Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Miami Tiger Beetle, 33194-33238 [2023-10077]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33194-33238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10077]



[[Page 33193]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 99

May 23, 2023

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





 Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for the Miami Tiger Beetle; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 23, 2023 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 33194]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0053; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 234]
RIN 1018-BF38


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for the Miami Tiger Beetle

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. In total, 
approximately 1,869 acres (756 hectares) in Miami-Dade County, Florida, 
fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. This 
rule extends the Act's protections to the Miami tiger beetle's critical 
habitat.

DATES: This rule is effective June 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library. Comments and materials we received, as well as 
supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available 
for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2021-0053.
    For the critical habitat designation, the coordinates or plot 
points or both from which the maps are generated are included in the 
decision file and are available at https://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0053, at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and at the Florida Ecological Services 
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Mena, Division Manager, 
Florida Classification and Recovery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 
200, Jacksonville, FL 32256-7517; telephone 904-731-3134. Individuals 
in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 
a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TTDD, or TeleBraille) to access 
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United 
States should use the relay services offered within their country to 
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, any species that is 
determined to be an endangered or a threatened 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 through the Administrative Procedure Act 
rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. We are designating critical habitat for 
the Miami tiger beetle, which is listed as an endangered species.
    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. 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.

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the final rule to list the Miami tiger beetle as an 
endangered species (81 FR 68985; October 5, 2016) and the proposed rule 
to designate critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle (86 FR 49945; 
September 7, 2021) for a detailed description of previous Federal 
actions concerning this species.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    The following are specific changes that we make in this final rule 
to designate critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle based on 
public comments on, and information made available since the 
development and publication of, our September 7, 2021, proposed rule 
(86 FR 49945):
    (1) We correct the name of Unit 3 from Deering Estate South Edition 
to Deering Estate South Addition.
    (2) We change the name of Unit 13 from Camp Matecumbe to Boystown 
Pineland Preserve.
    (3) We adjust the boundaries of Unit 14 at the Coral Reef Commons 
property to avoid small areas (less than 0.5 acre) of development and 
align with the habitat conservation plan (HCP) on-site preserve and 
mitigation area.
    (4) We are excluding the Coral Reef Commons HCP on-site preserve 
and off-site mitigation area in Unit 14 from this final designation 
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) based 
on the provisions of the HCP. This amounts to a decrease of 
approximately 109.3 acres (ac) (44.2 hectares (ha)) from the critical 
habitat areas we proposed. In addition, we obtained new property 
boundary information from Miami-Dade County (Miami-Dade County open 
data hub; accessed February 4, 2022) and information from the public 
comments to help refine the specific boundaries of critical habitat 
around the on-site preserves. Because of this exclusion, in this rule, 
we present revised index and Unit 14 maps, and in our supporting 
documents at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-
0053, we provide updated coordinates or plot points from which those 
maps were generated.
    (5) We specify that ``managed lawns'' are not included in this 
critical habitat designation.
    (6) In the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 
17.11(h), we revise the information in the ``Where listed'' column for 
the Miami tiger beetle to read, ``Wherever found.'' This corrects the 
entry in the List to accurately reflect that this species' listing is 
not a population-based listing but a listing of the species in its 
entirety. This correction does not change the description, 
distribution, or endangered status of the Miami tiger beetle.
    (7) We also made several nonsubstantive, editorial corrections for 
clarity and increased readability.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on September 7, 2021 (86 FR 49945), 
we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by November 8, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal and 
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. A 
newspaper notice inviting the general public to comment on our proposal 
was published in the Miami Herald on September 13, 2021.

[[Page 33195]]

    During the public comment period, we received a request for a 
public hearing on the proposal, and on November 8, 2021, we published 
in the Federal Register a document (86 FR 61745) extending the public 
comment period on the proposal to December 23, 2021, and announcing a 
December 2, 2021, public hearing on the proposal. A subsequent notice 
was published in the Miami Herald on November 9, 2021, announcing the 
extension of the public comment period on the proposal and the public 
hearing, and inviting public comment. As announced, we held the public 
hearing on December 2, 2021.
    We received a total of more than 850 public comments on our 
proposal, inclusive of the public hearing testimony, including two peer 
reviewer, three State, and two Miami-Dade County comments; a supportive 
post card campaign (more than 800 comments); and other members of the 
public (through written comments or public hearing testimony from 
individuals). We did not receive any comments from Federal agencies or 
Tribal entities. All substantive information we received during the 
full comment period on the proposal has either been incorporated 
directly into this final rule or is addressed below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    We solicited comments from four peer reviewers on our proposal to 
designate critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle and subsequently 
received responses from two of the peer reviewers. We reviewed the 
responses from the peer reviewers for substantive information and 
comments directly related to the species and our proposal. The two 
respondents generally found our proposal was well-supported. Peer 
reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and were 
incorporated into this final rule, as appropriate.
    (1) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that management of habitat to 
maintain it as open and suitable for the Miami tiger beetle is a very 
critical concern; the reviewer added that management of habitat at the 
two sites currently occupied by the species has been insufficient, 
resulting in low population sizes, and thus can be a serious threat to 
the survival of the species. The reviewer and others suggested that 
prescribed fire at frequent intervals may be the best management method 
but acknowledged that manual removal of leaf litter and vegetation may 
also be a suitable method.
    Our Response: Appropriate habitat management using different 
disturbance regimes (i.e., methods), as appropriate, to maintain a 
mosaic of suitable sandy and disturbed habitat is essential for the 
Miami tiger beetle's survival and conservation. Controlled burning is 
the preferred method of maintaining the habitat, but this technique is 
not always available or the most prudent for specific parcels. That is 
why we also acknowledge the importance of other methods of maintaining 
habitat in appropriate disturbance mosaics, such as manual clearing and 
removal of leaf litter and encroaching vegetation. To highlight the 
importance of maintaining the appropriate disturbance regime of pine 
rockland habitat for the Miami tiger beetle, both in the September 7, 
2021, proposed rule and in this final rule, we include maintenance by 
natural or prescribed fire or other disturbance regimes in one of the 
physical or biological features essential to the beetle's conservation 
(see Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of 
the Species, below).
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer, in addition to the Florida Natural 
Areas Inventory (FNAI; a State agency) and others, commented that 
additional parcels that are currently unoccupied by the Miami tiger 
beetle have appropriate pine rockland habitat for the species and 
should be included in the critical habitat designation. In particular, 
the reviewer and others focused on the inclusion of Ludlam Pineland 
Preserve and the adjacent Florida Power and Light (FPL) lands.
    Our Response: We may designate critical habitat that is outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species if we determine it to be 
essential for the conservation of the species. Accordingly, during the 
development of our September 7, 2021, proposed rule, we evaluated 
numerous parcels outside the species' current range containing pine 
rockland habitat to determine if they may meet the criteria we 
established for inclusion in critical habitat, which includes size of 
parcel, quality of existing pine rockland habitat, appropriate soils, 
and existing or potential for long-term habitat management either 
through prescribed fire or manual methods. Many of the parcels of 
remnant pine rocklands within the historical range of the Miami tiger 
beetle in south Florida initially considered for inclusion in the 
proposed critical habitat designation were removed from further 
consideration due to a combination of factors, including poor quality 
of habitat (i.e., extensive infestation of invasive vegetation, 
significantly overgrown), and lack of the appropriate soil types, and 
lack of existing protections and management. Many areas were too 
overgrown with native and invasive vegetation and the intensive, long-
term management necessary to provide quality habitat was determined to 
be not practicable, due to several factors including land ownership, 
access, and purpose or mission of the lands. Thus, we determined those 
areas did not meet the definition of critical habitat for the Miami 
tiger beetle. Consequently, the unoccupied parcels we found essential 
for the conservation of the Miami tiger beetle are those that we 
determined to have the best opportunity for supporting existing and 
future populations of the Miami tiger beetle and that had a high 
probability of having long-term management for the species and its 
habitat.
    As indicated above, numerous commenters, including a peer reviewer 
and FNAI, recommended that Ludlum Pineland Preserve and the adjacent 
FPL lands be included in the critical habitat designation for the Miami 
tiger beetle. Our initial assessment of the Ludlam Pineland Preserve 
suggested that while it meets the size criteria, includes the 
appropriate soil types, and has some management potential, the site is 
extensively overgrown with invasive species, and the long-term 
management potential for the Miami tiger beetle and its specific 
habitat needs is uncertain. As a result, the site ultimately was not 
considered further. Previous field surveys (Knisley 2014, p. 42) of 
Ludlam Pineland Preserve indicated that the site was disturbed with a 
heavy pine overstory and thick understory of saw palmetto; surveyors 
concluded there was minimal habitat for the Miami tiger beetle. In 
fact, one surveyor gave it an overall grade of ``D'' for habitat 
suitability. A subsequent survey conducted in late August 2021 by 
representatives from FNAI (FNAI 2021, entire), the results of which 
were provided to us during the public comment period on our September 
7, 2021, proposed rule, further confirmed that the site is extensively 
overgrown with vegetation, both canopy and understory, and has a deep 
layer of leaf litter, thus making it unsuitable for the Miami tiger 
beetle at this time. Even though the parcel is currently being managed 
for pine rockland habitat, the management is insufficient for the Miami 
tiger beetle and its preferred habitat. While we recognize that with 
extensive management, this parcel could have future habitat potential 
for the Miami tiger beetle, we do not consider it to meet the 
definition of critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle. As a result, 
we find that it does not currently meet the criteria for

[[Page 33196]]

inclusion in a critical habitat designation for the species.
    Our initial evaluation of the FPL parcel was comparable to that of 
the Ludlam Pineland Preserve parcel in that the existing habitat may 
not be of high quality, and the long-term management potential for the 
Miami tiger beetle is limited due to land ownership and the use or 
mission of the property. As such, we did not include the FPL parcel in 
our proposed critical habitat designation for the Miami tiger beetle. 
During the public comment period on our September 7, 2021, proposed 
rule, FNAI provided results of an August 2021 field survey of the FPL 
parcel. The field survey identified that the areas under the powerlines 
contain a dense understory of vegetation, but some adjacent areas 
consist of suitable open sandy substrates, suggesting potential 
suitable habitat for the Miami tiger beetle. Even though the parcel may 
contain some suitable habitat for the beetle, we have determined that 
the FPL parcel is not essential for the conservation of the species. 
While the parcel is subjected to a certain level of management and 
disturbance, which maintains the lands for the utility and provides 
some habitat for the beetle, we find that the type and level of 
management may not be fully consistent with the beetle's long-term 
needs. Further, the mission or purpose of the parcel is to be 
maintained for the utility, suggesting that management may be 
inconsistent with the conservation needs of the beetle. Consequently, 
we concluded that this parcel doesn't meet the definition of critical 
habitat for Miami tiger beetle. Therefore, we are not including the FPL 
parcel in this critical habitat designation for the species. However, 
like Ludlum Pineland Preserve and similar parcels containing disturbed 
pine rockland habitat, this parcel could provide habitat for the Miami 
tiger beetle if managed appropriately.

Comments From States

    We received three comments from State agencies on our proposal, two 
from FNAI and one from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Commission (FFWCC). The comments from FNAI focused primarily on the 
recommendation to include Ludlam Pineland Preserve, discussed above, 
but to not include Gould's Pineland Preserve, discussed below. The 
comments from FFWCC provided a statement of support for the criteria 
used in the development of our proposal to identify specific areas as 
critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle; provided some editorial 
comments; sought clarification of proposed Unit 14, Richmond Pine 
Rocklands, and the treatment of the Coral Reef Commons HCP and other 
parcels therein; discussed habitat management for the Miami tiger 
beetle and provided some recommendations; and discussed captive 
propagation of the species.
    (3) Comment: FNAI recommended that Gould's Pineland Preserve not be 
included due to current site conditions based on recent survey 
information. However, numerous other commenters recommended that the 
parcel be considered for inclusion in critical habitat. Further, 
commenters also recommended that additional areas be considered for 
inclusion in critical habitat. These include, but are not limited to, 
Boystown Pineland Preserve, R. Hardy Matheson Preserve, pine rockland 
habitat on Miami Executive Airport, Camp Choee, lands containing pine 
rockland habitat adjacent to the University of Miami's Center for 
Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing (CSTARS) facility, and 
Coral Reef Park.
    Our Response: Since Gould's Pineland Preserve is outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, it 
must be essential for the conservation of the Miami tiger beetle in 
order to meet the Act's definition of critical habitat. As discussed 
above, during the development of our proposal, we evaluated numerous 
unoccupied parcels containing pine rockland habitat to determine if 
they are essential for inclusion in critical habitat; our evaluations 
included size of parcel, quality of existing pine rockland habitat, 
soil type(s), and existing protections and management either through 
prescribed fire or manual methods. Many of the parcels of remnant pine 
rocklands within the historical range of the Miami tiger beetle in 
south Florida initially considered for critical habitat were removed 
from further consideration due to a combination of factors including 
containing poor quality of habitat (i.e., extensive infestation of 
invasive vegetation, significantly overgrown), lack of the appropriate 
soil types, and lack of existing protections and management. Many areas 
were too overgrown with vegetation, and the intensive, long-term 
management necessary to provide quality habitat was determined to be 
not practicable, due to several factors including land ownership and 
access. Thus, we determined those areas were not essential for the 
conservation of the Miami tiger beetle. Consequently, the unoccupied 
parcels we found essential to the conservation of the Miami tiger 
beetle are those parcels in our proposal that we determined to have the 
best opportunity for supporting existing and future populations of the 
Miami tiger beetle.
    Like Ludlam Pineland Preserve, Gould's Pineland Preserve was 
initially evaluated for inclusion in critical habitat for the Miami 
tiger beetle but was summarily rejected due to current site/habitat 
conditions based on field survey information. Surveys from 2015 
provided information that the site contained very thick canopy and 
midstory of vegetation and that leaf litter/thatch on the ground was 
too thick, thus rendering the site unsuitable for the Miami tiger 
beetle. At that time one surveyor gave it an overall grade of D-F for 
habitat suitability. A subsequent survey conducted in late August 2021 
by representatives from FNAI, the results of which were provided to us 
during the public comment period on our September 7, 2021, proposed 
rule, further confirmed that the site is extensively overgrown with 
vegetation, both canopy and understory, and has a deep layer of leaf 
litter, thus making it unsuitable for the Miami tiger beetle. The site 
also appears to be too rocky with little mixed sand areas, so even with 
extensive management, the site may not support the beetle. While we 
recognize that with extensive long-term management of this parcel, it 
could provide limited habitat for the Miami tiger beetle, we currently 
do not consider it to be essential for the conservation of the beetle. 
As a result, we do not find that Gould's Pineland Preserve meets the 
Act's definition of critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle.
    Likewise, Boystown Pineland Preserve, R. Hardy Matheson Preserve, 
pine rockland habitat on Miami Executive Airport, Camp Choee, and Coral 
Reef Park each were initially considered for inclusion in critical 
habitat. Boystown Pineland Preserve was included in our September 7, 
2021, proposed rule but incorrectly identified as Camp Matecumbe 
(proposed Unit 13). In this final rule, the name of the unit has been 
corrected to Boystown Pineland Preserve. As for the other areas:
    (1) R. Hardy Matheson Preserve is considered rockland hammock, not 
pine rockland, and has the wrong soil type for the Miami tiger beetle; 
therefore, it is not considered to be essential for the species.
    (2) Pine rockland habitat on Miami Executive Airport consists of 
private land that is currently being managed for airport use, which is 
not consistent with the needs of the Miami tiger beetle.

[[Page 33197]]

Therefore, the parcel is not considered essential habitat for the 
beetle.
    (3) Camp Choee is a privately owned Girl Scout camp whose mission 
does not include protection and management for the beetle or its 
habitat, and therefore it is not considered essential habitat.
    (4) We did determine that the pine rocklands adjacent to the 
University of Miami CSTARS facility is essential to the conservation of 
the Miami tiger beetle. This land is associated with the mitigation 
area for the Coral Reef Common HCP and is being conserved and managed 
for the beetle and its essential habitat features. As discussed below, 
this mitigation area is being excluded from this final critical habitat 
designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on the 
conservation provisions of the HCP (see Consideration of Impacts under 
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, below).
    (5) Coral Reef Park is an urban park with some marginal rocky 
habitat with some sand along the periphery, and as such we do not find 
it to be essential habitat for the beetle.
    Consequently, these areas are not included this final designation 
of critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle as we have concluded 
they do not meet the definition of critical habitat or are being 
excluded pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. As previously 
discussed above, additional parcels not specifically named in this rule 
were evaluated during the development of the proposal and for this 
final rule, but we did not find them essential for the conservation of 
the species because they do not meet the habitat requirements for the 
Miami tiger beetle, such as presence of one or more of the essential 
physical or biological features.
    (4) Comment: FFWCC and other commenters recommended that the pine 
rockland habitat within the Coral Reef Commons HCP preserve and 
mitigation area parcels be included in the final critical habitat 
designation to emphasize their significance to the management of, and 
their connectivity to, the Richmond Pine Rocklands (Unit 14).
    Our Response: We agree with FFWCC's assessment that the habitat 
within the Coral Reef Commons HCP preserve and mitigation areas is 
central to the long-term conservation of the Miami tiger beetle and 
that the proper management and conservation of the habitat within these 
two parcels is paramount. However, consistent with our section 4(b)(2) 
policy (81 FR 7226; February 11, 2016), if a signed conservation plan 
or program provides for the necessary long-term conservation and 
management of habitat for a species for which critical habitat is being 
considered, then we may choose to conduct an analysis pursuant to 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act to determine if the benefits of excluding 
the specific area under consideration outweigh the benefits of 
including the area in critical habitat. We have determined through our 
analysis that the provisions set forth in the Coral Reef Commons HCP, 
as implemented, will provide for the appropriate long-term management 
and conservation of this habitat such that the benefits of its 
inclusion are significantly reduced. Accordingly, we determined that 
the benefits of excluding these specific parcels from this critical 
habitat designation outweigh the benefit of their inclusion in the 
designation. (See Consideration of Impacts under Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act, below, for more information.) As a result, the preserve and 
mitigation areas associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP have been 
excluded from this final critical habitat designation pursuant to 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (5) Comment: FFWCC recommended that we clarify the specific parcels 
and landownership within Unit 14 (Richmond Pine Rocklands), conduct 
surveys on parcels in which the occupancy by the Miami tiger beetle has 
not been verified, and manage the habitat on each parcel to benefit the 
species.
    Our Response: In developing our September 7, 2021, proposed rule, 
we used the best information and mapping data available from the county 
and other sources to determine landownership within this unit. We 
recognize that, for some parcels, landownership was vague or boundaries 
imprecise, but this was the best data available to us at that time. We 
have obtained more recent 2022 parcel or landownership information from 
Miami-Dade County for use in the development of this final rule; 
however, these parcel data did not provide any further clarification on 
property ownership within Unit 14.
    We also agree with FFWCC that further surveys should be conducted 
throughout Unit 14 to verify and document the extent of occupancy by 
the Miami tiger beetle and identify those areas where habitat 
restoration or management may be a priority. However, since some of the 
land, such as the University of Miami CSTARS and Coral Reef Commons, is 
private, we do not have access to the parcels to directly conduct such 
field surveys and are thus reliant on the property owners for either 
granting access for conducting field surveys or providing specific 
information concerning habitat quality and potential for occupancy by 
the beetle. Other parcels are federally owned, but have limited access 
due to security constraints, such as the Federal prison and U.S. Coast 
Guard areas. Further, known occurrences of Miami tiger beetle in this 
unit suggest beetles are capable of moving throughout this unit such 
that all the areas within the unit meet the definition of the 
``geographical area occupied by the species,'' which is defined in 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 424.02 (50 CFR 
424.02) as an area that may generally be delineated around species' 
occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., range). As the 
regulations provide, the occupied areas may include those areas used 
throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if not used on 
a regular basis, including migratory corridors. Accordingly, although 
we agree that additional surveys would be helpful to identify the 
extent of occupancy, we clarify that we consider the entire unit to be 
within the geographical area occupied by the species.

Public Comments

    (6) Comment: A commenter indicated that the boundaries of proposed 
critical habitat were not accurately aligned with the boundaries of the 
Coral Reef Commons HCP preserve and mitigation areas and requested that 
we ensure that the boundaries are aligned in the final rule.
    Our Response: It was our intent that the boundaries of the proposed 
critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle avoid the developed areas 
in the Coral Reef Commons property and align with those of the preserve 
and mitigation areas established in the Coral Reef Commons HCP. 
However, given the scale of the maps for publication in the Federal 
Register, it may appear in this document that the boundaries are not 
aligned. We have verified their alignment in this final rule. The 
coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are generated 
are included in the decision file and are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0053, at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and at the 
Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).
    (7) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the long-
term viability of pine rockland habitat and conservation potential for 
the Miami tiger beetle given the impacts of climate change (i.e., more 
frequent and severe storm and hurricane events, sea level rise, and 
saltwater intrusion).

[[Page 33198]]

    Our Response: Such factors as increased extreme weather events and 
hurricanes, sea level rise, and saltwater intrusion, along with other 
possible effects of climate change, do raise serious concerns not only 
for the Miami tiger beetle but for many of the endangered, threatened, 
and at-risk species in south Florida. These factors were considered in 
the development of our September 7, 2021, proposed rule. Many of the 
critical habitat units are at elevations above projected sea level 
rise; however, there could be impacts due to salinization of the water 
table and shifts in vegetation. Specifically, numerous parcels of pine 
rockland habitat were identified that either have good quality habitat 
for the beetle or have a high potential for restoration and management 
so that, ultimately, through the process of translocation and 
introduction, additional populations of the beetle can be established. 
With currently only two known extant populations of the Miami tiger 
beetle, it is our expectation that multiple populations distributed 
across the species' historical range will help protect the long-term 
survivability of the species from stochastic events and impacts from 
these climate-related factors.
    (8) Comment: Several commenters suggested that the proposed 
critical habitat within Unit 14 (Richmond Pine Rocklands) includes 
roadways, pathways, pavement, buildings, and other structures that lack 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the Miami tiger beetle.
    Our Response: As explained in our September 7, 2021, proposed rule 
and this final rule, critical habitat does not include human-made 
structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 
paved areas) or the land on which they are located, so these features 
within designated units are not considered critical habitat. In 
developing and delineating critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle, 
we used the most current mapping and survey information available to us 
to focus on identifying the specific areas that contain the essential 
physical or biological features for the species and made every attempt 
to not include developed areas such as roads, pavement, buildings, and 
other such areas. In developing this final rule, we obtained new 
property boundary information from Miami-Dade County (Miami-Dade County 
open data hub; accessed February 4, 2022) and information from public 
comments on our September 7, 2021, proposed rule to help refine the 
specific boundaries of critical habitat. As indicated in our proposal 
and reiterated in this rule, 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.
    To help clarify and facilitate implementation, specifically for 
Unit 14 of this final rule, this critical habitat designation does not 
include maintained asphalt roads and paths or buildings and structures 
associated with the Gold Coast Railroad Museum, Military Museum, and 
Zoo Miami, or managed fields comprised of dense lawn grass used for Zoo 
Miami operations. Further, any such lands inadvertently left inside 
critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this rule have been 
excluded by text in the rule and are not designated as critical 
habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands will not 
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the 
requirement of no adverse modification, unless the specific action will 
affect the physical or biological features essential to the Miami tiger 
beetle in the adjacent critical habitat. In contrast, this critical 
habitat designation for the Miami tiger beetle includes areas that 
contain degraded asphalt, gravel, dirt roads, dirt paths, or dirt 
firebreaks, and vegetated areas not containing dense, frequently 
maintained lawn grass used for Zoo Miami operations.
    (9) Comment: One commenter indicated that the boundaries we 
identified in the Unit 14 (Richmond Pine Rocklands) of our proposed 
critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle overlap with small portions 
(a total of 0.3 acres (1.21 hectares)) of land identified as areas to 
be developed (i.e., not preserve or mitigation area) as part of the 
Coral Reef Commons HCP. The commenter requested that we align the 
boundaries of critical habitat with those for the HCP to remove the 
areas to be developed. The commenter further provided a map showing the 
areas of overlap to facilitate their removal from the critical habitat 
unit's boundaries.
    Our Response: We appreciate the information and map provided by the 
commenter. In this final rule, we align the boundaries of critical 
habitat within Unit 14 (Richmond Pine Rocklands) to remove those areas 
identified in the Coral Reef Commons HCP as areas to be developed.
    (10) Comment: A commenter on behalf of the Miami Wilds proposed 
development stated that the Miami Wilds development footprint for the 
project only includes paved surfaces and undeveloped areas of densely 
overgrown, invasive vegetation, and that portions of the development 
footprint are included within the boundaries of the proposed critical 
habitat designation for the Miami tiger beetle. The commenter further 
indicated that they compared the boundaries of the proposed critical 
habitat designation with information they have from field surveys 
conducted within the development footprint and the results of that 
comparison suggest that the proposed critical habitat designation 
includes areas that do not contain habitat for the beetle and are not 
known to be occupied by the beetle. The commenter recommended that only 
areas known to contain the essential habitat for the Miami tiger beetle 
in Unit 14 should be included in the final critical habitat designation 
and the ``non-habitat'' areas should be removed. The commenter further 
suggested that the entirety of Unit 14 (Richmond Pine Rocklands) is not 
occupied by the Miami tiger beetle as the September 7, 2021, proposed 
rule indicates. The commenter cites information from surveys conducted 
in portions of Unit 14 in 2020 and 2021 following the 2015 Survey 
Guidelines for the Miami Tiger Beetle that were negative for the 
beetle. The commenter recommended that only areas known to be occupied 
by the Miami tiger beetle in Unit 14 be identified as occupied and 
those areas not known to be occupied, or where there is negative survey 
information, be labeled as unoccupied.
    Our Response: In our September 7, 2021, proposed rule, we 
identified Unit 14 (Richmond Pine Rocklands) as occupied by the Miami 
tiger beetle based on the known, documented presence of the beetle at 
several locations throughout the unit and the unit contains one or more 
of the physical and biological features. As discussed above in our 
response to (5) Comment, the ``geographical area occupied by the 
species'' is defined at 50 CFR 424.02 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). While the 
entirety of Unit 14 may not be

[[Page 33199]]

occupied at all times, the known occurrences of the Miami tiger beetle 
in this unit suggest they are capable of moving throughout this area 
given the suitable habitat and lack of barriers to dispersal such that 
the area comprising Unit 14 meets the definition of the ``geographical 
area occupied by the species'' for the Miami tiger beetle. It is also 
likely that there may be additional populations in the unsurveyed and 
undersurveyed areas of this unit due to the suitable habitat present 
within the unit. For example, in the summer of 2021, surveyors 
discovered Miami tiger beetles in a new area of the Miami Zoo property, 
over 0.6 miles (1 kilometer) from the closest known areas. However, 
given the concerns related to the extent of occupancy within Unit 14, 
we also considered whether these areas would meet the standard for 
critical habitat if we assumed the areas were not occupied. We find 
they would. The Miami tiger beetle currently requires additional 
populations if it is to recover to the point that it could be removed 
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Due to the 
limited remaining suitable habitat for this species and the proximity 
of these areas to documented occurrences, the continuity of habitat, 
and presence of the physical or biological features essential to the 
Miami tiger beetle, these areas are essential for the conservation of 
the Miami tiger beetle. Further, given the scale of mapping for this 
critical habitat designation, it is difficult to extract small areas of 
non-habitat. Please refer to our response to (8) Comment, above for 
clarification on the treatment of certain areas within critical 
habitat.
    (11) Comment: One commenter suggested that the draft economic 
analysis for the proposed critical habitat designation for the Miami 
tiger beetle is flawed, specifically with regards to Unit 14 (Richmond 
Pine Rocklands). The commenter asserted the flaws result from the 
analysis relying on: (1) Overestimating the extent of current 
occupation by the beetle in Unit 14, thereby overestimating the extent 
of existing baseline protection due to listing of the species; (2) 
overestimating the extent of overlap with other listed species and 
their designated critical habitats in Unit 14, thereby overestimating 
the extent of existing baseline protection due to the presence of other 
listed species; (3) overstating the presence of essential habitat 
features for the beetle on numerous roadways, pathways, pavement, 
buildings, and other structures in Unit 14, and therefore overstating 
the presence of other baseline protections in the unit; and (4) 
limiting evaluation of potential perception-related impacts to 
privately owned lands and lack of consideration for incremental costs 
for private development on county-owned leased lands.
    Our Response: As discussed in our response to (10) Comment, above, 
we identified Unit 14 as occupied by the Miami tiger beetle based on 
the documented presence of the beetle at several locations throughout 
the unit and the likelihood of the species' ability to disperse within 
this unit. Based on our knowledge of this species, we believe that at 
any given time, suitable habitat in the unit can be occupied either 
temporarily or permanently by the species. Further, given the 
contiguous habitat with few barriers to dispersal, frequent adult 
movement among individuals is likely, and the occupied Richmond parcels 
likely represent a single population (Knisley 2015a, p. 10). Thus, we 
consider the entirety of Unit 14 to be within the geographical area 
occupied by the species, and we have treated the entire unit as being 
occupied for the designation of critical habitat, with the exception of 
those areas discussed in response to (8) Comment that would not be 
considered critical habitat.
    We recognize, however, that the species may not be present in all 
areas of this unit at all times. Accordingly, the economic effects of a 
consultation resulting from this critical habitat designation could be 
considered incremental if there is a future action with a Federal nexus 
in an area where the species is not present and there would be no 
effects to the species itself from the proposed action. That said, 
since we have determined that these areas contain at least one of the 
physical or biological features essential to the Miami tiger beetle, 
future proposed projects are likely to affect the species itself by 
affecting the features it depends on. Thus, the outcome of the 
consultation would likely be the same as it would be if the species 
were to be present at the time of consultation. We would recommend 
protective measures be established for the Miami tiger beetle 
regardless of critical habitat designation in this unit because of 
potential impacts to the features the species depends on. Given this, 
we agree with the draft economic analysis that the incremental costs 
resulting from the designation of critical habitat would be expected to 
be minimal above those in place due to the presence of the listed 
species.
    However, even if we assumed no occupancy of Miami tiger beetles for 
the purposes of considering the economic impacts, the commentor did not 
provide us with specific information about any costs that may be 
incurred. Further, these areas, as the last remaining pine rocklands 
directly adjacent and within dispersal proximity to the occurrence of 
one of only two populations of the beetle, are vitally essential to the 
conservation of this species and are likely to be critical habitat 
regardless of potential economic impacts.
    It is also well-documented that numerous other federally listed 
species occupy habitat in Unit 14 (Richmond Pine Rocklands). Some of 
these species are narrowly restricted in their mobility and in their 
specific habitat needs, while other are more mobile and can utilize 
pine rockland habitat of various quality. Further, critical habitat has 
been designated for a number of these species, as the commenter notes. 
Although these existing critical habitat designations have defined 
boundaries, many of the other listed species currently without critical 
habitat designations can occupy habitat throughout the unit at any 
given time. Thus, the presence of other listed species and critical 
habitat designations for other species are likely to result in 
protective measures in this unit even absent designated critical 
habitat for the Miami tiger beetle.
    The commenter further asserted that developed areas within the unit 
(e.g., roadways, pathways, pavement, buildings, and other structures) 
do not contain pine rockland habitat and are not subject to baseline 
protections, such as Miami-Dade County's Natural Forest Communities 
designation. These areas are addressed above in our response to (8) 
Comment.
    Lastly, the commenter asserts that our draft economic analysis did 
not take into consideration the incremental costs to a developer for 
private development on county-owned leased lands. 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 Federal agency is not likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat. A private development project on county-owned 
leased lands would only have a regulatory, and therefore incremental, 
effect if there is a Federal nexus (e.g., Federal funding, Federal 
permit, Federal land transfer, etc.) for the project, or if the 
designation of critical habitat triggers regulatory compliance under 
State or local laws, or if there are perception effects associated with 
regulatory uncertainty. As the commenter notes, the draft economic 
analysis specifically discusses

[[Page 33200]]

perception-related impacts as related to privately owned lands. We 
revised the draft economic analysis to acknowledge that perception-
related effects are also possible on county-owned lands leased to 
private developers. However, any such costs are speculative, and the 
economic analysis was unable to quantify them. The commenter also did 
not provide any cost-specific information on the perceptions or 
incremental impacts to private development of county-owned lands. 
Regardless, because of the presence of the Miami tiger beetle and other 
listed species and existing designated critical habitats in the 
vicinity of these lands, incremental impacts, including perception-
related impacts, on these leased lands appears unlikely.
    (12) Comment: As a consequence of the issues raised in (10) Comment 
and (11) Comment, above, one commenter stated that the benefits of 
excluding specific ``non-habitat'' areas from Unit 14 outweigh the 
potential conservation benefits to the Miami tiger beetle. The 
commenter requested that we exclude those specific ``non-habitat'' 
areas from the final designation of critical habitat for the Miami 
tiger beetle.
    Our Response: In our responses to (10) Comment and (11) Comment, 
above, as well as other comments, we discuss the occupancy by the Miami 
tiger beetle within Unit 14 (Richmond Pine Rocklands) and the 
suitability of habitat within that unit. We acknowledge that the unit 
contains a mosaic of good quality habitat and lesser quality habitat, 
and that certain ``non-habitat'' areas of human-made structures (such 
as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, other paved areas, and managed 
lawns) or the land on which they are located appear to be included in 
this critical habitat designation due to the scale of mapping. However, 
as we explain in our response to (8) Comment, those areas are not 
included in critical habitat through the text of this rule (see 
Regulation Promulgation, below).
    We also recognize that excluding the other specific areas 
identified by the commenter may relieve some potential perceived 
regulatory and cost (financial, time, resource) burdens. However, 
additional information on why these specific areas should be excluded 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act has not been provided to us and 
therefore we were unable to conduct an analysis to balance or weigh the 
benefits of excluding the area against the benefits of including that 
area in the designation. These areas provide dispersal corridors for 
the Richmond population of the Miami tiger beetle, provide potential 
habitat for population expansion, and support prey populations. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat based on economic 
impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant impacts. 
Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 
and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Endangered Species Act (2016 Policy; 81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016), 
both of which we published jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 
Following this guidance, as noted in our response to (11) Comment, 
incremental economic impacts appear to be unlikely. Furthermore, 
critical habitat does not appear to impact national security in these 
areas. Finally, we have no evidence that the specific areas requested 
by the commenter to be excluded from this designation are under an 
existing conservation agreement, habitat conservation plan, safe harbor 
agreement, or other instrument, or that there is a proven track record 
of conservation by the requester that indicates the lands would 
continue to provide an important contribution to the conservation and 
recovery of the Miami tiger beetle. As such, we are not excluding these 
lands from this critical habitat designation.

Background

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat 
concurrently with listing the species. 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).
    Our September 7, 2021, proposed rule to designate critical habitat 
for the Miami tiger beetle (86 FR 49945) published when the regulations 
defining ``habitat'' (see 85 FR 81411; December 16, 2020) and governing 
the 4(b)(2) exclusion process for the Service (see 85 FR 82376; 
December 18, 2020) were in place and in effect. However, those two 
regulations have since been rescinded (see 87 FR 37757, June 24, 2022; 
87 FR 43433, July 21, 2022) and no longer apply to any designations of 
critical habitat. Therefore, for this final rule designating critical 
habitat for the Miami tiger beetle, we apply the regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19 and the 2016 Policy (81 FR 7226; February 11, 2016).
    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 
likely result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical 
habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not

[[Page 33201]]

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 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). 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.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of 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 developed during 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.
    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) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. 
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 this 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 these planning efforts calls for a 
different outcome.

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 
which 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 absence of 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.

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 Habitat discussion 
in the proposed listing rule (80 FR 79533, December 22, 2015, pp. 
79537-79538). Additional discussion may be found in the final listing 
rule (81 FR 68985; October 5, 2016). 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

[[Page 33202]]

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 
2015b, 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 acres (ac) (74,000 hectares (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 that 
are 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 (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 to 5.0 ac (1.0 to 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 its 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 ac (1.0 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 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) of) 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 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 of 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--Miami tiger beetles require open areas of pine rockland 
habitat with ample sunlight for behavioral thermoregulation so that 
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 (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 or biological features for the species.

[[Page 33203]]

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 2015a, 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 2015a, 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 to 5.0 ac (1.0 to 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 habitat 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, within this ecosystem. Fires 
have historically burned in intervals of approximately 3 to 7 years 
(FNAI 2010, p. 3) and were 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, 
mechanical control or thinning 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 the 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 the 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; climate change and sea level rise; and pesticide exposure. 
These threats are exacerbated by having only two small populations in a 
restricted geographic range, making this species particularly 
susceptible to extinction. For a detailed discussion of threats, see 
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species in our proposed listing rule 
(80 FR 79533, December 22, 2015, pp. 79540-79551). Additional 
information may be found in the final listing rule (81 FR 68985; 
October 5, 2016).

[[Page 33204]]

    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 land 
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; an 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 ac (1.0 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 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

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 designating critical 
habitat in areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
at the time of listing and that contain one or more of the physical or 
biological features that are essential to support life-history 
processes of the species. We have determined that occupied areas are 
inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are 
designating additional areas as unoccupied critical habitat. 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 and contain remnant 
south Florida pine rockland habitat. We have determined that it is 
reasonably certain that the unoccupied areas will both contribute to 
the conservation of the species and contain at least one physical or 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. 
Accordingly, we find these areas to be essential for the conservation 
of the species, as further discussed below.
    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 for critical habitat, we used the conservation 
principles of the ``three Rs''--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).
    To ensure sufficient representation for the Miami tiger beetle, we 
described the physical or biological features (as discussed above) and 
identified areas of habitat that may provide for reintroduction and 
expansion of the Miami tiger beetle. Redundancy can be

[[Page 33205]]

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 because 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 potential for supporting introduced Miami tiger beetle 
populations, as evidenced by 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 designated as critical habitat for the Miami tiger 
beetle. However, because the species' redundancy and representation are 
currently low, we also used habitat and historical occurrence data to 
identify unoccupied habitat areas that 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 2015a, 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 Agency, National Park 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 2019); and
    (4) GIS data depicting soils and to determine the presence of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
Miami tiger beetle (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 designated as critical 
habitat 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 
essential physical or biological features, we have determined these 
areas are within the geographical area occupied by the species 
consistent with 50 CFR 424.02. Additionally, these areas are essential 
for the conservation of the species because they protect 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.

Areas Outside of the Geographical Range at the Time of Listing

    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 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 the species' 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 to 5.0 ac (1.0 to 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.
    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 critical habitat, we are also 
including 14 unoccupied critical habitat units that we have determined 
to be essential for 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 22 percent of critical habitat. These 
areas are habitat for the species and can support its life history 
needs. 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 (including 
presence of one or more of the essential physical or biological 
features), spatial arrangement relative to the two extant populations 
and each other, and potential for reintroduction, evidenced by existing

[[Page 33206]]

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 final rule. 
As a result, we concluded that these 14 sites are essential for the 
conservation of the species. Thus, we are including 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 
to 5.0 ac (1.0 to 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 range 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 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 habitat 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.
    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) We evaluated habitat suitability of pine rockland habitat 
within the geographical area occupied at the time of listing, and 
selected those areas that contain one or more of the physical or 
biological features to support life-history functions essential for 
conservation of the species; and
    (2) We 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 945 ac (383 ha) or 71 
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) We identified areas with pine rockland habitat that contain 
habitat components used by the beetle and are of sufficient size to 
support introduced populations of the Miami tiger beetle; and
    (2) We identified 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 22 percent of critical 
habitat and overlap with approximately 388 ac (158 ha) of existing 
critical habitat for other listed species. 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 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 rule have been excluded by 
text in the rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, 
a Federal action involving these lands will not trigger section 7 
consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no 
adverse modification unless the specific action will affect the 
physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
    We are designating as critical habitat areas that we have 
determined were occupied at the time of listing (and are currently 
occupied) and that contain one or more of the physical or biological 
features that are essential to support life-history processes of the 
species. We have determined that occupied areas are inadequate to 
ensure the conservation of the species. Therefore, we also identified 
and designated as critical habitat unoccupied areas that are essential 
for the conservation of the species.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document under Regulation Promulgation. We include more detailed 
information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in 
the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot 
points or both on which each map is based available to the public on 
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0053 and on 
our internet site at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library.

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating 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. The 16 areas we designate as 
critical habitat are: (1) Trinity Pineland, (2) Rockdale Pineland, (3) 
Deering Estate South Addition, (4) Ned Glenn Nature Preserve, (5) 
Deering Estate at Cutler, (6) Silver Palm Groves Pineland, (7) Quail 
Roost Pineland, (8) Eachus Pineland, (9) Bill Sadowski Park, (10) 
Tamiami Pineland Complex Addition, (11) Pine Shore Pineland Preserve, 
(12) Nixon Smiley Pineland Preserve, (13) Boystown Pineland Preserve, 
(14) Richmond Pine Rocklands, (15) Calderon Pineland, and (16) Porter 
Pineland Preserve. Table 1 shows the critical habitat units, the 
occupancy by the Miami tiger beetle at the time it was listed under the 
Act, the approximate area of each unit, and the extent of overlap with 
designated critical habitat for other federally listed species.

[[Page 33207]]



    Table 1--Critical Habitat Units for the Miami Tiger Beetle, Including Occupancy and Extent of Overlapping
                               Critical Habitat for Other Federally Listed Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Area of overlap
                                                    Occupancy at time of      Total area (ac     with existing
       Unit No.                Unit name                  listing                 (ha))         critical habitat
                                                                                                   (ac (ha))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................  Trinity Pineland........  No.......................             10 (4)             10 (4)
2....................  Rockdale Pineland.......  No.......................            39 (16)            38 (15)
3....................  Deering Estate South      No.......................             16 (6)             15 (6)
                        Addition.
4....................  Ned Glenn Nature          No.......................             11 (5)             11 (5)
                        Preserve.
5....................  Deering Estate at Cutler  No.......................            89 (36)            84 (34)
6....................  Silver Palm Groves        No.......................            25 (10)             22 (9)
                        Pineland.
7....................  Quail Roost Pineland....  No.......................            48 (19)            47 (19)
8....................  Eachus Pineland.........  No.......................             17 (7)             17 (7)
9....................  Bill Sadowski Park......  No.......................             20 (8)             19 (8)
10...................  Tamiami Pineland Complex  No.......................             21 (8)             19 (8)
                        Addition.
11...................  Pine Shore Pineland       No.......................              8 (3)              8 (3)
                        Preserve.
12...................  Nixon Smiley Pineland     Yes......................           117 (47)           115 (47)
                        Preserve.
13...................  Boystown Pineland         No.......................            81 (33)            77 (31)
                        Preserve.
14...................  Richmond Pine Rocklands.  Yes......................        1,347 (545)          830 (336)
15...................  Calderon Pineland.......  No.......................             14 (6)             14 (6)
16...................  Porter Pineland Preserve  No.......................              7 (3)              7 (3)
                                                                           -------------------------------------
    Total............  ........................  .........................        1,869 (756)        1,335 (540)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    Approximately 71 percent (1,335 ac (540 ha)) of the critical 
habitat designated 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 (16 ac (7 ha)) of 
unoccupied critical habitat designated 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 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 
designated is either publicly owned or privately owned for 
conservation.

                                      Table 2--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 Addition.........................             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 Addition....................             21 (8)  .................             21 (8)  .................  .................
11--Pine Shore Pineland Preserve.........................              8 (3)  .................  .................              8 (3)  .................
12--Nixon Smiley Pineland Preserve.......................           117 (47)  .................  .................           117 (47)  .................
13--Boystown Pineland Preserve...........................            81 (33)  .................            76 (31)              5 (2)  .................
14--Richmond Pine Rocklands..............................        1,347 (545)          488 (197)  .................          841 (340)             18 (7)
15--Calderon Pineland....................................             14 (6)  .................  .................             14 (6)  .................
16--Porter Pineland Preserve.............................              7 (3)  .................  .................  .................              7 (3)
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................................        1,869 (756)          488 (197)           229 (93)        1,127 (456)            26 (10)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.


[[Page 33208]]


  Table 3--Proportionment of Land Ownership of Critical Habitat for the
                           Miami Tiger Beetle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
               Land ownership                 Area (ac (ha))   ownership
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal.....................................       488 (197)          26
State.......................................        229 (93)          12
County......................................     1,127 (456)          60
Private.....................................         26 (10)           1
                                             ---------------------------
    Total...................................     1,869 (756)  ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    In addition, over half of the designated critical habitat for the 
Miami tiger beetle (1,121 ac (454 ha), or 60 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, 
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 all units, and reasons why they 
meet 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 (i.e., pine rockland habitat within the Northern 
Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge), although we are not aware 
of any records of historical occupancy of the unit. This unit includes 
all the physical or biological features essential to 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 lands owned by 
the State (38 ac (15 ha)) and county (1 ac (<1 ha)) in Miami-Dade 
County. The unit is within the historical range of the Miami tiger 
beetle (i.e., pine rockland habitat within the Northern Biscayne 
Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge), although we are not aware of any 
records of historical occupancy of the unit. 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 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 Addition

    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 (i.e., pine rockland habitat within the Northern 
Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge), although we are not aware 
of any records of historical occupancy of the unit. 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 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-

[[Page 33209]]

Dade County. The unit is within the historical range of the Miami tiger 
beetle (i.e., pine rockland habitat within the Northern Biscayne 
Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge), although we are not aware of any 
records of historical occupancy of the unit. 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 4 overlaps with designated critical habitat 
for Carter's small-flowered flax and Florida brickell-bush. 
Additionally, approximately 11 ac (5 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 (i.e., pine rockland habitat within the Northern 
Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge), although we are not aware 
of any records of historical occupancy of the unit. 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 lands owned by 
the State (20 ac (8 ha)) and county (5 ac (2 ha)) in Miami-Dade County. 
The unit is within the historical range of the Miami tiger beetle 
(i.e., pine rockland habitat within the Northern Biscayne Pinelands of 
the Miami Rock Ridge), although we are not aware of any records of 
historical occupancy of the unit. 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 (i.e., pine rockland habitat within the Northern 
Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge), although we are not aware 
of any records of historical occupancy of the unit. 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

[[Page 33210]]

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-owned lands 
in Miami-Dade County. The unit is within the historical range of the 
Miami tiger beetle (i.e., pine rockland habitat within the Northern 
Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge), although we are not aware 
of any records of historical occupancy of the unit. 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 (i.e., pine rockland habitat within the Northern 
Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge), although we are not aware 
of any records of historical occupancy of the unit. 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 (i.e., pine rockland habitat within the Northern 
Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge), although we are not aware 
of any records of historical occupancy of the unit. 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 (i.e., pine rockland habitat within the Northern 
Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge), although we are not aware 
of any records of historical occupancy of the unit. 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 33211]]

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 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. Based on unpublished survey data that 
documented presence of the Miami tiger beetle (D. Cook 2015, pers. 
comm.), 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, 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: Boystown Pineland Preserve

    Unit 13 consists of approximately 81 ac (33 ha) of lands owned by 
the State (76 ac (31 ha)) and county (5 ac (2 ha)) in Miami-Dade 
County. The unit is within the historical range of the Miami tiger 
beetle (i.e., pine rockland habitat within the Northern Biscayne 
Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge), although we are not aware of any 
records of historical occupancy of the unit. 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 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 1,347 ac (545 ha) in Miami-Dade 
County. Landownership in this unit is split among Federal (488 ac (197 
ha)), county (841 ac (340 ha)), and private (18 ac (7 ha)). We excluded 
approximately 109.3 ac (44.2 ha) from the unit (a decrease of 
approximately 109.3 ac [44.2 ha] from the proposed rule) (see Coral 
Reef Commons Habitat Conservation Plan, below). Based on survey data 
that documented presence of the Miami tiger beetle, 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 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 
likely represent a single population (Knisley 2015a, p. 10).
    The unit also includes areas of pine rockland habitat containing 
all of the physical or 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

[[Page 33212]]

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, and sea level rise. In some cases, these 
threats are being addressed or coordinated with our partners and 
landowners to implement needed actions.
    Approximately 678 ac (274 ha), or 50 percent, of Unit 14 is 
enrolled in the NFC program. In addition, of the approximately 1,347 ac 
(545 ha) of critical habitat designated for the Miami tiger beetle in 
Unit 14, about 830 ac (336 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 517 ac (209 ha) of designated critical 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 (i.e., pine rockland habitat within the Northern 
Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge), although we are not aware 
of any records of historical occupancy of the unit. 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 (i.e., pine rockland habitat within the Northern 
Biscayne Pinelands of the Miami Rock Ridge), although we are not aware 
of any records of historical occupancy of the unit. 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.
    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 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 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

[[Page 33213]]

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 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: (a) if the amount or extent of 
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (b) 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; (c) 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 written 
concurrence; or (d) 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 Congress also enacted some 
exceptions in 2018 to the requirement to reinitiate consultation on 
certain land management plans on the basis of a new species listing or 
new designation of critical habitat that may be affected by the subject 
Federal action. See 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 
115-141, Div, O, 132 Stat. 1066 and 1067 (2018).

Application of the ``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 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 activities may include, but are not limited to, 
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 designated. There are no DoD lands with a 
completed INRMP within the final critical habitat designation.
    Further, we are not aware of any DoD lands subject to an INRMP 
within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. We have 
determined that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), a branch of 
the DoD, retains ownership over a 121-ac (49-ha) parcel in Unit 14 of 
the designation of critical habitat; of this parcel, 85 ac (34 ha) are 
forested but not managed for preservation of natural resources. These 
USACE 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 based on economic 
impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant impacts. 
Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 
and the 2016 Policy (81 FR 7226; February 11, 2016)--both of which were 
developed jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service. We also 
refer to a 2008 Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion 
entitled, ``The Secretary's Authority to Exclude Areas from a Critical 
Habitat Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species 
Act'' (M-37016). We explain each decision to exclude areas, as well as 
decisions not to exclude, to demonstrate that the decision is 
reasonable.
    The Secretary may exclude any particular area if she determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the 
statute on its face, as well as the legislative history,

[[Page 33214]]

are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which 
factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor.
    When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive due to the 
protection from destruction of 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 benefits 
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that 
may apply to critical habitat. In the case of the Miami tiger beetle, 
the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the 
presence of beetle and the importance of habitat protection, and, where 
a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the species 
due to the protection from destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat.
    When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation or in the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement 
of partnerships. Additionally, continued implementation of an ongoing 
management plan that provides equal to or more conservation than a 
critical habitat designation would reduce the 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.

Exclusions Based on 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. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared 
an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis which, 
together with our narrative and interpretation of effects, we consider 
our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the critical habitat designation 
and related factors (IEc 2022 entire). The DEA was made available for 
public review from September 7, 2021, through December 23, 2021 (see 86 
FR 49945, September 7, 2021, and 86 FR 61745, November 8, 2021). The 
DEA addressed probable economic impacts of critical habitat designation 
for the Miami tiger beetle. Following the close of the comment period, 
we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during the comment 
period that may pertain to our consideration of the probable 
incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation. 
Information relevant to the probable incremental economic impacts of 
critical habitat designation for the Miami tiger beetle is summarized 
below and available in the screening analysis (IEc 2022, entire), 
available at https://www.regulations.gov.
    In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that 
may result from the 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, USACE, 
Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBP), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (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. With critical habitat 
for the Miami tiger beetle being finalized, our consultations will 
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 designated 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 also 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 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 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 designation 
of critical habitat.
    The critical habitat designation for the Miami tiger beetle totals 
approximately 1,869 ac (756 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 22 percent of critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle, of 
which only 16 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.

[[Page 33215]]

    Because the majority (78 percent) of the area designated is 
occupied, most actions that may adversely modify designated critical 
habitat may also adversely affect the species, 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 or minimize any take associated with the Federal action. 
Therefore, only administrative costs are expected in approximately 78 
percent of the 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, but most (96 percent 
of the unoccupied area) of it 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 Miami tiger 
beetle's 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 (78 percent) of critical 
habitat is considered to be occupied by the species, and incremental 
economic impacts of critical habitat designation, other than 
administrative costs, are unlikely; and (2) in areas that are not 
occupied by the Miami tiger beetle (22 percent of the designation), 
nearly all is designated critical habitat for other pine rockland 
species and this designation is not likely to result in additional or 
different project modifications from those that would already be 
anticipated absent this designation. Because of the relatively small 
size of the critical habitat designation for the Miami tiger beetle, 
the volume of lands that are State, county, or privately owned, and the 
substantial amount of land that is 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 land will be subject to use restrictions or litigation 
from third parties, resulting in costs. However, approximately 1 
percent of the critical habitat designation is privately owned land, 
leading to nominal incremental costs arising from changes in public 
perception of lands included in this designation.
    Critical habitat designation for the Miami tiger beetle has been 
determined to not generate costs or benefits exceeding $100 million in 
a single year. Therefore, this rule does not 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 are anticipated to be less than 
$48,000 per year, and economic benefits are also anticipated to be 
small.
    The Service considered the economic impacts of this critical 
habitat designation. The Secretary is not exercising her discretion to 
exclude any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the 
Miami tiger beetle based on economic impacts.

Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security

    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), national-security or 
homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the process of 
determining what areas meet the definition of ``critical habitat.'' 
Nevertheless, when designating critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act, we must consider impacts on national security, including 
homeland security, on lands or areas not covered by section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i). Accordingly, we will always consider for exclusion from 
the designation areas for which DoD, Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS), or another Federal agency has requested exclusion based on an 
assertion of national-security or homeland-security concerns.

DHS Land Parcel

    We have determined that some lands within Unit 14 of the 
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. The 
U.S. Coast Guard property is separated into two main areas: the 
Communication Station (COMMSTA) Miami and the Civil Engineering Unit 
(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. As of May 2022, the U.S. Coast 
Guard parcel has a resource management plan that includes management of 
pine rockland habitats, including vegetation control, prescribed fire, 
and protection of lands from further development or degradation. In 
addition, the portions of the standing pine rockland area underwent 
vegetation thinning through an active recovery grant to the Institute 
for Regional Conservation. Under this grant, nearly 39 ac (16 ha) of 
standing pine rocklands underwent 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 determination that it is 
unlikely that the designation of critical habitat would negatively 
impact the facility or its operations. As a result, we do not 
anticipate any impact on national security.

[[Page 33216]]

DoD Land Parcel

    We have determined that USACE, a branch of the DoD, retains 
ownership over a 121-ac (49-ha) parcel in Unit 14 of the 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 USACE 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.
    Following our process for coordinating with Federal partners, we 
contacted the DoD and DHS about this designation and shared the IEM for 
their feedback. Neither agency identified any potential national-
security impact, nor requested an exclusion from critical habitat based 
on potential national-security impacts. Consequently, the Secretary is 
not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this 
designation based on impacts on national security.

Exclusions Based on 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. 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 would be encouraged by 
designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we 
look at the existence of Tribal conservation plans and partnerships and 
consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States 
with Tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might 
occur because of the designation.
    When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that 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 benefits 
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that 
may apply to critical habitat.
    When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation, or in the continuation, strengthening, or 
encouragement of partnerships.
    In the case of the Miami tiger beetle, the benefits of critical 
habitat include public awareness of the presence of the Miami tiger 
beetle and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal 
nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the 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.
    Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as 
well as additional public comments we received, and the best scientific 
data available, we evaluated whether certain lands in proposed Unit 14 
are appropriate for exclusion from this final designation under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act. If the analysis indicates that the benefits of 
excluding lands from the final designation outweigh the benefits of 
designating those lands as critical habitat, then the Secretary may 
exercise her discretion to exclude the lands from the final 
designation. In the paragraphs below, we provide a detailed balancing 
analysis of the areas being excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

Private or Other Non-Federal Conservation Plans Related to Permits 
Under Section 10 of the Act

    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, we will always consider areas covered by an approved CCAA/
SHA/HCP and generally exclude such areas from a designation of critical 
habitat if three conditions are met:
    (1) The permittee is properly implementing the CCAA/SHA/HCP and is 
expected to continue to do so for the term of the agreement. A CCAA/
SHA/HCP is properly implemented if the permittee is, and has been, 
fully implementing the commitments and provisions in the CCAA/SHA/HCP, 
implementing agreement, and permit.
    (2) The species for which critical habitat is being designated is a 
covered species in the CCAA/SHA/HCP, or very similar in its habitat 
requirements to a covered species. The recognition that the Service 
extends to such an agreement depends on the degree to which the 
conservation measures undertaken in the CCAA/SHA/HCP would also protect 
the habitat features of the similar species.
    (3) The CCAA/SHA/HCP specifically addresses the habitat of the 
species for

[[Page 33217]]

which critical habitat is being designated and meets the conservation 
needs of the species in the planning area.

Coral Reef Commons Habitat Conservation Plan

    We have determined that lands associated with the Coral Reef 
Commons HCP were included within the boundaries of the proposed 
critical habitat, within Unit 14 (Richmond Pine Rocklands), for the 
Miami tiger beetle.
    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 were developed and 
issued for the Coral Reef Commons development. As part of the HCP and 
permit, an approximately 53-ac (21-ha) onsite preserve (included in 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. An additional approximately 57 ac (23 ha) of the CSTARS 
site 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 using 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 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.
Benefits of Inclusion
    The primary benefit of including the onsite preserve and offsite 
mitigation area associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP is the 
potential additional regulatory oversight to ensure that the preserve 
and mitigation area are being protected and managed according to the 
provisions and measures set forth in the HCP. However, because there is 
an existing record that the Miami tiger beetle is a covered species 
under the HCP and because the provisions and measures set forth in the 
HCP for the management of these areas for pine rockland habitat and the 
Miami tiger beetle are being fully implemented, the additional benefits 
of the inclusion of these areas in designated critical habitat is 
estimated to be small. Further, as a result of the above and the 
continued productive partnership Coral Reef Commons has demonstrated, 
we do not anticipate requesting any additional conservation measures 
for the species and its habitat, thus additionally suggesting that the 
benefit of the inclusion of these parcels in critical habitat to be 
minimal.
    A secondary benefit to the inclusion of the onsite preserve and 
offsite mitigation area in critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle 
is an educational benefit through ensuring public awareness regarding 
the importance of these specific parcels to the Miami tiger beetle and 
its long-term conservation. Since there are only two known extant 
populations of the Miami tiger beetle, with this area being one, and 
with an excess of 90 percent of pine rockland habitat in south Florida 
being lost, the relative importance of these parcels to the species is 
high due to its long-term conservation and public interest.
Benefits of Exclusion
    The Miami tiger beetle is a species included in the Coral Reef 
Commons HCP. As part of the HCP, the onsite preserve and offsite 
mitigation area were established to protect and conserve the species 
and its habitat. The conservation and protective measures established 
for these parcels as part of the HCP and section 10 permit are being 
fully implemented. We have determined that given the successful record 
of implementing the measures for the Miami tiger beetle on these 
parcels, we would, at this time, not seek any additional measures to 
protect the species or its habitat beyond those set forth in the HPC 
and accompanying permit, thus minimizing any additional regulatory 
benefit realized by their inclusion. Further, the conservation 
partnership with the Coral Reef Commons development advocate is well 
established and could be significantly harmed by the failure to 
acknowledge the conservation value of the HCP and that the conservation 
and protective measures of the HCP and section 10 permit are being 
fully implemented. Additionally, failure to acknowledge and abide by 
these agreements would most likely send a chilling effect to other 
potential conservation partners, which could render conservation 
efforts in south Florida for the Miami tiger beetle and other listed 
and at-risk species more difficult and potentially harm species and 
sensitive habitats.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
    We have found that on balance, the benefits of excluding the onsite 
preserve and offsite mitigation area associated with the Coral Reef 
Commons HCP outweigh the benefits of including the specific parcels in 
designated critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle. We have 
determined that benefits from the preservation of the conservation 
partnership with Coral Reef Commons development and the continued 
ongoing conservation measures implemented on these parcels outweigh the 
potential additional regulatory benefits associated with their 
inclusion in critical habitat, which would most likely be in the form 
of regulatory oversight. Additionally, the acknowledgement of the 
productive cooperative partnership is important for not only this 
species and situation, but for other existing and future conservation 
efforts, and to not exclude these lands given that there is a signed 
HCP that covers the species, provides the necessary conservation 
measures, and is being fully implemented would have a detrimental 
effect on existing and future conservation partnerships. Further, while 
we find that the educational benefits associated with the parcels being 
in the final designation valuable, we have determined that the 
inclusion of these areas in the proposal has educated the public as to 
their importance to the species and will continue to do so. We 
anticipate minimal further benefit if they were to be included in this 
final designation. Therefore, we are excluding those specific lands 
associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP that are in the onsite 
preserve and offsite mitigation area from this final designation of 
critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle because we find that the 
benefit of excluding them from designated critical habitat outweighs 
the benefit of their inclusion.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
    As discussed above, the conservation measures and provisions set 
forth in the Coral Reef Commons HCP to manage the onsite preserve and 
offsite mitigation

[[Page 33218]]

area for the Miami tiger beetle and pine rockland habitat are being 
fully and successfully implemented. There is a record that the project 
proponent is a cooperating partner in the conservation of the Miami 
tiger beetle. We have indicated that, at this time, we would not ask 
for any additional conservation measures for the species and its 
habitat and have determined that these areas are being fully protected 
for the Miami tiger beetle. As a result, we do not find that the 
exclusion of these specific areas from designated critical habitat is a 
threat to the viability of the Miami tiger beetle. Further, because the 
Miami tiger beetle is listed as an endangered species and these areas 
are occupied, if at any time the parcels are no longer being managed 
appropriately, the species continues to be protected by the provisions 
of the Act and the permit for the HCP can be revisited. We conclude 
that the exclusion of these specific parcels from designated critical 
habitat will not result in the extinction of the Miami tiger beetle.
    We have further determined that there are no additional HCPs or 
other management plans for the Miami tiger beetle within the critical 
habitat designation.

Tribal Lands

    Several Executive Orders, Secretary's Orders, and policies concern 
working with Tribes. These guidance documents generally confirm our 
trust responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that 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. However, we 
have not identified any Tribal lands associated with this final 
designation of critical habitat for the Miami tiger beetle.

Summary of Exclusions

    As discussed above, based on the information provided by entities 
seeking exclusion, as well as any additional public comments we 
received, we evaluated whether certain lands in the proposed critical 
habitat were appropriate for exclusion from this final designation 
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Table 4, below, shows the areas 
we are excluding from critical habitat designation for the Miami tiger 
beetle.

               Table 4--Areas Excluded from Critical Habitat Designation by Critical Habitat Unit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Areas meeting the
                                                                             definition of      Areas excluded
                   Unit                             Specific area          critical habitat,     from critical
                                                                               in acres        habitat, in acres
                                                                              (hectares)          (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 14--Richmond Pine Rocklands..........  Coral Reef Commons HCP             109.3 (44.2)        109.3 (44.2)
                                             onsite preserve and offsite
                                             mitigation area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Required Determinations

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 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 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

[[Page 33219]]

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 critical habitat designation. There is no requirement 
under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not 
directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. 
Therefore, because no small entities will be directly regulated by this 
rulemaking, the Service certifies that this final critical habitat 
designation will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether this designation will 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 this critical habitat designation will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
business entities. Therefore, a 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 this 
critical habitat designation will significantly affect energy supplies, 
distribution, or use. We do not foresee any energy development 
projects, supply distribution, or use that may affect the critical 
habitat units for the Miami tiger beetle. Further, in our evaluation of 
potential economic impacts, we did not find that this critical habitat 
designation will 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 rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on 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 designated 
as critical habitat are owned by the Federal Government, including the 
U.S. Coast Guard (DHS), USACE (DoD), NOAA, and FBP, or they are owned 
by 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 this final designation of critical habitat for the Miami tiger 
beetle, and it concludes that 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 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 critical habitat designation with, 
appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism perspective, the 
designation

[[Page 33220]]

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, this final 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 
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 will 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 does not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this final 
rule identifies the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species. The designated areas of critical habitat 
are presented on maps, and the 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 
Secretary's 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 designating critical 
habitat for the Miami tiger beetle on Tribal lands. As a result, there 
are no Tribal lands affected by the designation of critical habitat for 
this species.

References Cited

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

Authors

    The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the 
Florida Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--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, amend paragraph (h) by revising the entry for 
``Beetle, Miami tiger'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife under INSECTS to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 33221]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
             Insects
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Beetle, Miami tiger.............  Cicindelidia        Wherever found....  E              81 FR 68985, 10/5/2016;
                                   floridana.                                             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 the 
following components:
    (i) South Florida pine rockland habitat of at least 2.5 acres (1 
hectare) 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 described in paragraph (2)(i) of this 
entry. These areas have little to no vegetation to allow for normal 
behavior and growth, such as thermoregulation, foraging, egg-laying, 
and larval development, and to facilitate habitat connectivity.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, other paved areas, and managed 
lawns) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal 
boundaries on June 22, 2023.
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created using Esri ArcGIS 
mapping software. The projection used was Albers Conical Equal Area 
(Florida Geographic Data Library), North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 
83) High Accuracy Reference Network (HARN). The maps in this entry, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries 
of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or 
both on which each map is based are available to the public at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0053, at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and at the 
field office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field 
office location information by contacting one of the Service regional 
offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    (5) Index map follows:

Figure 1 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph (5)

[[Page 33222]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.000

    (6) Unit 1: Trinity Pineland, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 1 consists of approximately 10 acres (ac) (4 hectares 
(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.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

Figure 2 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph 
(6)(ii)

[[Page 33223]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.001

    (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.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:

Figure 3 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph 
(7)(ii)

[[Page 33224]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.002

    (8) Unit 3: Deering Estate South Addition, 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.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:

Figure 4 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph 
(8)(ii)

[[Page 33225]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.003

    (9) Unit 4: Ned Glenn Nature Preserve, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 4 consists of approximately 11 ac (5 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.
    (ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:

Figure 5 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph 
(9)(ii)

[[Page 33226]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.004

    (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.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:

Figure 6 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph 
(10)(ii)

[[Page 33227]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.005

    (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.
    (ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:

Figure 7 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph 
(11)(ii)

[[Page 33228]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.006

    (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.
    (ii) Map of Unit 7 follows:

Figure 8 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph 
(12)(ii)

[[Page 33229]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.007

    (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 142nd Avenue to the east.
    (ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:

Figure 9 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph 
(13)(ii)

[[Page 33230]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.008

    (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.
    (ii) Map of Unit 9 follows:

Figure 10 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph 
(14)(ii)

[[Page 33231]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.009

    (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.
    (ii) Map of Unit 10 follows:

Figure 11 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph 
(15)(ii)

[[Page 33232]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.010

    (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.
    (ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:

Figure 12 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph 
(16)(ii)

[[Page 33233]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.011

    (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 120th Street to the north, SW 127th Avenue to the 
east, SW 128th Street to the south, and SW 137th Avenue to the west.
    (ii) Map of Unit 12 follows:

Figure 13 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph 
(17)(ii)

[[Page 33234]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.012

    (18) Unit 13: Boystown Pineland Preserve, 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.
    (ii) Map of Unit 13 follows:

Figure 14 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph 
(18)(ii)

[[Page 33235]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.013

    (19) Unit 14: Richmond Pine Rocklands, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    (i) Unit 14 consists of approximately 1,347 ac (545 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.
    (ii) Map of Unit 14 follows:

Figure 15 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph 
(19)(ii)

[[Page 33236]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.014

    (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.
    (ii) Map of Unit 15 follows:

Figure 16 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph 
(20)(ii)

[[Page 33237]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.015

    (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.
    (ii) Map of Unit 16 follows:

Figure 17 to Miami Tiger Beetle (Cicindelidia floridana) paragraph 
(21)(ii)

[[Page 33238]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY23.016

* * * * *

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-10077 Filed 5-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C