Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]

1018-BF87

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to designate critical habitat for the federally threatened rufa red knot (

Calidris canutus rufa

) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 649,066 acres (ac) (262,667 hectares (ha)) are proposed in 120 units (18 of which are further subdivided into 46 subunits) in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. We also announce a public informational meeting and public hearing and the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation.

DATES:

Comment submission:

We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before September 13, 2021. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see

ADDRESSES

, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

Public informational meeting and public hearing:

On August 18, 2021, we will hold a public informational meeting from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m., Eastern Time, followed by a public hearing from 7:30 to 9:00 p.m., Eastern Time. See

Public Hearing,

in

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

, for more information.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

(1)

Electronically:

Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov.

In the Search box, enter FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”

(2)

By hard copy:

Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on

http://www.regulations.gov.

This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see

Public Comments,

below, for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eric Schrading, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Jersey Ecological Services Field Office, 4 East Jimmie Leeds Road, Suite 4, Galloway, NJ 08205; telephone 609-382-5272. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule.

Under the Act, when we determine that any species is an endangered or threatened species, we are required to designate critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Designations of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.

What this document does.

This document proposes a designation of critical habitat for the rufa red knot, a threatened species of bird, in portions of 61 counties (or parishes) in 13 States.

The basis for our action.

Under the Act, if we determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species we must, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, designate critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if she determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area will result in the extinction of the species.

Peer Review.

In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the

Federal Register

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of five appropriate specialists regarding the species status assessment report (Service 2020a, entire) that informed this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that the science behind our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We received review of the Species Status Assessment (SSA) report from two experts outside the Service. We are also conducting a peer review of this proposed critical habitat designation (including the supplemental “Methodology” document available on the internet at

http://www.regulations.gov

under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032) to ensure that this proposal is based on scientifically sound data and analysis. We have invited peer reviewers to comment on our specific assumptions and conclusions in this proposed rule, and we will consider any comments received, as appropriate, before a final agency determination.

Uncommon Acronyms Used in This Proposed Rule

For the convenience of the reader, listed below are some of the acronyms used in this proposed rule:

Act = Endangered Species Act

ASMFC = Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations

DDFW = Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife

DEA = draft economic analysis

DHS = Department of Homeland Security

DMR = Department of Marine Resources

DoD = Department of Defense

DHS = Department of Homeland Security

EIS = environmental impact statement

FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FGDC = Federal Geographic Data Committee

FR = Federal Register

GDNR = Georgia Department of Natural Resources

HCP = habitat conservation plan

IEc = Industrial Economics, Incorporated

IEM = incremental effects memorandum

INRMP = integrated natural resources management plan

IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LDWF = Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

MLLW = mean lower low water

NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NCWRC = North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

NERR = National Estuarine Research Reserve

NPS = National Park Service

NWR = National Wildlife Refuge

ORV = off-road vehicle

SCDNR = South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

SCDPRT = South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism

Service = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SSA = Species Status Assessment

TNC = The Nature Conservancy

USCCSP = U.S. Climate Change Science Program

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 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 reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.

), including information to inform the following factors that the regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may be not prudent:

(a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species;

(b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;

(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or

(d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.

(2) Specific information on:

(a) The amount and distribution of rufa red knot habitat;

(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (specifically referring to January 12, 2015, which is the effective date for the December 11, 2014, final listing rule (79 FR 73705)) and that contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and why;

(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and

(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species. We particularly seek comments regarding:

(i) Whether occupied areas are adequate for the conservation of the species; and

(ii) Specific information regarding whether or not unoccupied areas would, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the conservation of the species and contain at least one physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the species.

(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.

(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on the rufa red knot's proposed critical habitat.

(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation, and the benefits of including or excluding specific areas.

(6) Information on the extent to which the description of probable economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic impacts.

(7) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in particular those based on a conservation program or plan, and why. These may include Federal, Tribal, State, county, local, or private lands with permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as habitat conservation plans, safe harbor agreements, or conservation easements, or non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. Detailed information regarding these plans, agreements, easements, and partnerships is also requested, including:

(a) The location and size of lands covered by the plan, agreement, easement, or partnership;

(b) The duration of the plan, agreement, easement, or partnership;

(c) Who holds or manages the land;

(d) What management activities are conducted;

(e) What land uses are allowable; and

(f) If management activities are beneficial to the rufa red knot and its habitat.

(8) Ongoing or proposed conservation efforts that could result in direct or indirect ecological benefits to the associated habitat for the rufa red knot; as such, those efforts would lend to the recovery of the species and therefore areas covered may be considered for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation.

(9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.

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

You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in

ADDRESSES

. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in

ADDRESSES

.

If you submit information via

http://www.regulations.gov,

your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on

http://www.regulations.gov.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on

http://www.regulations.gov,

or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office (see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

).

Public Hearing

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if requested. At this time, we have preemptively scheduled a public informational meeting and public hearing on this proposed rule. We will hold the public informational meeting and public hearing on the date and at the times listed above under

Public informational meeting and public hearing

in

DATES

. We are holding the public informational meeting and public

hearing via the Zoom online video platform and via teleconference so that participants can attend remotely. For security purposes, registration is required. To listen and view the meeting and hearing via Zoom, listen to the meeting and hearing by telephone, or provide oral public comments at the public hearing by Zoom or telephone, you must register. For information on how to register, or if you encounter problems joining Zoom the day of the meeting, visit

https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/.

Registrants will receive the Zoom link and the telephone number for the public informational meeting and public hearing. If applicable, interested members of the public not familiar with the Zoom platform should view the Zoom video tutorials (

https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/206618765-Zoom-video-tutorials

) prior to the public informational meeting and public hearing.

The public hearing will provide interested parties an opportunity to present verbal testimony (formal, oral comments) regarding this proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the rufa red knot. While the public informational meeting will be an opportunity for dialogue with the Service, the public hearing is not. Rather, the public hearing is a forum for accepting formal verbal testimony. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Therefore, anyone wishing to make an oral statement at the public hearing for the record is encouraged to provide a prepared written copy of their statement to us through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, or U.S. mail (see

ADDRESSES

, above). There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to us. Anyone wishing to make an oral statement at the public hearing must register before the hearing

https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/.

The use of a virtual public hearing is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Reasonable Accommodation

The Service is committed to providing access to the public informational meeting and public hearing for all participants. Closed captioning will be available during the public informational meeting and public hearing. Further, a full audio and video recording and transcript of the public hearing will be posted online at

https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/

after the hearing. Participants will also have access to live audio during the public informational meeting and public hearing via their telephone or computer speakers. Persons with disabilities requiring reasonable accommodations to participate in the meeting and/or hearing should contact the person listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

at least 5 business days prior to the date of the meeting and hearing to help ensure availability. An accessible version of the Service's public informational meeting presentation will also be posted online at

https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/

prior to the meeting and hearing (see

DATES

, above). See

https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/

for more information about reasonable accommodation.

Previous Federal Actions

It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the rufa red knot in this document. For more information on the rufa red knot or its habitat, refer to:

(1) The final listing rule published in the

Federal Register

on December 11, 2014 (79 FR 73706), available online at

http://www.regulations.gov

(at Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097).

(2) The November 2014 Rufa Red Knot Background Information and Threats Assessment (Supplemental Document; Service 2014, entire), available online at

https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/

and

http://www.regulations.gov

(at Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097). And

(3) The Species Status Assessment Report for the Rufa Red Knot (

Calidris canutus rufa

), Version 1.1, available on the internet at

https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/

and

http://www.regulations.gov

(Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032).

For more information on previous Federal actions associated with listing rufa red knot, please refer to the supplemental document (“Previous Federal Actions”) on the internet at

https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/

and

http://www.regulations.gov

(Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097).

On June 22, 2018, Defenders of Wildlife filed a complaint (Case 1:18-cv-01474-APM) alleging that the Service violated the Act by missing the statutory deadline to designate critical habitat (

i.e.,

12 months following publication of the final listing rule on December 11, 2014). On February 1, 2019, the Service and Defenders of Wildlife filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia a joint motion to stay proceedings until June 30, 2021, whereby the Service agreed to submit to the

Federal Register

a proposed critical habitat designation. The court granted the motion on February 7, 2019. This document constitutes the proposed critical habitat designation for rufa red knot, and complies with the court order issued February 7, 2019.

Supporting Documents

An SSA team prepared an SSA report (Service 2020a, entire) for the rufa red knot primarily to inform the development of a draft recovery plan for the species (Service 2021, entire). The timing and thoroughness of the peer-reviewed SSA report supported the analysis and development of this proposed critical habitat rule. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species. The Service sent the SSA report (which accompanied the draft Recovery Plan) to five independent peer reviewers; two peer reviewers provided a review of the document. The Service also sent the SSA report and draft Recovery Plan for review by more than 177 parties, which included both internal/Service biologists and managers, and external partners, including scientists with expertise in rufa red knot biology, habitat management, and threats. We received review from 24 partners, including Federal and State agencies. We are also conducting a peer review of this proposed critical habitat designation (including the supplemental “Methodology” document available on the internet at

http://www.regulations.gov

under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032) during the open comment period to ensure that this proposal is based on scientifically sound data and analysis.

Availability of Supporting Materials

The SSA report and other materials relating to this critical habitat proposal, including coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are generated, are included in the administrative record and are available at

http://www.regulations.gov

under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032. Any additional tools or supporting information that we may develop for the critical habitat designation will also be available at

https://www.fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/,

and may also be included in the preamble of this proposal and/or at

http://www.regulations.gov.

Background

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:

(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features

(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and

(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and

(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (

i.e.,

range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (

e.g.,

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, but not solely, by vagrant individuals).

Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.

Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they must implement “reasonable and prudent alternatives” to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas, we focus on the specific features that are essential to support the life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.

Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition, for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species.

Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards under the Endangered Species Act (published in the

Federal Register

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.

When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information from the SSA report and information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the species; the draft recovery plan for the species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.

Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of any endangered or threatened species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the Secretary may, but is not required to, determine that a designation would not be prudent in the following circumstances:

(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species;

(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;

(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;

(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or

(v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data available.

There is currently no imminent threat of collection or vandalism identified under Factor B for the rufa red knot, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such threat. In the proposed listing determination for rufa red knot (79 FR 73705, December 11, 2014) and our more recent SSA report (Service 2020a, entire), we determined that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a threat to rufa red knot and that those threats in some way can be addressed by section 7(a)(2) consultation measures. Additionally, although the species range occurs in other parts of North, Central, and South America outside of the United States, the areas within the jurisdiction of the United States serve a significant conservation value to the species during both its northbound and southbound migration to/from its breeding grounds and overwintering regions, using these migration areas as key staging and stopover areas to rest and feed. Some portions of the United States also provide significant conservation value for certain populations of overwintering rufa red knots. Our analysis of the best available scientific and commercial information indicates there are areas within the range of the species in the United States that meet the definition of critical habitat. Therefore, because none of the circumstances enumerated in our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) have been met and because there are no other circumstances the Secretary has identified for which this designation of critical habitat would be not prudent, we have determined that the designation of critical habitat for rufa red knot is prudent.

Critical Habitat Determinability

Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the rufa red knot is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:

(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or

(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to identify any area that meets the definition of “critical habitat.”

When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).

We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological needs of the species and habitat characteristics where the species is located. This and other information represent the best scientific data available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical habitat is determinable for the rufa red knot.

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the Species

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. The regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species” as the features that occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example, physical features essential to the conservation of the species might include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkali soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential to support the life history of the species.

In considering whether features are essential to the conservation of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction,

or rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance.

We derive the specific physical or biological features essential for the rufa red knot from studies of the species' habitat, ecology, and life history, which are described more fully in the final listing rule (79 FR 73706, December 11, 2014) and associated supplemental materials (Service 2014, entire). Additionally, these features were most recently described in the SSA report (Service 2020a, entire), in the context of the needs of individuals, populations, and the species.

With regard to “space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; and cover or shelter,” these characteristics are captured by the summary discussion in the following paragraphs. The characteristic of “sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring” does not apply for this proposed critical habitat designation because the rufa red knot does not breed in the United States. Regarding “habitats that are protected from disturbance,” rufa red knots are particularly sensitive to disturbance from human activities, which are nearly ubiquitous along the U.S. coasts. Thus, management of habitats to ensure minimal human activity during those seasons when birds are present is essential to the conservation of this subspecies. Overall, rufa red knot requires both an abundance of suitable nonbreeding habitats, as well as a suitable distribution of those habitats across the landscape.

Habitat Features

Coastal habitats used by rufa red knots (

i.e.,

for foraging and roosting) are similar across both migration and wintering areas (Harrington 2001, p. 9), and can be generally characterized as sparsely vegetated coastal marine and estuarine habitats with large areas of exposed intertidal substrates. Migration and wintering habitats include high-energy ocean- or bay-front barrier island or mainland beaches, as well as shorelines and tidal flats in more sheltered estuaries (

e.g.,

bays, sounds, lagoons) (Harrington 2001, p. 9). Beaches used by rufa red knots may be backed by dune fields, tidal waters, salt marsh, mangroves, or human development. Unimproved tidal inlets (

e.g.,

the mouths of creeks or larger rivers) often provide an optimal mosaic of preferred habitat types. Along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts, dynamic and ephemeral features are important rufa red knot habitats, including sand spits, islets, shoals, and sandbars, features often associated with inlets (Harrington 2001, p. 8; Sitters 2005, entire; Winn and Harrington

in

Guilfoyle et al. 2006, pp. 8-10; Harrington

in

Guilfoyle et al. 2007, pp. 18-19; Harrington 2008, pp. 2, 4-5; Niles et al. 2008, p. 30; Lott et al. 2009, pp. 18-19; North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) 2013, entire).

In the United States, there has been considerable loss or degradation of dynamic and ephemeral coastal features, including the associated loss of rufa red knot habitat as a result of shoreline stabilization and other engineering practices that support coastal development (Nordstrom 2000, pp. 20, 98-107; Nordstrom and Mauriello 2001, entire; U.S. Climate Change Science Program (USCCSP) 2009, pp. 99-100; Defeo et al. 2009, p. 4; Kisiel 2009, p. 65; Titus et al. 2009, p. 5; Rice 2012, p. 6; Rice 2017, entire). In some cases, however, engineered or artificial features may be used as habitat, or may enhance habitat (Botton et al. 1994, p. 614; Niles et al. 2008, pp. 40, 46; Schwarzer 2013, pers. comm.; Breese 2013, pers. comm.; Niles et al. 2013, entire; Firmin 2020, pers. comm.). In some localized areas, rufa red knots will use artificial habitats that mimic natural conditions, such as nourished beaches, dredge spoil sites, elevated road causeways, rock structures (

e.g.,

jetties, breakwaters), or impoundments. In other areas, living shorelines or even traditional (“hard”) engineering structures may enhance rufa red knot habitat, for example by concentrating surf-cast prey items or by calming wave energies. Notwithstanding these localized examples, rufa red knots generally require areas where natural coastal processes (

e.g.,

erosion, accretion, overwashes, island migration, inlet migration) are allowed to operate in order to create and maintain optimal habitat, which is typically dynamic and ephemeral.

In all nonbreeding habitats, rufa red knots require sparse vegetation and open landscapes, affording the birds good visibility of the surrounding area in order to avoid predation (Piersma et al. 1993, pp. 338-339, 349; Niles et al. 2008, p. 44). Rufa red knots tend to migrate in large single-species flocks, and may also flock with other shorebirds, particularly when roosting or staging for spring and fall migration (Harrington 2001, p. 8). Thus, areas that provide foraging and resting habitat capable of supporting large concentrations of birds are especially important.

Foraging Habitat:

In coastal areas, rufa red knot foraging habitats include intertidal portions of beaches, islands, and shoals; tidal flats; wind-exposed bay bottoms or oyster reefs; peat banks; brackish ponds or impoundments; and ephemeral tidal pools. Foraging substrates can include sand, mud, peat, and sand embedded with shell, gravel, or cobble (Niles

et al.

2008, pp. 30, 47; Harrington 2001, pp. 8-9; Newstead 2014, pp. 13-14; Service 2014, pp. 63-67). Feeding birds may be concentrated at higher tides, pushed into a smaller area by rising waters and also attracted to higher food densities along the high water line, where food may be concentrated in wrack material and where horseshoe crabs (

Limulus polyphemus

) tend to nest. However, rufa red knots have also been shown to spread out and forage across the full tidal range (Service 2014, pp. 63-67; Service 2016a, pp. 76-82; Burger

et al.

2018, entire).

Roosting Habitat:

In many wintering and coastal 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 (Kalasz 2008, p. 9; Kalasz 2012, pers. comm.; Niles 2012, pers. comm.; Conseil Scientifique Régional du Patrimoine Naturel 2013, entire). Typical roosting areas are relatively open and flat beaches between the high water line and the primary dune line. In some locations, roosts can include shoals, sand bars, areas of upper beach between/among unstabilized dunes, overwashes, patches of mostly bare ground (

e.g.,

blowouts, depressions, salt pannes) within salt marshes, dredge spoil sites, rock structures (

e.g.,

jetties, breakwaters), or among wrack including atop mounds of seaweed deposited on the beach (Service 2014, pp. 63-67). Such areas may have microtopographic relief offering shelter from high winds, storms, and cold weather. Rufa red knots' selection of high-tide roosting areas on the coast appears to be strongly influenced by raptor predation (Niles et al. 2008, p. 28).

Inland Habitat:

Rufa red knots use inland saline lakes as stopover habitat in the Northern Great Plains (Skagen et al. 1999, pp. 80-81; Newstead et al. 2013, p. 57). We have little information to indicate whether or not rufa red knots may also use inland freshwater habitats during migration, but certain freshwater areas (

e.g.,

wetlands, riverine sandbars) may warrant further study as potential stopover habitats (Dovichin 2014, pers. comm.; Russell 2014, entire). Small numbers of rufa red knots sometimes

use manmade freshwater habitats (

e.g.,

impoundments) along inland migration routes (Simnor 2012, pers. comm.; Russell 2014, entire; Service 2014, pp. 68-70).

Diet:

The rufa red knot is a specialized molluscivore, eating primarily hard-shelled mollusks, though sometimes supplemented with softer invertebrate prey such as arthropods, marine worms, and horseshoe crab eggs (Harrington 2001, pp. 9-11; Piersma and van Gils 2011, p. 9). In most U.S. coastal habitats, rufa red knots feed primarily on bivalves such as small clams and mussels (including mussel spat) (Harrington 2001, pp. 10-11; Niles et al. 2008, p. 30; Service 2014, pp. 71-73). Prey size is approximately 0.16 to 0.79 inch (in) (4 to 20 millimeters (mm)) long, and up to 1.18 in (30 mm) in circumference. Foraging activity is largely dictated by tidal conditions, as rufa red knots rarely wade in water more than 0.8 to 1.2 in (2 to 3 centimeters (cm)) deep (Harrington 2001, p. 10). Due to bill morphology, rufa red knots forage on only shallow-buried prey, within the top 0.8 to 1.2 in (2 to 3 cm) of sediment (Zwarts and Blomert 1992, p. 113; Gerasimov 2009, p. 227). Long-distance migrant shorebirds, such as rufa red knots, must take advantage of seasonally abundant food resources at migration stopovers to build up fat reserves for the next nonstop, long-distance flight (Clark et al. 1993, p. 694). Although migrating rufa red knots can be found widely distributed in small numbers within suitable stopover habitats, birds tend to concentrate in those areas where abundant food resources are consistently available from year to year. The spatial distribution of rufa red knots in many different stopover areas has been correlated with the distribution of the primary prey species (Service 2014, p. 71).

A prominent departure from typical prey items occurs each spring when rufa red knots feed on the eggs of horseshoe crabs, particularly during the key migration stopover at Delaware Bay. Delaware Bay serves as the principal spring migration stopover area for the rufa red knot because of the abundance and availability of horseshoe crab eggs (Harrington 2001, pp. 2, 7; Niles et al. 2008, pp. 36-39; Clark et al. 2009, p. 85; Service 2014, pp. 73-76). Outside of Delaware Bay, horseshoe crab eggs are eaten opportunistically when available. In several areas along the Atlantic coast, horseshoe crab eggs are a preferred food resource and may be a locally important component of the diet, particularly in spring (Service 2014, pp. 71-76).

Sensitivity to Disturbance

We define “disturbance” as any human activity that is audible or visible to rufa red knots and that interrupts the normal behavior of the birds. The daily and seasonal selection of non-breeding habitats by individual rufa red knots represents an adaptive optimization of several factors and the fitness trade-offs among them. These factors include seasonal time pressures (particularly during migration) (Hedenström 2008, p. 287; Service 2014, pp. 249-250), food availability (Service 2014, p. 71), predator avoidance (Niles et al. 2008, p. 28), tides (Newstead 2014, pp. 13-14; Burger et al. 2018, entire), and weather. It is in this context that disturbance from human activities occurs, such that interruption of normal behaviors can result in reduced fitness of the affected birds (West et al. 2002, p. 319; Goss-Custard et al. 2006, p. 88). Typical rufa red knot behaviors include feeding in intertidal areas, and roosting, resting, or preening above the high water line. Rufa red knot reactions to human activity that indicate disturbance typically include stopping or slowing feeding, assuming an alert posture, calling, walking, running, or flying (Koch and Paton 2014, entire). Rufa red knots are exposed to disturbance from recreational and other human activities throughout their non-breeding range (Niles et al. 2008, pp. 105-107; Service 2014, pp. 266-272).

Among shorebird species, rufa red knots appear to be particularly reactive to the presence of humans (Burger and Niles 2013, p. 657; Koch and Paton 2014, p. 64; Hunt et al. 2018, pp. 18-19). Although population-level impacts cannot be concluded from species' differing behavioral responses to disturbance (Gill et al. 2001, p. 265; Stillman et al. 2007, p. 73), behavior-based models can be used to relate the number and magnitude of human disturbances to impacts on the fitness of individual birds (West et al. 2002, p. 319; Goss-Custard et al. 2006, p. 88). When the time and energy costs arising from disturbance were included, disturbance could be more damaging to shorebirds than permanent habitat loss (West et al. 2002, p. 319).

Excessive disturbance precludes rufa red knot use of otherwise preferred habitats (Service 2014, pp. 267-270; Watts 2017, p. 72; Hunt et al. 2018, p. 22). Disturbance can also impact shorebird energy budgets (Service 2014, pp. 270-272; Hunt et al. 2018, pp. 26-29). Both of these effects are likely to exacerbate other threats to the rufa red knot, such as habitat loss from erosion and development, reduced food availability, asynchronies in the annual cycle, and competition with gulls. Disturbance that displaces birds from preferred habitats and/or disrupts their behavioral patterns can impair the ability of rufa red knots to gain or maintain sufficient weight, which can in turn impact fitness. Studies have found a link between the weights of rufa red knots leaving Delaware Bay after their spring stopover and subsequent survival rates, and possibly also to reproductive success (Baker

et al.

2004, p. 878; McGowan et al. 2011, p. 9; Duijins et al. 2017, entire).

Habitat Abundance and Distribution

Rufa red knots move among, and depend on, multiple foraging and roosting habitat areas on local, regional, and rangewide scales. As discussed above, habitat selection by rufa red knots represents trade-offs among factors including seasonal time pressures, food availability, predator avoidance, tides, weather, and human disturbance. This complex suite of factors results in shifting patterns of habitat use on daily, seasonal, and annual temporal scales. In addition, the dynamic and shifting nature of the shoreline also influences habitat selection over multiyear scales (

e.g.,

through natural cycles of erosion and accretion). Rufa red knots make regular movements within (though not between) wintering regions (Niles et al. 2012, pp. 198, 200, 202; Newstead 2014, pp. 3, 6-8; Service 2014, pp. 43-44) and to use clusters of habitats as regional stopover complexes during migration (Clark et al. 2009, pp. 87, 89; Watts 2009, entire; Service 2014, pp. 54-55).

We define “staging areas” as those stopover sites with abundant, predictable food resources where birds prepare for an energetic challenge (usually a long flight over a barrier such as an ocean) requiring substantial fuel stores and physiological changes without which significant fitness costs are incurred (Warnock 2010, p. 622). Staging areas are a subset of stopover habitats (Service 2020a, p. 31), and they serve as vital stepping stones between wintering and breeding areas. Shorebirds migrate along traditional routes characterized by a chain of key staging areas that are essential to successful migration; staging areas serve as vital stepping stones between wintering and breeding areas (Myers 1983, p. 23; International Wader Study Group 2003, p. 10; Service 2014, p. 49). However, even a robust network of staging areas is not sufficient to support recovery of this subspecies. Rufa red knots also require an ample supply of other coastal and inland stopover

habitats distributed across the range, allowing birds to shift among habitat patches across multiple temporal and geographic scales in response to a number of stochastic conditions. Because rufa red knots require this flexibility, even some highly suitable and important nonbreeding habitats may not be used every year, and, within a given season, usage of particular habitat patches is likely to fluctuate across days and months (Service 2014, pp. 53-60; Smith et al. 2017a, p. 3; Service 2020a, p. 32). One particular non-breeding habitat is that used by juvenile rufa red knots. Rufa red knots do not reach adulthood until 2 years of age, at which point they make their first full northern migration to their nesting grounds. Where they spend their first 2 years and their movement patterns are largely unknown. However, Florida and the Caribbean are likely important for this stage of their life (Kalasz 2021, pers. comm.).

Sea Level Rise

Due to background rates of sea level rise and the naturally dynamic nature of coastal habitats, we concluded at the time of listing that rufa red knots are adapted to moderate (although sometimes abrupt) rates of habitat change in their wintering and migration areas. However, we also concluded, based on overwhelming evidence, that rates of sea level rise have increased beyond those that have occurred over recent millennia and continue to accelerate (Service 2014, pp. 142-143; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2013, pp. 11, 25). These conclusions are further supported by newer information evaluated in the SSA report (Service 2020a, pp. 32-36). Over the period 1902 to 2015, global mean sea level rose by 0.5 feet (ft) (0.16 meters (m)) (likely range of 0.4 to 0.7 ft (0.12 to 0.21 m)) (IPCC 2019, p. 42). The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence) (IPCC 2014a, p. 4). Extreme wave heights, which contribute to extreme sea level events and coastal erosion, have increased in the North Atlantic by around 0.3 in (0.8 cm) per year over the period 1985 to 2018 (medium confidence) (IPCC 2019, p. 42).

The rufa red knot is vulnerable to inundation of tidal flats and erosion of sandy beaches, which are typically caused or accelerated by climate-driven sea level rise (Service 2014, pp. 126-143; Vousdoukas et al. 2019, entire). In most of the rufa red knot's nonbreeding range, shorelines are expected to undergo dramatic reconfigurations over the next century as a result of accelerating sea level rise (USCCSP 2009, pp. 13, 44, 50). 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 high sea level rise scenarios (Nikitina et al. 2013, p. 11; Glick et al. 2008, p. 6). The primary rufa red knot foraging habitats, intertidal flats, and sandy beaches will likely be locally or regionally inundated or eroded, but replacement habitats are likely to re-form along the shoreline in its new position (Scavia et al. 2002, p. 152; USCCSP 2009, p. 186). However, if shorelines experience a decades-long period of high instability and landward migration (

i.e.,

under higher rates of sea level rise), the formation rate of new beach habitats may be slower than the rate of loss of existing habitats (Iwamura et al. 2013, p. 6). Additionally, low-lying and narrow islands, such as those along the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic coasts, may disintegrate rather than migrate (Titus 1990, p. 67; IPCC 2014b, p. 15), representing a net loss of rufa red knot habitat. Galbraith et al. (2002, p. 178) examined several scenarios of future sea level rise and projected major losses of intertidal habitat in Delaware Bay.

Superimposed on these changes are widespread human attempts to stabilize the shoreline, which exacerbate losses of intertidal habitats by preventing their landward migration, and human infrastructure that blocks the landward migration of coastal habitats (Service 2014, pp. 143-159). The cumulative loss of habitat across the nonbreeding range could affect the ability of rufa 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 (Galbraith et al. 2014, p. 7 and Supplement 1).

Summary of Physical or Biological Features

We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to the conservation of rufa red knot from studies of the species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. Additional information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2020a, entire; available on

http://www.regulations.gov

under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032). We have determined that rufa red knots need areas where natural coastal processes will be able to continue well into the future to allow the formation of ephemeral features and the landward migration of coastlines in response to sea level rise. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify areas that support natural coastal processes, as well as localized areas where artificially created, maintained, or enhanced habitat supports important concentrations of red knots, as physical or biological features for the rufa red knot. These features are as follows:

(1)

Beaches and tidal flats used for foraging.

This feature includes high-energy ocean- or bay-front barrier island or mainland beaches, as well as shorelines and tidal flats in more sheltered estuaries (

e.g.,

bays, sounds, lagoons). Foraging substrates can include sand, mud, peat, and sand embedded with shell, gravel, or cobble. Foraging areas are between mean lower low water and mean higher high water. Suitable foraging habitats provide abundant quantities of accessible and appropriately sized prey items (

e.g.,

mussels and mussel spat, clams, other mollusks, horseshoe crab eggs, crustaceans, polychaete worms), timed to occur in high densities during those seasons when rufa red knots are present. “Superabundant” prey densities, typically bivalves or horseshoe crab eggs, are needed in migration staging areas to support rapid weight gain following long-distance flights. Large areas capable of supporting concentrations of shorebirds are especially important.

(2)

Upper beach areas used for roosting, preening, resting, or sheltering.

This feature includes unvegetated or sparsely vegetated sand between the high water line and the primary dune line. Generally these sites are open, with a large viewscape for predator avoidance. Many sites have micro-topographic relief offering refuge from high winds. Large areas capable of supporting concentrations of shorebirds—close to foraging areas, with limited predation pressure and protected from human disturbance—are especially important.

(3)

Ephemeral and/or dynamic coastal features used for foraging or roosting.

This includes dynamic and ephemeral features such as sand spits, islets, shoals, and sandbars, features often associated with inlets. Other ephemeral features used by rufa red knots include tidal pools; wind-exposed bay bottoms or oyster reefs; and unvegetated overwash areas (

e.g.,

among or behind dunes, as formed by storms or extreme wave action).

(4)

Ocean vegetation deposits or surf-cast wrack used for foraging and roosting.

This feature includes Sargassum (a species of macroalgae in

oceans that inhabits shallow water and coral reefs), seagrass, or seaweed deposits with mussel spat attached, or surf-cast wrack that accumulates along beaches and supports or captures food items, such as horseshoe crab eggs. In some areas, rufa red knots may also roost atop wrack mounds.

(5)

Intertidal peat banks used for foraging and roosting.

In some areas, exposed intertidal peat banks (

e.g.,

along bay front beaches and fronting tidal marshes) provide important foraging and roosting habitat.

(6)

Features landward of the beach that support foraging or roosting.

In some areas, rufa red knots use sparsely vegetated habitats landward of the beach berm, such as unstabilized dunes, mangrove edges, brackish ponds, and patches of mostly bare ground (

e.g.,

blowouts, depressions, pannes) within salt marshes.

(7)

Artificial habitat mimicking natural conditions or maintaining the physical or biological features 1 to 6 (above).

Coastal engineering that interferes with natural coastal processes is generally considered a threat to the rufa red knot. However, in some cases, artificial habitats mimic the natural conditions described in the other physical or biological features described above. Such artificial habitats can include nourished beaches, dredged spoil deposition sites, elevated road causeways, jetties, or impoundments. Additionally, some anthropogenic structures may promote or maintain the natural physical or biological features. For example, in parts of Delaware Bay, rufa red knot habitat features are enhanced by living shorelines (

e.g.,

shell bag reefs), and in one case by a rock breakwater.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. The features essential to the conservation of the rufa red knot may require special management considerations or protection to reduce the threats to the species; these threats are described in the final listing rule (79 FR 73706, December 11, 2014; pp. 73707-73708), the Service's supplement to the proposed and final listing rule (Service 2014, pp. 124-314), and an updated summary in the recent SSA report (Service 2020a, pp. 15-18). For rufa red knot habitat, we grouped the primary threats that may require special management considerations or protection into seven threat categories:

(1) Disturbance of foraging and roosting red knots by humans, pets and domestic animals (

e.g.,

dogs (

Canis lupus familiaris

), cats (

Felis catus

), horses (

Equus ferus caballus

)), vehicles (

e.g.,

off-road vehicles (ORVs), golf carts, segways, all-terrain vehicles, automobiles, heavy equipment, beach rakes), ships/dredges, powered and unpowered (

e.g.,

kayaks) boats, personal watercraft (

e.g.,

jet skis), bicycles, surf kites, kite boards, dune surfers, surf fishing, paddle boards, para-sails, low-flying aircraft, drones, and research activities. Special management considerations or protection that could reduce or ameliorate this threat may include (but not be limited to): Managing access to rufa red knot foraging or roosting habitat during different seasonal windows; reducing disturbance (

e.g.,

managing sources of disturbance that could include humans, pets, vehicles, construction equipment, watercraft, and aircraft), such as through restrictions on timing, locations, and types of activities; providing designated beach access points that reduce conflict with rufa red knots; enforcing or creating dog restrictions during key periods; or minimizing boat or aircraft activity during key periods.

(2) Predation, especially by peregrine falcons (

Falco peregrinus

), hawks (

Buteo

spp. or

Accipter

spp.), red fox (

Vulpes vulpes

), coyotes (Canis latrans), raccoons (

Procyon lotor

), gulls (

Larus

spp.), feral cats, and owls (

Bubo

spp.

or Tyto

spp.). Special management considerations or protection that could reduce or ameliorate this threat may include (but not be limited to): Conducting predator control, controlling trash that may attract predators, or relocating any unnatural perches that attract avian predators.

(3) Competition with gulls, especially laughing gulls (

Larus atricilla

). Special management considerations or protection that could reduce or ameliorate this threat may include (but not be limited to): Controlling trash and removing any unnatural perches, both of which attract gulls; and prohibiting the feeding of gulls.

(4) Modification or loss of habitat, or both, due to residential and commercial development, uncontrolled recreational activities, beach cleaning, hard and soft beach stabilization efforts (

e.g.,

beach nourishment, sediment backpassing, sand scraping, sand fencing, dredged material disposal, inlet channelization or relocation, construction of jetties, revetments, and other armoring structures), invasive species, sand mining and dredging, erosion, and sea level rise. Special management considerations or protection that could reduce or ameliorate this threat may include (but not be limited to): Implementing conservation measures (

e.g.,

beach profiles designed to mimic natural habitat, ensuring a close grain size match to the native beach, limiting the frequency of activities to allow recovery of the prey base, seasonal timing to allow habitat recovery before red knots return) that help reduce modification or loss of habitat; managing sediment to abate habitat impacts from coastal engineering projects and sea level rise, and to maintain habitat features such as wide beaches, tidal flats, overwash areas, and high prey densities; coordinating with landowners and local managers to improve beach management practices, such as beach cleaning and sand fencing; implementing best management practices when conducting habitat restoration activities (

e.g.,

creating living shorelines, raising marsh elevations, conducting facilitated shoreline migration, maintaining and managing water control structures to provide rufa red knot habitat); conducting public outreach and education (especially on private and possibly State lands); and addressing the impacts of potential oil spills or gas drilling activities through facility placement, spill response plans, and training.

(5) Threats to the rufa red knot's food supply that can be managed or mitigated at the local or regional level (

e.g.,

unsustainable levels of marine crab harvest, excessive driving, and certain coastal engineering practices). Special management considerations or protection that could reduce or ameliorate this threat may include (but not be limited to): Monitoring and managing beach invertebrates; limiting vehicle use; implementing conservation measures for coastal engineering projects (

e.g.,

sediment grain size; frequency, timing, and scope of sediment placement); and managing horseshoe crab fisheries, such as for bait and biomedical uses.

(6) Insufficient water quality or pollution control that may trigger or worsen harmful algal blooms. Special management considerations or protection that could reduce or ameliorate this threat may include (but not be limited to): Working with local pollution authorities to limit those point discharges or non-point sources that are substantially impairing water quality or contributing to the frequency or severity of red tides or other harmful blooms.

(7) Human-caused disasters and response to natural and human-caused disasters such as oil spills, oil spill response including beach cleaning and berm construction, and response to natural disasters (

e.g.,

hurricanes). Special management considerations or protection that could reduce or ameliorate this threat may include (but not be limited to): Considering oil facility placement alternatives, preparing spill response plans, conducting oil spill training, conducting debris cleanup after a natural disaster while concurrently minimizing disturbance to rufa red knots, and establishing protocols and agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. Within areas of the species' range under U.S. jurisdiction, we determined that occupied areas are sufficient for the conservation of the species, following our evaluation of all suitable habitat across the species range that has documented use by rufa red knots.

The recovery strategy detailed in the species' draft Recovery Plan (Service 2021, entire) is to prevent loss of the rufa red knot's adaptive capacity by maintaining representation within and among four Recovery Units: (1) Southern (Atlantic coasts of Argentina and Chile), (2) North Coast of South America, (3) Western Gulf of Mexico/Central America, and (4) Southeast United States/Caribbean, and improving their resiliency and redundancy. Recovery efforts in the United States and in other portions of the subspecies' range will focus on protecting, restoring, maintaining, and managing important nonbreeding habitats for adults and juveniles. Recovery actions are designed to directly abate threats to rufa red knots in their wintering and migration ranges (which includes those areas identified as proposed critical habitat in this rule), and will also increase resiliency of populations to withstand threats that stem from climate change on their Arctic breeding grounds and elsewhere. These actions include monitoring and safeguarding ample food supplies, preventing impacts from development and shoreline stabilization, managing human disturbance, and restoring key habitats. They may also include land acquisition, facilitated migration of certain beaches or tidal flats, and restoring natural coastal processes that create and maintain rufa red knot habitat. Consistent with the Act and implementing policies, as well as recovery needs throughout the species' annual cycles, the draft Recovery Plan includes necessary recovery actions across the range of the rufa red knot. Although many Service-led recovery actions will focus on the U.S. portions of the range, the Service will also coordinate with and support the recovery efforts of foreign governments and other partners in portions of the range outside the United States.

Sources of data for this proposed critical habitat designation include 2020 eBird data (eBird 2020, website), and multiple local and regional sources as available (

e.g.,

reports, databases, and geolocator/resighting data maintained by State Fish and Wildlife Departments, universities, local governments, and nonprofit organizations across the range of the species (see SSA report; Service 2020a, entire)). For some areas where multiple sources of information were available, we used either one or both sources, ensuring that records used were not duplicated and included the best available information. Our analysis included reviewing the best available information that pertains to the habitat requirements of this species, as presented in the “Species Biology” and “Subspecies Needs” sections of the SSA report (Service 2020a, pp. 4-14); sources of this information include studies conducted at occupied sites and published in peer-reviewed articles and agency reports, and data collected during monitoring efforts, such as aerial surveys and tracking or resighting data.

A detailed step-down methodology was developed for identifying proposed critical habitat areas (see the supplemental “Methodology” document available on the internet at

http://www.regulations.gov

under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032). In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries based on our evaluation and consideration of the following:

(1) Migration patterns/locations across the range of the subspecies within the United States, including migratory stopovers away from the coasts. This includes the migration premise that 100 percent of rufa red knots winter within or south of the United States and 100 percent of the subspecies breed north of the United States. Therefore, 100 percent of rufa red knots migrate through the United States. However, rufa red knots from the four different wintering regions (as described in Service 2020a, p. 9) are differentially reliant on the various regions of the U.S. coast for migration stopovers (Service 2020a, pp. 6-7).

(2) Landforms (

e.g.,

islands, inlet complexes) and breaks in suitable habitats (

e.g.,

sections of high-density development, open water), which are key factors in delineating units.

(3) Gaps between rufa red knot records (another key factor in delineating units).

(4) Temporal metrics to delineate seasonal occurrence windows (

i.e.,

spring migration, fall migration, wintering) and to minimize the potential for double-counting birds.

(5) Numerical metrics showing consistent habitat use by substantial numbers of rufa red knots, as an indicator that the physical and biological features of each area are essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Regarding bird numbers, we adapted the approach of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, which designates as “Sites of Regional Importance” those areas that support at least one percent of a biogeographic population. We used one percent as a key indicator of a habitat's importance, and we applied the one percent metric to derived estimates of regional population sizes. Best available data from several sources were considered and used to estimate the wintering and/or migration population sizes for each of several U.S. regions. (The various regions were delineated based on resighting and tracking data.) Consistency of use was indicated for those areas that supported the minimum number of rufa red knots (

i.e.,

at least one percent of the estimated population for that region in that season) for at least 3 of the past 10 years. In some areas, 10-year data sets were unavailable; in those cases, we used 1 year in 3 as the minimum.

(6) Adjustments to account for differences between observational data (

e.g.,

ground and aerial surveys, eBird) versus population estimates derived from modeling.

(7) Food availability, including the rufa red knot's need to take advantage

of seasonally abundant food resources. This relates to the well-documented correlations (

e.g.,

Botton et al. 1994, p. 605; Karpanty et al. 2006, p. 1,706; Niles et al. 2008, pp. 17, 19; Smith et al. 2008, p. 15; Cohen et al. 2010a, pp. 659-661; Cohen et al. 2010b, p. 355; Fraser et al. 2010, p. 97; GDNR 2013; SCDNR 2013, p. 37; Thibault and Levisen 2013, p. 6) between the spatial distribution of rufa red knots and the distribution of their primary prey species.

(8) The subspecies' need for flexibility in the selection of wintering and migration habitats to respond to daily, seasonal, and annual changes in conditions such as weather, tides, coastal processes, predation pressure, competition, and disturbance from human activities (Service 2014, pp. 71, 195, 259; Smith et al. 2017a, p. 3).

(9) Once areas were identified to meet the criteria summarized above, the best available data was further evaluated to ensure that the area(s) were occupied at the time of listing. For example, if all data used to meet the numerical metrics were recorded after January 12, 2015 (

i.e.,

the effective date of the rufa red knot final listing rule), then a separate check was conducted to verify that the area was known to be occupied by at least some rufa red knots at the time of listing.

Once this methodology was applied and evaluated across the regions of the United States where concentrations of rufa red knots may occur, units and subunits were then drawn based on the most recent available aerial or satellite imagery. In deciding whether to draw a single large unit or multiple units/subunits, we aimed to facilitate consistent management of each unit and subunit through section 7 consultation by distinguishing concentration areas of the same ownership or jurisdiction. Additionally, we evaluated older imagery dating back as far as 2010 to estimate the range of landform movement (

e.g.,

landward island migration, landward shoreline migration, cyclic patterns of erosion/accretion, movement of shoals). Due to the dynamic nature of the coastline, units and subunits inevitably include some areas that do not currently, or may not in the future, contain the physical or biological features such as densely vegetated marsh or open water. In some instances, these areas are included to allow the dynamic physical or biological features to move across the landscape, noting that where they occur within a unit, they will be excluded by the unit descriptions.

We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have determined were occupied at the time of listing (

i.e.,

specifically referring to January 12, 2015, which is the effective date for the December 11, 2014, final listing rule (79 FR 73706)), that contain one or more of the physical or biological features that are essential to support life-history processes of the species, and that may require special management considerations or protection.

We propose to designate as critical habitat 120 units (18 of which are further subdivided into 46 subunits) based on one or more of the physical or biological features being present to support the rufa red knot's life-history processes. Some units contain all of the identified physical or biological features and support multiple life-history processes, while other units contain only some of the physical or biological features necessary to support the rufa red knot's particular use of that habitat.

For the rufa red knot, most of the units contain highly dynamic barrier beaches and intertidal seashore areas that are covered at high tide and uncovered at low tide. This area has the potential to vary year-to-year. In other words, the precise location of the physical or biological features may shift daily as a result of tides, but also may shift over time because of the intrinsically dynamic nature of shorelines, and due to sea level rise. In general, the physical or biological features we describe are the intertidal areas and sandy beaches up to the vegetated areas that do not contain the physical or biological features, noting that availability of different habitats based on the tide cycle may also cause rufa red knots to vary foraging or roosting locations throughout a day and/or forage at night.

The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation in the discussion of individual units, below. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available to the public on

http://www.regulations.gov

under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032. When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by pavement, buildings, and other structures (

e.g.,

docks, maintained rights-of-way, work yards, and stormwater facilities) because such lands lack physical or biological features necessary for the rufa red knot. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation under the Act with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

We are proposing 120 units (18 of which are further subdivided into 46 subunits) as critical habitat for rufa red knot, all of which were occupied at the time of listing, and totaling approximately 649,066 ac (262,667 ha). Table 1, below, shows the proposed unit or subunit names, land ownership, and approximate acreage. The land ownership values in many (but not all) proposed critical habitat units also include a category called “uncategorized lands.” For the purposes of this analysis and proposed critical habitat designation, this category refers to open water. Although open water is not rufa red knot habitat

per se,

it is an integral part of the habitat mosaic that these birds require. Rufa red knots use the edges of certain coastal ponds, marsh blow-outs, salt pannes, and sand or mud flats that may be classified by some States as open water if they are submerged during high tides. Additionally, open waters at inlets are regularly reshaped by natural coastal processes that create and maintain dynamic and ephemeral rufa red knot habitat features, such as shoals and spits.

The areas we propose as critical habitat for the rufa red knot are presented below and organized by State, north to south. Brief descriptions of all units and subunits are presented, including the reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the rufa red knot. All units contain one or more of the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. Also, many of the proposed units overlap in part or whole with existing critical habitat designated for other federally threatened species (

i.e.,

the piping plover (

Charadrius melodus

), the loggerhead sea turtle (

Caretta caretta

), the Gulf sturgeon (

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi

), and the West

Indian manatee (

Trichechus manatus

)), and one federally endangered species (

i.e.,

the aboriginal prickly-apple (

Harrisia aboriginum

)), as specified below (Table 2).

Additional considerations include:

(1) Most of the units contain highly dynamic barrier beaches and intertidal seashore areas that are covered at high tide and uncovered at low tide. This area has the potential to vary year-to-year. In other words, the precise location of the physical or biological features may shift daily as a result of tides, but also may shift over time somewhat because of the intrinsically dynamic nature of shorelines and due to sea level rise. In general, the physical or biological features we describe are the intertidal areas and sandy beaches up to the vegetated or developed areas that do not contain the physical or biological features.

(2) The availability of different habitats based on the tide cycle may also cause rufa red knots to vary foraging or roosting locations throughout a day and/or forage at night.

Table 1—Proposed Critical Habitat Land Ownership and Unit Size for the Rufa Red Knot

Critical habitat unit or subunit name (state)

Land ownership by type

Approximate acres

Approximate hectares

Massachusetts

MA-1 Pleasant Bay

Federal

126

51

State

0

0

Private/Other

1,596

646

Uncategorized

2,634

1,066

Total

4,357

1,763

MA-2 Monomoy and South Beach Islands

Federal

4,047

1,638

State

0

0

Private/Other

1,045

423

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

5,093

2,061

New York

NY-1 Moriches Inlet

Federal

78

32

State

63

25

Private/Other

163

66

Uncategorized

697

282

Total

1,001

405

NY-2 Jones Inlet

Federal

0

0

State

710

287

Private/Other

1,111

450

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,821

737

NY-3 Jamaica Bay

Federal

5,458

2,209

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

5,458

2,209

New Jersey

NJ-1 Brigantine and Little Egg Inlets

Federal

1,560

632

State

3,187

1,291

Private/Other

10

4

Uncategorized

4,961

2,006

Total

9,719

3,933

NJ-2 Seven Mile Beach

Federal

0

0

State

0

0

Private/Other

536

217

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

536

217

NJ-3 Hereford Inlet

Federal

0

0

State

175

71

Private/Other

735

297

Uncategorized

721

292

Total

1,631

660

NJ-4 Two Mile Beach

Federal

128

52

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

128

52

NJ-5 Cape May Bayshore

Federal

133

54

State

44

18

Private/Other

167

67

Uncategorized

858

347

Total

1,202

487

NJ-6 Dennis Creek

Federal

0

0

State

279

113

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

279

113

NJ-7 Heislerville

Federal

0

0

State

524

211

Private/Other

459

186

Uncategorized

127

52

Total

1,110

449

NJ-8 Egg Island

Federal

0

0

State

1,908

773

Private/Other

32

13

Uncategorized

14

5

Total

1,955

791

NJ-9 Newport Neck

Federal

0

0

State

202

82

Private/Other

176

71

Uncategorized

93

38

Total

472

191

Delaware

DE-1A St. Jones North

Federal

0

0

State

37

15

Private/Other

3

1

Uncategorized

3

1

Total

43

18

DE-1B St. Jones South

Federal

0

0

State

1

0.5

Private/Other

2

0.6

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

3

1

DE-2A North Brokonbridge Gut

Federal

0

0

State

2

1

Private/Other

91

37

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

93

37

DE-2B South Brokonbridge Gut

Federal

0

0

State

0

0

Private/Other

70

29

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

70

29

DE-3A Main Harbor

Federal

0

0

State

32

13

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

29

12

Total

61

25

DE-3B Rawley Island Roost

Federal

0

0

State

1,139

461

Private/Other

153

62

Uncategorized

6

2

Total

1,298

525

DE-3C Slaughter Beach

Federal

1

0.25

State

59

24

Private/Other

2

1

Uncategorized

528

213

Total

590

239

DE-4 Prime Hook

Federal

480

195

State

0

0

Private/Other

6

2

Uncategorized

63

25

Total

549

222

Virginia

VA-1 Assateague Island

Federal

2,817

1,140

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

2,817

1,140

VA-2A Wallops Island North

Federal

540

218

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

540

218

VA-2B Wallops Island South

Federal

31

13

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

31

13

VA-3 Assawoman Island

Federal

633

256

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

633

256

VA-4 Metompkin Island

Federal

64

26

State

56

22

Private/Other

1,239

502

Uncategorized

110

44

Total

1,468

594

VA-5 Cedar Island

Federal

203

82

State

77

31

Private/Other

920

372

Uncategorized

1,074

434

Total

2,274

920

VA-6 Parramore Island

Federal

0

0

State

0

0

Private/Other

5,631

2,280

Uncategorized

1,171

473

Total

6,802

2,753

VA-7 Chimney Pole Marsh

Federal

0

0

State

1,224

496

Private/Other

285

116

Uncategorized

495

200

Total

2,004

811

VA-8 Hog Island

Federal

0

0

State

16

7

Private/Other

2,966

1,201

Uncategorized

253

101

Total

3,235

1,309

VA-9 Cobb Island

Federal

0

0

State

16

7

Private/Other

1,778

720

Uncategorized

547

221

Total

2,342

948

VA-10 Little Cobb Island

Federal

0

0

State

0

0

Private/Other

82

33

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

82

33

VA-11 Wreck Island

Federal

0

0

State

1,270

514

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,270

514

VA-12 Myrtle Island

Federal

0

0

State

0

0

Private/Other

1,028

417

Uncategorized

388

156

Total

1,416

573

VA-13 Smith Island

Federal

0

0

State

0

0

Private/Other

2,529

1,024

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

2,529

1,024

North Carolina

NC-1A Hatteras Island and Shoals

Federal

4,940

1,999

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

814

329

Total

5,754

2,329

NC-1B Ocracoke Island

Federal

1,427

577

State

3,612

1,462

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

575

233

Total

5,613

2,271

NC-2A North Core Banks

Federal

6,534

2,644

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

1,654

669

Total

8,187

3,313

NC-2B South Core Banks

Federal

3,094

1,252

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

3,094

1,252

NC-3 Shackleford Island

Federal

4,972

2,012

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

4,972

2,012

NC-4 Emerald Isle-Atlantic Beach

Federal

0

0

State

1,908

772

Private/Other

122

50

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

2,030

822

NC-5 New Topsail Inlet-Topsail Beach

Federal

0

0

State

0

0

Private/Other

1,612

652

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,612

652

NC-6 Cape Fear-Fort Fisher

Federal

0

0

State

1,713

693

Private/Other

274

111

Uncategorized

0.00

0

Total

1,986

804

NC-7 Ocean Isle Beach

Federal

0

0

State

182

73

Private/Other

116

47

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

298

120

NC-8 Sunset Beach-Bird Island

Federal

0

0

State

345

139

Private/Other

39

16

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

384

155

South Carolina

SC-1 Garden City Beach

Federal

0

0

State

267

108

Private/Other

349

141

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

616

249

SC-2 Huntington Beach State Park/Litchfield Beach

Federal

0

0

State

80

32

Private/Other

1,554

629

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,634

661

SC-3 Sand and South Island Beaches

Federal

0

0

State

7,843

3,174

Private/Other

129

52

Uncategorized

283

115

Total

8,256

3,341

SC-4 Murphy Island Beach

Federal

0

0

State

8,312

3,364

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

8,312

3,364

SC-5 North Cape Island Beach

Federal

775

313

State

495

200

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,270

514

SC-6 South Cape and Lighthouse Island Beaches

Federal

1,552

628

State

485

196

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

2,037

824

SC-7 Raccoon Key Complex and White Banks Beaches

Federal

5,324

2,154

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

5,324

2,154

SC-8 Marsh Island

Federal

415

168

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

415

168

SC-9 Bulls Island Beach

Federal

5,200

2,104

State

941

381

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

6,141

2,485

SC-10 Capers Island Beach

Federal

0

0

State

2,534

1,026

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

2,534

1,026

SC-11 Dewees Island Beach

Federal

0

0

State

265

107

Private/Other

1,547

626

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,812

733

SC-12 Isle of Palms Beach

Federal

0

0

State

754

305

Private/Other

3,363

1,361

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

4,117

1,666

SC-13 Sullivan's Island Beach

Federal

83

34

State

694

281

Private/Other

1,005

407

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,782

721

SC-14 Folly Beach

Federal

0

0

State

0

0

Private/Other

1,989

805

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,989

805

SC-15 Bird Key-Stono

Federal

0

0

State

294

119

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

294

119

SC-16 Kiawah and Seabrook Island Beaches

Federal

0

0

State

1,399

566

Private/Other

9,850

3,986

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

11,250

4,553

SC-17 Deveaux Bank

Federal

0

0

State

1,328

538

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,328

538

SC-18 Edisto Island Beaches

Federal

0

0

State

650

263

Private/Other

1,093

442

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,743

705

SC-19 Pine and Otter Island Beaches

Federal

0

0

State

6,296

2,548

Private/Other

6

2

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

6,302

2,550

SC-20 Harbor and Hunting Island Beaches

Federal

0

0

State

3,246

1,313

Private/Other

820

331

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

4,066

1,645

SC-21 Fripp Island Beach

Federal

0

0

State

305

124

Private/Other

429

174

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

734

297

SC-22 Hilton Head Island Beach

Federal

0

0

State

1,015

411

Private/Other

667

270

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,682

681

SC-23 Daufuskie Island Beach

Federal

0

0

State

0

0

Private/Other

6,370

2,578

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

6,370

2,578

SC-24 Turtle Island Beach

Federal

0

0

State

1,798

728

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,798

728

SC-25 Jones Island Beach

Federal

785

318

State

2,240

907

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

3,025

1,225

Georgia

GA-1 Tybee Island Beach

Federal

0

0

State

6

2

Private/Other

1,721

697

Uncategorized

319

129

Total

2,046

828

GA-2 Little Tybee Island Complex

Federal

0

0

State

0

0

Private/Other

8,265

3,345

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

8,265

3,345

GA-3 Wassaw Island Beach

Federal

3,001

1,215

State

0

0

Private/Other

274

111

Uncategorized

1,020

412

Total

4,296

1,738

GA-4 Raccoon Key

Federal

0

0

State

1,599

647

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,599

647

GA-5 Ossabaw Island Beach

Federal

0

0

State

28,621

11,591

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

3,736

1,503

Total

32,357

13,094

GA-6 St. Catherine's Island Beach

Federal

0

0

State

2,106

853

Private/Other

11,810

4,783

Uncategorized

2,046

824

Total

15,962

6,460

GA-7 Blackbeard Island Beach

Federal

4,954

2,006

State

80

32

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

1,287

519

Total

6,321

2,557

GA-8 Sapelo Island Beach

Federal

0

0

State

2,481

845

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

2,481

845

GA-9 Wolf Island, Egg Island, Little Egg Island, and Little Egg Island Bar

Federal

2,975

1,204

State

240

97

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

2,093

847

Total

5,308

2,148

GA-10 Little St. Simon's Island Beach

Federal

0

0

State

113

46

Private/Other

7,462

3,022

Uncategorized

1,479

596

Total

9,053

3,664

GA-11 Sea and St. Simon's Island Beaches

Federal

0

0

State

4

1

Private/Other

3,448

1,395

Uncategorized

581

235

Total

4,033

1,631

GA-12 Jekyll Island Beach

Federal

0

0

State

5,944

2,406

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

343

139

Total

6,287

2,545

GA-13 Little Cumberland and Cumberland Island Beaches

Federal

23,367

9,464

State

1,685

682

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

3,085

1,241

Total

28,137

11,387

Florida

FL-1 Nassau Sound-Fort George Sound-Fort George Inlet Complex

Federal

996

404

State

522

211

Private/Other

27

11

Uncategorized

2,779

6,116

Total

4,324

6,742

FL-2 Ponce Inlet Complex

Federal

16,660

6,742

State

3,005

1,216

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

18

7

Total

19,683

7,965

FL-3 Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Impoundments

Federal

6,947

2,811

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

6,947

2,811

FL-4A Cape Romano Complex

Federal

13,138

5,321

State

12,605

5,105

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

470

182

Total

26,213

10,608

FL-4B Marco Island

Federal

0

0

State

408

165

Private/Other

8

3

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

416

168

FL-5 Marco Bay Complex

Federal

0

0

State

3,531

1,429

Private/Other

58

24

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

3,589

1,453

FL-6A Cocohatchee Inlet Complex

Federal

0

0

State

9

4

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

9

4

FL-6B Barefoot Beach

Federal

0

0

State

18

7

Private/Other

21

9

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

39

16

FL-7A Lovers Key

Federal

0

0

State

4

1

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

4

1

FL-7B Estero Island

Federal

0

0

State

171

69

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

171

69

FL-8 Bunche Beach

Federal

23

9

State

264

107

Private/Other

47

19

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

334

135

FL-9A J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge

Federal

3,451

1,397

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

3,451

1,397

FL-9B Sanibel Island

Federal

307

124

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

307

124

FL-10A Don Pedro

Federal

0

0

State

147

60

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

147

60

FL-10B Stump Pass Beach State Park

Federal

0

0

State

11

4

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

11

4

FL-11 Siesta Key

Federal

0

0

State

53

21

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

53

21

FL-12A Lido Key

Federal

0

0

State

81

33

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

81

33

FL-12B Longboat Key

Federal

0

0

State

369

149

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

369

149

FL-13 North Anna Maria Island

Federal

56

23

State

889

360

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

945

383

FL-14 Egmont Key

Federal

15

6

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

15

6

FL-15A Fort De Soto County Park

Federal

0

0

State

0

0

Private/Other

427

173

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

427

173

FL-15B Shell Key Preserve

Federal

0

0

State

322

130

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

322

130

FL-15C Saint Petersburg Beach

Federal

0

0

State

107

43

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

107

43

FL-16 Indian Shores/Redington Beach

Federal

0

0

State

196

79

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

196

79

FL-17 Belleair Beach

Federal

0

0

State

123

50

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

123

50

FL-18A Caladesi Island

Federal

0

0

State

259

105

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

259

105

FL-18B Honeymoon Island

Federal

0

0

State

294

119

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

294

119

FL-18C Three Rooker Bar

Federal

0

0

State

335

136

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

335

136

FL-19 Anclote Key

Federal

0

0

State

1,547

626

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,547

626

FL-20 Cedar Keys Complex

Federal

2,498

1,012

State

7,792

3,153

Private/Other

5,928

2,293

Uncategorized

19,407

7,959

Total

35,626

14,417

FL-21 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge

Federal

2,074

839

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

2,074

839

FL-22A Mashes Sands

Federal

0

0

State

262

106

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

262

106

FL-22B Bald Point State Park

Federal

0

0

State

439

178

Private/Other

6

2

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

445

180

FL-22C Alligator Point

Federal

0

0

State

0

0

Private/Other

722

292

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

722

292

FL-23A Turkey Point Shoal

Federal

0

0

State

531

215

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

531

215

FL-23B Lanark Reef

Federal

0

0

State

805

326

Private/Other

61

25

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

865

350

FL-23C East Dog Island

Federal

0

0

State

0

0

Private/Other

771

312

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

771

312

FL-23D West Dog Island

Federal

0

0

State

0

0

Private/Other

751

304

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

751

304

FL-23E McKissack Beach, Carrabelle

Federal

0

0

State

114

46

Private/Other

3

1

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

117

47

FL-23F East St. George Island State Park

Federal

0

0

State

978

396

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

978

396

FL-23G St. George Island State Park and Bayshore Shoals

Federal

0

0

State

162

65

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

162

65

FL-24A Little St. George Island State Park-West

Federal

0

0

State

953

386

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

953

386

FL-24B St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge

Federal

742

300

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

742

300

FL-24C Flagg Island Shoals

Federal

0

0

State

517

209

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

517

209

FL-25A Cape San Blas to Indian Pass

Federal

0

0

State

133

54

Private/Other

486

197

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

620

251

FL-25B St. Joseph Bay-Eastern Shore

Federal

0

0

State

761

308

Private/Other

66

27

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

827

335

Alabama

AL-1 Dauphin Island

Federal

484

196

State

848

343

Private/Other

3,834

1,552

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

5,167

2,091

Mississippi

MS-1 Ship Island

Federal

2,452

993

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

2,452

993

MS-2 Cat Island

Federal

686

278

State

1,305

528

Private/Other

129

52

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

2,121

858

Louisiana

LA-1 Chandeleur Islands

Federal

7,632

3,088

State

0

0

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

7,632

3,088

LA-2 Barataria Barrier Islands and Headlands

Federal

0

0

State

126

51

Private/Other

7,669

3,104

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

7,795

3,155

LA-3 Terrebonne Barrier Islands

Federal

0

0

State

2,900

1,173

Private/Other

2,172

879

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

5,072

2,052

LA-4 Southwest Louisiana Beaches

Federal

0

0

State

1,497

606

Private/Other

4,633

1,875

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

6,130

2,481

Texas

TX-1 Rollover Pass to Bolivar Flats

Federal

0

0

State

268

108

Private/Other

996

403

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,264

511

TX-2 West Galveston Island

Federal

0

0

State

307

124

Private/Other

282

114

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

590

239

TX-3 Cedar Lake to Colorado River

Federal

0

0

State

1,075

438

Private/Other

128

52

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,204

487

TX-4 Mustang Island

Federal

0

0

State

395

160

Private/Other

253

102

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

648

262

TX-5 Mollie Beattie Coastal Habitat

Federal

0

0

State

505

205

Private/Other

218

88

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

723

293

TX-6 North Padre Island

Federal

2,487

1,007

State

68

27

Private/Other

262

106

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

2,817

1,140

TX-7 Upper Laguna Madre/Nighthawk Bay

Federal

273

111

State

816

330

Private/Other

68

28

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

1,157

469

TX-8 Dagger Hill/Yarborough Pass/Nine Mile Hole

Federal

9,731

3,938

State

23,042

9,332

Private/Other

0

0

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

32,773

13,270

TX-9 Pintail Lake/Padre Island/La Punta Larga

Federal

25,881

10,482

State

34,165

13,826

Private/Other

34,125

13,802

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

94,171

38,110

TX-10 Peyton's Bay/Arroyo Colorado/Three Islands/Gabrielson Island

Federal

8,145

3,296

State

25,316

10,245

Private/Other

2,190

886

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

35,651

14,427

TX-11 South Bay/Boca Chica

Federal

5,536

2,242

State

3,923

1,589

Private/Other

5,784

2,342

Uncategorized

0

0

Total

15,243

6,173

Note:

Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Table 2—Co-Occurring Critical Habitat Designations That Overlap Proposed Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot

State

Area of overlap with designated critical habitat in acres (ac)/hectares (ha) (# of proposed rufa red knot units or subunits overlapping)

Piping plover

Loggerhead sea turtle

West indian manatee

Gulf sturgeon

Aboriginal

prickly-apple

Total overlap

(combined)

for each state

in acres (ac)/

hectares (ha)

North Carolina

10,621 ac/4,298 ha (10)

3,523 ac/1,426 ha(3)

N/A

N/A

N/A

13,874 ac/5,614 ha.

South Carolina

4,955 ac/2,005 ha(13)

5,315 ac/2,151 ha(12)

N/A

N/A

N/A

9,302 ac/3,764 ha.

Georgia

15,369 ac/6,220 ha(12)

10,903 ac/4,412 ha(7)

N/A

N/A

N/A

21,698 ac/8,781 ha.

Florida

7,617 ac/3,082 ha (20)

7,114 ac/2,879 ha (17)

20,720 ac/8,385 ha (11)

8,970 ac/3,630 ha(11)

77 ac/31 ha (4)

37,801 ac/15,297 ha.

Alabama

2,381 ac/963 ha (1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2,381 ac/963 ha.

Mississippi

4,538 ac/1,837 ha (2)

N/A

N/A

1,866 ac/755 ha (2)

N/A

4,488 ac/ 1,816 ha.

Louisiana

17,154 ac/6,942 ha (4)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

17,154 ac/6,942 ha.

Texas

153,726 ac/62,211 ha (11)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

153,726 ac/62,211 ha.

Total

216,361 ac/87,558 ha (73)

26,855 ac/10,868 ha (39)

20,720 ac/8,385 ha (11)

10,836 ac/4,385 ha (13)

77 ac/31 ha (4)

260,424 ac/105,388 ha.

* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

We present brief descriptions of all units and subunits, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the rufa red knot, below.

Unit MA-1: Pleasant Bay

Unit MA-1 consists of approximately 4,357 ac (1,763 ha) of highly dynamic barrier beaches and intertidal (

i.e.,

seashore that is covered at high tide and uncovered at low tide) areas in the towns of Chatham and Orleans in Barnstable County, Massachusetts. The unit includes exposed intertidal flats, shoals, mudflats, and intertidal salt marsh pannes in Little Pleasant Bay and Pleasant Bay, and ephemeral tidal pools, primary sand dunes, and beaches associated with Nauset Beach South (Orleans), North Beach (Chatham), and North Beach Island (Chatham). The unit begins in the mid-section of Little Pleasant Bay going east to “mean lower low water” (MLLW;

i.e.,

the lowest of the low tides per day averaged over a 19-year period) on the east side of Nauset Beach South, continuing south along Nauset Beach South and North Beach to North Beach Island at MLLW and terminating at the natural channel between North Beach Island and South Beach Island (Chatham). The western side of the unit runs offshore of the mainland, west of small islands in Pleasant and Little Pleasant Bays (Little Sipson Island, Strong Island, and Tern Island), incorporating intertidal lands associated with the islands. Lands within this unit include approximately 126 ac (51 ha; 3 percent) in Federal ownership, 1,596 ac (646 ha; 37 percent) in private/other ownership, and 2,634 ac (1,066 ha; 60 percent) that are uncategorized. General land use within this unit is primarily recreational, including off-shore and surf fishing, shellfish digging, (both recreational and commercial), boating, over-sand vehicle use, sunbathing, swimming, and walking.

Unit MA-1 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The unit contains a high concentration of rufa red knots during the spring and fall migration periods, serving as an important northbound and southbound stopover site in the New England portion of the subspecies range. Additionally, this location consistently supports a few thousand migrating rufa red knots due to the large intertidal areas and beach habitat that provides multiple foraging and roosting habitat areas for the birds to build energy resources for migration.

Threats identified within Unit MA-1 include disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa red knots by humans and human activities including but not limited to, pets and domestic animals, ORVs, powered and unpowered boats, surf kites, and surf fishing, predation (especially by migrating raptors and owls), possible modification or loss of habitat (

e.g.,

dredging or mining of sand flats), and natural or human-caused disasters (

i.e.,

oil spills). Special management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include managing access to rufa red knot foraging habitat and adjacent saltmarsh and upland roosting habitat during migration (through restrictions on timing, locations, and types of activities), and addressing the impacts of potential oil spills through protective spill response plans and training (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). The National Park Service (NPS) manages Cape Cod National Seashore under a comprehensive shorebird management plan (NPS 2018, entire) (Shorebird

Plan). However, due to the small and isolated nature of NPS inholdings in this unit, these areas are not actively managed under the Shorebird Plan.

Unit MA-2: Monomoy and South Beach Islands

Unit MA-2 consists of 5,093 ac (2,061 ha) of highly dynamic barrier beaches and intertidal areas in the town of Chatham in Barnstable County, Massachusetts. The unit includes exposed intertidal sand and mud flats and shoals, ephemeral tidal pools, saltmarsh, primary sand dunes, and beaches associated with North and South Monomoy Islands, Minimoy Island, and the South Beach Island complex (multiple islands associated with South Beach as the island naturally grows and splits over time). The northeastern tip of the unit incorporates the South Beach Island complex and adjacent intertidal sand and mud flats and shoals, and runs south to include North and South Monomoy Islands, Minimoy Island (part of the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)), and the extensive intertidal sand flats adjacent to the islands and south of Morris Island (Chatham). Lands within this unit include approximately 4,047 ac (1,638 ha; 79 percent) in Federal ownership and 1,045 ac (423 ha; 21 percent) in private/other ownership. General land use within this unit is recreational, including off-shore and surf fishing, shellfish digging, boating, sunbathing, swimming, wildlife observation, and walking. Commercial shellfish harvesting and research also occur.

Unit MA-2 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high concentration of rufa red knots during the spring and fall migration periods, serving as an important northbound and southbound stopover site in the New England portion of the subspecies range. Additionally, this location consistently supports a few thousand migrating rufa red knots due to the large intertidal areas and beach habitat that provides multiple foraging and roosting habitat areas for the birds to build energy resources for migration.

With the exception of the designated wilderness area on Monomoy NWR that incorporates North and South Monomoy Islands and Minimoy Island, the threats identified within Unit MA-2 include disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa red knots by humans and human activities, including pets and domestic animals, powered and unpowered boats, surf kites, and surf fishing. Predation (especially by migrating raptors and owls) and human-caused or natural disasters may affect the entire unit. Special management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include managing access to rufa red knot foraging habitat and adjacent saltmarsh and upland roosting habitat during migration (through restrictions on timing, locations, and types of activities), and addressing the impacts of potential oil spills with protective spill response plans and training (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). Management that benefits rufa red knots or their habitat in this unit currently occurs primarily on Federal lands, which are managed under the 2016 Monomoy NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Service 2016b, entire). Ongoing research occurs throughout this unit as funds and staffing allow.

Unit NY-1: Moriches Inlet

Unit NY-1 consists of 1,001 ac (405 ha) of highly dynamic beach, sand flats, bay islands, back bay shoreline, intertidal areas, and surface water within the towns of Brookhaven and Southampton, Suffolk County, New York. Lands within this unit include approximately 78 ac (32 ha; 8 percent) in Federal ownership; 63 ac (25 ha; 6 percent) in State ownership, 163 ac (66 ha; 16 percent) in private/other (including the towns of Brookhaven and Southampton) ownership, and 697 ac (282 ha; 70 percent) that are uncategorized. The unit is irregularly shaped and bounded to the south by the Atlantic Ocean, to the west by West Inlet Island (Brookhaven), and to the east by the sand spit north of the Village of West Hampton Dunes (Southampton). Its northern boundary lies approximately in the middle of Moriches Bay at the widest portion of the unit. Additionally, the northern and southern areas of the unit are not contiguous, as they are separated by a vegetated dune, parking lot, and roadway system. General land use within this unit is recreational activities (

e.g.,

fishing, bird watching, boating, open space use) and commercial shell fishing. Coastal engineering structures are generally limited to the inlet jetty and revetment along the north side of Cupsogue Beach (stretches from Riches Inlet to the border of the Village of West Hampton Dunes), but beach nourishment programs are implemented along the ocean beach by the Corps (via coordination and agreements with the State of New York and Suffolk County).

Unit NY-1 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high concentration of rufa red knots during the spring migration period, serving as an important northbound stopover site. The area has a relatively undeveloped character that provides protection from intensive human uses. Episodic storm events have also contributed to habitat creation, and, in turn, optimal rufa red knot habitat conditions. The bay islands and associated wetlands are managed for wildlife, which provides some limits to the amount of disturbance that rufa red knots or their habitat may experience from recreation and other human activities (

e.g.,

commercial shell fishing, dredging, and shoreline dock/pier projects).

Threats identified within Unit NY-1 include: (1) Sea level rise; (2) coastal engineering activities (

e.g.,

beach nourishment; jetty maintenance; and dredging that could remove habitat, preclude the formation of habitat such as exposed shoals, and impact adjacent shoreline habitats by altering currents and sediment transport/deposition patterns); (3) predation in nonbreeding areas; and (4) human disturbance (

e.g.,

recreational fishing and driving, and motorized boat traffic or aircraft that create noise disturbance). Special management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include reducing disturbance (

e.g.,

humans, pets, vehicles, watercraft), conducting predator control, and implementing conservation measures that help reduce modification or loss of habitat from hard and soft beach stabilization efforts (

e.g.,

time-of-year restrictions for beach nourishment and dredging activities, establishing temporary sanctuaries and management during certain times of year to address erosion) (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). State lands (both marine and estuarine habitats within this unit) are managed in cooperation with the New York State Wildlife Action Plan (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 2015, entire). Additionally, the designated South Shore Estuary Reserve implements a Comprehensive Management Plan (South Shore Estuary Reserve Council 2001, entire), which encompasses both Units NY-1 and NY-2, and serves as a guidance document for municipalities and private/public sectors to conserve or protect habitats and waters within the Reserve.

Unit NY-2: Jones Inlet

Unit NY-2 consists of 1,821 ac (737 ha) in two areas within the Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New York. This unit is composed of ocean beach habitat, sand flats, bay islands, and small embayments. It is irregularly shaped and is bounded to the south by the Atlantic Ocean, to the west by Point Lookout, to the north by a line running in Hempstead Bay, and to the east at the eastern extent of Zachs Bay. The northern and southern areas of the unit are not contiguous, as they are separated by a vegetated dune, parking lot, and roadway system. Lands within NY-2 include approximately 710 ac (287 ha; 39 percent) in State ownership and 1,111 ac (450 ha; 61 percent) that are under private/other ownership. General land use includes recreational activities such as bird watching, surfcast fishing, sunbathing, nature walks, swimming, boat fishing, commercial and recreational fishing and shell fishing. Coastal engineering structures, as well as docks and piers, are generally limited to (or associated with) the Jones Inlet jetties and revetments, Loop Parkway bridge, and along the north side of Jones Island near the U.S. Coast Guard Station Jones Beach, and in Zach's Bay.

Unit NY-2 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high concentration of rufa red knots during the spring migration period, serving as an important northbound stopover site. This location has a relatively undeveloped character that provides protection from intensive human uses that occur throughout the majority of Long Island and surrounding area. Episodic storm events have also contributed to habitat creation, and, in turn, optimal rufa red knot habitat conditions. The bay islands and associated wetlands are managed for wildlife, which provides some limits to the amount of disturbance that rufa red knots or their habitat may experience from recreation, channel maintenance activities (

e.g.,

dredging and dredge material disposal), and vector control activities (

e.g.,

aerial mosquito spraying).

Threats identified within Unit NY-2 include: (1) Sea level rise; (2) coastal engineering activities (

e.g.,

jetty maintenance; dredging that could remove habitat, preclude the formation of habitat such as exposed shoals, and impact adjacent shoreline habitats by altering currents and sediment transport/deposition patterns); (3) predation in nonbreeding areas; and (4) human disturbance (

e.g.,

recreational fishing and driving, and motorized boat traffic or aircraft that create noise disturbance). Special management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include reducing disturbance (

e.g.,

humans, pets, vehicles, and watercraft), conducting predator control, and implementing conservation measures that help reduce modification or loss of habitat from hard and soft beach stabilization efforts (

e.g.,

time-of-year restrictions for beach nourishment and dredging activities, establishing temporary sanctuaries and management during certain times of year to address erosion) (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). State lands (both marine and estuarine habitats within this unit) are managed in cooperation with the New York State Wildlife Action Plan (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 2015, entire). Additionally, the designated South Shore Estuary Reserve implements a Comprehensive Management Plan (South Shore Estuary Reserve Council 2001, entire), which encompasses both this unit and Unit NY-1, and serves as a guidance document for municipalities and private/public sectors to conserve or protect habitats and waters within the Reserve.

Unit NY-3: Jamaica Bay

Unit NY-3 consists of a total of 5,458 ac (2,209 ha) in Queens County, New York, and falls within a back bay that is primarily within the NPS' Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Gateway National Recreation Area. This unit is irregularly shaped and is bounded in the north by a line running roughly between the northernmost bay islands and the mainland of Long Island, in the west by a line running roughly between the westernmost bay islands and the mainland of Long Island, in the east by a line running offshore of East Pond, and in the south by a line running between the southernmost bay islands and the Rockaway Barrier Spit. Lands within NY-2 are all in Federal ownership. General land use within this unit includes recreational activities (

e.g.,

wildlife viewing, bird watching, recreational fishing, and use of open space) and development. Coastal engineering structures, as well as docks and piers, are generally limited to the residential and commercial development at Broad Channel and the railroad and bridge infrastructure.

Unit NY-3 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high concentration of rufa red knots during the spring migration period, serving as an important northbound stopover site, in part due to its expansive wetlands and associated flats that are protected from intensive human uses. Episodic storm events have contributed to habitat creation, and, in turn, optimal rufa red knot habitat conditions. The bay islands and associated wetlands are managed for wildlife, which provides some limits to the amount of disturbance that rufa red knots or their habitat may experience from recreation, dredging, and dredge spoil deposition activities.

Threats identified within Unit NY-3 include: (1) Sea level rise; (2) coastal engineering activities (

e.g.,

jetty maintenance; dredging that could remove habitat, preclude the formation of habitat such as exposed shoals, and impact adjacent shoreline habitats by altering currents and sediment transport/deposition patterns); (3) predation in nonbreeding areas; and (4) human disturbance (

e.g.,

recreational fishing and driving, and motorized boat traffic or aircraft that create noise disturbance). Special management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include reducing disturbance (

e.g.,

humans, pets, vehicles, and watercraft), conducting predator control, and implementing conservation measures that help reduce modification or loss of habitat from hard and soft beach stabilization efforts (

e.g.,

time-of-year restrictions for beach nourishment and dredging activities, establishing temporary sanctuaries and management during certain times of year to address erosion) (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). The Federal lands are managed by the NPS via the NPS Gateway National Recreation Area Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) dated April 2014 (NPS 2014a, entire), which provides a management plan for Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge (included, in part, in the proposed critical habitat designation).

Unit NJ-1: Brigantine and Little Egg Inlets

Unit NJ-1 consists of 9,719 ac (3,933 ha) of beach, dune, shoals, open water, and tidal marsh associated with two inlets (

i.e.,

small arms of the ocean) in Ocean and Atlantic Counties, New Jersey, extending from the northern boundary of the Holgate Unit of Edwin B. Forsythe (Forsythe) NWR, west to the “Seven Islands” portion of Great Bay Boulevard Wildlife Management Area, and south nearly to 15th Street North in

Brigantine City. To the north, the unit encompasses the Holgate Unit of the Forsythe NWR and includes several areas within the Great Bay Boulevard Wildlife Management Area, owned by the State of New Jersey (

e.g.,

Seven Islands and other islands on either side of Great Bay Boulevard south of Big Sheepshead Creek). The unit also includes portions of Little Beach Island within the Forsythe NWR, and portions of the North Brigantine Natural Area owned by the State of New Jersey. This unit includes extensive areas of shoals and sand or mud flats, which are generally owned by the State. Lands within this unit include approximately 1,560 ac (632 ha; 16 percent) in Federal ownership, 3,187 ac (1,291 ha; 32 percent) in State ownership, 10 ac (4 ha; less than 1 percent) in private/other ownership, and 4,961 ac (2,006 ha; 51 percent) that are uncategorized. General land use within this unit is almost entirely undeveloped and managed for wildlife and other natural resource values, as well as recreation.

Unit NJ-1 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high concentration of rufa red knots during the spring and fall migration periods, serving as an important northbound and southbound stopover site. This unit has an undeveloped character that provides protection from intensive human uses. The lack of hard structures and other coastal engineering practices in this unit allows optimal rufa red knot habitat conditions to be created and maintained by natural coastal processes, which is a condition that is rare in the mid-Atlantic. The Little Egg Inlet is the only unmodified inlet in New Jersey and one of only two unmodified inlets between Montauk, New York, and Chincoteague, Virginia, a shoreline distance of nearly 350 mi (563 km) (Rice 2016, pp. 24-25). Nearly all the lands in the unit are managed for wildlife, which limits disturbance of rufa red knots from recreation and other human activities.

Threats identified within Unit NJ-1 include: (1) Sea level rise that may accelerate faster than landforms can migrate through natural coastal processes; (2) coastal engineering activities (

e.g.,

ongoing updrift beach nourishment; proposed enlargement of a terminal groin immediately adjacent to the unit's northern limit; ongoing and proposed dredging that could remove habitat (

e.g.,

exposed shoals), preclude habitat formation, and/or impact adjacent shoreline habitats by altering sediment transport/deposition patterns); (3) aquaculture leases; (4) predation in nonbreeding areas; and (5) human disturbance (

e.g.,

recreational fishing and driving in the fall, motorized boat traffic and aircraft year round). Special management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include managing sources of disturbance (

e.g.,

humans, pets, vehicles, watercraft, and aircraft), managing predator populations, and implementing conservation measures to abate habitat impacts from coastal engineering projects and from sea level rise (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). Federal lands in this unit are managed under the Edwin B. Forsythe NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Service 2004a, entire). State lands within the North Brigantine Natural Area are covered by a Beach Management Plan (Service and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2019, entire).

Unit NJ-2: Seven Mile Beach

Unit NJ-2 consists of 536 ac (217 ha) of sandy ocean-front beach in Avalon and Stone Harbor Boroughs, Cape May County, New Jersey, from the jetty at 8th Street in Avalon near Townsends Inlet and extending south to 102nd Street in Stone Harbor. The western boundary of the unit is landward of the beach and primary dune along the vegetation line where the habitat changes from sandy beach or dune with little vegetation to dense herbaceous or shrub vegetation or along developed structures when present. The eastern boundary includes emergent sand shoals and sand flats exposed at low tide. All lands within this unit are in private/other ownership. General land use within this unit includes tourism and recreation; the beach abuts high-density residential and commercial development and features many private and public beach access points.

Unit NJ-2 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high concentration of rufa red knots during the fall migration period, serving as an important southbound stopover site.

Threats identified within Unit NJ-2 include: (1) Coastal engineering activities (

e.g.,

existing hard stabilization structures, ongoing beach nourishment and sediment backpassing, ongoing sand fencing and vegetation planting); (2) existing coastal development that may block beach migration as sea level rise accelerates; (3) beach cleaning; (4) predation in nonbreeding areas (

e.g.,

human-supported feral cat concentrations and other human-commensal predators such as gulls and domestic cats); and (5) human disturbance (

e.g.,

life-guarded bathing beaches in late spring and summer, recreational fishing and driving in fall, personal watercraft, aircraft including low and slow-flying “banner” (advertisement) planes). Special management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include sediment management to maintain habitat features such as wide beaches and high prey densities, managing predator populations, addressing beach management practices such as beach cleaning and sand fencing, and managing disturbance from recreation and other human activities (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). All beaches in this unit are covered by Beach Management Plans (Avalon Borough Department of Public Works and the Avalon Environmental Commission 2008, entire; Stone Harbor Borough 2009, entire).

Unit NJ-3: Hereford Inlet

Unit NJ-3 consists of 1,631 ac (660 ha) of sandy oceanfront beaches, unstabilized barrier peninsula, undeveloped marsh islands, and several areas of tidal flats and shoals in Cape May County, New Jersey, extending along the ocean from 111th Street in Stone Harbor Borough south to 22nd Avenue in North Wildwood City. The unit also includes areas behind the barrier island in Middle Township, Stone Harbor, and North Wildwood extending from Stone Harbor Boulevard south along Great Channel to Nummy Island and the southern shoreline of Grassy Sound Channel. Lands within this unit include approximately 175 ac (71 ha; 11 percent) in State ownership, 735 ac (297 ha; 45 percent) in private/other ownership, and 721 ac (292 ha; 44 percent) that are uncategorized. General land use within this unit varies from intensively developed recreational beaches along parts of the ocean front, to mixed management (

i.e.,

the Stone Harbor Point municipal conservation area managed for both wildlife and lower intensity, passive recreation), to conservation lands (

i.e.,

the Cape May Coastal Wetlands Wildlife Management Area owned by the State of New Jersey). The unit also includes privately and municipally owned undeveloped marshes, as well as tidal shoals and flats that are generally owned by the State.

Unit NJ-3 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high concentration of

rufa red knots during the spring and fall migration periods, serving as an important northbound and southbound stopover site on the mid-Atlantic Coast portion of the subspecies range. This unit also has extensive areas of conservation lands that offer protection from disturbance, as well as the unstabilized Stone Harbor Point peninsula. The peninsula not only supports migrants moving primarily along the Atlantic Coast, but is also well documented as among the most important roosting areas for those spring migrants that forage primarily in Delaware Bay (Sitters 2005, pp. 1-12).

Threats identified within Unit NJ-3 include: (1) Sea level rise that may accelerate faster than landforms can migrate through natural coastal processes; (2) coastal engineering activities (

e.g.,

existing hard stabilization structures, ongoing beach nourishment, dredging for beach nourishment and navigation); (3) existing coastal development that may block habitat migration as sea level rise accelerates; (4) beach cleaning; (5) predation in nonbreeding areas (

e.g.,

peregrine falcons, human-commensal predators); and (6) human disturbance (

e.g.,

life-guarded bathing beaches, fishing, motorized boat traffic including personal watercraft, aircraft including low and slow-flying banner planes). Special management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include implementing sediment management to maintain habitat features such as tidal flats, overwash areas, and high prey densities; managing predator populations; addressing beach management practices such as beach cleaning; and managing disturbance from recreation and other human activities (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). Portions of the municipal beaches within Stone Harbor Borough, and all municipal beaches within North Wildwood City, are covered by Beach Management Plans (Terwilliger Consulting, Inc. 2008, entire; North Wildwood City 2018, entire).

Unit NJ-4: Two Mile Beach

Unit NJ-4 consists of 128 ac (52 ha) of sandy oceanfront beach in Cape May County, New Jersey, from the northeastern boundary of the Two Mile Beach Unit of Cape May NWR extending southwest to include all beach portions of the U.S. Coast Guard Loran Support Unit, ending at the eastern jetty of the Cape May Inlet. All lands within this unit are in Federal ownership (NWR and U.S. Coast Guard). General land use within this unit is primarily managed for wildlife, but also includes compatible recreation and public access on the NWR beach, and certain activities of the U.S. Coast Guard Loran Support Unit. Under an inter-agency agreement, Cape May NWR staff manage sensitive beach species on both the NWR and U.S. Coast Guard portions of the beach.

Unit NJ-4 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high concentration of rufa red knots along the mid-Atlantic Coast's portion of the subspecies range during the winter period, providing important wintering habitat for foraging and roosting. This area is significant as the northern-most winter concentration area documented to date. Birds using this unit during the late fall and early winter may be more vulnerable to disturbance due to molting of the flight feathers.

Threats identified within Unit NJ-4 include: (1) Sea level rise, (2) coastal engineering (

e.g.,

existing hard structures, an overly stabilized dune system), (3) predation in nonbreeding areas, and (4) human disturbance (

e.g.,

pedestrians, aircraft including low- and slow-flying banner planes). Special management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include management of dunes, vegetation, predator populations, and human activity, including foot and air traffic (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). Federal lands in this unit are managed under the Cape May NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Service 2004b, entire).

Unit NJ-5: Cape May Bayshore

Unit NJ-5 consists of 1,202 ac (487 ha) of Delaware Bay beaches, flats, and shoals in Cape May County, New Jersey, from approximately Cloverdale Avenue in Lower Township to the jetty on the south shore of the mouth of Bidwell Creek in Middle Township. Lands within this unit include approximately 133 ac (54 ha; 11 percent) in Federal ownership, 44 ac (18 ha; 4 percent) in State ownership, 167 ac (67 ha; 14 percent) in private/other ownership, and 858 ac (347 ha; 71 percent) that are uncategorized. Areas with narrow beaches adjoining developed human communities (

e.g.,

Pierces Point, Reeds Beach) are not included in the unit. General land use within this unit includes residential development, recreation, wildlife conservation, aquaculture, and research.

Unit NJ-5 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high concentration of rufa red knots during the spring migration period, serving as an important northbound stopover site. This unit also has high concentrations of horseshoe crab eggs, and wide tidal flats that are important foraging habitat.

Threats identified within Unit NJ-5 include: (1) Sea level rise that may accelerate faster than landforms can migrate through natural coastal processes; (2) coastal engineering activities (

e.g.,

existing hard stabilization structures); (3) existing coastal development that may block habitat migration as sea level rise accelerates; (4) aquaculture; (5) predation in nonbreeding areas (

e.g.,

peregrine falcons); (6) vulnerable food resources (

e.g.,

past overharvest of horseshoe crabs), (7) timing asynchronies (

e.g.,

warming bay waters or erratic storms that change the peak timing of horseshoe crab spawning); (8) oil spills (

e.g.,

upstream petroleum port); and (9) human disturbance (

e.g.,

from personal watercraft and other motorized boats, aircraft including low- and slow-flying banner planes; pedestrian traffic is minimal due to a seasonal beach closure to public access). Special management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include habitat management or restoration (

e.g.,

living shorelines, facilitated shoreline migration); management of predator populations, aquaculture activities, and horseshoe crab fisheries; oil spill response planning; and management of human activities that disturb foraging rufa red knots (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). Management plans are in place and being actively implemented to address the horseshoe crab bait harvest (ASMFC 2012, entire) and structural aquaculture of oysters and other native bivalves (Service 2016a, entire). Federal lands in this unit are managed under the Cape May NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Service 2004b, entire).

Unit NJ-6: Dennis Creek

Unit NJ-6 consists of 279 ac (113 ha) of Delaware Bay beaches, flats, and shoals in Cape May County, New Jersey, from the northern shore of Bidwell Creek north to about 0.5 mi (0.8 km) north of Dennis Creek. All lands within this unit are in State ownership, managed by the State of New Jersey as the Dennis Creek Wildlife Management Area. General land use within this unit

includes natural resource conservation and recreation.

Unit NJ-6 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high concentration of rufa red knots during the spring migration period, serving as an important northbound stopover site. This unit also has high concentrations of horseshoe crab eggs and an undeveloped character that allows the operation of natural coastal processes and limits disturbance of rufa red knots from human activity.

Threats identified within Unit NJ-6 include: (1) Sea level rise that may accelerate faster than landforms can migrate through natural coastal processes; (2) marsh loss and accelerated beach erosion from historical agriculture practices (

e.g.,

impoundments such as for salt hay farming) (Smith et al. 2017b, p. 36); (3) predation in nonbreeding areas (

e.g.,

peregrine falcons); (4) vulnerable food resources (

e.g.,

past overharvest of horseshoe crabs), (5) timing asynchronies (

e.g.,

warming bay waters or erratic storms that change the peak timing of horseshoe crab spawning); (6) oil spills (

e.g.,

upstream petroleum port); and (7) human disturbance. Special management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include habitat management or restoration (

e.g.,

living shorelines, raising marsh elevations, facilitated shoreline migration); management of predator populations and horseshoe crab fisheries; oil spill response planning; and management of human activities that disturb foraging rufa red knots (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). A management plan is in place and being actively implemented to address the horseshoe crab bait harvest (ASMFC 2012, entire).

Unit NJ-7: Heislerville

Unit NJ-7 consists of 1,110 ac (449 ha) of Delaware Bay beaches, flats, shoals, tidal marsh, and open waters in Cape May and Cumberland Counties, New Jersey, from approximately 2,000 feet (ft) (0.6 kilometers (km)) east of West Creek in Dennis Township, Cape May County and extending west to the eastern end of Bay Avenue in Maurice River Township, Cumberland County. The developed area along Bay Avenue is excluded from the unit. West of Bay Avenue, Unit NJ-7 continues north to the mouth of Andrews Ditch in Maurice River Township. This unit also includes a man-made impoundment within the Heislerville Wildlife Management Area, which is owned by the State. Lands within this unit include approximately 524 ac (211 ha; 47 percent) in State ownership, 459 ac (186 ha; 41.5 percent) in private/other ownership, and 127 ac (52 ha; 11.5 percent) that are uncategorized. All State-owned lands in this unit are managed by the State of New Jersey as the Heislerville Wildlife Management Area. General land use within this unit is undeveloped and includes natural resource conservation and recreation.

Unit NJ-7 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high concentration of rufa red knots during the spring migration period, serving as an important northbound stopover site. Specifically, the bayfront portions of this unit support high concentrations of horseshoe crab eggs, and its undeveloped character allows the operation of natural coastal processes and limits disturbance of rufa red knots from human activity. Additionally, the Heislerville impoundment portion of the unit serves as a critical alternative to bayside habitats, for roosting during high tides when bayfront beaches are narrow or submerged, or for foraging on invertebrates at lower tides during times when horseshoe crab egg availability on bayfront beaches is reduced.

Threats identified within Unit NJ-7 include: (1) Sea level rise that may accelerate faster than landforms can migrate through natural coastal processes; (2) marsh loss and accelerated beach erosion from historical agriculture practices (

e.g.,

impoundments such as for salt hay farming) (Smith et al. 2017b, p. 36); (3) predation in nonbreeding areas (

e.g.,

peregrine falcons) particularly at the Heislerville impoundment; (4) vulnerable food resources (

e.g.,

past overharvest of horseshoe crabs), (5) timing asynchronies (

e.g.,

warming bay waters or erratic storms that change the peak timing of horseshoe crab spawning); (6) oil spills (

e.g.,

upstream petroleum port); and (7) human disturbance (

e.g.,

from personal watercraft and other motorized boats, aircraft including low and slow-flying banner planes; pedestrian traffic is minimal due to a seasonal beach closure to public access). Special management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include habitat management or restoration (

e.g.,

living shorelines, raising marsh elevations, facilitated shoreline migration; maintenance of the berms and water control structures at the Heislerville impoundment); management of predator populations and horseshoe crab fisheries; oil spill response planning; and management of human activities that disturb foraging rufa red knots (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). A management plan is in place and being actively implemented to address the horseshoe crab bait harvest (ASMFC 2012, entire).

Unit NJ-8: Egg Island

Unit NJ-8 consists of 1,955 ac (791 ha) of Delaware Bay beaches, flats, shoals, tidal marsh, and open waters in Downe Township, Cumberland County, New Jersey, from the mouth of Oranoaken Creek extending south to Egg Island point, and then northwest to about 850 ft (259 meters (m)) past Budney Avenue in the community of Fortescue. Lands within this unit include approximately 1,908 ac (773 ha; 97 percent) in State ownership, 32 ac (13 ha; 2 percent) in private/other ownership, and 14 ac (5 ha; less than 1 percent) that are uncategorized. All State-owned lands in this unit are managed by the State of New Jersey as the Egg Island Wildlife Management Area. General land use within this unit is mostly undeveloped and includes natural resource conservation and recreation, but with some areas adjoining residential development.

Unit NJ-8 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This unit has a very high concentration of rufa red knot during spring migration, serving as an important northbound stopover site. This unit also has an undeveloped character that allows the operation of natural coastal processes and limits disturbance of rufa red knots from human activity, serving as one of two significant primary roosting areas (along with Hereford Inlet) used by those rufa red knots that forage in Delaware Bay each spring (Sitters 2005, pp. 1-12).

Threats identified within Unit NJ-8 include: (1) Sea level rise that may accelerate faster than landforms can migrate through natural coastal processes; (2) predation in nonbreeding areas (

e.g.,

peregrine falcons); (3) vulnerable food resources (

e.g.,

past overharvest of horseshoe crabs); (4) timing asynchronies (

e.g.,

warming bay waters or erratic storms that change the peak timing of horseshoe crab spawning); (5) oil spills (

e.g.,

upstream petroleum port); and (6) human disturbance (

e.g.,

from personal watercraft and other motorized boats, aircraft including low and slow-flying banner planes). Special management

considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include habitat management or restoration (

e.g.,

living shorelines, facilitated shoreline migration), management of predator populations and horseshoe crab fisheries, oil spill response planning, and management of human activities that disturb foraging rufa red knots (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). A management plan is in place and being actively implemented to address the horseshoe crab bait harvest (ASMFC 2012, entire).

Unit NJ-9: Newport Neck

Unit NJ-9 consists of 472 ac (191 ha) of Delaware Bay beaches, flats, shoals, and tidal marsh in Downe and Lawrence Townships, Cumberland County, New Jersey, from the north bank of the mouth of Fortescue Creek extending northwest to include both sides of the mouth of Nantuxent Creek. Beaches adjacent to the developed community of Gandys Beach are not included in this unit. Lands within this unit include approximately 202 ac (82 ha; 43 percent) in State ownership, 176 ac (71 ha; 37 percent) in private/other ownership, and 93 ac (38 ha; 20 percent) that are uncategorized. General land use within this unit is undeveloped and includes natural resource conservation and recreation, with much of the unit managed by the State of New Jersey as the Fortescue Wildlife Management Area.

Unit NJ-9 is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high concentration of rufa red knots during the spring migration period, serving as an important northbound stopover site. Additionally, this unit has high concentrations of horseshoe crab eggs, and its undeveloped character allows the operation of natural coastal processes and limits disturbance of rufa red knots from human activity.

Threats identified within Unit NJ-9 include: (1) Sea level rise that may accelerate faster than landforms can migrate through natural coastal processes, (2) predation in nonbreeding areas (

e.g.,

peregrine falcons), (3) vulnerable food resources (

e.g.,

past overharvest of horseshoe crabs), (4) timing asynchronies (

e.g.,

warming bay waters or erratic storms that change the peak timing of horseshoe crab spawning), (5) oil spills (

e.g.,

upstream petroleum port), and (6) human disturbance (

e.g.,

from personal watercraft and other motorized boats, aircraft including low and slow-flying banner planes; pedestrian traffic is limited by a seasonal closure of certain beaches to public access). Special management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include habitat management or restoration (

e.g.,

living shorelines, facilitated shoreline migration), management of predator populations and horseshoe crab fisheries, oil spill response planning, and management of human activities that disturb foraging rufa red knots (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). A management plan is in place and being actively implemented to address the horseshoe crab bait harvest (ASMFC 2012, entire).

Unit DE-1: St. Jones River

Unit DE-1 consists of two subunits comprising 46 ac (19 ha) of the St. Jones River area in Kent County, Delaware. This unit consists of lands owned by the State of Delaware and private landowners.

Subunit DE-1A: St. Jones North

Subunit DE-1A consists of 43 ac (18 ha) of land in Kent County, Delaware. The subunit begins in the north along the shoreline at the end of South Bay Drive in South Kitts Hummock where there is a jetty into Delaware Bay, and continues to the south where it meets the St. Jones River inlet. The eastern boundary is the MLLW of the Delaware Bay (

i.e.,

highly dynamic beach and intertidal seashore that is covered at high tide and uncovered at low tide) and the western boundary runs along the dune line where the habitat changes from lightly vegetated, sandy beach to densely vegetated dunes or marsh. Lands within this subunit are approximately 37 ac (15 ha; 86 percent) in State ownership (Ted Harvey Wildlife Area), 3 ac (1 ha; 7 percent) of undeveloped beach privately owned by Delaware Wildlands, a conservation organization, and 3 ac (1 ha; 7 percent) that are uncategorized. General land use within this subunit includes low-impact, noncommercial, recreational day uses (

e.g.,

hiking, bird watching, surf fishing, and photography) and scientific research (

e.g.,

surveys and monitoring for shorebirds).

Subunit DE-1A is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This subunit contains a high concentration of rufa red knots during the spring migration period, serving as an important northbound stopover site for foraging birds.

Threats identified within Subunit DE-1A include disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa red knots by humans and human activities (

i.e.,

beach nourishment and sediment disposal activities), and modification or loss of habitat from sea level rise and associated erosion of the beach. Special management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include management of beach nourishment projects to ensure work is done outside the time when rufa red knots are present to avoid disturbing birds and offset losses from sea level rise (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above). State lands in this subunit are managed as part of the Ted Harvey Wildlife Area (Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife (DDFW) 2020a; entire), which restricts off-leash dogs, and provides designated hunting and access points that do not include the beach area used by foraging birds. This area is also designated as a National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) (Delaware NERR 2012, entire), which provides for long-term research and monitoring of the site conditions.

Subunit DE-1B: St. Jones South

Subunit DE-1B consists of approximately 3 ac (1 ha) of shoreline at the south side of the inlet to the St. Jones River, Kent County, Delaware. The eastern boundary is the MLLW of the Delaware Bay (

i.e.,

the highly dynamic beach and intertidal seashore that is covered at high tide and uncovered at low tide), and the western boundary is where the sandy beach turns to marshy habitat. Lands within this subunit include approximately 1 ac (0.5 ha; 47 percent) in State ownership and approximately 2 ac (0.6 ha; 53 percent) in private/other ownership. General land use within this subunit includes low-impact, noncommercial, recreational day uses (

e.g.,

hiking, bird watching, surf fishing, and photography) and scientific research (

e.g.,

surveys and monitoring for shorebirds).

Subunit DE-1B is occupied by the species and contains one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This subunit contains a high concentration of rufa red knots during the spring migration period, serving as an important northbound stopover site for foraging birds.

Threats identified within Subunit DE-1B include modification or loss of habitat from sea level rise and associated erosion of the beach. Special management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include management of beach nourishment and

sediment disposal on eroding beaches with the project design and timing of work designed to minimize bird disturbance, and offset losses from sea level rise (see Special Management Considerations or Protection, above).

Unit DE-2: Brokonbridge Gut

Unit DE-2 consists of two subunits comprising 16

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.