Richmond Pine Rocklands and
Nixon Smiley Pineland Preserve that are located within the beetle's
historical range along the Northern Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami
Rock Ridge but are not known to be currently occupied by the species.
With only two known occupied areas, we have determined that these areas
are essential for the conservation of the species because they will
enable the establishment of new populations in additional areas that
more closely approximate its historical distribution. Establishment of
new populations will help ensure that there are adequate numbers of
beetles in multiple populations over a wide geographic area, so that
catastrophic events, such as storms, would be less likely to
simultaneously affect all known populations.
The best available data regarding the minimum area and number of
individuals necessary for a viable population come from information
regarding the Highlands tiger beetle; the information describes
estimates of a minimum of 100 adult Highlands tiger beetles in an area
of at least 2.5-5.0 ac (1.0-2.0 ha) (Knisley and Hill 2013, p. 42).
This estimate is based on observations of population stability for the
Highlands tiger beetle, as well as survey data and literature from
other tiger beetle species. From the remaining suitable or potentially
suitable pine rockland fragments that were delineated for the Miami
Rock Ridge, we excluded fragments below the 2.5-ac (1.0-ha) minimum
area for a viable population. As such we evaluated the remaining
unoccupied pine rockland habitat within and directly adjacent to the
Northern Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge to identify remnant
pine rocklands with the highest quality habitat potential (i.e.,
actively managed to support pine rocklands) and of sufficient size
(patches at least 2.5 ac (1.0 ha)) to provide for the conservation of
the Miami tiger beetle.

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing

The two occupied critical habitat units were delineated around the
only remaining extant Miami tiger beetle populations. They include the
mapped extent of the populations that contain the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the Miami tiger
beetle. The two occupied units account for approximately 1,572 ac (636
ha) or 80 percent of the proposed designation of critical habitat for
the Miami tiger beetle.
The delineation of proposed critical habitat included the area
containing the extant populations based on occurrence records as well
as all suitable habitat directly adjacent to those areas to allow for
the continued protection and management of pine rockland habitat and to
meet the needs of the species. Given the Miami tiger beetle's
dependence on disturbance (i.e., fires, storms, or mechanical
treatments) to maintain optimal habitat, the amount and location of
optimal habitat is temporally and spatially dynamic.

Areas Outside of the Geographical Range at the Time of Listing

The Miami tiger beetle has been extirpated from its type-locality
(the place where the species was first discovered) in North Miami and
is historically unknown from any other locations. In addition to
including areas of the two extant populations (Richmond Pine Rocklands
and Nixon Smiley Pineland Preserve) in proposed critical habitat, we
are proposing 14 unoccupied critical habitat units that we have
determined are essential to the conservation of the Miami tiger beetle.
These areas contain pine rockland habitat within the historical range
in the Northern Biscayne Pinelands on the Miami Rock Ridge and
encompass approximately 405 ac (164 ha) or 20 percent of proposed
critical habitat. As discussed above, we have determined that recovery
requires additional populations be established in high quality pine
rockland habitat that is protected and actively managed. Following a
review of available sites containing pine rockland habitat within the
historical range of the species, we evaluated each site for its
potential conservation contribution based on quality of habitat,
spatial arrangement relative to the two extant populations and each
other, and existing protections and management. This review led to our
determination that the most viable sites for introduction and
conservation of the Miami tiger beetle are the 14 unoccupied sites
identified in this proposal. As a result, we concluded that these 14
sites, which each contain all of the physical or biological features,
have the highest probability for the conservation of the species and
are essential to the conservation of the species. Thus, we are
proposing them as critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle.
We used the best available data to delineate existing pine rockland
habitat units that are of sufficient size to support introduced
populations of Miami tiger beetles and that are spatially configured to
support metapopulation dynamics and to minimize adverse impacts from
stochastic events. In identifying these areas, we considered the
following refining criteria:
(1) Areas of sufficient size to support ecosystem processes for
populations of the Miami tiger beetle. The best available information
indicates that appropriately sized units should be at a minimum 2.5-5.0
ac (1.0-2.0 ha). Large contiguous parcels of habitat are more likely to
be resilient to ecological processes of disturbance and are more likely
to support a viable population of the Miami tiger beetle. The
unoccupied areas selected ranged from 7 ac (3 ha) in size to 89 ac (36
ha).
(2) Areas to maintain connectivity of habitat to allow for
population expansion. Isolation of habitat can prevent recolonization
of the Miami tiger beetle and result in local extirpation and
ultimately extinction. To ameliorate the dangers associated

[[Page 49954]]

with small populations or limited distributions, we have identified
areas of critical habitat that will allow for the natural expansion of
populations or support reintroductions.
(3) Restored pine rockland habitats may allow the Miami tiger
beetle to disperse, recolonize, or expand from areas already occupied
by the beetle. These restored areas generally are habitats within or
adjacent to pine rocklands that have been affected by natural or
anthropogenic factors but retain the essential physical or biological
features that make them suitable for the beetle. These areas would help
offset the anticipated loss and degradation of habitat occurring or
expected from natural succession in the absence of disturbance, effects
of climate change (such as sea level rise), or development.

Summary

In summary, for areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit
boundaries using the following criteria:
(1) Evaluated habitat suitability of pine rockland habitat within
the geographical area occupied at the time of listing (current), and
selected those areas that contain all of the physical or biological
features to support life-history functions essential for conservation
of the species;
(2) Identified open sandy areas directly adjacent to occupied areas
and with little to no vegetation that allow for or facilitate normal
behavior and growth of the Miami tiger beetle, such as
thermoregulation, foraging, egg-laying, larval development, and habitat
connectivity, and which promote the overall distribution and expansion
of the species.
The result was the inclusion of two units of critical habitat
occupied by the Miami tiger beetle. Approximately 1,052 ac (426 ha) or
73 percent of the occupied units are existing critical habitat for
other species.
For areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries
using the following criteria:
(1) Areas with pine rockland habitat that contained the essential
physical or biological features and were of sufficient size to support
introduced populations of Miami tiger beetles;
(2) Areas that are spatially configured to support metapopulation
dynamics, minimize adverse impacts from stochastic events, and maintain
representation of the historical range of the species.
The result was the inclusion of 14 units of critical habitat not
occupied by the Miami tiger beetle at the time of listing. These 14
units encompass approximately 405 ac (164 ha) or 20 percent of proposed
critical habitat. All 14 units are either publicly owned or privately
owned conservation lands (i.e., Porter Pineland Preserve, which is
owned and managed by the Audubon Society).
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack
physical or biological features necessary for the Miami tiger beetle.
The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of
such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is
finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would
affect the essential physical or biological features in the adjacent
critical habitat.
We are proposing for designation as critical habitat those lands
that we have determined are occupied at the time of listing and which
contain the physical or biological features to support life-history
processes essential to the conservation of the species, and lands
outside of the geographical area occupied at the time of listing that
we have determined are essential for the conservation of the Miami
tiger beetle.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble
of this document. We will make shapefiles of the critical habitat units
available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS-R4-ES-2021-0053, and on our internet site www.fws.gov/verobeach/.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

We are proposing 16 units as critical habitat for the Miami tiger
beetle. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our
current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for the Miami tiger beetle. Table 1 shows each critical habitat
unit, its occupancy by the Miami tiger beetle at the time it was listed
under the Act, and the extent of overlap with critical habitat
previously designated for other federally listed species.

Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Miami Tiger Beetle, Including Occupancy and Extent of Overlapping Critical Habitat for Other Federally
Listed Species
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area of overlap
Total area (ac with existing Area exclusive
Unit No. Unit name Occupancy at time of listing (ha)) critical habitat to Miami tiger
(ac (ha)) beetle (ac (ha))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... Trinity Pineland.......... No........................... 10 (4) 10 (4) 0 (0)
2...................................... Rockdale Pineland......... No........................... 39 (16) 38 (15) 1 (<1)
3...................................... Deering Estate South No........................... 16 (6) 15 (6) 1 (<1)
Edition.
4...................................... Ned Glenn Nature Preserve. No........................... 11 (5) 11 (5) 0 (0)
5...................................... Deering Estate at Cutler.. No........................... 89 (36) 84 (34) 5 (2)
6...................................... Silver Palm Groves No........................... 25 (10) 22 (9) 3 (1)
Pineland.
7...................................... Quail Roost Pineland...... No........................... 48 (19) 47 (19) 1 (<1)
8...................................... Eachus Pineland........... No........................... 17 (7) 17 (7) 0 (0)
9...................................... Bill Sadowski Park........ No........................... 20 (8) 19 (8) 1 (<1)
10..................................... Tamiami Pineland Complex No........................... 21 (8) 19 (8) 2 (<1)
Addition.
11..................................... Pine Shore Pineland No........................... 8 (3) 8 (3) 0 (0)
Preserve.
12..................................... Nixon Smiley Pineland Yes.......................... 117 (47) 115 (47) 2 (<1)
Preserve.
13..................................... Camp Matecumbe............ No........................... 81 (33) 77 (31) 3 (1)

[[Page 49955]]

14..................................... Richmond Pine Rocklands... Yes.......................... 1,455 (589) 937 (379) 518 (210)
15..................................... Calderon Pineland......... No........................... 14 (6) 14 (6) 0 (0)
16..................................... Porter Pineland Preserve.. No........................... 7 (3) 7 (3) 0 (0)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. .......................... ............................. 1,977 (800) 1,440 (583) 537 (217)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

Approximately 73 percent (1,440 ac (583 ha)) of the critical
habitat proposed for the Miami tiger beetle overlaps with currently
designated Federal critical habitat for the Carter's small-flowered
flax (Linum carteri var. carteri), the Florida brickell-bush
(Brickellia mosieri), Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly (Strymon
acis bartrami), and the Florida leafwing butterfly (Anaea troglodyta
floridalis). Further, approximately 4 percent (17 ac (7 ha)) of
unoccupied critical habitat proposed is unique to the Miami tiger
beetle, i.e., does not overlap with existing designated Federal
critical habitat. Please refer to Table 1 above for the area of overlap
with other federally designated critical habitat and to specific unit
descriptions below for which currently designated Federal critical
habitat overlaps with each proposed critical habitat unit for the Miami
tiger beetle.
Tables 2 and 3 below show the approximate land ownership for each
critical habitat unit and the proportion of critical habitat for each
landownership category, respectively. All but 1 ac (0.6 ha) of the area
proposed for designation is either publicly or privately owned for
conservation.

Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Miami Tiger Beetle by Land Ownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land ownership
Critical habitat unit Area (ac ---------------------------------------------------------------
(ha)) Federal State County Private
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--Trinity Pineland............. 10 (4) .............. 10 (4) .............. ..............
2--Rockdale Pineland............ 39 (16) .............. 38 (15) 1 (<1) ..............
3--Deering Estate South Edition. 16 (6) .............. 16 (6) .............. ..............
4--Ned Glenn Nature Preserve.... 11 (5) .............. .............. 11 (5) ..............
5--Deering Estate at Cutler..... 89 (36) .............. .............. 89 (36) ..............
6--Silver Palm Groves Pineland.. 25 (10) .............. 20 (8) 5 (2) ..............
7--Quail Roost Pineland......... 48 (19) .............. 48 (19) .............. ..............
8--Eachus Pineland.............. 17 (7) .............. .............. 17 (7) ..............
9--Bill Sadowski Park........... 20 (8) .............. .............. 20 (8) ..............
10--Tamiami Pineland Complex 21 (8) .............. 21 (8) .............. ..............
Addition.......................
11--Pine Shore Pineland Preserve 8 (3) .............. .............. 8 (3) ..............
12--Nixon Smiley Pineland 117 (47) .............. .............. 117 (47) ..............
Preserve.......................
13--Camp Matecumbe.............. 81 (33) .............. 76 (31) 5 (2) ..............
14--Richmond Pine Rocklands..... 1,455 (589) 488 (198) .............. 844 (341) 123 (50)
15--Calderon Pineland........... 14 (6) .............. .............. 14 (6) ..............
16--Porter Pineland Preserve.... 7 (3) .............. .............. .............. 7 (3)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 1,977 (800) 488 (198) 229 (93) 1,130 (457) 131 (53)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3--Proportionment of Land Ownership for Proposed Critical Habitat
for the Miami Tiger Beetle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Land ownership Area (ac (ha)) ownership
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal........................... 488 (197)........... 25
State............................. 229 (93)............ 12
County............................ 1,130 (457)......... 57
Private........................... 131 (53)............ 7
-------------------------------------
Total......................... 1,977 (800)......... ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

In addition, over half of the proposed critical habitat for the
Miami tiger beetle (1,219 ac (493 ha) or 62 percent) is under a Miami-
Dade County Natural Forest Communities (NFC) designation. Miami-Dade
County's NFC designation enacts regulations on habitat alterations to
minimize damage to and protect environmentally sensitive forest lands,

[[Page 49956]]

including pine rocklands. NFC regulations are designed to prevent
clearing or destruction of native vegetation within preserved areas.
Please see the unit descriptions below for the specific amount of each
unit that is enrolled in the NFC program.
We present brief descriptions of each proposed critical habitat
units and the justification for why each meets the definition of
critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle, below.

Unit 1: Trinity Pineland

Unit 1 consists of approximately 10 ac (4 ha) of State-owned land
in Miami-Dade County. The unit is within the historical range of the
Miami tiger beetle, although we are not aware of any records of
historical occupancy of the unit. This unit includes pine rockland
habitat within the Northern Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge.
This unit includes all the physical or biological features essential
for the conservation of the species and is protected and actively
managed to maintain a healthy pine rockland habitat.
This unit is currently unoccupied by the Miami tiger beetle but is
essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the species, and maintain
populations throughout the historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should the Miami tiger beetle be extirpated from one
of its current locations. Given this unit contains essential habitat
features (all of the physical or biological features), is protected and
actively managed, and has an appropriate spatial distribution falling
within the range of the species, we are reasonably certain that the
lands and habitat within this unit will contribute to the conservation
of the Miami tiger beetle.
The Natural Areas Management Division of Miami-Dade County Parks,
Recreation and Open Spaces Department conducts nonnative species
control, prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments on lands
owned or managed by Miami-Dade County, including this unit. These
actions help improve habitat that could support the Miami tiger beetle.
The entirety of Unit 1 overlaps with designated critical habitat
for Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-bush.
Additionally, approximately 8 ac (3 ha) or 80 percent of Unit 1 is
enrolled in the NFC program.

Unit 2: Rockdale Pineland

Unit 2 consists of approximately 39 ac (16 ha) of State (38 ac (15
ha)) and county (1 ac (<1 ha)) owned lands in Miami-Dade County. The
unit is within the historical range of the Miami tiger beetle, although
we are not aware of any records of historical occupancy of the unit.
This unit includes remnant pine rockland habitat within the Northern
Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge. This unit includes all the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species identified for the Miami tiger beetle and is protected and
actively managed to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat.
This unit is currently unoccupied by the Miami tiger beetle but is
essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the species, and maintain
populations throughout the historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should the Miami tiger beetle be extirpated from one
of its current locations. Given this unit contains essential habitat
features (all of the physical or biological features), is protected and
actively managed, and has an appropriate spatial distribution falling
within the range of the species, we are reasonably certain that the
lands and habitat within this unit will contribute to the conservation
of the Miami tiger beetle.
The Natural Areas Management Division of Miami-Dade County Parks,
Recreation and Open Spaces Department conducts nonnative species
control, prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments on lands
owned by Miami-Dade County. The actions help improve habitat that could
support the Miami tiger beetle.
All but 1 ac (<1 ha) of Unit 2 overlaps with designated critical
habitat for Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-bush.
Additionally, approximately 28 ac (11 ha) or 72 percent of Unit 2 are
enrolled in the NFC program.

Unit 3: Deering Estate South Edition

Unit 3 consists of approximately 16 ac (6 ha) of State-owned land
in Miami-Dade County. The unit is within the historical range of the
Miami tiger beetle, although we are not aware of any records of
historical occupancy of the unit. This unit includes remaining pine
rockland habitat within the Northern Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami
Rock Ridge. This unit includes all the physical or biological features
essential for the conservation of the species and is protected and
actively managed to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat.
This unit is currently unoccupied by the Miami tiger beetle but is
essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the species, and maintain
populations throughout the historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should the Miami tiger beetle be extirpated from one
of its current locations. Given this unit contains essential habitat
features (all of the physical or biological features), is protected and
actively managed, and has an appropriate spatial distribution falling
within the range of the species, we are reasonably certain that the
lands and habitat within this unit will contribute to the conservation
of the Miami tiger beetle.
The Natural Areas Management Division of Miami-Dade County Parks,
Recreation and Open Spaces Department conducts nonnative species
control, prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments on lands
owned or managed by Miami-Dade County, including this unit. The actions
help improve habitat that could support the Miami tiger beetle.
All but 1 ac (<1 ha) of Unit 3 overlaps with designated critical
habitat for Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-bush.
Additionally, approximately 15 ac (6 ha) or 94 percent of Unit 3 is
enrolled in the NFC program.

Unit 4: Ned Glenn Nature Preserve

Unit 4 consists of approximately 11 ac (5 ha) of county-owned land
in Miami-Dade County. The unit is within the historical range of the
Miami tiger beetle, although we are not aware of any records of
historical occupancy of the unit. This unit includes remaining pine
rockland habitat within the Northern Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami
Rock Ridge. This unit includes all the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and is protected and
actively managed to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat.
This unit is currently unoccupied by the Miami tiger beetle but is
essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the species, and maintain
populations throughout the historical distribution of the species in

[[Page 49957]]

Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should the Miami tiger beetle be extirpated from one
of its current locations. Given this unit contains essential habitat
features (all of the physical or biological features), is protected and
actively managed, and has an appropriate spatial distribution falling
within the range of the species, we are reasonably certain that the
lands and habitat within this unit will contribute to the conservation
of the Miami tiger beetle.
The Natural Areas Management Division of Miami-Dade County Parks,
Recreation and Open Spaces Department conducts nonnative species
control, prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments on lands
owned by Miami-Dade County. The actions help improve habitat that could
support the Miami tiger beetle.
The entirety of Unit 4 overlaps with designated critical habitat
for Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-bush.
Additionally, approximately 11 ac (4 ha) or 100 percent of Unit 4 is
enrolled in the NFC program.

Unit 5: Deering Estate at Cutler

Unit 5 consists of approximately 89 ac (36 ha) of county-owned land
in Miami-Dade County. The unit is within the historical range of the
Miami tiger beetle, although we are not aware of any records of
historical occupancy of the unit. This unit includes remaining pine
rockland habitat within the Northern Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami
Rock Ridge. This unit includes all the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and is protected and
actively managed to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat.
This unit is currently unoccupied by the Miami tiger beetle but is
essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the species, and maintain
populations throughout the historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should the Miami tiger beetle be extirpated from one
of its current locations. Given this unit contains essential habitat
features (all of the physical or biological features), is protected and
actively managed, and has an appropriate spatial distribution falling
within the range of the species, we are reasonably certain that the
lands and habitat within this unit will contribute to the conservation
of the Miami tiger beetle.
The Natural Areas Management Division of Miami-Dade County Parks,
Recreation and Open Spaces Department conducts nonnative species
control, prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments on lands
owned by Miami-Dade County. The actions help improve habitat that could
support the Miami tiger beetle.
All but 5 ac (2 ha) of Unit 5 overlaps with designated critical
habitat for Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-bush.
Additionally, approximately 84 ac (34 ha) or 94 percent of Unit 5 is
enrolled in the NFC program.

Unit 6: Silver Palm Groves Pineland

Unit 6 consists of approximately 25 ac (10 ha) of State (20 ac (8
ha)) and county (5 ac (2 ha)) owned lands in Miami-Dade County. The
unit is within the historical range of the Miami tiger beetle, although
we are not aware of any records of historical occupancy of the unit.
This unit includes remaining pine rockland habitat within the Northern
Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge. This unit includes all the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and is protected and actively managed to maintain healthy pine
rockland habitat.
This unit is currently unoccupied by the Miami tiger beetle but is
essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the species, and maintain
populations throughout the historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should the Miami tiger beetle be extirpated from one
of its current locations. Given this unit contains essential habitat
features (all of the physical or biological features), is protected and
actively managed, and has an appropriate spatial distribution falling
within the range of the species, we are reasonably certain that the
lands and habitat within this unit will contribute to the conservation
of the Miami tiger beetle.
The Natural Areas Management Division of Miami-Dade County Parks,
Recreation and Open Spaces Department conducts nonnative species
control, prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments on lands
owned by Miami-Dade County. The actions help improve habitat that could
support the Miami tiger beetle.
All but 3 ac (1 ha) of Unit 6 overlaps with designated critical
habitat for Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly, Carter's small-
flowered flax, and Florida brickell-bush. Additionally, approximately
18 ac (7 ha) or 72 percent of Unit 6 is enrolled in the NFC program.

Unit 7: Quail Roost Pineland

Unit 7 consists of approximately 48 ac (19 ha) of State-owned land
in Miami-Dade County. The unit is within the historical range of the
Miami tiger beetle, although we are not aware of any records of
historical occupancy of the unit. This unit includes remaining pine
rockland habitat within the Northern Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami
Rock Ridge. This unit includes all the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and is protected and
actively managed to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat.
This unit is currently unoccupied by the Miami tiger beetle but is
essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the species, and maintain
populations throughout the historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should the Miami tiger beetle be extirpated from one
of its current locations. Given this unit contains essential habitat
features (all of the physical or biological features), is protected and
actively managed, and has an appropriate spatial distribution falling
within the range of the species, we are reasonably certain that the
lands and habitat within this unit will contribute to the conservation
of the Miami tiger beetle. The Natural Areas Management Division of
Miami-Dade County Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Department conducts
nonnative species control, prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation
treatments on lands owned or managed by Miami-Dade County, including
this unit. The actions help improve habitat that could support the
Miami tiger beetle.
All but 1 ac (<1 ha) of Unit 7 overlaps with designated critical
habitat for Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly, Carter's small-
flowered flax, and Florida brickell-bush. Additionally, approximately
32 ac (13 ha) or 67 percent of Unit 7 is enrolled in the NFC program.

Unit 8: Eachus Pineland

Unit 8 consists of approximately 17 ac (7 ha) of county lands in
Miami-Dade County. The unit is within the historical range of the Miami
tiger beetle, although we are not aware of any records of historical
occupancy of the unit. This unit includes remaining pine rockland

[[Page 49958]]

habitat in the Northern Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge.
This unit includes all the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species and is protected and actively managed
to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat.
This unit is currently unoccupied by the Miami tiger beetle but is
essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the species, and maintain
populations throughout the historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should the Miami tiger beetle be extirpated from one
of its current locations. Given this unit contains essential habitat
features (all of the physical or biological features), is protected and
actively managed, and has an appropriate spatial distribution falling
within the range of the species, we are reasonably certain that the
lands and habitat within this unit will contribute to the conservation
of the Miami tiger beetle.
The Natural Areas Management Division of Miami-Dade County Parks,
Recreation and Open Spaces Department conducts nonnative species
control, prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments on lands
owned by Miami-Dade County. The actions help improve habitat that could
support the Miami tiger beetle.
The entirety of Unit 8 overlaps with designated critical habitat
for Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-bush.
Additionally, approximately 14 ac (6 ha) or 82 percent of Unit 8 is
enrolled in the NFC program.

Unit 9: Bill Sadowski Park

Unit 9 consists of approximately 20 ac (8 ha) of county-owned lands
in Miami-Dade County. The unit is within the historical range of the
Miami tiger beetle, although we are not aware of any records of
historical occupancy of the unit. This unit includes remaining pine
rockland habitat within the Northern Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami
Rock Ridge. This unit includes all the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and is protected and
actively managed to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat.
This unit is currently unoccupied by the Miami tiger beetle but is
essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the species, and maintain
populations throughout the historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should the Miami tiger beetle be extirpated from one
of its current locations. Given this unit contains essential habitat
features (all of the physical or biological features), is protected and
actively managed, and has an appropriate spatial distribution falling
within the range of the species, we are reasonably certain that the
lands and habitat within this unit will contribute to the conservation
of the Miami tiger beetle.
The Natural Areas Management Division of Miami-Dade County Parks,
Recreation and Open Spaces Department conducts nonnative species
control, prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments on lands
owned by Miami-Dade County. The actions help improve habitat that could
support the Miami tiger beetle.
All but 1 ac (<1 ha) of Unit 9 overlaps with designated critical
habitat for Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-bush.
Additionally, approximately 19 ac (8 ha) or 95 percent of Unit 9 is
enrolled in the NFC program.

Unit 10: Tamiami Pineland Complex Addition

Unit 10 consists of approximately 21 ac (8 ha) of State-owned lands
in Miami-Dade County. The unit is within the historical range of the
Miami tiger beetle, although we are not aware of any records of
historical occupancy of the unit. This unit includes remaining pine
rockland habitat within the Northern Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami
Rock Ridge. This unit includes all the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and is protected and
actively managed to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat.
This unit is currently unoccupied by the Miami tiger beetle but is
essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the species, and maintain
populations throughout the historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should the Miami tiger beetle be extirpated from one
of its current locations. Given this unit contains essential habitat
features (all of the physical or biological features), is protected and
actively managed, and has an appropriate spatial distribution falling
within the range of the species, we are reasonably certain that the
lands and habitat within this unit will contribute to the conservation
of the Miami tiger beetle.
The Natural Areas Management Division of Miami-Dade County Parks,
Recreation and Open Spaces Department conducts nonnative species
control, prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments on lands
owned or managed by Miami-Dade County, including this unit. The actions
help improve habitat that could support the Miami tiger beetle.
All but 2 ac (<1 ha) of Unit 10 overlaps with designated critical
habitat for Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly, Carter's small-
flowered flax, and Florida brickell-bush. Additionally, approximately
18 ac (7 ha) or 86 percent of Unit 10 is enrolled in the NFC program.

Unit 11: Pine Shore Pineland Preserve

Unit 11 consists of approximately 8 ac (3 ha) of county-owned lands
in Miami-Dade County. The unit is within the historical range of the
Miami tiger beetle, although we are not aware of any records of
historical occupancy of the unit. This unit includes remaining pine
rockland habitat within the Northern Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami
Rock Ridge. This unit includes all the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and is protected and
actively managed to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat.
This unit is currently unoccupied by the Miami tiger beetle but is
essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the species, and maintain
populations throughout the historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should the Miami tiger beetle be extirpated from one
of its current locations. Given this unit contains essential habitat
features (all of the physical or biological features), is protected and
actively managed, and has an appropriate spatial distribution falling
within the range of the species, we are reasonably certain that the
lands and habitat within this unit will contribute to the conservation
of the Miami tiger beetle.
The Natural Areas Management Division of Miami-Dade County Parks,
Recreation and Open Spaces Department conducts nonnative species
control, prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments on lands
owned by Miami-Dade County. The actions help improve habitat that could
support the Miami tiger beetle.

[[Page 49959]]

The entirety of Unit 11 overlaps with designated critical habitat
for Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-bush.
Additionally, approximately 7 ac (3 ha) or 86 percent of Unit 11 is
enrolled in the NFC program.

Unit 12: Nixon Smiley Pineland Preserve

Unit 12 consists of approximately 117 ac (47 ha) of county-owned
lands in Miami-Dade County. This unit was occupied at the time of
listing and is currently occupied by the Miami tiger beetle. While
surveys of this site have been inconsistent in level of effort, timing,
and frequency, they have primarily focused on the habitat previously
known to be occupied: The open, sandy areas on the western half of the
property.
This occupied habitat contains all of the physical or biological
features, including pine rockland habitat (of sufficient size) with
open or sparsely vegetated sandy areas that allow for thermoregulation,
foraging, egg-laying, larval development, species dispersal, and
population expansion, and natural or artificial disturbance regimes.
The physical or biological features in this unit are protected and
actively managed to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat. They may
require additional special management considerations or protection to
address threats of habitat loss and fragmentation, inadequate fire
management, vegetation encroachment, collection, small population size,
and sea level rise. In some cases, there are management actions being
implemented to reduce some of these threats, and continued coordination
with our partners and landowners are ongoing to implement needed
actions. This unit is occupied by one of two extant populations of
Miami tiger beetle, contains essential habitat features (all of the
physical or biological features), is protected and actively managed,
and has an appropriate spatial distribution falling within the range of
the species.
The Natural Areas Management Division of Miami-Dade County Parks,
Recreation and Open Spaces Department conducts nonnative species
control, prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments on lands
owned by Miami-Dade County. The actions help improve habitat that could
support the Miami tiger beetle.
All but 2 ac (<1 ha) of Unit 12 overlaps with designated critical
habitat for Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly, Carter's small-
flowered flax, and Florida brickell-bush. Additionally, approximately
112 ac (47 ha) or 96 percent of Unit 12 is enrolled in the NFC program.

Unit 13: Camp Matecumbe

Unit 13 consists of approximately 81 ac (33 ha) of State (76 ac (31
ha)) and county (5 ac (2 ha)) owned lands in Miami-Dade County. The
unit is within the historical range of the Miami tiger beetle, although
we are not aware of any records of historical occupancy of the unit.
This unit includes remaining pine rockland habitat in the Northern
Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge. This unit includes all the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and is protected and actively managed to maintain healthy pine
rockland habitat.
This unit is currently unoccupied by the Miami tiger beetle but is
essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the species, and maintain
populations throughout the historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should the Miami tiger beetle be extirpated from one
of its current locations. Given this unit contains essential habitat
features (all of the physical or biological features), is protected and
actively managed, and has an appropriate spatial distribution falling
within the range of the species, we are reasonably certain that the
lands and habitat within this unit will contribute to the conservation
of the Miami tiger beetle.
The Natural Areas Management Division of Miami-Dade County Parks,
Recreation and Open Spaces Department conducts nonnative species
control, prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments on lands
owned by Miami-Dade County. The actions help improve habitat that could
support the Miami tiger beetle.
All but 4 ac (1 ha) of Unit 13 overlaps with designated critical
habitat for Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly, Carter's small-
flowered flax, and Florida brickell-bush. Additionally, approximately
62 ac (25 ha) or 77 percent of Unit 13 is enrolled in the NFC program.

Unit 14: Richmond Pine Rocklands

Unit 14 consists of approximately 1,455 ac (589 ha) in Miami-Dade
County. Landownership in this unit is split among Federal (488 ac (198
ha)), county (844 ac (341 ha)), and private (123 ac (50 ha)). This unit
is currently occupied by the Miami tiger beetle, which has been
documented from four contiguous parcels within the Richmond Pine
Rocklands: Zoo Miami Pine Rockland Preserve (Zoo Miami), Larry and
Penny Thompson Park, U.S. Coast Guard, and University of Miami's Center
for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing property (CSTARS).
Miami tiger beetles within the four contiguous occupied parcels in the
Richmond population are within close proximity to each other with
connecting patches of habitat with few or no barriers 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 2015b, p. 10).
The unit also includes areas of pine rockland habitat containing
all of the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species that are adjacent to sites with documented
occurrences. The complex, including these parcels, contains all of the
essential features (physical or biological features)--including pine
rockland habitat (of sufficient size) with open or sparsely vegetated
sandy areas that allow for thermoregulation, foraging, egg-laying,
larval development, species dispersal, and population expansion, and
natural or artificial disturbance regimes. The complex as a whole
protects the occupied sites within the Richmond population, provides
dispersal corridors for the Richmond population, provides potential
habitat for population expansion, and supports prey-base populations.
Being only one of two sites known to be currently occupied by the Miami
tiger beetle, this complex is important to the Miami tiger beetle to
ensure redundancy for the species and to contribute to the species'
viability.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
additional special management considerations or protection to address
threats of habitat loss and fragmentation, inadequate fire management,
vegetation encroachment, collection, small population size, and sea
level rise. In some cases, these threats are being addressed or
coordinated with our partners and landowners to implement needed
actions.
Approximately 776 ac (314 ha) or 53 percent of Unit 14 is enrolled
in the NFC program. In addition, of the approximately 1,455 ac (589 ha)
of critical habitat proposed for the Miami tiger beetle in Unit 14,
about 937 ac (379 ha) overlap with designated critical habitat for
Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly, Florida leafwing butterfly,
Carter's small-flowered flax, and Florida brickell-bush. Therefore,
approximately 518 ac (210 ha) of proposed critical

[[Page 49960]]

habitat in Unit 14 is unique to the Miami tiger beetle.

Unit 15: Calderon Pineland

Unit 15 consists of approximately 14 ac (6 ha) of county-owned
lands in Miami-Dade County. The unit is within the historical range of
the Miami tiger beetle, although we are not aware of any records of
historical occupancy of the unit. This unit includes remaining pine
rockland habitat in the Northern Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock
Ridge. This unit includes all the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and is protected and
actively managed to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat.
This unit is currently unoccupied by the Miami tiger beetle but is
essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the species, and maintain
populations throughout the historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should the Miami tiger beetle be extirpated from one
of its current locations. Given this unit contains essential habitat
features (all of the physical or biological features), is protected and
actively managed, and has an appropriate spatial distribution falling
within the range of the species, we are reasonably certain that the
lands and habitat within this unit will contribute to the conservation
of the Miami tiger beetle.
The Natural Areas Management Division of Miami-Dade County Parks,
Recreation and Open Spaces Department conducts nonnative species
control, prescribed fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments on lands
owned by Miami-Dade County. The actions help improve habitat that could
support the Miami tiger beetle.
The entirety of Unit 15 overlaps with designated critical habitat
for Florida brickell-bush. Additionally, approximately 9 ac (4 ha) or
64 percent of Unit 15 is enrolled in the NFC program.

Unit 16: Porter Pineland Preserve

Unit 16 consists of approximately 7 ac (3 ha) of privately owned
lands in Miami-Dade County. The unit is within the historical range of
the Miami tiger beetle, although we are not aware of any records of
historical occupancy of the unit. This unit includes remaining pine
rockland habitat in the Northern Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock
Ridge. This unit includes all the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and is protected and
actively managed to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat.
This unit is currently unoccupied by the Miami tiger beetle but is
essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to
protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild
populations within the historical range of the species, and maintain
populations throughout the historical distribution of the species in
Miami-Dade County. It also provides habitat for recovery in the case of
stochastic events, should the Miami tiger beetle be extirpated from one
of its current locations. Given this unit contains essential habitat
features (all of the physical or biological features), is protected and
actively managed, and has an appropriate spatial distribution falling
within the range of the species, we are reasonably certain that the
lands and habitat within this unit will contribute to the conservation
of the Miami tiger beetle.
The Audubon Society, with the help of volunteers and other
conservation groups, conduct nonnative species control, prescribed
fire, and mechanical vegetation treatments on this privately owned
parcel. The actions help improve habitat that could support the Miami
tiger beetle.
The entirety of Unit 16 overlaps with designated critical habitat
for Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-bush.
Additionally, approximately 6 ac (2 ha) or 86 percent of Unit 16 is
enrolled in the NFC program.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
or a permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that
involve some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat--and actions on State, Tribal, local, or
private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or carried out
by a Federal agency--do not require section 7 consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented
through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical
habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a

[[Page 49961]]

reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and, if
subsequent to the previous consultation: (1) If the amount or extent of
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) if
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously
considered; (3) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat
that was not considered in the biological opinion; or (4) if a new
species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected
by the identified action. In such situations, Federal agencies
sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but
the regulations also specify some exceptions to the requirement to
reinitiate consultation on specific land management plans after
subsequently listing a new species or designating new critical habitat.
See the regulations for a description of those exceptions.

Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard

The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above,
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat,
or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that the Service may, during a consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, consider likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat, or activities that may affect critical
habitat, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency,
should result in consultation for the Miami tiger beetle. These
activities include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter the hydrology or
substrate, such as ditching or filling. Such activities may include,
but are not limited to, road construction or maintenance, and
residential, commercial, or recreational development.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter vegetation structure or
composition, such as preventing the ability to conduct prescribed
burns, residential and commercial development, and recreational
facilities and trails.
(3) Actions that would introduce chemical pesticides into the pine
rockland ecosystem in a manner that impacts the Miami tiger beetle.
Such activities may include but are not limited to mosquito control and
agricultural pesticide applications.
(4) Actions that would introduce nonnative species that would
significantly alter vegetation structure or composition or the life
history of the Miami tiger beetle. Such activities may include, but are
not limited to, release of parasitic or predator species (flies or
wasps) for use in agriculture-based biological control programs.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that: ``The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat
any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the
Department of Defense (DoD), or designated for its use, that are
subject to an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP)
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to
the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.''
No DoD lands with a completed INRMP are within the proposed critical
habitat designation.
We are not aware of any DoD lands within the boundaries of the
proposed designation or that would be directly affected by the
designation if finalized as proposed. We have determined that the
Corps, a branch of the DoD, retains ownership over a 121-ac (49-ha)
parcel proposed for designation of critical habitat in Unit 14; of this
parcel, 85 ac (34 ha) are forested but not managed for preservation of
natural resources. These Corps lands are not considered a military
instillation under the Sikes Act subject to an INRMP, so they do not
meet the standards of section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. As a result, we
are not exempting any lands from this designation of critical habitat
for the Miami tiger beetle pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the
Act.

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

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless we determine, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area
from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise discretion to exclude
the area only if such exclusion would not result in the extinction of
the species. We have not proposed any areas for exclusion from critical
habitat for the Miami tiger beetle. However, the final decision on
whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data
available at the time of the final designation, including information
obtained during the comment period and information about the economic
impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic
analysis concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which is
available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES). We describe below the
process that we undertook for taking into consideration each category
of impacts and our analyses of the relevant impacts.

[[Page 49962]]

Consideration of Economic Impacts

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and
local regulations). Therefore, the baseline represents the costs of all
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e.,
conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical habitat''
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental
conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected
without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other
words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs.
These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion
and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of
critical habitat should we choose to conduct a discretionary 4(b)(2)
exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of
critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle (IEc 2021, entire). We
began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that
are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of
the screening analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which
the critical habitat designation is unlikely to result in probable
incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis
considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat designation)
and includes any probable incremental economic impacts where land and
water use may already be subject to conservation plans, land management
plans, best management practices, or regulations that protect the
habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of the species.
If the proposed critical habitat designation contains any
unoccupied units, the screening analysis filters out particular areas
of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and
are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts.
Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our analysis on
evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur probable
incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation. If the
proposed critical habitat designation contains any unoccupied units,
the screening analysis assesses whether units are unoccupied because
they require additional management or conservation efforts that may
incur incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis combined
with the information contained in our IEM constitute what we consider
to be our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat
designation for the Miami tiger beetle and is summarized in the
narrative below.
Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As
part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by
the critical habitat designation.
In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that
may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the
Miami tiger beetle, first we identified, in the IEM dated April 28,
2021, probable incremental economic impacts associated with the
following categories of activities: (1) Federal lands management (U.S.
Coast Guard, Corps, FBP, and NOAA); (2) roadway and bridge
construction; (3) agriculture; (4) dredging; (5) storage and
distribution of chemical pollutants; (6) commercial or residential
development; and (7) recreation (including construction of recreation
infrastructure). We considered each industry or category individually.
Additionally, we considered whether their activities have any Federal
involvement. Critical habitat designation generally will not affect
activities that do not have any Federal involvement; under the Act,
designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where
the Miami tiger beetle is present, Federal agencies already are
required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on
activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species.
If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, our
consultation would include an evaluation of measures to avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that will result from the species being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the Miami
tiger beetle's critical habitat. Because the designation of critical
habitat for the Miami tiger beetle is being proposed several years
following the listing of the species, data, such as from consultation
history, is available to help us discern which conservation efforts are
attributable to the species being listed and those which will result
solely from the designation of critical habitat. The following specific
circumstances help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical
or biological features identified for critical habitat are the same
features essential for the life requisites of the species and (2) any
actions that would result in sufficient harm or harassment to
constitute jeopardy to the Miami tiger beetle would also likely
adversely affect the essential physical or biological features of
critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this
limited distinction between protections

[[Page 49963]]

or economic impacts associated with listing and incremental impacts of
the designation of critical habitat for this species. This evaluation
of the incremental effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the
probable incremental economic impacts of this proposed designation of
critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation for the Miami tiger
beetle totals approximately 1,977 ac (800 ha) in 16 units in Miami-Dade
County, Florida. Two of the 16 units are currently occupied by the
Miami tiger beetle; the remaining 14 units are within the beetle's
historical range but were not occupied at the time the species was
listed in 2016 and are not known to be currently occupied. As
previously stated, the 14 unoccupied critical habitat units encompass
approximately 405 ac (164 ha) or 20 percent of proposed critical
habitat for the Miami tiger beetle, of which only 17 ac (7 ha) or 4
percent are not currently designated as critical habitat for other
federally listed species. Tables 1 through 3, above, set forth specific
information concerning each unit, including occupancy, land ownership,
and extent of overlap with existing Federal critical habitat (see
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation).
Because the majority (80 percent) of the area designated is
occupied, most actions that may affect the species or its habitat would
also affect designated critical habitat, and it is unlikely that any
additional conservation efforts would be recommended to address the
adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as
necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the Miami
tiger beetle. Therefore, only administrative costs are expected in
approximately 80 percent of the proposed critical habitat designation.
While the analysis for adverse modification of critical habitat will
require time and resources by both the Federal action agency and the
Service, it is believed that, in most circumstances, these costs would
predominantly be administrative in nature and would not be significant.
The remaining designated area is unoccupied and mostly (96 percent
of the unoccupied area) overlaps with existing designated critical
habitat for other pine rockland habitat species, including Carter's
small-flowered flax, Florida brickell-bush, Bartram's scrub hairstreak
butterfly, and the Florida leafwing butterfly. As a result,
consultations for other listed species and critical habitats are likely
to have already resulted in protections absent the critical habitat
designation for the Miami tiger beetle, and recommendations for those
species are anticipated to be sufficient to protect the Miami tiger
beetle critical habitat. Further, any consultation requirements for
listed species and resulting costs would be at least partially split
among each overlapped species with not one species being the sole
source of the entire costs. Accordingly, in these unoccupied areas, any
conservation efforts or associated probable impacts would be considered
incremental effects attributed to the critical habitat designation.
The probable incremental economic impacts of the Miami tiger beetle
critical habitat designation are expected to be limited to additional
administrative effort as well as minor costs of conservation efforts
resulting from a small number of future section 7 consultations. This
is due to two factors: (1) A large portion of proposed critical habitat
is considered to be occupied by the species (80 percent), and
incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation, other
than administrative costs, are unlikely; and (2) in proposed areas that
are not occupied by the Miami tiger beetle (20 percent), nearly all is
designated critical habitat for other pine rockland species and the
designation is not likely to result in additional or different project
modifications from those that would already be anticipated absent the
Miami tiger beetle designation. Because of the relatively small size of
the critical habitat designation, the volume of lands that are State,
county, or privately owned, and the substantial amount of lands that
are already being managed for conservation, the numbers of section 7
consultations expected annually are modest (approximately 2 formal, 12
informal, and 14 technical assistance efforts annually across the
designation).
Some potential private property value effects are possible due to
public perception of impacts to private lands. The designation of
critical habitat may cause some developers or landowners to perceive
that private lands will be subject to use restrictions or litigation
from third parties, resulting in costs. However, less than seven
percent of the proposed critical habitat designation is privately owned
land, leading to nominal incremental costs arising from changes in
public perception of lands included in the designation.
Critical habitat designation for the Miami tiger beetle is unlikely
to generate costs or benefits exceeding $100 million in a single year.
Therefore, this rule is unlikely to meet the threshold for an
economically significant rule, with regard to costs, under E.O. 12866.
In fact, the total annual incremental costs of critical habitat
designation for the Miami tiger beetle is anticipated to be less than
$48,000 per year, and economic benefits are also anticipated to be
small.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the draft economic analysis, as well as on all aspects of the
proposed rule and our amended required determinations. During the
development of a final designation, we will consider the information
presented in the draft economic analysis and any additional information
on economic impacts we receive during the public comment period to
determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from the final
critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.90. If we receive credible
information regarding the existence of a meaningful economic or other
relevant impact supporting a benefit of exclusion, we will conduct an
exclusion analysis for the relevant area or areas. We may also exercise
the discretion to evaluate any other particular areas for possible
exclusion. Furthermore, when we conduct an exclusion analysis based on
impacts identified by experts in, or sources with firsthand knowledge
about, impacts that are outside the scope of the Service's expertise,
we will give weight to those impacts consistent with the expert or
firsthand information unless we have rebutting information. We may
exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits
of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area,
provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this
species.

Consideration of National Security Impacts

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD
installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly
listed species or a species previously not covered). If a particular
area is not covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), then national-security
or homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the process of
determining what areas meet the definition of ``critical habitat.''
However, the Service must still consider impacts on national security,
including homeland security, on those lands or areas not covered by
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), because section 4(b)(2) requires the Service to
consider those impacts whenever it designates critical habitat.
Accordingly, if DoD, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or another
Federal agency has

[[Page 49964]]

requested exclusion based on an assertion of national-security or
homeland security concerns, or we have otherwise identified national
security or homeland-security impacts from designating particular areas
as critical habitat, we generally have reason to consider excluding
those areas.
However, we cannot automatically exclude requested areas. When DoD,
DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical habitat
on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, we must
conduct an exclusion analysis if the Federal requester provides
credible information, including a reasonably specific justification of
an incremental impact on national security that would result from the
designation of that specific area as critical habitat. That
justification could include demonstration of probable impacts, such as
impacts to ongoing border-security patrols and surveillance activities,
or a delay in training or facility construction, as a result of
compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting
the exclusion does not provide us with a reasonably specific
justification, we will contact the agency to recommend that it provide
a specific justification or clarification of its concerns relative to
the probable incremental impact that could result from the designation.
If we conduct an exclusion analysis because the agency provides a
reasonably specific justification or because we decide to exercise the
discretion to conduct an exclusion analysis, we will defer to the
expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1)
Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other
lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security
implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the
degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in
the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great
weight to national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing
the benefits of exclusion.

DHS Land Parcel

We have determined that some lands within Unit 14 of the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle are owned,
managed, or used by the U.S. Coast Guard, which is part of the DHS.
As discussed in the Richmond Pine Rocklands (Unit 14) description
above, the U.S. Coast Guard property is separated into two main areas:
The COMMSTA Miami and the CEU. The COMMSTA houses transmitting and
receiving antennas. The CEU plans and executes projects at regional
shore facilities, such as construction and post-disaster assessments.
The U.S. Coast Guard parcel contains approximately 100 ac (40 ha)
of standing pine rocklands. The remainder of the site, outside of the
developed areas, is made up of scraped pine rocklands that are mowed
three to four times per year for maintenance of a communications
antenna field. While disturbed, this scraped area maintains sand
substrate and many native pine rockland species, including documented
occurrences of the Miami tiger beetle. The U.S. Coast Guard parcel has
a draft management plan that includes management of pine rockland
habitats, including vegetation control and prescribed fire and
protection of lands from further development or degradation. In
addition, the standing pine rockland area is partially managed through
an active recovery grant to the Institute for Regional Conservation.
Under this grant, up to 39 ac (16 ha) of standing pine rocklands will
undergo invasive vegetation control.
Based on a review of the specific mission of the U.S. Coast Guard
facility in conjunction with the measures and efforts set forth in the
draft management plan to preserve pine rockland habitat and protect
sensitive and listed species, we have made a preliminary determination
that it is unlikely that the critical habitat, if finalized as
proposed, would negatively impact the facility or its operations. As a
result, we do not anticipate any impact on national security. However,
if through the public comment period we receive credible information
regarding impacts on national security or homeland security from
designating particular areas as critical habitat, then as part of
developing the final designation of critical habitat, we will conduct a
discretionary exclusion analysis to determine whether to exclude those
areas under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 17.90.

DoD Land Parcel

As discussed above, we have determined that the Corps, a branch of
the DoD, retains ownership over a 121-ac (49-ha)-parcel in Unit 14 of
the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Miami tiger
beetle. Over 85-ac (34-ha) of this parcel are forested but not managed
for preservation of natural resources. The Corps does not have any
specific management plan for the Miami tiger beetle or its habitat
covering these lands. Activities conducted on this site are unknown,
but we do not anticipate any impact on national security. However, if
through the public comment period we receive credible information
regarding impacts on national security or homeland security from
designating particular areas as critical habitat, then as part of
developing the final designation of critical habitat, we will conduct a
discretionary exclusion analysis to determine whether to exclude those
areas under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 17.90.

Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security discussed above. Other relevant impacts may include, but are
not limited to, impacts to Tribes, States, local governments, public
health and safety, community interests, the environment (such as
increased risk of wildfire or pest and invasive species management),
Federal lands, and conservation plans, agreements, or partnerships. To
identify other relevant impacts that may affect the exclusion analysis,
we consider a number of factors, including whether there are permitted
conservation plans covering the species in the area--such as HCPs, safe
harbor agreements (SHAs), or candidate conservation agreements with
assurances (CCAAs)--or whether there are non-permitted conservation
agreements and partnerships that may be impaired by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at whether
Tribal conservation plans or partnerships, Tribal resources, or
government-to-government relationships of the United States with Tribal
entities may be affected by the designation. We also consider any
State, local, public-health, community-interest, environmental, or
social impacts that might occur because of the designation.
When analyzing other relevant impacts of including a particular
area in a designation of critical habitat, we weigh those impacts
relative to the conservation value of the particular area. To determine
the conservation value of designating a particular area, we consider a
number of factors, including, but not limited to, the additional
regulatory benefits that the area would receive due to the protection
from destruction or adverse modification as a result of actions with a
Federal nexus, the educational benefits of mapping essential habitat
for recovery of the listed species, and any

[[Page 49965]]

benefits that may result from a designation due to State or Federal
laws that may apply to critical habitat.
In the case of Miami tiger beetle, the benefits of critical habitat
include public awareness of the presence of Miami tiger beetle and the
importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists,
increased habitat protection for Miami tiger beetle due to protection
from destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Continued
implementation of an ongoing management plan that provides conservation
equal to or more than the protections that result from a critical
habitat designation would reduce those benefits of including that
specific area in the critical habitat designation.
We evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when considering
the benefits of inclusion. We consider a variety of factors, including,
but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; how it provides for
the conservation of the essential physical or biological features;
whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will
be implemented into the future; whether the conservation strategies in
the plan are likely to be effective; and whether the plan contains a
monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the
conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the future in
response to new information.
After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in
extinction of the species. If exclusion of an area from critical
habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the
designation.

Private or Other Non-Federal Conservation Plans or Agreements and
Partnerships, in General

HCPs for incidental take permits under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Act provide for partnerships with non-Federal entities to minimize and
mitigate impacts to listed species and their habitat. In some cases,
HCP permittees agree to do more for the conservation of the species and
their habitats on private lands than designation of critical habitat
would provide alone. We place great value on the partnerships that are
developed during the preparation and implementation of HCPs.
CCAAs and SHAs are voluntary agreements designed to conserve
candidate and listed species, respectively, on non-Federal lands. In
exchange for actions that contribute to the conservation of species on
non-Federal lands, participating property owners are covered by an
``enhancement of survival'' permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the
Act, which authorizes incidental take of the covered species that may
result from implementation of conservation actions, specific land uses,
and, in the case of SHAs, the option to return to a baseline condition
under the agreements. The Service also provides enrollees assurances
that we will not impose further land-, water-, or resource-use
restrictions, or require additional commitments of land, water, or
finances, beyond those agreed to in the agreements.
When we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion
analysis based on permitted conservation plans such as CCAAs, SHAs, and
HCPs, we consider the following three factors:
(i) Whether the permittee is properly implementing the conservation
plan or agreement;
(ii) Whether the species for which critical habitat is being
designated is a covered species in the conservation plan or agreement;
and
(iii) Whether the conservation plan or agreement specifically
addresses the habitat of the species for which critical habitat is
being designated and meets the conservation needs of the species in the
planning area.
The proposed critical habitat designation includes areas that are
covered by the following permitted plan providing for the conservation
of Miami tiger beetle: Coral Reef Commons Habitat Conservation Plan.

Coral Reef Commons Habitat Conservation Plan

In preparing this proposal, we have determined that lands
associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP within the Richmond Pine
Rocklands (Unit 14) are included within the boundaries of the proposed
critical habitat.
As discussed in the Richmond Pine Rocklands (Unit 14) description
above, Coral Reef Commons is a mixed-use community, which consists of
900 apartments, retail stores, restaurants, and parking. In 2017, an
HCP and associated permit under section 10 of the Act was developed and
issued for the Coral Reef Commons development. As part of the HCP and
permit, an approximately 51-ac (21-ha) onsite preserve (same as the
area for proposed critical habitat designation) was established under a
conservation encumbrance that will be managed in perpetuity for pine
rockland habitat and sensitive and listed species, including the Miami
tiger beetle. In addition, an additional approximately 51-ac (21-ha) of
the CSTARS site (discussed above) is an offsite mitigation area for
Coral Reef Commons. Both the onsite preserve and the offsite mitigation
area are being managed to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat
through the use of invasive, exotic plant management, mechanical
treatment, and prescribed fire, addressing both the habitat and
conservation needs of the species. Since initiating the Coral Reef
Commons HCP, pine rockland restoration efforts have been conducted
within all of the management units in both the onsite preserve and the
offsite mitigation area. A second round of prescribed fire began in
February 2021. Currently, the onsite preserve meets or exceeds the
success criteria described for proper implementation of the HCP.
Critical habitat within Unit 14 that is associated with the Coral
Reef Commons HCP is limited to the onsite preserve and offsite
mitigation area. Based on our review of the HCP and proposed critical
habitat for the Miami tiger beetle, we do not anticipate requesting any
additional conservation measures for the species beyond those that are
currently in place. The Coral Reef Commons HCP covers the Miami tiger
beetle; addresses the specific habitat of the species and meets the
conservation needs of the species; and is currently being implemented
properly. Therefore, at this time, we are considering excluding those
specific lands associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP that are in
the preserve and offsite mitigation area from the final designation of
critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle. However, we will more
thoroughly review the HCP, its implementation of the conservation
measures for the Miami tiger beetle and its habitat therein, and public
comment on this issue prior to finalizing critical habitat, and if
appropriate, exclude from critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle
those lands associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP that are in the
preserve and offsite mitigation area.
We have further determined that there are no additional HCPs or
other management plans for the Miami tiger beetle within the proposed
critical habitat designation.

Tribal Lands

Several Executive Orders, Secretarial Orders, and policies concern
working with Tribes. These guidance documents generally confirm our
trust responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that

[[Page 49966]]

Tribes have sovereign authority to control Tribal lands, emphasize the
importance of developing partnerships with Tribal governments, and
direct the Service to consult with Tribes on a government-to-government
basis. There are no Tribal lands within the designated critical habitat
for Miami tiger beetle.
During the development of a final designation, we will consider any
additional information received through the public comment period
regarding other relevant impacts to determine whether any specific
areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation
under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at
50 CFR 17.90.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.

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

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking only on those entities
directly regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA
does not require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to
indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which
critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act,
which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to
ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency
is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
Therefore, under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly
subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction
and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation.
Consequently, it is our position that only Federal action agencies
would be directly regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat
designation. The RFA does not require evaluation of the potential
impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies
are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be
directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if
made final as proposed, the proposed critical habitat designation will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed
critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that the
designation of this proposed critical habitat will significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use. We do not foresee any energy
development projects, supply distribution or use that may affect the
proposed critical habitat units for the Miami tiger beetle. Further,

[[Page 49967]]

in our evaluation of potential economic impacts, we did not find that
this proposed critical habitat designation would significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.

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

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because the government lands being proposed
for critical habitat designation are owned by the Federal Government,
including the U.S. Coast Guard (DHS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(DoD), NOAA, and FBP; or are State or local governments such as the
State of Florida, and Miami-Dade County. None of these government
entities fit the definition of ``small governmental jurisdiction.''
Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for the Miami tiger beetle in a takings implications
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership, or establish any closures or restrictions on use
of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of
critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward.
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed for the
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle and
concludes that, if adopted, this designation of critical habitat does
not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected
by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation
with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to these
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the
physical or biological features of the habitat necessary for the
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist State and local
governments in long-range planning because they no longer have to wait
for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed

[[Page 49968]]

designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the
species, this proposed rule identifies the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed
areas of critical habitat are presented on maps, and the proposed rule
provides several options for the interested public to obtain more
detailed location information, if desired.

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

This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (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 determined that there are no Tribal lands that were occupied by
the Miami tiger beetle at the time of listing that contain the features
essential for conservation of the species, and no Tribal lands
unoccupied by the Miami tiger beetle that are essential for the
conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not proposing to
designate critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle on Tribal lands.
As a result, there are no Tribal lands affected by the proposed
designation of critical habitat for this species.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Authors

The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Florida Ecological Services Field
Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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. In Sec. 17.11(h), revise the entry for ``Beetle, Miami tiger''
under ``Insects'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to
read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Insects

* * * * * * *
Beetle, Miami tiger............ Cicindelidia U.S.A. (FL)............ E 81 FR 68985; 10/5/
floridana. 2016; 50 CFR
17.95(i).\CH\

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (i) by adding an entry for ``Miami
Tiger Beetle Cicindelidia floridana'' after the entry for ``Helotes
Mold Beetle Batrisodes venyivi)'', to read as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
(i) Insects.
* * * * *

Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana)

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Miami-Dade County,
Florida, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Miami tiger beetle consist of one
or more of the following components:
(i) South Florida pine rockland habitat of at least 2.5 ac (1 ha)
in size that is maintained by natural or prescribed fire or other
disturbance regimes; and
(ii) Open sandy areas within or directly adjacent to the south
Florida pine rockland habitat with little to no vegetation that allows
for or facilitates normal behavior and growth such as thermoregulation,
foraging, egg-laying, larval development, and habitat connectivity,
which promotes the

[[Page 49969]]

overall distribution and expansion of the species.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using Esri ArcGIS mapping software. The projection used was
Albers Conical Equal Area (Florida Geographic Data Library), NAD 1983
HARN. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. The spatial data used to create the critical habitat unit
maps are available to the public at the Service's internet site, http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/, or http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS-R4-ES-2021-0053.
(5) Note: Index map of all critical habitat units for Miami tiger
beetle follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.004

(6) Unit 1: Trinity Pineland, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) Unit 1 consists of approximately 10 ac (4 ha). The unit is
located between SW 72nd Street to the north, SW 80th Street to the
south, South Dixie Highway to the east, and Palmetto Expressway to the
west.

[[Page 49970]]

(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.005

(7) Unit 2: Rockdale Pineland, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) Unit 2 consists of approximately 39 ac (16 ha). The unit is
located directly west of South Dixie Highway, between SW 144th Street
to the north and SW 152nd Street to the south.

[[Page 49971]]

(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.006

(8) Unit 3: Deering Estate South Edition, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) Unit 3 consists of approximately 16 ac (6 ha). This unit is
located just east of Old Cutler Road and south of 168th Street.

[[Page 49972]]

(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.007

(9) Unit 4: Ned Glenn Nature Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) Unit 4 consists of approximately 11 ac (4 ha). The unit is
located directly west of SW 87th Avenue, between 184th Street to the
north, Old Cutler Road to the south, and Franjo Road to the west.

[[Page 49973]]

(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.008

(10) Unit 5: Deering Estate at Cutler, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) Unit 5 consists of approximately 89 ac (36 ha). The unit is
located southeast of SW 152nd Street and Old Cutler Road.

[[Page 49974]]

(ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.009

(11) Unit 6: Silver Palm Groves Pineland, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) Unit 6 consists of approximately 25 ac (10 ha). This unit is
located just north of SW 232nd Street, between SW 216th Street to the
north, South Dixie Highway to the east, and SW 147th Avenue to the
west.

[[Page 49975]]

(ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.010

(12) Unit 7: Quail Roost Pineland, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) Unit 7 consists of approximately 48 ac (19 ha). This unit is
located between SW 200th Street to the north, SW 127th Avenue to the
east, SW 216th Street to the south, and SW 147th Avenue to the west.

[[Page 49976]]

(ii) Map of Unit 7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.011

(13) Unit 8: Eachus Pineland, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) Unit 8 consists of approximately 17 ac (7 ha). This unit is
located between SW 180th Street to the north, SW 137th Avenue to the
east, SW 184th Street to the south and SW 142th Avenue to the east.

[[Page 49977]]

(ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.012

(14) Unit 9: Bill Sadowski Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) Unit 9 consists of approximately 20 ac (8 ha). This unit is
located south of 168th Street, west of Old Cutler Road, north of SW
184th Street, and east of SW 87th Avenue.

[[Page 49978]]

(ii) Map of Unit 9 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.013

(15) Unit 10: Tamiami Pineland Complex Addition, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) Unit 10 consists of approximately 21 ac (8 ha). This unit is
located south of 128th Street, west of Florida's Turnpike, north of SW
136th Street, and east of SW 127th Avenue.

[[Page 49979]]

(ii) Map of Unit 10 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.014

(16) Unit 11: Pine Shore Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) Unit 11 consists of approximately 8 ac (3 ha). This unit is
located southwest of the Don Shula Expressway, west of SW 107th Avenue,
and north of SW 128th Street.

[[Page 49980]]

(ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.015

(17) Unit 12: Nixon Smiley Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) Unit 12 consists of approximately 117 ac (47 ha). This unit is
located between SW 120 Street to the north, SW 127th Avenue to the
east, SW 128th Street to the south, and SW 137th Avenue to the west.

[[Page 49981]]

(ii) Map of Unit 12 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.016

(18) Unit 13: Camp Matecumbe, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) Unit 13 consists of approximately 81 ac (33 ha). This unit is
between SW 104th Street to the north, SW 137th Avenue to the east, SW
12th Street to the south, and SW 147th Avenue to the west.

[[Page 49982]]

(ii) Map of Unit 13 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.017

(19) Unit 14: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) Unit 14 consists of approximately 1,455 ac (589 ha). This unit
is located between SW 152nd Street to the north, SW 117th Avenue to the
east, SW 185th Street to the south, and SW 137th Avenue to the west.

[[Page 49983]]

(ii) Map of Unit 14 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.018

(20) Unit 15: Calderon Pineland, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) Unit 15 consists of approximately 14 ac (6 ha). This unit is
located between SW 184th Street to the south, SW 137th Avenue to the
east, SW 200th Street to the south, and SW 147th Avenue to the west.

[[Page 49984]]

(ii) Map of Unit 15 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.019

(21) Unit 16: Porter Pineland Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) Unit 16 consists of approximately 7 ac (3 ha). This unit is
located to the south of SW 216th Street, to the west of South Dixie
Highway, to the north of SW 232nd Street, and to the east of SW 147th
Avenue.

[[Page 49985]]

(ii) Map of Unit 16 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE21.020

* * * * *

Martha Williams
Principal Deputy Director Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
[FR Doc. 2021-19088 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C