# Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2013-22700

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** September 30, 2013
- **Citation:** 78 FR 60024

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status for the Rufa Red Knot (
Calidris canutus rufa
)

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list the rufa red knot (
Calidris canutus rufa
) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this species. The effect of this regulation will be to add this species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

DATES:

We will accept all comments received or postmarked on or before November 29, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES
section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section by November 14, 2013.

ADDRESSES:

Document availability:
You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and its four supplemental documents on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov
at Docket Number FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097, or by mail from the New Jersey Field Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
).

Comment submission:
You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:

(1)
Electronically:
Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov
. In the Search box, enter FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”

(2)
By hard copy:
Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, Virginia 22203.

We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all information received on
http://www.regulations.gov
. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the
Public Comments
section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eric Schrading, Acting Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office, 927 North Main Street, Building D, Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232, by telephone 609-383-3938 or by facsimile 609-646-0352. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule.
Under the Act, if a species is determined to be endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a proposal in the
Federal Register
and make a determination on our proposal within 1 year. Critical habitat shall be designated, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, for any species determined to be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species and designations and revisions of critical habitat can be completed only by issuing a rule.

This rule proposes listing the rufa red knot (
Calidris canutus rufa
) as a threatened species. The rufa red knot is a candidate species for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of a listing regulation has been precluded by other higher priority listing activities. This rule reassesses all available information regarding status of and threats to the rufa red knot. We will also publish a proposal to designate critical habitat for the rufa red knot under the Act in the near future.

The basis for our action.
Under the Act, we may determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

We have determined that the rufa red knot is threatened due to loss of both breeding and nonbreeding habitat; potential for disruption of natural predator cycles on the breeding grounds; reduced prey availability throughout the nonbreeding range; and increasing frequency and severity of asynchronies (“mismatches”) in the timing of the birds' annual migratory cycle relative to favorable food and weather conditions.

We will seek peer review.
We will seek comments from independent specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. Because we will consider all comments and information received during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from this proposal.

Information Requested

Public Comments

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:

(1) The rufa red knot's biology, range, and population trends, including:

(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;

(b) Genetics and taxonomy;

(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;

(d) Historical and current population levels and current and projected trends; and

(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.

(2) Factors that that may affect the continued existence of the species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and regulations that may be addressing those threats.

(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current status, range, distribution, and population size of this species, including the locations of any additional populations of this species.

(5) Genetic, morphological, chemical, geolocator, telemetry, survey (e.g., resightings of marked birds), or other data that clarify the distribution of
Calidris canutus rufa
versus
C.c. roselaari
wintering and migration areas, including the subspecies compositions of those
C. canutus
that occur from southern Mexico to the Caribbean and Pacific coasts of South America.

(6) Information regarding intra- and inter-annual red knot movements within and between the Southeast United States-Caribbean and the Northwest Gulf of Mexico wintering regions, or other information that helps to clarify their geographic limits and degree of connectivity.

(7) Information that helps clarify the geographic extent of the rufa red knot's breeding range, and the extent to which rufa red knots from different wintering areas interbreed, as well as the geographic extent of the
Calidris canutus islandica
breeding range.

(8) Data regarding rates of rufa red knot reproductive success.

(9) Information regarding habitat loss or predation in rufa red knot breeding areas.

(10) Information regarding important rufa red knot stopover areas, including inland areas (such as the Mississippi Valley, Great Lakes, and Great Plains). We particularly seek information on the frequency, timing, and duration of use; numbers of birds; habitat and prey characteristics; foraging and roosting habits; and any threats associated with such areas.

(11) Data that support or refute the concept that juvenile rufa red knots at least partially segregate from adults during the nonbreeding seasons. We particularly seek information on juvenile wintering and migration locations; frequency, timing, and duration of juvenile use; numbers of juveniles and adults in these areas; juvenile habitat and prey characteristics; juvenile foraging and roosting habits; juvenile survival rates; and any threats associated with these areas.

(12) Data that clarify the degree of rufa red knot site fidelity to breeding locations, wintering regions, or migration stopover sites.

(13) Data regarding the percentage of rufa red knots that do not use Delaware Bay as a spring stopover site.

(14) Data regarding rufa red knot use of the Caribbean. We particularly seek information on the frequency, timing, and duration of use; numbers of birds; habitat and prey characteristics; foraging and roosting habits; and any threats associated with areas of red knot use in the Caribbean.

(15) Data regarding red knot use of wrack material as a microhabitat for foraging or roosting.

(16) Information regarding the frequency and severity of the threats to red knots (e.g., documented mortality levels from disease, harmful algal blooms, contaminants, oil spills, wind turbines), their habitats (e.g., effects of sea level rise, development, aquaculture), or their food resources (e.g., harvest of marine resources, climate change) outside the United States.

(17) Information regarding legal and illegal harvest (i.e., hunting or poaching) rates and trends in nonbreeding areas and the effects of harvest on the red knot.

(18) Information regarding non-U.S. laws, regulations, or policies relevant to the regulation of red knot hunting; classification of the red knot as a protected species; protection of red knot habitats; or threats to the red knot (e.g., to address the data gaps identified under Summary of Factors Affecting the Species).

Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES
section. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in the
ADDRESSES
section.

If you submit information via
http://www.regulations.gov,
your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on
http://www.regulations.gov
. Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
http://www.regulations.gov,
or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office (
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/
) (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
).

Public Hearings

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the
Federal Register
. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register
and local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing.

Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and participate in a public hearing should contact the New Jersey Field Office at 609-383-3938, as soon as possible. To allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than 1 week before any scheduled hearing date. Information regarding this proposed rule is available in alternative formats upon request.

Peer Review

In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we have sought the expert opinions of three appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing determination and critical habitat designation are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in the red knot's biology, habitat, or threats, which will inform our determination. We invite comment from the peer reviewers during this public comment period.

Previous Federal Action

Comprehensive information regarding previous federal actions relevant to the proposed listing of the rufa red knot is available as a supplemental document (“Previous Federal Actions”) on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov
(Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097; see
ADDRESSES
section for further access instructions).

Background

Species Information

Comprehensive information regarding the rufa red knot's taxonomy, distribution, life history, habitat, and diet, as well as its historical and current abundance, is available as a supplemental document (“Rufa Red Knot Ecology and Abundance”) on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov
(Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097; see
ADDRESSES
section for further access instructions). A brief summary is provided here.

The rufa red knot (
Calidris canutus rufa
) is a medium-sized shorebird about 9 to 11 inches (in) (23 to 28 centimeters (cm)) in length. (Throughout this document, “rufa red knot,” “red knot,” and “knot” are used interchangeably to refer to the
rufa
subspecies. “
Calidris canutus
” and “
C. canutus
” are used to refer to the species as a whole or to birds of unknown subspecies. References to other particular subspecies are so indicated.) The red knot migrates annually between its breeding grounds in the Canadian Arctic and several wintering regions, including the Southeast United States (Southeast), the Northeast Gulf of Mexico, northern Brazil, and Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of South America. During both the northbound (spring) and southbound (fall) migrations, red knots use key staging and stopover areas to rest and feed.

Taxonomy

Calidris canutus
is classified in the Class Aves, Order Charadriiformes, Family Scolopacidae, Subfamily Scolopacinae (American Ornithologists Union (AOU) 2012a). Six subspecies are recognized, each with distinctive morphological traits (i.e., body size and plumage characteristics), migration routes, and annual cycles. Each subspecies is believed to occupy a distinct breeding area in various parts of the Arctic (Buehler and Baker 2005, pp. 498-499; Tomkovich 2001, pp. 259-262; Piersma and Baker 2000, p. 109; Piersma and Davidson 1992, p. 191; Tomkovich 1992, pp. 20-22), but some subspecies overlap in certain wintering and migration areas (Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) 2010, p. 33).

Calidris canutus canutus, C.c. piersma,
and
C.c. rogersi
do not occur in North America. The subspecies
C.c. islandica
breeds in the northeastern Canadian High Arctic and Greenland, migrates through Iceland and Norway, and winters in western Europe (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2007, p. 4).
Calidris c. rufa
breeds in the central Canadian Arctic (just south of the
C.c. islandica
breeding grounds) and winters along the Atlantic coast and the Gulf of Mexico coast (Gulf coast) of North America, in the Caribbean, and along the north and southeast coasts of South America including the island of Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of Argentina and Chile (see supplemental document—Rufa Red Knot Ecology and Abundance—figures 1 and 2).

Subspecies
Calidris canutus roselaari
breeds in western Alaska and on Wrangel Island, Russia (Carmona
et al.
in press; Buehler and Baker 2005, p. 498). Wintering areas for
C.c. roselaari
are poorly known (Harrington 2001, p. 5). In the past,
C. canutus
wintering along the northern coast of Brazil, the Gulf coasts of Texas and Florida, and the southeast Atlantic coast of the United States have sometimes been attributed to the
roselaari
subspecies. However, based on new morphological evidence, resightings of marked birds, and results from geolocators (light-sensitive tracking devices),
C.c. roselaari
is now thought to be largely or wholly confined to the Pacific coast of the Americas during migration and in winter (Carmona
et al.
in press; Buchanan
et al.
2011, p. 97; USFWS 2011a, pp. 305-306; Buchanan
et al.
2010, p. 41; Soto-Montoya
et al.
2009, p. 191; Niles
et al.
2008, pp. 131-133; Tomkovich and Dondua 2008, p. 102). Although
C.c. roselaari
is generally considered to occur on the Pacific coast, a few
C. canutus
movements have recently been documented between Texas and the Pacific coast during spring migration (Carmona
et al.
in press). Despite a number of population-wide morphological differences (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2011a, p. 305), the
rufa
and
roselaari
subspecies cannot be distinguished in the field (D. Newstead pers. comm. September 14, 2012). The subspecies composition of Pacific-wintering
C. canutus
from central Mexico to Chile is unknown.

Pursuant to the definitions in section 3 of the Act, “the term species includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” Based on the information in the supplemental document Rufa Red Knot Ecology and Abundance, the Service accepts the characterization of
Calidris canutus rufa
as a subspecies because each recognized subspecies is believed to occupy separate breeding areas, in addition to having morphological and behavioral character differences. Therefore, we find that
C.c. rufa
is a valid taxon that qualifies as a listable entity under the Act.

Breeding

Based on estimated survival rates for a stable population, few red knots live for more than about 7 years (Niles
et al.
2008, p. 28). Age of first breeding is uncertain but for most birds is probably at least 2 years (Harrington 2001, p. 21). Red knots generally nest in dry, slightly elevated tundra locations, often on windswept slopes with little vegetation. Breeding territories are located inland, but near arctic coasts, and foraging areas are located near nest sites in freshwater wetlands (Niles
et al.
2008, p. 27; Harrington 2001, p. 8). On the breeding grounds, the red knot's diet consists mostly of terrestrial invertebrates such as insects (Harrington 2001, p. 11). Breeding occurs in June (Niles
et al.
2008, pp. 25-26). Breeding success of High Arctic shorebirds such as
Calidris canutus
varies dramatically among years in a somewhat cyclical manner. Two main factors seem to be responsible for this annual variation: weather that affects nesting conditions and food availability (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species—Factor E—Asynchronies) and the abundance of arctic lemmings (
Dicrostonyx torquatus
and
Lemmus sibericus
) that affects predation rates (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species—Factor C—Predation—Breeding).

Wintering

In this document, “winter” is used to refer to the nonbreeding period of the red knot life cycle when the birds are not undertaking migratory movements. Red knots occupy all known wintering areas from December to February, but may be present in some wintering areas as early as September or as late as May. In the Southern Hemisphere, these months correspond to the austral summer (i.e., summer in the Southern Hemisphere), but for consistency in this document the terms “winter” and “wintering area” are used throughout the subspecies' range.

Wintering areas for the red knot include the Atlantic coasts of Argentina and Chile (particularly the island of Tierra del Fuego that spans both countries), the north coast of Brazil (particularly in the State of Maranhão), the Northwest Gulf of Mexico from the Mexican State of Tamaulipas through Texas (particularly at Laguna Madre) to Louisiana, and the Southeast United States from Florida (particularly the central Gulf coast) to North Carolina (Newstead
et al.
in press; L. Patrick pers. comm. August 31, 2012; Niles
et al.
2008, p 17) (see supplemental

document—Rufa Red Knot Ecology and Abundance—figure 2). Smaller numbers of knots winter in the Caribbean, and along the central Gulf coast (Alabama, Mississippi), the mid-Atlantic, and the Northeast United States.
Calidris canutus
is also known to winter in Central America and northwest South America, but it is not yet clear if all these birds are the
rufa
subspecies. Little information exists on where juvenile red knots spend the winter months (USFWS and Conserve Wildlife Foundation 2012, p. 1), and there may be at least partial segregation of juvenile and adult red knots on the wintering grounds.

Migration

Each year red knots make one of the longest distance migrations known in the animal kingdom, traveling up to 19,000 miles (mi) (30,000 kilometers (km) annually. Red knots undertake long flights that may span thousands of miles without stopping. As
Calidris canutus
prepare to depart on long migratory flights, they undergo several physiological changes. Before takeoff, the birds accumulate and store large amounts of fat to fuel migration and undergo substantial changes in metabolic rates. In addition, leg muscles, gizzard (a muscular organ used for grinding food), stomach, intestines, and liver all decrease in size, while pectoral (chest) muscles and heart increase in size. Due to these physiological changes,
C. canutus
arriving from lengthy migrations are not able to feed maximally until their digestive systems regenerate, a process that may take several days. Because stopovers are time-constrained,
C. canutus
requires stopovers rich in easily digested food to achieve adequate weight gain (Niles
et al.
2008, pp. 28-29; van Gils
et al.
2005a, p. 2609; van Gils
et al.
2005b, pp. 126-127; Piersma
et al.
1999, pp. 405; 412) that fuels the next migratory flight and, upon arrival in the Arctic, fuels a body transformation to breeding condition (Morrison 2006, pp. 610-612). Red knots from different wintering areas appear to employ different migration strategies, including differences in timing, routes, and stopover areas. However, full segregation of migration strategies, routes, or stopover areas does not occur among red knots from different wintering areas.

Major spring stopover areas along the Atlantic coast include Río Gallegos, Península Valdés, and San Antonio Oeste (Patagonia, Argentina); Lagoa do Peixe (eastern Brazil, State of Rio Grande do Sul); Maranhão (northern Brazil); the Virginia barrier islands (United States); and Delaware Bay (Delaware and New Jersey, United States) (Cohen
et al.
2009, p. 939; Niles
et al.
2008, p. 19; González 2005, p. 14). Important fall stopover sites include southwest Hudson Bay (including the Nelson River delta), James Bay, the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, the Mingan Archipelago, and the Bay of Fundy in Canada; the coasts of Massachusetts and New Jersey and the mouth of the Altamaha River in Georgia, United States; the Caribbean (especially Puerto Rico and the Lesser Antilles); and the northern coast of South America from Brazil to Guyana (Newstead
et al.
in press; Niles 2012a; D. Mizrahi pers. comm. October 16, 2011; Niles
et al.
2010a, pp. 125-136; Schneider and Winn 2010, p. 3; Niles
et al.
2008, pp. 30, 75, 94; B. Harrington pers. comm. March 31, 2006; Antas and Nascimento 1996, pp. 66; Morrison and Harrington 1992, p. 74; Spaans 1978, p. 72). (See supplemental document—Rufa Red Knot Ecology and Abundance—figure 3.) However, large and small groups of red knots, sometimes numbering in the thousands, may occur in suitable habitats all along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from Argentina to Canada during migration (Niles
et al.
2008, p. 29).

Texas knots follow an inland flyway to and from the breeding grounds, using spring and fall stopovers along western Hudson Bay in Canada and in the northern Great Plains (Newstead
et al.
in press; Skagen
et al.
1999). Stopover records from the Northern Plains are mainly in Canada, but small numbers of migrants have been sighted throughout the U.S. Great Plains States (eBird.org 2012). Some red knots wintering in the Southeastern United States and the Caribbean migrate north along the U.S. Atlantic coast before flying overland to central Canada from the mid-Atlantic, while others migrate overland directly to the Arctic from the Southeastern U.S. coast (Niles
et al.
in press). These eastern red knots typically make a short stop at James Bay in Canada, but may also stop briefly along the Great Lakes, perhaps in response to weather conditions (Niles et al. 2008, pp. 20, 24; Morrison and Harrington 1992, p. 79). Red knots are restricted to the ocean coasts during winter, and occur primarily along the coasts during migration. However, small numbers of rufa red knots are reported annually across the interior United States (i.e., greater than 25 miles from the Gulf or Atlantic Coasts) during spring and fall migration—these reported sightings are concentrated along the Great Lakes, but multiple reports have been made from nearly every interior State (eBird.org 2012).

Migration and Wintering Habitat

Long-distance migrant shorebirds are highly dependent on the continued existence of quality habitat at a few key staging areas. These areas serve as stepping stones between wintering and breeding areas. Conditions or factors influencing shorebird populations on staging areas control much of the remainder of the annual cycle and survival of the birds (Skagen 2006, p. 316; International Wader Study Group 2003, p. 10). At some stages of migration, very high proportions of entire populations may use a single migration staging site to prepare for long flights. Red knots show some fidelity to particular migration staging areas between years (Duerr
et al.
2011, p. 16; Harrington 2001, pp. 8-9, 21).

Habitats used by red knots in migration and wintering areas are similar in character, generally coastal marine and estuarine (partially enclosed tidal area where fresh and salt water mixes) habitats with large areas of exposed intertidal sediments. In North America, red knots are commonly found along sandy, gravel, or cobble beaches, tidal mudflats, salt marshes, shallow coastal impoundments and lagoons, and peat banks (Cohen
et al.
2010a, pp. 355, 358-359; Cohen
et al.
2009, p. 940; Niles
et al.
2008, pp. 30, 47; Harrington 2001, pp. 8-9; Truitt
et al.
2001, p. 12). In many wintering and stopover areas, quality high-tide roosting habitat (i.e., close to feeding areas, protected from predators, with sufficient space during the highest tides, free from excessive human disturbance) is limited (K. Kalasz pers. comm. November 26, 2012; L. Niles pers. comm. November 19, 2012). The supra-tidal (above the high tide) sandy habitats of inlets provide important areas for roosting, especially at higher tides when intertidal habitats are inundated (Harrington 2008, pp. 2, 4-5).

Migration and Wintering Food

Across all subspecies,
Calidris canutus
is a specialized molluscivore, eating hard-shelled mollusks, sometimes supplemented with easily accessed softer invertebrate prey, such as shrimp- and crab-like organisms, marine worms, and horseshoe crab (
Limulus polyphemus
) eggs (Piersma and van Gils 2011, p. 9; Harrington 2001, pp. 9-11). Mollusk prey are swallowed whole and crushed in the gizzard (Piersma and van Gils 2011, pp. 9-11). From studies of other subspecies, Zwarts and Blomert (1992, p. 113) concluded that
C. canutus
cannot ingest

prey with a circumference greater than 1.2 in (30 millimeters (mm)). Foraging activity is largely dictated by tidal conditions, as
C. canutus
rarely wade in water more than 0.8 to 1.2 in (2 to 3 cm) deep (Harrington 2001, p. 10). Due to bill morphology,
C. canutus
is limited to foraging on only shallow-buried prey, within the top 0.8 to 1.2 in (2 to 3 cm) of sediment (Gerasimov 2009, p. 227; Zwarts and Blomert 1992, p. 113).

The primary prey of the rufa red knot in non-breeding habitats include blue mussel (
Mytilus edulis
) spat (juveniles);
Donax
and
Darina
clams; snails (
Littorina
spp.), and other mollusks, with polycheate worms, insect larvae, and crustaceans also eaten in some locations. A prominent departure from typical prey items occurs each spring when red knots feed on the eggs of horseshoe crabs, particularly during the key migration stopover within the Delaware Bay of New Jersey and Delaware. Delaware Bay serves as the principal spring migration staging area for the red knot because of the availability of horseshoe crab eggs (Clark
et al.
2009, p. 85; Harrington 2001, pp. 2, 7; Harrington 1996, pp. 76-77; Morrison and Harrington 1992, pp. 76-77), which provide a superabundant source of easily digestible food.

Red knots and other shorebirds that are long-distance migrants must take advantage of seasonally abundant food resources at intermediate stopovers to build up fat reserves for the next non-stop, long-distance flight (Clark
et al.
1993, p. 694). Although foraging red knots can be found widely distributed in small numbers within suitable habitats during the migration period, birds tend to concentrate in those areas where abundant food resources are consistently available from year to year.

Abundance

In the United States, red knot populations declined sharply in the late 1800s and early 1900s due to excessive sport and market hunting, followed by hunting restrictions and signs of population recovery by the mid-1900s (Urner and Storer 1949, pp. 178-183; Stone 1937, p. 465; Bent 1927, p. 132). However, it is unclear whether the red knot population fully recovered its historical numbers (Harrington 2001, p. 22) following the period of unregulated hunting.

More recently, long-term survey data from two key areas (Tierra del Fuego wintering area and Delaware Bay spring stopover site) both show a roughly 75 percent decline in red knot numbers since the 1980s (A. Dey pers. comm. October 12, 2012; G. Morrison pers. comm. August 31, 2012; Dey
et al.
2011a, pp. 2-3; Clark
et al.
2009, p. 88; Morrison
et al.
2004, p. 65; Morrison and Ross 1989, Vol. 2, pp. 226, 252; Kochenberger 1983, p. 1; Dunne
et al.
1982, p. 67; Wander and Dunne, 1982, p. 60). Survey data for the Virginia barrier islands spring stopover area show no trend since 1995 (B. Watts pers. comm. November 15, 2012). Survey data are also available for the Brazil, Northwest Gulf of Mexico, and Southeast-Caribbean wintering areas, but are insufficient to infer trends.

Climate Change

Comprehensive background information regarding climate change is available as a supplemental document (“Climate Change Background”) on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov
(Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097; see
ADDRESSES
section for further access instructions). As explained in the supplemental document, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses standardized terms to define levels of confidence (from “very high” to “very low”) and likelihood (from “virtually certain” to “exceptionally unlikely”). When used in this context, these terms are given in quotes in this document.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.

Overview of Threats Related to Climate Change

We discuss the ongoing and projected effects of climate change, and the levels of certainty associated with these effects, in the appropriate sections of the five-factor analysis. For example, habitat loss from sea level rise is discussed under Factor A, and asynchronies (“mismatches”) in the timing of the annual cycle are discussed under Factor E. Here we present an overview of threats stemming from climate change, which are addressed in more detail in the sections that follow.

The natural history of Arctic-breeding shorebirds makes this group of species particularly vulnerable to global climate change (e.g., Meltofte
et al.
2007, entire; Piersma and Lindström 2004, entire; Rehfisch and Crick 2003, entire; Piersma and Baker 2000, entire; Zöckler and Lysenko 2000, entire; Lindström and Agrell 1999, entire). Relatively low genetic diversity, which is thought to be a consequence of survival through past climate-driven population bottlenecks, may put shorebirds at more risk from human-induced climate variation than other avian taxa (Meltofte
et al.
2007, p. 7); low genetic diversity may result in reduced adaptive capacity as well as increased risks when population sizes drop to low levels.

In the short term, red knots may benefit if warmer temperatures result in fewer years of delayed horseshoe crab spawning in Delaware Bay (Smith and Michaels 2006, pp. 487-488) or fewer occurrences of late snow melt in the breeding grounds (Meltofte
et al.
2007, p. 7). However, there are indications that changes in the abundance and quality of red knot prey are already under way (Escudero
et al.
2012, pp. 359-362; Jones
et al.
2010, pp. 2255-2256), and prey species face ongoing climate-related threats from warmer temperatures (Jones
et al.
2010, pp. 2255-2256; Philippart
et al.
2003 p. 2171; Rehfisch and Crick 2003, p. 88), ocean acidification (National Research Council (NRC) 2010, p. 286; Fabry
et al.
2008, p. 420), and possibly increased prevalence of disease and parasites (Ward and Lafferty 2004, p. 543). In addition, red knots face imminent threats from loss of habitat caused by sea level rise (NRC 2010, p. 44; Galbraith
et al.
2002, pp. 177-178; Titus 1990, p. 66), and increasing asynchronies (“mismatches”) between the timing of their annual breeding, migration, and wintering cycles and the windows of peak food availability on which the birds depend (Smith
et al.
2011a, pp. 575, 581; McGowan
et al.
2011a, p. 2; Meltofte
et al.
2007, p. 36; van Gils
et al.
2005a, p. 2615; Baker
et al.
2004, p. 878).

Several threats are related to the possibility of changing storm patterns. While variation in weather is a natural occurrence and is normally not considered a threat to the survival of a species, persistent changes in the frequency, intensity, or timing of storms at key locations where red knots congregate (e.g., key stopover areas) can pose a threat (see Factor E and the “Coastal Storms and Extreme Weather”

section of the Climate Change Background supplemental document). Storms impact migratory shorebirds like the red knot both directly and indirectly. Direct impacts include energetic costs from a longer migration route as birds avoid storms, blowing birds off course, and outright mortality (Niles
et al.
2010a, p. 129). Indirect impacts include changes to habitat suitability, storm-induced asynchronies between migration stopover periods and the times of peak prey availability, and possible prompting of birds to take refuge in areas where shorebird hunting is still practiced (Niles
et al.
2012, p. 1; Dey
et al.
2011b, pp. 1-2; Nebel 2011, p. 217).

With arctic warming, vegetation conditions in the red knot's breeding grounds are expected to change, causing the zone of nesting habitat to shift and perhaps contract, but this process may take decades to unfold (Feng
et al.
2012, p. 1366; Meltofte
et al.
2007, p. 36; Kaplan
et al.
2003, p. 10). Ecological shifts in the Arctic may appear sooner. High uncertainty exists about when and how changing interactions among vegetation, predators, competitors, prey, parasites, and pathogens may affect the red knot, but the impacts are potentially profound (Fraser
et al.
2013; entire; Schmidt
et al.
2012, p. 4421; Meltofte
et al.
2007, p. 35; Ims and Fuglei 2005, entire).

In summary, climate change is expected to affect red knot fitness and, therefore, survival through direct and indirect effects on breeding and nonbreeding habitat, food availability, and timing of the birds' annual cycle. Ecosystem changes in the arctic (e.g., changes in predation patterns and pressures) may also reduce reproductive output. Together, these anticipated changes will likely negatively influence the long-term survival of the rufa red knot.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

In this section, we present and assess the best available scientific and commercial data regarding ongoing threats to the quantity and quality of red knot habitat. Within the nonbreeding portion of the range, red knot habitat is primarily threatened by the highly interrelated effects of sea level rise, shoreline stabilization, and coastal development. Lesser threats to nonbreeding habitat include agriculture and aquaculture, invasive vegetation, and beach maintenance activities. Within the breeding portion of the range, the primary threat to red knot habitat is from climate change. With arctic warming, vegetation conditions in the breeding grounds are expected to change, causing the zone of nesting habitat to shift and perhaps contract. Arctic freshwater systems—foraging areas for red knots during the nesting season—are particularly sensitive to climate change.

Factor A—Accelerating Sea Level Rise

For most of the year, red knots live in or immediately adjacent to intertidal areas. These habitats are naturally dynamic, as shorelines are continually reshaped by tides, currents, wind, and storms. Coastal habitats are susceptible to both abrupt (storm-related) and long-term (sea level rise) changes. Outside of the breeding grounds, red knots rely entirely on these coastal areas to fulfill their roosting and foraging needs, making the birds vulnerable to the effects of habitat loss from rising sea levels. Because conditions in coastal habitats are also critical for building up nutrient and energy stores for the long migration to the breeding grounds, sea level rise affecting conditions on staging areas also has the potential to impact the red knot's ability to breed successfully in the Arctic (Meltofte
et al.
2007, p. 36).

According to the National Research Council (NRC) (2010, p. 43), the rate of global sea level rise has increased from about 0.02 in (0.6 mm) per year in the late 19th century to approximately 0.07 in (1.8 mm) per year in the last half of the 20th century. The rate of increase has accelerated, and over the past 15 years has been in excess of 0.12 in (3 mm) per year. In 2007, the IPCC estimated that sea level would “likely” rise by an additional 0.6 to 1.9 feet (ft) (0.18 to 0.59 meters (m)) by 2100 (NRC 2010, p. 44). This projection was based largely on the observed rates of change in ice sheets and projected future thermal expansion of the oceans but did not include the possibility of changes in ice sheet dynamics (e.g., rates and patterns of ice sheet growth versus loss). Scientists are working to improve how ice dynamics can be resolved in climate models. Recent research suggests that sea levels could potentially rise another 2.5 to 6.5 ft (0.8 to 2 m) by 2100, which is several times larger than the 2007 IPCC estimates (NRC 2010, p. 44; Pfeffer
et al.
2008, p. 1340). However, projected rates of sea level rise estimates remain rather uncertain, due mainly to limits in scientific understanding of glacier and ice sheet dynamics (NRC 2010, p. 44; Pfeffer
et al.
2008, p. 1342).

The amount of sea level change varies regionally because of different rates of settling (subsidence) or uplift of the land, and because of differences in ocean circulation (NRC 2010, p. 43). In the last century, for example, sea level rise along the U.S. mid-Atlantic and Gulf coasts exceeded the global average by 5 to 6 in (13 to 15 cm) because coastal lands in these areas are subsiding (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2013). Land subsidence also occurs in some areas of the Northeast, at current rates of 0.02 to 0.04 in (0.5 to 1 mm) per year across this region (Ashton
et al.
2007, pp. 5-6), primarily the result of slow, natural geologic processes (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2013b, p. 28). Due to regional differences, a 2-ft (0.6-m) rise in global sea level by the end of this century would result in a relative sea level rise of 2.3 ft (0.7 m) at New York City, 2.9 ft (0.9 m) at Hampton Roads, Virginia, and 3.5 ft (1.1 m) at Galveston, Texas (U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) 2009, p. 37). Table 1 shows that local rates of sea level rise in the range of the red knot over the second half of the 20th century were generally higher than the global rate of 0.07 in (1.8 mm) per year.

Table 1—Local Sea Level Trends From Within the Range of the Red Knot
[NOAA 2012a]

Station

Mean local sea level trend
(mm per year)

Data period

Pointe-Au-Père, Canada
−0.36 ± 0.40
1900-1983

Woods Hole, Massachusetts
2.61 ± 0.20
1932-2006

Cape May, New Jersey
4.06 ± 0.74
1965-2006

Lewes, Delaware
3.20 ± 0.28
1919-2006

Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, Virginia
6.05 ± 1.14
1975-2006

Beaufort, North Carolina
2.57 ± 0.44
1953-2006

Clearwater Beach, Florida
2.43 ± 0.80
1973-2006

Padre Island, Texas
3.48 ± 0.75
1958-2006

Punto Deseado, Argentina
−0.06 ± 1.93
1970-2002

Data from along the U.S. Atlantic coast suggest a relationship between rates of sea level rise and long-term erosion rates; thus, long-term coastal erosion rates may increase as sea level rises (Florida Oceans and Coastal Council 2010, p. 6). However, even if such a correlation is borne out, predicting the effect of sea level rise on beaches is more complex. Even if wetland or upland coastal lands are lost, sandy or muddy intertidal habitats can often migrate or reform. However, forecasting how such changes may unfold is complex and uncertain. Potential effects of sea level rise on beaches vary regionally due to subsidence or uplift of the land, as well as the geological character of the coast and nearshore (U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 2009b, p. XIV; Galbraith
et al.
2002, p. 174). Precisely forecasting the effects of sea level rise on particular coastal habitats will require integration of diverse information on local rates of sea level rise, tidal ranges, subsurface and coastal topography, sediment accretion rates, coastal processes, and other factors that is beyond the capability of current models (CCSP 2009b, pp. 27-28; Frumhoff
et al.
2007, p. 29; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 2000; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 1999). Furthermore, human manipulation of the coastal environment through beach nourishment, hard stabilization structures, and coastal development may negate forecasts based only on the physical sciences (Thieler and Hammar-Klose 2000; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 1999). Available information on the effects of sea level rise varies in specificity across the range of the red knot. At the international scale, only a relatively coarse assessment is possible. At the national scale, the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) provides information at an intermediate level of resolution (Thieler and Hammar-Klose 2000; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 1999). Finally, more detailed regional, state, and local information is available for certain red knot wintering or stopover areas.

Sea Level Rise—International

International—Overview

We conducted an analysis to consider the possible effects of a 3.3-ft (1-m) increase in sea level in important nonbreeding habitats outside the United States, using global topographic mapping from the University of Arizona (Arizona Board of Regents, 2012; J. Weiss pers. comm. November 13, 2012; Weiss
et al.
2011, p. 637). This visualization tool incorporates only current topography at a horizontal resolution of 0.6 mi (1 km) (Arizona Board of Regents, 2012). We did not evaluate Canadian breeding habitats for sea level rise because red knots nest inland above sea level (at elevations of up to 492 ft (150 m)) and, while in the Arctic, knots forage in freshwater wetlands and rarely contact salt water (Burger
et al.
2012a, p. 26; Niles
et al.
2008, pp. 27, 61).

We selected a 3.3-ft (1-m) sea level increase based on the availability of a global dataset, and because it falls within the current range of 2.6 to 6.6 ft (0.8 to 2 m) projected by 2100 (NRC 2010, p. 44). Along with topography (e.g., land elevation relative to sea level), the local tidal regime is an important factor in attempting to forecast the likely effects of sea level rise (Strauss
et al.
2012, pp. 2, 6-8). Therefore, we also considered local tidal ranges (the vertical distance between the high tide and the succeeding low tide) and other factors that may influence the extent or effects of sea level rise when site-specific information was available and appropriate. In the 1990s, some studies (e.g., Gornitz
et al.
1994, p. 330) classified coastlines with a large tidal range (“macrotidal”) (i.e., with a tidal range greater than 13 ft (4 m)) as more vulnerable to sea level rise because a large tidal range is associated with strong tidal currents that influence coastal behavior (Thieler and Hammar-Klose 2000; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 1999). More recently, however, the USGS inverted this ranking such that a macrotidal coastline is classified as low vulnerability. This change was based primarily on the potential influence of storms on coastal evolution, and the impact of storms relative to the tidal range. For example, on a tidal coastline, there is only a 50 percent chance of a storm occurring at high tide. Thus, for a region with a 13.1-ft (4-m) tidal range, a storm having a 9.8-ft (3-m) surge height is still up to 3.3 ft (1 m) below the elevation of high tide for half of the duration of each tidal cycle. A microtidal coastline (with a tidal range less than 6.6 ft (2 m)), on the other hand, is essentially always “near” high tide and, therefore, always at the greatest risk of significant storm impact (Thieler and Hammar-Klose 2000; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 1999).

Notwithstanding uncertainty about how tidal range will influence overall effects of sea level rise on coastal change, tidal range is also important due to the red knot's dependence on intertidal areas for foraging habitat. Along macrotidal coasts, large areas of intertidal habitat are exposed during low tide. In such areas, some intertidal habitat is likely to remain even with sea level rise, whereas a greater proportion of intertidal habitats may become permanently inundated in areas with smaller tidal ranges.

International—Analysis

Although no local modeling is available, large tidal ranges in the southernmost red knot wintering areas suggest extensive tidal flats will persist, although a projected 3.3-ft (1-m) rise in sea level will likely result in some habitat loss. Despite decreases in recent decades, Bahía Lomas in the Chile portion of Tierra del Fuego is still the largest single red knot wintering site. Extensive intertidal flats at Bahía Lomas are the result of daily tidal variation on the order of 20 to 30 ft (6 to 9 m), depending on the season. The Bahía Lomas flats extend for about 30 mi (50 km) along the coast, and during spring tides the intertidal distance reaches 4.3 mi (7 km) in places (Niles
et al.
2008, p. 50). Some lands in the eastern portion of Bahía Lomas would potentially be impacted by a 3.3-ft (1-m) rise in sea level but not lands in the western portion. In the Argentina portion of

Tierra del Fuego, red knots winter chiefly in Bahía San Sebastián and Río Grande (Niles
et al.
2008, p. 17). Tides in Bahía San Sebastián are up to 13 ft (4 m). Tides in Río Grande average 18 ft (5.5 m), with a maximum of 27.6 ft (8.4 m) (Escudero
et al.
2012, p. 356). At high tides, some lands throughout Bahía San Sebastián and Río Grande would potentially be impacted by a 3.3-ft (1-m) rise in sea level; red knot habitat could be reduced at these sites.

On the Patagonian coast of Argentina, key red knot wintering and stopover areas include the Río Gallegos estuary and Bahía de San Antonio (San Antonio Oeste) (Niles
et al.
2008, p. 19). Tides at Río Gallegos can rise 29 ft (8.8 m) (NOAA 2013c), and low tide exposes extensive intertidal silt-clay flats that in some places extend out for 0.9 mi (1.5 km) (Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) 2012). With a 3.3-ft (1-m) sea level rise, extensive areas on the north side of the Río Gallegos estuary, west of the City of Río Gallegos, would potentially be impacted. At Bahía de San Antonio, the tidal range is 30.5 ft (9.3 m), and at low tide the water can withdraw as far as 4.3 mi (7 km) from the coastal dunes. Extensive tidal flats will persist at the lower tidal levels, even with a projected 3.3-ft (1-m) rise in sea level.

Despite decreases in recent decades, Lagoa do Peixe is a key spring stopover site for red knots on the east coast of Brazil. The lagoon is connected to the Atlantic Ocean through wind action and rain and sometimes through pumping or an artificial inlet (WHSRN 2012; Niles
et al.
2008, p. 48). The shallow waters and mudflats that support foraging red knots are exposed irregularly by wind action and rain. The Atlantic coastline fronting Lagoa do Peixe would be impacted by a 3.3-ft (1-m) rise in sea level, which could potentially result in more extensive inundation of the lagoon through the inlet or via storm surges.

Coastal areas in North-Central Brazil in the State of Maranhão are used by migrating and wintering red knots, which forage on sandy beaches and mudflats and use extensive areas of mangroves (Niles
et al.
2008, p. 48). In this region, local tidal ranges of up to 32.8 ft (10 m) are associated with strong tidal currents (Muehe 2010, p. 177). The largest concentrations of red knots have been recorded along the islands and complex coastline just east of Turiaçú Bay (Niles
et al.
2008, pp. 71, 153), which has a tidal range of up to 26.2 ft (8 m) (Rebelo-Mochel and Ponzoni 2007, p. 684). Despite the large tidal ranges, topographic mapping suggests that nearly all the low-lying islands and coastline now used by red knots could become inundated by a 3.3-ft (1-m) sea level rise. As this region has low human population density (Rebelo-Mochel and Ponzoni 2007, p. 684), landward migration of suitable red knot habitats may be possible as sea levels rise. Muehe (2010, p. 177) suggested that the mangroves might be able to compensate for rising sea levels by migrating landward and laterally in some places, but movement could be frequently limited by the presence of cliffs along the open coasts and estuaries. Mangrove adaptation may not be sustained at rates of sea level rise higher than 0.3 in (7 mm) per year (Muehe 2010, p. 177), as would occur under the 3.3-ft (1-m) sea level rise scenario (CCSP 2009b, p. XV).

The IPCC (2007c, p. 58) evaluated the effects of a 1.6-ft (0.5-m) rise in sea level on small Caribbean islands, and found that up to 38 percent (±24 percent standard deviation) of the total current beach could be lost, with lower, narrower beaches being the most vulnerable. The IPCC did not relate this beach loss to shorebirds, but did find that sea turtle nesting habitat (the basic characteristics of which are similar to, and which often overlaps with, shorebird habitat) would be reduced by one-third under this 1.6-ft (0.5-m) scenario, which is now considered a low estimate of the sea level rise that is likely to occur by 2100 (NRC 2010, p. 44). In the Bahamas, ocean acidification (discussed further under Factor E, below) may exacerbate the effects of sea level rise by interfering with the biotic and chemical formation of carbonate-based sediments (Hallock 2005, pp. 25-27; Feely
et al.
2004, pp. 365-366).

In Canada, the islands of the Mingan Archipelago could be inundated by a 3.3-ft (1-m) sea level rise. The topographic mapping shows some inundation of the adjacent mainland coastline (Mingan Archipelago National Park), as well as the Nelson River delta and the shores of James Bay, but, except where blocked by topography, red knot habitat in these areas may have more potential to migrate than on the islands. With a 3.3-ft (1-m) sea level rise, little intertidal area would be lost in the Bay of Fundy, which has the greatest tidal ranges in the world (up to 38.4 ft (11.7 m)) (NOAA 2013c), although some habitats around the mouths of rivers may become inundated. These areas are important stopover sites for red knots during migration (Newstead
et al.
in press; Niles
et al.
2010a, pp. 125-136; Niles
et al.
2008, p. 94).

International—Summary

Based on our analysis of topography, tidal range, and other factors, some habitat loss in Tierra del Fuego is expected with a 3.3-ft (1-m) rise in sea level, but considerable foraging habitat is likely to remain due to very large tidal ranges. Several key South American and Canadian stopover sites we examined are likely to be affected by sea level rise. In both Canada and South America, red knot coastal habitats are expected to migrate inland under a mid-range estimate (3.3-ft; 1-m) of sea level rise, except where constrained by topography, coastal development, or shoreline stabilization structures. The north coast of Brazil, low-lying Caribbean beaches, and Canada's Mingan Islands Archipelago may be exceptions and may experience more substantial red knot habitat loss even under moderate sea level rise. The upper range (6.6 ft; 2 m) of current predictions was not evaluated but would be expected to exceed the migration capacity of many more red knot habitats than the 3.3-ft (1-m) scenario. Thus, sea level rise is expected to result in localized habitat loss at several non-U.S. wintering and stopover areas. Cumulatively, these losses could affect the ability of red knots to complete their annual cycles that in turn may possibly affect fitness and survival.

Sea Level Rise—United States

United States—Mechanisms of Habitat Loss

Comparing topography to best available scenarios of sea level rise provides an estimate of the land area that may be vulnerable to the effects of sea level rise, but does not incorporate regional variation in tidal regimes (Strauss
et al.
2012, p. 2), coastal processes (e.g., barrier island migration), or environmental changes that may occur as sea level rises (e.g., salt marsh deterioration) (CCSP 2009b, p. 44). Because the majority of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts consist of sandy shores, inundation alone is unlikely to reflect the potential consequences of sea level rise. Instead, long-term shoreline changes will involve contributions from both inundation and erosion, as well as changes to other coastal environments such as wetland losses. Most portions of the open coast of the United States will be subject to significant physical changes and erosion over the next century because the majority of coastlines consist of sandy beaches, which are highly mobile and in a state of continual change (CCSP 2009b, p. 44).

By altering coastal geomorphology, sea level rise will cause significant and often dramatic changes to coastal landforms including barrier islands,

beaches, and intertidal flats (CCSP 2009b, p. 13; Rehfisch and Crick 2003, p. 89), primary red knot habitats. Due to increasing sea levels, storm-surge-driven floods now qualifying as 100-year events are projected to occur as often as every 10 to 20 years along most of the U.S. Atlantic coast by 2050, with even higher frequencies of such large floods in certain localized areas (Tebaldi
et al.
2012, pp. 7-8). Rising sea level not only increases the likelihood of coastal flooding, but also changes the template for waves and tides to sculpt the coast, which can lead to loss of land orders of magnitude greater than that from direct inundation alone (Ashton
et al.
2007, p. 1). Although scientists agree that the predicted sea level rise will result in severe beach erosion and shoreline retreat through the next century, quantitative predictions of these changes are uncertain, hampered by limited understanding of coastal responses and the innate complexity of the coastal zone (Ashton
et al.
2007, p. 9). Coastal responses to climate change will not likely be homogeneous along the coast, due to local differences in geology and other factors (Ashton
et al.
2007, p. 9).

Beach losses accumulate over time, mostly during infrequent, high-energy events, both seasonal events and rare extreme storms (Ashton
et al.
2009, p. 7). Even the long-term coastal response to sea level rise depends on the magnitudes and timing of stochastically unpredictable future storm events (Ashton
et al.
2009, p. 9). Most erosion events on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are the result of storms. With sea level rise, increased erosion is caused by longer storm surges and greater wave action from both tropical (especially on the southeast Atlantic and Gulf coasts) and extra-tropical storms (Higgins 2008, p. 49). The Atlantic and Gulf coast shorelines are especially vulnerable to long-term sea level rise, as well as any increase in the frequency of storm surges or hurricanes. The slope of these areas is so gentle that a small rise in sea level produces a large inland shift of the shoreline (Higgins 2008, p. 49). As discussed in the supplemental document Climate Change Background, increased magnitude and changing geographic distributions of coastal storms are predicted, but projections about changing storm patterns are associated with only “low to medium confidence” levels (IPCC 2012, p. 13).

In addition to the effects of storm surges, red knot habitats could also be affected by the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events (see supplemental document—Climate Change Background). Since the ecological dynamics of sandy beaches can be linked to freshwater discharge from rivers, global changes in land-ocean coupling via freshwater outflows are predicted to affect the ecology of beaches (Schlacher
et al.
2008a, p. 84). For example, persistent increases in freshwater discharges could cause localized habitat changes by allowing invasive or incompatible vegetation to become established, changing the seed distribution of native grasses, or altering salinity (F. Weaver pers. comm. April 17, 2013) (also see Factor E—Reduced Food Availability—Other Aspects of Climate Change).

Red knot migration and wintering habitats in the United States generally consist of sandy beaches that are dynamic and subject to seasonal erosion and accretion (the accumulation of sediment). Sea level rise and shoreline erosion have reduced availability of intertidal habitat used for red knot foraging, and in some areas, roosting sites have also been affected (Niles
et al.
2008, p. 97). With moderately rising sea levels, red knot habitats in many portions of the United States would be expected to migrate or reform rather than be lost, except where they are constrained by coastal development or shoreline stabilization (Titus
et al.
2009, p. 1) (discussed in subsequent sections). However, if the sea rises more rapidly than the rate with which a particular coastal system can keep pace, it could fundamentally change the state of the coast (CCSP 2009b, p. 2). The upper range (6.6 ft; 2 m) of current sea level rise predictions would be expected to exceed the migration capacity of many more red knot areas than the 3.3-ft (1-m) scenario.

Mechanisms—Estuarine Beaches

As sea level rises, the fate of estuarine beaches (e.g., along Delaware Bay) depends on their ability to migrate and the availability of sediment to replenish eroded sands. Estuarine beaches continually erode, but under natural conditions the landward and waterward boundaries usually retreat by about the same distance. Shoreline protection structures may prevent migration, effectively squeezing beaches between development and the water (CCSP 2009b, p. 81).

Mechanisms—Barrier Island Beaches

The barrier islands of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts have evolved in the context of modest and decelerating sea level rise over the past 5,000 years. If human activities do not interfere, these barrier systems can typically remain intact as they migrate landward, given sea level rise rates typical of those of the last few millennia (CCSP 2009b, p. 186; Ashton
et al.
2007, p. 2). Without stabilization, many low-lying, undeveloped islands will migrate toward the mainland, pushed by the overwashing of sand eroding from the seaward side that gets re-deposited in the bay (Scavia
et al.
2002, p. 152). However, even without human intervention, some barrier islands may respond to sea level rise by breaking up and drowning in place, rather than migrating (Titus 1990, p. 67). Coastal geologists are not yet able to forecast whether a particular island will migrate or break up, although island disintegration appears to be more frequent in areas with high rates of relative sea level rise (Titus 1990, p. 67); thus, disintegration may occur more often as rates of sea level rise accelerate.

Whether the barrier systems can continue to evolve with accelerated sea level rise is not clear, particularly as human intervention often does not permit the islands to continue to freely move landward (Ashton
et al.
2007, p. 2). Sea level rise of 3.3 ft (1 m) may cause many narrow barrier islands to disintegrate (USEPA 2012). Because the coastal marshes behind many barrier islands become increasingly inundated, sufficiently high rates of sea level rise could result in threshold behaviors that produce wholesale reorganizations of entire barrier systems (CCSP 2009b, p. 2; Ashton
et al.
2007, p. 10). Crossing threshold levels of interaction between coastal elevation, sea level, and storm-driven surges and waves can result in dramatic changes in coastal topography, including the loss of some low-lying islands (Florida Oceans and Coastal Council 2010, p. 7; CCSP 2009b, p. 50; Lavoie 2009, p. 37).

United States—Coastal Vulnerability Index

At the national scale, the USGS CVI combines the coastal system's susceptibility to change with its natural ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions. The output is a relative measure of the system's natural vulnerability to the effects of sea level rise. Classification of vulnerability (very high, high, moderate, or low) is based on variables such as coastal geomorphology, regional coastal slope, rate of sea level rise, wave and tide characteristics, and historical shoreline change rates. The combination of these variables and the association of these variables to each other furnishes a broad overview of regions where physical changes are likely to occur due to sea level rise (Thieler and Hammar-Klose 2000; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 1999).

We conducted a Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis to

overlay the CVI mapping with important red knot habitats, which were delineated using data from the International Shorebird Survey (eBird.org 2012) and other sources. By length, about half of the coastline within important red knot habitats is in the “very high” vulnerability category, and about two-thirds is either “very high” or “high” (table 2). Comparing these percentages to the Atlantic and Gulf coasts as a whole (less than one-third “very high,” only about half “high” or “very high”) suggests that important red knot habitats tend to occur along higher-vulnerability portions of the shoreline. Red knot habitats along the Atlantic coast of New Jersey, Virginia, and the Carolinas and along the Gulf coast west of Florida are at particular risk from sea level rise. The GIS analysis does not reflect the potential for red knot habitats to migrate or reform (which is poorly known under high and accelerating rates of sea level rise) and did not consider human interference with coastal processes (which is discussed in subsequent sections).

Table 2—Percent of Coastline (by Length) in Each Coastal Vulnerability Category; Important Red Knot Habitats Versus the Entire Coast

Very high
High
Moderate
Low

Important Red Knot Habitats

Massachusetts
0
10
23
67

New York
0
7
50
43

New Jersey—Atlantic
69
10
22
0

New Jersey—Delaware Bay
0
77
14
9

Delaware
0
37
0
63

Virginia
99
1
0
0

North Carolina
59
15
25
1

South Carolina
59
23
18
0

Georgia
29
35
27
8

Florida—Atlantic
8
7
79
6

Florida—Gulf
2
41
53
3

Mississippi
100
0
0
0

Louisiana
100
0
0
0

Texas
63
20
17
0

All States combined
49
21
23
7

Entire Coast *

Atlantic coast
27
22
23
28

Gulf coast
42
13
37
8

Atlantic and Gulf coasts combined
31
19
26
23

* Thieler and Hammar-Klose 2000; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 1999.

United States—Northeast and Mid-Atlantic

In the Northeast (Maine to New Jersey), the areas most vulnerable to increasing shoreline erosion with sea level rise include portions of Cape Cod, Massachusetts; Long Island, New York; and most of coastal New Jersey (Cooper
et al.
2008, p. 488; Frumhoff
et al.
2007, p. 15). Because of the erosive impact of waves, especially storm waves, the extent of shoreline retreat and wetland loss in the Northeast is projected to be many times greater than the loss of land caused by the rise in sea level itself (Frumhoff
et al.
2007, p. 15). Along the ocean shores of the mid-Atlantic (New York to North Carolina), which are composed of headlands, barrier islands, and spits, it is “virtually certain” that erosion will dominate changes in shoreline as a consequence of sea level rise and storms over the next century. It is “very likely” that coastal landforms will undergo large changes under regional sea level rise scenarios of 1.6 to 3.6 ft (0.5 to 1.1 m) (CCSP 2009b, pp. XV, 43). The response will vary locally and could be more variable than the changes observed over the last century. Under these scenarios, it is “very likely” that some barrier island coasts will cross a threshold and undergo significant changes. These changes include more rapid landward migration or segmentation of some barrier islands (CCSP 2009b, p. 43) that are likely to cause substantial changes to red knot habitats.

Mid-Atlantic—Delaware Bay Shorebird Habitat

The rate of sea level rise in the Delaware Bay over the past century was about 0.12 in (3 mm) per year (table 1; Kraft
et al.
1992, p. 233; Phillips 1986a, p. 430), resulting in erosion of the bay's shorelines and a landward extension of the inland edge of the marshes. For the period 1940 to 1978, Phillips (1986a, pp. 428-429) documented a mean erosion rate of 10.5 ft (3.2 m) per year (standard deviation of 6 ft (1.85 m) per year) for a 32.3-mi (52-km) long section of the Delaware Bay shoreline in Cumberland County, New Jersey. This is a high rate of erosion compared to other estuaries and is affected by some very high local values (e.g., peninsular points, creek mouths) approaching 49 ft (15 m) per year (Phillips 1986a, pp. 429-430). The spatial pattern of the erosion was complex, with differential erosion resistance related to local differences in shoreline morphology (Phillips 1986b, pp. 57-58). Phillips's shoreline erosion studies (1986a, pp. 431-435; 1986b, pp. 56-60) suggested that bay-edge erosion was occurring more rapidly than the landward-upward extension of the coastal wetlands and that this pattern was likely to persist. Similar to the complex and heterogeneous pattern found by Phillips, Kraft
et al.
(1992, p. 233) found that some bayshore areas in Delaware were undergoing inundation while other areas were accreting faster than the local rate of sea level rise. Accompanying these sedimentary processes were coastal erosion rates up to 22.6 ft (6.9 m) per year along the Delaware portion of the bayshore (Kraft
et al.
1992, p. 233). Erosion has led to loss of red knot roosting sites, which are already limited, especially around the

Mispillion Harbor portion of Delaware Bay (Niles
et al.
2008, p. 97).

Glick
et al.
(2008, p. 31) found that existing marsh along Delaware Bay is predicted to be inundated with greater frequency as sea level rises. Under 2.3 and 3.3 ft (0.7 and 1 m) of sea level rise, 43 and 77 percent of marshes, respectively, are predicted to be lost. The area of estuarine beach is predicted to increase substantially, roughly doubling under all sea level rise scenarios. However, this finding assumes no additional shoreline armoring would take place. Further armoring may be likely, considering 6 to 8 percent of developed and undeveloped dry land is predicted to be lost under the various scenarios evaluated. At the high end (6.6-ft (2-m) sea level rise), 18 percent of developed land would be inundated without further armoring (Glick
et al.
2008, p. 31).

Galbraith
et al.
(2002, pp. 177-178) examined several different scenarios of future sea level rise and projected major losses of intertidal habitat in Delaware Bay. Under a scenario of 1.1 ft (34 cm) global sea level rise, Delaware Bay was predicted to lose at least 20 percent of its intertidal shorebird feeding habitats by 2050, and at least 57 percent by 2100. Under a scenario of 2.5 ft (77 cm) global sea level rise, Delaware Bay would lose 43 percent of its tidal flats by 2050, but may actually see an increase of nearly 20 percent over baseline levels by 2100, as the coastline migrates farther inland and dry land is converted to intertidal (Galbraith
et al.
2002, pp. 177-178). The net increase would be realized only after a long period (50 years) of severely reduced habitat availability, and assumes that landward migration would not be halted by development or armoring. Sea Level Affecting Marsh Modeling (SLAMM) of a 3.3-ft (1-m) sea level rise at Prime Hook (Delaware) and Cape May (New Jersey) National Wildlife Refuges, key Delaware Bay stopover areas, suggests that estuarine beaches would survive, but with increased vulnerability to storm surges as back marsh areas become inundated (Scarborough 2009, p. 61; Stern 2009; pp. 7-9).

Mid-Atlantic—Delaware Bay Horseshoe Crab Habitat

The narrow sandy beaches used by spawning horseshoe crabs in Delaware Bay are diminishing at sometimes rapid rates due to beach erosion as a product of land subsidence and sea level rise (CCSP 2009b, p. 207). At Maurice Cove, New Jersey, for example, portions of the shoreline eroded at a rate of 14.1 ft (4.3 m) per year from 1842 to 1992. Another estimate for this area suggests the shoreline retreated about 500 ft (150 m) landward in a 32-year period, exposing ancient peat deposits that are considered suboptimal spawning habitat for the horseshoe crab. Particularly if human infrastructure along the coast leaves estuarine beaches little room to migrate inland as sea level rises, further loss of spawning habitat is likely (CCSP 2009b, p. 207).

At present, the degree to which horseshoe crab populations will decline as beaches are lost remains unclear. Botton
et al.
(1988, p. 331) found that even subtle alteration of the sediment, such as through erosion, may affect the suitability of habitat for horseshoe crab reproduction, and that horseshoe crab spawning activity is lower in areas where erosion has exposed underlying peat (Botton
et al.
1988, p. 325). Through habitat modeling, Czaja (2009, p. 9) found overall horseshoe crab habitat suitability in Delaware Bay was lower with a 3.9-ft (1.2-m) sea level rise than a 2-ft (0.6-m) rise, although this study did not attempt to account for landward migration. Research suggests that horseshoe crabs can successfully reproduce in alternate habitats (other than estuarine beaches), such as sandbars and the sandy banks of tidal creeks (CCSP 2009b, p. 82). However, these habitats may provide only a temporary refuge for horseshoe crabs if the alternate habitats eventually become inundated as well (CCSP 2009b, p. 82). In addition, these alternate spawning habitats may not be conducive to foraging red knots, or may not be available in sufficient amounts to support red knot and other shorebird populations during spring migration.

In 2012, Delaware Bay lost considerable horseshoe crab spawning habitat during Hurricane Sandy. A team of biologists found a 70 percent decrease in optimal horseshoe crab spawning habitat (Niles
et al.
2012, p. 1). Several areas were eroded to exposed sod bank or rubble (used in shoreline stabilization), which do not provide suitable spawning habitat. Creek mouths may now constitute the bulk of the remaining intact spawning areas (Dey pers. comm., December 3, 2012). However, any conclusions about the long-term effects of this storm are premature due to the highly dynamic nature of the shoreline.

United States—Southeast and the Gulf Coast

Rates of erosion for the Southeast Atlantic region are generally highest in South Carolina along barrier islands and headland shores associated with the Santee delta. Erosion is also rapid along some barrier islands in North Carolina. The highest rates of erosion in Florida are generally localized around tidal inlets (Morton and Miller 2005, p. 1). Looking at 17 recreational beaches in North Carolina and 3 local sea level rise scenarios, Bin (
et al.
2007, p. 9) projected 10 to 30 percent increases in beach erosion by 2030, and 20 to 60 percent increases by 2080. These authors assumed a constant coastwide rate of erosion, no barrier island migration, and no beach nourishment or hardening (Bin
et al.
2007, p. 8).

The barrier islands in the Georgia Bight (southern South Carolina to northern Florida) are generally higher in elevation, wider, and more geologically stable than the microtidal barriers found elsewhere along the Atlantic coast (Leatherman, 1989, p. 2-15). This lower vulnerability to sea level rise is generally reflected in the CVI (table 2). The most stable Southeast Atlantic beaches are along the east coast of Florida due to low wave energy, but also due to frequent beach nourishment (Morton and Miller 2005, p. 1), which can have both beneficial and adverse effects on red knot habitat as discussed in the section that follows. Although Florida's Atlantic coast in general is more stable than other portions of the red knot's U.S. range, localized changes from sea level rise can be significant. Modeling (SLAMM 6) of a 3.3-ft (1-m) sea level rise by 2011 at Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (which supports red knots) projects a 47 percent loss of estuarine beach habitats (USFWS 2011d, p. 13).

In contrast to the more stable southern Atlantic shores of Georgia and Florida, the Gulf coast is the lowest-lying area in the United States and consequently the most sensitive to small changes in sea level (Leatherman 1989, p. 2-15). Sediment compaction and oil and gas extraction in the Gulf have compounded tectonic subsidence, leading to greater rates of relative sea level rise (Hopkinson
et al.
2008, p. 255; Morton 2003, pp. 21-22; Morton
et al.
2003, p. 77; Penland and Ramsey 1990, p. 323). In addition, areas with small tidal ranges are the most vulnerable to loss of intertidal wetlands and flats induced by sea level rise (USEPA 2013; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 2000; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 1999). Tidal range along the Gulf coast is very low, less than 3.3 ft (1 m) in some areas.

In Alabama, coastal land loss is caused primarily by beach and bluff erosion, but other mechanisms for loss, such as submergence, appear to be minor. Barrier islands in Mississippi are migrating laterally and erosion rates are accelerating; island areas have been

reduced by about one-third since the 1850s (Morton
et al.
2004, p. 29).

Erosion is rapid along some barrier islands and headlands in Texas (Morton
et al.
2004, p. 4). Texas loses approximately 5 to 10 ft (1.5 to 3 m) of beach per year, as the high water line shifts landward (Higgins 2008, p. 49). Sea level rise was cited as a contributing factor in a 68 percent decline in tidal flats and algal mats in the Corpus Christi area (i.e., Lamar Peninsula to Encinal Peninsula) in Texas from the 1950s to 2004 (Tremblay
et al.
2008, p. 59). Long-term erosion at an average rate of −5.9 ± 4.3 ft (1.8 ± 1.3 m) per year characterizes 64 percent of the Texas Gulf shoreline. Although only 48 percent of the shoreline experienced short-term erosion, the average short-term erosion rate of −8.5 ft (−2.6 m) per year is higher than the long-term rate, indicating accelerated erosion in some areas. Erosion of Gulf beaches in Texas is concentrated between Sabine Pass and High Island, downdrift (southwest) of the Galveston Island seawall, near Sargent Beach and Matagorda Peninsula, and along South Padre Island. The most stable or accreting beaches in Texas are on southwestern Bolivar Peninsula, Matagorda Island, San Jose Island, and central Padre Island (Morton
et al.
2004, p. 32).

Rates of erosion for the U.S. Gulf coast are generally highest in Louisiana along barrier island and headland shores associated with the Mississippi delta (Morton
et al.
2004, p. 4). Louisiana has the most rapid rate of beach erosion in the country (Leatherman 1989, p. 2-15). Subsidence and coastal erosion are functions of both natural and human-induced processes. About 90 percent of the Louisiana Gulf shoreline is experiencing erosion, which increased from an average of −26.9 ± 14.4 ft (−8.2 ± 4.4 m) per year in the long term to an average of −39.4 ft (−12.0 m) per year in the short term. Short sections of the shoreline are accreting as a result of lateral island migration, while the highest rates of erosion in Louisiana coincide with subsiding marshes and migrating barrier islands such as the Chandeleur Islands, Caminada-Moreau headland, and the Isles Dernieres (Morton
et al.
2004, p. 31).

Compared to shoreline erosion in some other Gulf coast states, the average long-term erosion rate of −2.5 ± 3.0 ft (−0.8 ± 0.9 m) per year for west Florida is low, primarily because wave energy is low. Although erosion rates are generally low, more than 50 percent of the shoreline is experiencing both long-term and short-term erosion. The highest erosion rates on Florida's Gulf coast are typically localized near tidal inlets, a preferred red knot habitat (see the “Migration and Wintering Habitat” section of the Rufa Red Knot Ecology and Abundance supplemental document). Long-term and short-term trends and rates of shoreline change are similar where there has been little or no alteration of the sediment supply or littoral system (e.g., Dog Island, St. George Island, and St. Joseph Peninsula). Conversely, trends and rates of change have shifted from long-term erosion to short-term stability or accretion where beach nourishment is common (e.g., Longboat Key, Anna Maria Island, Sand Key, and Clearwater, Panama City Beach, and Perdido Key). Slow but chronic erosion along the west coast of Florida eventually results in narrowing of the beaches (Morton
et al.
2004, pp. 27, 29).

Strauss
et al.
(2012, p. 4) found more than 78 percent of the coastal dry land and freshwater wetlands on land less than 3.3 ft (1 m) above local Mean High Water in the continental United States is located in Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

United States—Summary

Important red knot habitats tend to occur along higher-vulnerability portions of the U.S. shoreline. Red knot habitats along the Atlantic coast of New Jersey, Virginia, and the Carolinas and along the Gulf coast west of Florida are at particular risk from sea level rise. Delaware Bay is projected to lose substantial shorebird habitat by mid-century, even under moderate scenarios of sea level rise. In many areas, red knot coastal habitats are expected to migrate inland under a mid-range estimate (3.3-ft; 1-m) of sea level rise, except where constrained by topography, coastal development, or shoreline stabilization structures. Some areas may see short- or long-term net increases in red knot habitat, but low-lying and narrow islands become more prone to disintegration as sea level rise accelerates, which may produce local or regional net losses of habitat. The upper range (6.6 ft; 2 m) of current predictions was not evaluated, but would be expected to exceed the migration capacity of many more red knot habitats than the 3.3-ft (1-m) scenario.

Sea Level Rise—Summary

Due to background rates of sea level rise and the naturally dynamic nature of coastal habitats, we conclude that red knots are adapted to moderate (although sometimes abrupt) rates of habitat change in their wintering and migration areas. However, rates of sea level rise are accelerating beyond those that have occurred over recent millennia. In most of the red knot's nonbreeding range, shorelines are expected to undergo dramatic reconfigurations over the next century as a result of accelerating sea level rise. Extensive areas of marsh are likely to become inundated, which may reduce foraging and roosting habitats. Marshes may be able to establish farther inland, but the rate of new marsh formation (e.g., intertidal sediment accumulation, development of hydric soils, colonization of marsh vegetation) may be slower than the rate of deterioration of existing marsh, particularly under the higher sea level rise scenarios. The primary red knot foraging habitats, intertidal flats and sandy beaches, will likely be locally or regionally inundated, but replacement habitats are likely to reform along the shoreline in its new position. However, if shorelines experience a decades-long period of high instability and landward migration, the formation rate of new beach habitats may be slower than the inundation rate of existing habitats. In addition, low-lying and narrow islands (e.g., in the Caribbean and along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts) may disintegrate rather than migrate, representing a net loss of red knot habitat. Superimposed on these changes are widespread human attempts to stabilize the shoreline, which are known to exacerbate losses of intertidal habitats by blocking their landward migration. The cumulative loss of habitat across the nonbreeding range could affect the ability of red knots to complete their annual cycles, possibly affecting fitness and survival, and is thereby likely to negatively influence the long-term survival of the rufa red knot.

Factor A—U.S. Shoreline Stabilization and Coastal Development

Much of the U.S. coast within the range of the red knot is already extensively developed. Direct loss of shorebird habitats occurred over the past century as substantial commercial and residential developments were constructed in and adjacent to ocean and estuarine beaches along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. In addition, red knot habitat was also lost indirectly, as sediment supplies were reduced and stabilization structures were constructed to protect developed areas.

Sea level rise and human activities within coastal watersheds can lead to long-term reductions in sediment supply to the coast. The damming of rivers, bulk-heading of highlands, and armoring of coastal bluffs have reduced erosion in natural source areas and consequently the sediment loads reaching coastal areas. Although it is

difficult to quantify, the cumulative reduction in sediment supply from human activities may contribute substantially to the long-term shoreline erosion rate. Along coastlines subject to sediment deficits, the amount of sediment supplied to the coast is less than that lost to storms and coastal sinks (inlet channels, bays, and upland deposits), leading to long-term shoreline recession (Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana 2012, p. 18; Florida Oceans and Coastal Council 2010, p. 7; CCSP 2009b, pp. 48-49, 52-53; Defeo
et al.
2009, p. 6; Morton
et al.
2004, pp. 24-25; Morton 2003, pp. 11-14; Herrington 2003, p. 38; Greene 2002, p. 3).

In addition to reduced sediment supplies, other factors such as stabilized inlets, shoreline stabilization structures, and coastal development can exacerbate long-term erosion (Herrington 2003, p. 38). Coastal development and shoreline stabilization can be mutually reinforcing. Coastal development often encourages shoreline stabilization because stabilization projects cost less than the value of the buildings and infrastructure. Conversely, shoreline stabilization sometimes encourages coastal development by making a previously high-risk area seem safer for development (CCSP 2009b, p. 87). Protection of developed areas is the driving force behind ongoing shoreline stabilization efforts. Large-scale shoreline stabilization projects became common in the past 100 years with the increasing availability of heavy machinery. Shoreline stabilization methods change in response to changing new technologies, coastal conditions, and preferences of residents, planners, and engineers. Along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, an early preference for shore-perpendicular structures (e.g., groins) was followed by a period of construction of shore-parallel structures (e.g., seawalls), and then a period of beach nourishment, which is now favored (Morton
et al.
2004, p. 4; Nordstrom 2000, pp. 13-14).

Past and ongoing stabilization projects fundamentally alter the naturally dynamic coastal processes that create and maintain beach strand and bayside habitats, including those habitat components that red knots rely upon. Past loss of stopover and wintering habitat likely reduce the resilience of the red knot by making it more dependent on those habitats that remain, and more vulnerable to threats (e.g., disturbance, predation, reduced quality or abundance of prey, increased intraspecific and interspecific competition) within those restricted habitats. (See Factors C and E, below, for discussions of these threats, many of which are intensified in and near developed areas.)

Shoreline Stabilization—Hard Structures

Hard structures constructed of stone, concrete, wood, steel, or geotextiles have been used for centuries as a coastal defense strategy (Defeo
et al.
2009, p. 6). The most common hard stabilization structures fall into two groups: structures that run parallel to the shoreline (e.g., seawalls, revetments, bulkheads) and structures that run perpendicular to the shoreline (e.g., groins, jetties). Groins are often clustered in groin fields, and are intended to protect a finite section of beach, while jetties are normally constructed at inlets to keep sand out of navigation channels and provide calm-water access to harbor facilities (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2002, pp. I-3-13, 21). Descriptions of the different types of stabilization structures can be found in Rice (2009, pp. 10-13), Herrington (2003, pp. 66-89), and USACE (2002, Parts V and VI).

Prior to the 1950s, the general practice in the United States was to use hard structures to protect developments from beach erosion or storm damages (USACE 2002, p. I-3-21). The pace of constructing new hard stabilization structures has since slowed considerably (USACE 2002, p. V-3-9). Many states within the range of the red knot now discourage or restrict the construction of new, hard oceanfront protection structures, although the hardening of bayside shorelines is generally still allowed (Kana 2011, p. 31; Greene 2002, p. 4; Titus 2000, pp. 742-743). Most existing hard oceanfront structures continue to be maintained, and some new structures continue to be built. Eleven new groin projects were approved in Florida from 2000 to 2009 (USFWS 2009, p. 36). Since 2006 a new terminal groin has been constructed at one South Carolina site, three groins have been approved but not yet constructed in conjunction with a beach nourishment project, and a proposed new terminal groin is under review (M. Bimbi pers. comm. January 31, 2013). The State of North Carolina prohibited the use of hard erosion control structures in 1985, but 2011 legislation authorized an exception for construction of up to four new terminal groins (Rice 2012a, p. 7). While some states have restricted new construction, hard structures are still among the alternatives in the Federal shore protection program (USACE 2002, pp. V-3-3, 7).

Hard shoreline stabilization projects are typically designed to protect property (and its human inhabitants), not beaches (Kana 2011, p. 31; Pilkey and Howard 1981, p. 2). Hard structures affect beaches in several ways. For example, when a hard structure is put in place, erosion of the oceanfront sand continues, but the fixed back-beach line remains, resulting in a loss of beach area (USACE 2002, p. I-3-21). In addition, hard structures reduce the regional supply of beach sediment by restricting natural sand movement, further increasing erosion problems (Morton
et al.
2004, p. 25; Morton 2003, pp. 19-20; Greene 2002, p. 3). Through effects on waves and currents, sediment transport rates, Aeolian (wind) processes, and sand exchanges with dunes and offshore bars, hard structures change the erosion-accretion dynamics of beaches and constrain the natural migration of shorelines (CCSP 2009b, pp. 73, 81-82; 99-100; Defeo
et al.
2009, p. 6; Morton 2003, pp. 19-20; Scavia
et al.
2002, p. 152; Nordstrom 2000, pp. 98-107, 115-118). There is ample evidence of accelerated erosion rates, pronounced breaks in shoreline orientation, and truncation of the beach profile downdrift of perpendicular structures—and of reduced beach widths (relative to unprotected segments) where parallel structures have been in place over long periods of time (Hafner 2012, pp. 11-14; CCSP 2009b, pp. 99-100; Morton 2003, pp. 20-21; Scavia
et al.
2002, p. 159; USACE 2002, pp. V-3-3, 7; Nordstrom 2000, pp. 98-107; Pilkey and Wright 1988, pp. 41, 57-59). In addition, marinas and port facilities built out from the shore can have effects similar to hard stabilization structures (Nordstrom 2000, pp. 118-119).

Structural development along the shoreline and manipulation of natural inlets upset the naturally dynamic coastal processes and result in loss or degradation of beach habitat (Melvin
et al.
1991, pp. 24-25). As beaches narrow, the reduced habitat can directly lower the diversity and abundance of biota (life forms), especially in the upper intertidal zone. Shorebirds may be impacted both by reduced habitat area for roosting and foraging, and by declining intertidal prey resources, as has been documented in California (Defeo
et al.
2009, p. 6; Dugan and Hubbard 2006, p. 10). In an estuary in England, Stillman
et al.
(2005, pp. 203-204) found that a two to eight percent reduction in intertidal area (the magnitude expected through sea level rise and industrial developments including extensive stabilization structures) decreased the predicted

survival rates of five out of nine shorebird species evaluated (although not of
Calidris canutus
).

In Delaware Bay, hard structures also cause or accelerate loss of horseshoe crab spawning habitat (CCSP 2009b, p. 82; Botton
et al. in
Shuster
et al.
2003, p. 16; Botton
et al.
1988, entire), and shorebird habitat has been, and may continue to be, lost where bulkheads have been built (Clark
in
Farrell and Martin 1997, p. 24). In addition to directly eliminating red knot habitat, hard structures interfere with the creation of new shorebird habitats by interrupting the natural processes of overwash and inlet formation. Where hard stabilization is installed, the eventual loss of the beach and its associated habitats is virtually assured (Rice 2009, p. 3), absent beach nourishment, which may also impact red knots as discussed below. Where they are maintained, hard structures are likely to significantly increase the amount of red knot habitat lost as sea levels continue to rise.

In a few isolated locations, however, hard structures may enhance red knot habitat, or may provide artificial habitat. In Delaware Bay, for example, Botton
et al.
(1994, p. 614) found that, in the same manner as natural shoreline discontinuities like creek mouths, jetties and other artificial obstructions can act to concentrate drifting horseshoe crab eggs and thereby attract shorebirds. Another example comes from the Delaware side of the bay, where a seawall and jetty at Mispillion Harbor protect the confluence of the Mispillion River and Cedar Creek. These structures create a low energy environment in the harbor, which seems to provide highly suitable conditions for horseshoe crab spawning over a wider variation of weather and sea conditions than anywhere else in the bay (G. Breese pers. comm. March 25, 2013). Horseshoe crab egg densities at Mispillion Harbor are consistently an order of magnitude higher than at other bay beaches (Dey
et al.
2011a, p. 8), and this site consistently supports upwards of 15 to 20 percent of all the knots recorded in Delaware Bay (Lathrop 2005, p. 4). In Florida, A. Schwarzer (pers. comm. March 25, 2013) has observed multiple instances of red knots using artificial structures such as docks, piers, jetties, causeways, and construction barriers; we have no information regarding the frequency, regularity, timing, or significance of this use of artificial habitats. Notwithstanding localized red knot use of artificial structures, and the isolated case of hard structures improving foraging habitat at Mispillion Harbor, the nearly universal effect of such structures is the degradation or loss of red knot habitat.

Shoreline Stabilization—Mechanical Sediment Transport

Several types of sediment transport are employed to stabilize shorelines, protect development, maintain navigation channels, and provide for recreation (Gebert 2012, pp. 14, 16; Kana 2011, pp. 31-33; USACE 2002, p. I-3-7). The effects of these projects are typically expected to be relatively short in duration, usually less than 10 years, but often these actions are carried out every few years in the same area, resulting in a more lasting impact on habitat suitability for shorebirds. Mechanical sediment transport practices include beach nourishment, sediment backpassing, sand scraping, and dredging, and each practice is discussed below.

Sediment Transport—Beach Nourishment

Beach nourishment is an engineering practice of deliberately adding sand (or gravel or cobbles) to an eroding beach, or the construction of a beach where only a small beach, or no beach, previously existed (NRC 1995, pp. 23-24). Since the 1970s, 90 percent of the Federal appropriation for shore protection has been for beach nourishment (USACE 2002, p. I-3-21), which has become the preferred course of action to address shoreline erosion in the United States (Kana 2011, p. 33; Morton and Miller 2005, p. 1; Greene 2002, p. 5). Beach nourishment requires an abundant source of sand that is compatible with the native beach material. The sand is trucked to the target beach, or hydraulically pumped using dredges (Hafner 2012, p. 21). Sand for beach nourishment operations can be obtained from dry land-based sources; estuaries, lagoons, or inlets on the backside of the beach; sandy shoals in inlets and navigation channels; nearshore ocean waters; or offshore ocean waters; with the last two being the most common sources (Greene 2002, p. 6).

Where shorebird habitat has been severely reduced or eliminated by hard stabilization structures, beach nourishment may be the only means available to replace any habitat for as long as the hard structures are maintained (Nordstrom and Mauriello 2001, entire), although such habitat will persist only with regular nourishment episodes (typically on the order of every 2 to 6 years). In Delaware Bay, beach nourishment has been recommended to prevent loss of spawning habitat for horseshoe crabs (Kalasz 2008, p. 34; Carter
et al. in
Guilfoyle
et al.
2007, p. 71; Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) 1998, p. 28), and is being pursued as a means of restoring shorebird habitat in Delaware Bay following Hurricane Sandy (Niles
et al.
2013, entire; USACE 2012, entire). Beach nourishment was part of a 2009 project to maintain important shorebird foraging habitat at Mispillion Harbor, Delaware (Kalasz pers. comm. March 29, 2013; Siok and Wilson 2011, entire). However, red knots may be directly disturbed if beach nourishment takes place while the birds are present. On New Jersey's Atlantic coast, beach nourishment has typically been scheduled for the fall, when red knots are present, because of various constraints at other times of year. In addition to causing disturbance during construction, beach nourishment often increases recreational use of the widened beaches that, without careful management, can increase disturbance of red knots. Beach nourishment can also temporarily depress, and sometimes permanently alter, the invertebrate prey base on which shorebirds depend. These effects (disturbance, reduced food resources) are discussed further under Factor E, below.

In addition to disturbing the birds and impacting the prey base, beach nourishment can affect the quality and quantity of red knot habitat (M. Bimbi pers. comm. November 1, 2012; Greene 2002, p. 5). The artificial beach created by nourishment may provide only suboptimal habitat for red knots, as a steeper beach profile is created when sand is stacked on the beach during the nourishment process. In some cases, nourishment is accompanied by the planting of dense beach grasses, which can directly degrade habitat, as red knots require sparse vegetation to avoid predation. By precluding overwash and Aeolian transport, especially where large artificial dunes are constructed, beach nourishment can also lead to further erosion on the bayside and promote bayside vegetation growth, both of which can degrade the red knot's preferred foraging and roosting habitats (sparsely vegetated flats in or adjacent to intertidal areas). Preclusion of overwash also impedes the formation of new red knot habitats. Beach nourishment can also encourage further development, bringing further habitat impacts, reducing future alternative management options such as a retreat from the coast, and perpetuating the developed and stabilized conditions that may ultimately lead to inundation where beaches are prevented from

migrating (M. Bimbi pers. comm. November 1, 2012; Greene 2002, p. 5).

Following placement of sediments much coarser than those native to the beach, Peterson
et al.
(2006, p. 219) found that the area of intertidal-shallow subtidal shorebird foraging habitat was reduced by 14 to 29 percent at a site in North Carolina. Presence of coarse shell material armored the substrate surface against shorebird probing, further reducing foraging habitat by 33 percent, and probably also inhibiting manipulation of prey when encountered by a bird's bill (Peterson
et al.
2006, p. 219). (In addition to this physical change from adding coarse sediment, nourishment that places sediment dissimilar to the native beach also substantially increases impacts to the red knot's invertebrate prey base; see Factor E—Reduced Food Availability—Sediment Placement.) Lott (2009, p. viii) found a strong negative correlation between sand placement projects and the presence of piping plovers (
Charadrius melodus
) (nonbreeding) and snowy plovers (
Charadrius alexandrinus
) (breeding and nonbreeding) in Florida.

Sediment Transport—Backpassing and Scraping

Sediment backpassing is a technique that reverses the natural migration of sediment by mechanically (via trucks) or hydraulically (via pipes) transporting sand from accreting, downdrift areas of the beach to eroding, updrift areas of the beach (Kana 2011, p. 31; Chasten and Rosati 2010, p. 5). Currently less prevalent than beach nourishment, sediment backpassing is an emerging practice because traditional nourishment methods are beginning to face constraints on budgets and sediment availability (Hafner 2012, pp. 31, 35; Chase 2006, p. 19). Beach bulldozing or scraping is the process of mechanically redistributing beach sand from the littoral zone (along the edge of the sea) to the upper beach to increase the size of the primary dune or to provide a source of sediment for beaches that have no existing dune; no new sediment is added to the system (Kana 2011, p. 30; Greene 2002, p. 5; Lindquist and Manning 2001, p. 4). Beach scraping tends to be a localized practice. In Florida beach scraping is usually used only in emergencies such as after hurricanes and other storms, but in New Jersey this practice is more routine in some areas.

Many of the effects of sediment backpassing and beach scraping are similar to those for beach nourishment (USFWS 2011c, pp. 11-24; Lindquist and Manning 2001, p. 1), including disturbance during and after construction, alteration of prey resources, reduced habitat area and quality, and precluded formation of new habitats. Relative to beach nourishment, sediment backpassing and beach scraping can involve considerably more driving of heavy trucks and other equipment on the beach including areas outside the sand placement footprint, potentially impacting shorebird prey resources over a larger area (see Factor E, below, for discussion of vehicle impacts on prey resources) (USFWS 2011c, pp. 11-24). In addition, these practices can directly remove sand from red knot habitats, as is the case in one red knot concentration area in New Jersey (USFWS 2011c, p. 27). Backpassing and sand scraping can involve routine episodes of sand removal or transport that maintain the beach in a narrower condition, indefinitely reducing the quantity of back-beach roosting habitat.

Sediment Transport—Dredging

Sediments are also manipulated to maintain navigation channels. Many inlets in the U.S. range of the red knot are routinely dredged and sometimes relocated. In addition, nearshore areas are routinely dredged (“mined”) to obtain sand for beach nourishment. Regardless of the purpose, inlet and nearshore dredging can affect red knot habitats. Dredging often involves removal of sediment from sand bars, shoals, and inlets in the nearshore zone, directly impacting optimal red knot roosting and foraging habitats (Harrington 2008, p. 2; Harrington
in
Guilfoyle
et al.
2007, pp. 18-19; Winn and Harrington
in
Guilfoyle
et al.
2006, pp. 8-11). These ephemeral habitats are even more valuable to red knots because they tend to receive less recreational use than the main beach strand (see Factor E—Human Disturbance, below).

In addition to causing this direct habitat loss, the dredging of sand bars and shoals can preclude the creation and maintenance of red knot habitats by removing sand sources that would otherwise act as natural breakwaters and weld onto the shore over time (Hayes and Michel 2008, p. 85; Morton 2003, p. 6). Further, removing these sand features can cause or worsen localized erosion by altering depth contours and changing wave refraction (Hayes and Michel 2008, p. 85), potentially degrading other nearby red knot habitats indirectly because inlet dynamics exert a strong influence on the adjacent shorelines. Studying barrier islands in Virginia and North Carolina, Fenster and Dolan (1996, p. 294) found that inlet influences extend 3.4 to 8.1 mi (5.4 to 13.0 km), and that inlets dominate shoreline changes for up to 2.7 mi (4.3 km). Changing the location of dominant channels at inlets can create profound alterations to the adjacent shoreline (Nordstrom 2000, p. 57).

Shoreline Stabilization and Coastal Development—Existing Extent

Existing Extent—Atlantic Coast

The mid-Atlantic coast from New York to Virginia is the most urbanized shoreline in the country, except for parts of Florida and southern California. In New York and New Jersey, hard structures and beach nourishment programs cover much of the coastline. Farther south, there are more undeveloped and preserved sections of coast (Leatherman 1989, p. 2-15). Along the entire Atlantic, most of the ocean coast is fully or partly (intermediate) developed, less than 10 percent is in conservation, and about one-third is undeveloped and still available for new development (see table 3).

By area, more than 80 percent of the land below 3.3 ft (1 m) in Florida and north of Delaware is developed or intermediate. In contrast, only 45 percent of the land from Georgia to Delaware is developed or intermediate (Titus
et al.
2009, p. 3). However, the 55 percent undeveloped coast in this southern region includes sparsely developed portions of the Chesapeake Bay, and the bay sides of Albermarle and Pamlico Sounds in North Carolina (Titus
et al.
2009, p. 4), which do not typically support large numbers of red knots (eBird.org 2012). Instead, red knots tend to concentrate along the ocean coasts (eBird.org 2012), which are more heavily developed (Titus
et al.
2009, p. 4) even in the Southeast. Conservation lands account for most of the Virginia ocean coast, and large parts of Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Georgia, including several key red knot stopover and wintering areas. The proportion of undeveloped land is generally greater at the lowest elevations, except along New Jersey's Atlantic coast (Titus
et al.
2009, p. 3).

New Jersey's Atlantic coast has the longest history of stabilized barrier island shoreline in North America. It also has the most developed coastal barriers and the highest degree of stabilization in the United States (Nordstrom 2000, p. 3). As measured by the amount of shoreline in the 90 to 100 percent stabilized category, New Jersey is 43 percent hard-stabilized (Pilkey and Wright 1988, p. 46). Of New Jersey's 130 mi (209 km) of coast, 98 mi (158 km) (75 percent) are developed (including 48 mi (77 km) with ongoing beach

nourishment programs), 25 mi (40 km) are preserved (including several areas with existing hard structures), and 7 mi (11 km) are inlets (Gebert 2012, p. 32). Nearly 27 mi (43.5 km) are protected by shore-parallel structures (Nordstrom 2000, pp. 21-22), including 5.6 mi (9 km) of revetments and seawalls, and there are 24 inlet jetties, 368 groins, and 1 breakwater (Hafner 2012, p. 42).

Although much less developed than New Jersey's Atlantic coast, Delaware Bay does have many areas of bulkheads, groins, and jetties (Botton
et al. in
Shuster
et al.
2003, p. 16). Beach stabilization structures such as bulkheads and riprap account for 4 percent of the Delaware shoreline and 5.6 percent of the New Jersey side. An additional 2.9 and 3.4 percent of the Delaware and New Jersey shorelines, respectively, also have some form of armoring in the back-beach. About 8 percent of the Delaware bayshore is subject to near-shore development. While some beaches in New Jersey and Delaware have had development removed, new development and redevelopment continues on the Delaware side of the bay (Niles
et al.
2008, p. 40). New Jersey has not conducted beach nourishment in the Delaware Bay, but Delaware has a standing nourishment program in the Bay, and its beaches have been regularly nourished since 1962. Approximately 3 million cubic yards (yd
3
; 2.3 million cubic meters (m
3
)) of sand have been placed on Delaware Bay beaches in Delaware over the past 40 years (Smith
et al.
2002a, p. 5). In 2010, the State of Delaware completed a 10-year management plan for Delaware Bay beaches, with ongoing nourishment recommended as the key measure to protect coastal development (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 2010, p. 4).

Table 3—Percent * of Dry Land Within 3.3 ft (1 m) of High Water by Intensity of Development Along the United States Atlantic Coast

[Titus
et al.
2009, p. 5]

Developed
Intermediate
Undeveloped
Conservation

Massachusetts
26
29
22
23

Rhode Island
36
11
48
5

Connecticut
80
8
7
5

New York
73
18
4
6

New Jersey
66
15
12
7

Pennsylvania
49
21
26
4

Delaware
27
26
23
24

Maryland
19
16
56
9

District of Columbia
82
5
14
0

Virginia
39
22
32
7

North Carolina
28
14
55
3

South Carolina
28
21
41
10

Georgia
27
16
23
34

Florida
65
10
12
13

Coastwide
42
15
33
9

* Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Existing Extent—Southeast Atlantic and Gulf Coasts

The U.S. southeastern coast from North Carolina to Florida is the least urbanized along the Atlantic coast, although both coasts of Florida are urbanizing rapidly. Texas has the most extensive sandy coastline in the Gulf, and much of the area is sparsely developed (Leatherman 1989, p. 2-15). Table 4 gives the miles of developed and undeveloped beach from North Carolina to Texas. (Note the difference between tables 3 and 4; table 3 gives all dry land within 3.3 ft (1 m) of high water, while table 4 is limited to sandy, oceanfront beaches.) Regionwide, about 40 percent of the southeast and Gulf coast is already developed, as shown in table 4. Not all of the remaining 60 percent in the “undeveloped” category, however, is still available for development because about 43 percent (about 910 miles) of beaches across this region are considered preserved. Preserved beaches include those in public or nongovernmental conservation ownership and those under conservation easements.

The 43 percent of preserved beaches generally overlap with the undeveloped beach category (1,264 miles or 60 percent, as shown in table 4), but may also include some developed areas such as recreational facilities or private inholdings within parks (USFWS 2012a, p. 15). To account for such recreational or inholding development, we rounded down the estimated preserved, undeveloped beaches to about 40 percent. Adding the preserved, undeveloped 40 percent estimate to the 40 percent that is already developed, we conclude that only about 20 percent of the beaches from North Carolina to Texas are still undeveloped and available for new development. Looking at differences in preservation rates across this region, Georgia and the Mississippi barrier islands have the highest percentages of preserved beaches (76 and 100 percent of shoreline miles, respectively), Alabama and the Mississippi mainland have the lowest percentages (24 and 25 percent of shoreline miles, respectively), and all other States have between 30 and 55 percent of their beach mileage in some form of preservation (USFWS 2012a, p. 15). Table 5 shows the extent of southeast and Gulf coast shoreline with shore-parallel structures, beach nourishment, or both.

Table 4—The Lengths and Percentages of Sandy, Oceanfront Beach That Are Developed and Undeveloped Along the Southeast Atlantic and Gulf Coasts
[T. Rice pers. comm. January 3, 2013; Rice 2012a, p. 6; USFWS 2012a, p. 15]

State

Miles of
shoreline

Miles and
percent of
developed beach

Miles and
percent of
undeveloped beach *

North Carolina
326
159 (49%)
167 (51%)

South Carolina
182
93 (51%)
89 (49%)

Georgia
90
15 (17%)
75 (83%)

Florida
809
459 (57%)
351 (43%)

Alabama
46
25 (55%)
21 (45%)

Mississippi barrier island
27
0 (0%)
27 (100%)

Mississippi mainland **
51
41 (80%)
10 (20%)

Louisiana
218
13 (6%)
205 (94%)

Texas
370
51 (14%)
319 (86%)

Coastwide
2,119
856 (40%)
1,264 (60%)

* Beaches classified as “undeveloped” occasionally include a few scattered structures.
** The mainland Mississippi coast along Mississippi Sound includes 51.3 mi of sandy beach as of 2010-2011, out of approximately 80.7 total shoreline miles (the remaining portion is nonsandy, either marsh or armored coastline with no sand).

Table 5—Approximate Shoreline Miles of Sandy, Oceanfront Beach That Have Been Modified by Armoring With Hard Erosion Control Structures, and by Sand Placement Activities, North Carolina to Texas, as of December 2011
[Rice 2012a, p. 7; USFWS 2012a, p. 24]

Known
approximate
miles of
armored beach
(percent
of total
coastline)

Known
approximate
miles of
beach receiving sand placement
(percent
of total
coastline)

North Carolina
Not available
91.3 (28%)

South Carolina
Not available
67.6 (37%)

Georgia
10.5 (12%)
5.5 (6%)

Florida
117.3 *
379.6 (47%)

Alabama
4.7(10%)
7.5 (16%)

Mississippi barrier island
0 (0%)
1.1 (4%)

Mississippi mainland
45.4 (89%)
43.5 (85%)

Louisiana
15.9 (7%)
60.4 (28%)

Texas
36.6 (10%)
28.3 (8%)

Total *
230.4 *
684.8 (32%)

* Partial data.

Existing Extent—Inlets

Of the nation's top 50 ports active in foreign waterborne commerce, over 90 percent require regular dredging. Over 392 million yd
3
(300 million m
3
) of dredged material are removed from navigation channels each year, not including inland waterways. Most inlets and harbors used for commercial navigation in the United States are protected and stabilized by hard structures (USACE 2002, p. I-3-7). In New Jersey, many inlets that existed around 1885 and all inlets that formed since that time were artificially closed or kept from reopening after natural closure (Nordstrom 2000, p. 19). Five of the 12 New Jersey inlets that now exist are stabilized by jetties, and 2 of the unstabilized jetties are maintained by dredging (Nordstrom 2000, p. 20). Table 6 gives the condition of inlets from North Carolina to Texas.

Table 6—Inlet Condition Along the Southeast Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, December 2011
[Rice 2012b, p. 8]

Existing inlets
Number of inlets

Number of modified
inlets

Habitat modification type
Structures *
Dredged
Relocated
Mined
Artificially opened
Artificially closed

North Carolina
20
17 (85%)
7
16
3
4
2
11

South Carolina
47
21 (45%)
17
11
2
3
0
1

Georgia
23
6 (26%)
5
3
0
1
0
0

Florida east
21
19 (90%)
19
16
0
3
10
0

Florida west
48
24 (50%)
20
22
0
6
7
1

Alabama
4
4 (100%)
4
3
0
0
0
2

Mississippi
6
5 (67%)
0
4
0
0
0
0

Louisiana
34
10 (29%)
7
9
1
2
0
46

Texas
18
14 (78%)
10
13
2
1
11
3

Total
221
119 (54%)
89 (40%)
97 (44%)
8 (4%)
20 (9%)
30 (14%)
64

* Structures include jetties, terminal groins, groin fields, rock or sandbag revetments, seawalls, and offshore breakwaters.

Shoreline Stabilization and Coastal Development—Future Practices

As shown in tables 3 and 4 and explained above, much of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are approaching “buildout,” the condition that exists when all available land is either developed or preserved and no further development is possible. Table 3 shows that about one-third of dry land within 3.3 ft (1 m) of high tide on the Atlantic coast is still available for development (i.e., not already developed or preserved), but the percent of developable land in or near red knot habitats is probably lower because oceanfront beach areas are already more developed than other lands in this dataset (see Titus
et al.
2009, p. 4). Focused on beach habitats, USFWS (2012a, p. 15) found that only about 20 percent of the coast from North Carolina to Texas is available for development. In light of sea level rise, it is unclear the extent to which these remaining lands will be developed over the next few decades. Several states already regulate or restrict new coastal development (Titus
et al.
2009, p. 22; Higgins 2008, pp. 50-53).

However, development pressures continue, driven by tourism (Nordstrom 2000, p. 3; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) 2010, p. 1; Gebert 2012, pp. 14, 16), as well as high coastal population densities and rapid population growth. For example, 35 million people—1 of 8 people in the United States—live within 100 mi (161 km) of the New Jersey shore (Gebert 2012, p. 17). Of the 25 most densely populated U.S. counties, 23 are along a coast (USEPA 2012). Population density along the coast is more than five times greater than in inland areas, and coastal populations are expected to grow another 9 percent by 2020 (NOAA 2012b). Coastal population density was greatest in the Northeast as of 2003, but population growth from 1980 to 2003 was greatest in the Southeast (Crossett
et al.
2004, pp. 4-5).

Although the likely extent of future coastal development is highly uncertain, continued efforts to protect existing and any new developments is more certain, at least over the next 10 to 20 years. As shown in tables 3 and 4, about 40 percent of the coast within the U.S. range of the red knot is already developed, and much of this area is protected by hard or soft means, or both. Shoreline stabilization over the near term is likely to come primarily through the maintenance of existing hard structures along with beach nourishment programs. As described below, it is unknown if these practices can be sustained in the longer term (CCSP 2009b, p. 87), but protection efforts seem likely to continue over shorter timeframes (Kana 2011, p. 34; Titus
et al.
2009, pp. 2-3; Leatherman 1989, p. 2-27).

States have shown a commitment to beach nourishment that is likely to persist. Of the 18 Atlantic and Gulf coast States with federally approved Coastal Zone Management Programs, 16 have beach nourishment policies. Nine of these 18 States have a continuing funding program for beach nourishment, and 6 more fund projects on a case-by-case basis (Higgins 2008, p. 55). Annual State appropriations for beach nourishment are $25 million in New Jersey and $30 million in Florida (Gebert 2012, p. 18). Beach nourishment has become the default solution to beach erosion because oceanfront property values have risen many times faster than the cost of nourishment (Kana 2011, p. 34). The cost of sand delivery has risen about tenfold since 1950, while oceanfront property values rose about 1,000-fold over the same timeframe. As long as these trends persist, beach nourishment will remain more cost effective than property abandonment (Kana 2011, p. 34; Titus
et al.
1991, p. 26). Over the next 50 years, Wakefield and Parsons (2002, pp. 5, 8) project that a retreat from the coast (i.e., relocation, abandonment of buildings and infrastructure, or both) in Delaware would cost three times more than a continued beach nourishment program, assuming no decline in cost due to technological advance and no increase due to diminished availability of borrow sediment or accelerated sea level rise.

In attempting to infer the likely future quantity of red knot habitat, major sources of uncertainty are when and where the practice of routine beach nourishment may become unsustainable and how communities will respond. It is uncertain whether beach nourishment will be continued into the future due to economic constraints, as well as often limited supplies of suitable sand resources (CCSP 2009b, p. 49). Despite the current commitment to beach nourishment, it does seem likely that this practice will eventually become unsustainable. Given rising sea levels and increased intensity of storms predicted by climate change models, a steady increase in beach replenishment would be needed to maintain usable beaches and protect coastal development (NJDEP 2010, p. 3). For example, New Jersey has seen a steady increase in costs and volumes of sand since the 1970s (NJDEP 2010, p. 2). For the case wh

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2013-22700. Public record. Not legal advice.