304 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

hazardous liquid pipeline systems. On 

November 15, 2010, the American 

Petroleum Institute and the Association 

of Oil Pipe Lines requested PHMSA to 

extend the ANPRM comment period 

deadline a minimum of 60 days to give 

their members sufficient time to 

respond to this ANPRM. Likewise, on 

November 29, 2010, Texas Oil and Gas 

Association requested extension of the 

comment period a minimum of 60 days. 

PHMSA has concurred, in part, with 

these requests and has extended the 

comment period from January 18, 2011, 

to February 18, 2011. This extension 

will provide sufficient time for 

submission of comments concerning 

this ANPRM. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

23, 2010. 

Linda Daugherty, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy 

and Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33234 Filed 1–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2010–0061; MO 

92210–0–0008] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Red Knot 

Subspecies Calidris canutus roselaari 

as Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

roselaari subspecies of red knot 

(Calidris canutus roselaari) as 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

Based on our review, we find that the 

petition does not present substantial 

information indicating that listing this 

subspecies may be warranted. 

Therefore, we are not initiating a status 

review in response to this petition. 

However, we ask the public to submit to 

us any new information that becomes 

available concerning the status of, or 

threats to, C. c. roselaari or its habitat 

at any time. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on January 4, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R7–ES–2010–0061. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish 

and Wildlife Field Office, 101 12th 

Avenue, Room 110, Fairbanks, AK 

99701. Please submit any new 

information, materials, comments, or 

questions concerning this finding to the 

above street address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted 

Swem, Branch Chief, Endangered 

Species Program of the Fairbanks Fish 

and Wildlife Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES); by telephone (907–456– 

0441); or by facsimile to (907–456– 

0208). If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), please call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents ‘‘substantial scientific or 

commercial information’’ indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We base this finding on information 

provided in the petition, supporting 

information submitted with the petition, 

and information otherwise available in 

our files. To the maximum extent 

practicable, we make this finding within 

90 days of our receipt of the petition, 

and publish our notice of the finding 

promptly in the Federal Register. 

Our standard for ‘‘substantial 

scientific or commercial information’’ is 

the ‘‘amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

If we find that ‘‘substantial scientific or 

commercial information’’ was presented, 

we are required to promptly conduct a 

species status review, which we 

summarize in a subsequent finding due 

within 12 months. 

Petition History and Previous Federal 

Action 

On February 27, 2008, we received a 

petition, dated February 27, 2008, from 

Defenders of Wildlife, American Littoral 

Society, American Bird Conservancy, 

Delaware Audubon, Delaware Nature 

Society, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, 

National Audubon Society, New Jersey 

Audubon Society, and Citizens 

Campaign for the Environment, 

requesting that the Department of the 

Interior (Department) use its emergency 

authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the 

Act to list the red knot C. c. rufa 

subspecies as an endangered species. 

The petitioners also seek to have the 

Department list as endangered ‘‘a 

broader taxon comprising both the rufa 

subspecies and the roselaari 

subspecies.’’ The petition further calls 

for a ‘‘national listing based on 

similarity of appearance’’ under section 

4(e) of the Act. The petition contains the 

requisite identification information for 

the petitioners, as required at 50 CFR 

424.14(a). 

We previously made a ‘‘warranted but 

precluded’’ determination (in response 

to one petition received on August 9, 

2004, and two others received on 

August 5, 2005), on September 12, 2006, 

for the C. c. rufa subspecies and added 

this subspecies to our list of candidate 

species with a listing priority number of 

6 (71 FR 53758–53759). ‘‘Warranted but 

precluded’’ means we have sufficient 

information on biological vulnerability 

and threats to support a proposal to list 

as endangered or threatened, but that 

preparation and publication of a listing 

proposal is precluded by higher priority 

listing actions. In a May 1, 2008, letter 

responding to the current petition, we 

stated that while we had previously 

made a determination that listing C. c. 

rufa was ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ and 

added the subspecies to our candidate 

list, we were re-evaluating—as part of 

our annual candidate review process— 

whether listing remained ‘‘warranted but 

precluded’’ and whether to utilize the 

emergency listing provisions of the Act. 

We also stated in our May 1, 2008, letter 

that, due to court orders and judicially 

approved settlement agreements for 

other listing and critical habitat 

determinations under the Act that 

required nearly all of our listing and 

critical habitat funding for fiscal year 

2008, we would not be able to further 

address the petition’s request to list C. 

c. roselaari at that time but would 

complete the action when workload and 

funding allowed. Subsequently, in the 

2008 Candidate Notice of Review for C. 

c. rufa, the Service took into 

consideration the information supplied 

by the petitioners and changed the 

listing priority number from 6 to 3 for 

this subspecies because threats were 

determined to be imminent (73 FR 

75178–75179, December 10, 2008). 

Because we determined that it was not 

necessary, the Service did not 

emergency list C. c. rufa, as set forth in 

the October 29, 2009, Species 

Assessment and Listing Priority 

Assignment Form for Calidris canutus 

rufa (Service 2009). In the 2009 

Candidate Notice of Review for C. c. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 305 

rufa, the Service retained a listing 

priority number of 3 for this subspecies 

(74 FR 57825–57826, November 9, 

2009). 

Accordingly, as we addressed the 

petitioners’ request for an emergency 

listing of the rufa subspecies in the 

October 29, 2009, Species Assessment 

and Listing Priority Assignment Form, 

this finding addresses only whether the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information that the 

following petitioned actions may be 

warranted: (1) Listing the C. c. roselaari 

as endangered or threatened, (2) listing 

‘‘a broader taxon comprising both the 

rufa subspecies and the roselaari 

subspecies’’ as endangered or 

threatened, and (3) a ‘‘national listing 

based on similarity of appearance’’ 

under section 4(e) of the Act. We base 

our determinations on information set 

forth in the petition, information in the 

Service’s files, and other readily 

available information. 

Species Information 

The red knot (Calidris canutus) is a 

medium-sized (23 to 28 centimeters, or 

9 to 11 inches, in length), Arcticbreeding shorebird within the genus 

Calidris. The breeding plumage of the 

red knot is distinctive; the face, breast, 

and upper belly are a rich rufous-red, 

and the lower belly and under tailcoverts are light-colored with dark 

flecks. Upperparts are dark brown with 

white and rufous feather edges; outer 

primary feathers are dark brown to black 

(Davis 1983, p. 372; Harrington 2001, p. 

2). Females are similar to males in 

appearance, but rufous colors are 

typically less intense in females, with 

more buff or light gray coloration on 

dorsal parts (Niles et al. 2007, p. 14). 

Subtle subspecies differences in 

breeding plumage have been described. 

Non-breeding plumage, dusky gray 

above and whitish below, is similar 

between sexes and among subspecies 

(Harrington 2001, p. 2). Juveniles 

resemble non-breeding adults, except 

that the feathers of the scapulars and 

wing coverts of juveniles are edged with 

white and have narrow, dark 

subterminal bands, giving the 

upperparts a scalloped appearance 

(Davis 1983, p. 372); whereas the 

feathers of adults are more uniform. The 

black bill is long, straight, and slightly 

tapered, and the legs and feet are dark 

green or black (Davis 1983, p. 373). 

Adult body mass varies seasonally, with 

highest mean mass occurring during 

spring (205 grams (g); 7.2 ounces (oz)) 

and fall (172 g; 6 oz) migration, and 

lowest values occurring during early 

winter (125 g; 4.4 oz) (Harrington 2001, 

p. 12). 

Six subspecies of red knots (C. c. 

canutus, C. c. piersma, C. c. rogersi, C. 

c. rufa, C. c. roselaari, and C. c. 

islandica) are currently recognized 

worldwide based on small differences in 

body dimensions and breeding plumage 

characteristics, and discrete breeding 

areas and migration routes (Piersma and 

Baker 2000, p. 109; Niles et al. 2007, p. 

3). In all subspecies, sexual dimorphism 

occurs in plumage coloration 

(Tomkovich 1992, p. 18), as well as both 

bill length and body weight, with 

females having longer bills and higher 

body weights on average than males 

(Niles et al. 2007, p. 7). 

Four genetically distinct groups of red 

knots were recently identified through 

genetic analysis; they are comprised of 

C. c. canutus, C. c. piersma, C. c. rogersi, 

and a North American group containing 

C. c. rufa, C. c. roselaari and C. c. 

islandica (Buehler and Baker 2005, p. 

502). C. c. islandica breeds in the 

Canadian high Arctic and Greenland, 

and winters in western Europe. The 

other two subspecies in the North 

American group occur within the 

United States: C. c. rufa, currently a 

candidate species for listing, and C. c. 

roselaari, the focus of this 90-day 

finding. 

C. c. roselaari and C. c. rufa are paler 

by comparison (with C. c. rufa 

considered the palest) to the other 

subspecies and have a much longer 

average bill-length (Harrington 2001, p. 

4; Niles et al. 2007, p. 7). C. c. roselaari 

is longer-winged than the other 

subspecies, but bill-length overlaps 

extensively (Harrington 2001, p. 5). In 

breeding plumage, C. c. roselaari’s 

dorsal coloration is described as similar 

to that of C. c. canutus, but darker with 

slightly more variegated pattern. Ventral 

coloration is considered more similar to 

that of C. c. rufa than to that of C. c. 

rogersi, especially with respect to 

amount of white plumage on vent and 

lower belly (Harrington 2001, p. 5). 

However, as recently as 2007, red knot 

researchers acknowledged that ‘‘no one 

has adequately compared morphological 

variation in C. c. rufa and C. c. roselaari 

populations’’ (Niles et al. 2007, p. 7). In 

2006, individual C. c. roselaari caught 

and measured at a wintering site in 

Guerrero Negro, Baja, Mexico, had 

longer bill-lengths than males belonging 

to wintering populations known or 

thought to be C. c. rufa, suggesting C. c. 

roselaari are larger than C. c. rufa (Niles 

et al. 2008, p. 3). 

Based on genetics, the red knot is 

thought to have recently survived a 

genetic bottleneck (resulting in reduced 

genetic variability), with subspecies 

groups estimated to have diverged very 

recently. The three subspecies 

comprising the North American group, 

including C. c. roselaari, are estimated 

to have diverged within the last 5,500 

years (Buehler and Baker 2005, p. 505). 

We accept the characterization of C. c. 

roselaari as a subspecies because each 

currently recognized subspecies is 

believed to occupy separate breeding 

areas, in addition to having 

morphological and behavioral character 

differences. The Service and partners 

are currently investigating red knot 

genetics to better assess population 

structure of C. c. roselaari and rufa 

subspecies; results are expected within 

the next few years. 

More is known about the range and 

biology of C. c. rufa, than about C. c. 

roselaari. C. c. roselaari breeds in 

Alaska and on Wrangel Island, Russia 

(Tomkovich 1992, p. 22); whereas C. c. 

rufa breeds in the central Canadian 

Arctic (Harrington 2001, p. 4). C. c. 

roselaari is the only red knot subspecies 

known to nest in the United States. Its 

breeding range in northwest and 

northern Alaska is not well known, but 

includes the Seward Peninsula and 

inland areas north of Kotzebue, 

including the DeLong Mountains of the 

Brooks Range (Childs 1969, p. 33; Kessel 

1989, pp. 161–162; Kessel and Gibson 

1978, p. 39; Harrington 2001, p. 3). 

C. c. rufa migrates primarily along the 

Atlantic coast of North America, with 

most wintering sites along the coasts of 

South America and fewer wintering 

sites along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts 

of the southeastern United States 

(Harrington 2001, p. 4; Morrison et al. 

2006, pp. 76–77). Although red knots 

are known to use the Texas and Florida 

coasts, other extensive marsh areas of 

Gulf coast States have not been 

surveyed. There are sporadic reports of 

red knots in these areas, but the level of 

use is not known (A. Scherer, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 

2010). There has been taxonomic 

uncertainty regarding C. canutus 

wintering in the southeastern United 

States because C. canutus that winter in 

Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina 

have a different molt schedule and do 

not migrate to southern South America. 

These birds have been referred to in the 

past as either C. c. roselaari or C. c. rufa 

(Niles et al. 2007, pp. 9–10). However, 

in the attachment to the petition, Niles 

et al. (2008, p. 1) identify recent 

information that indicates C. c. roselaari 

is largely or wholly confined to the 

Pacific coast of the Americas during 

migration and in winter, and Niles et al. 

(2008, p. 1) conclude that red knot 

populations found along the western 

Atlantic Ocean coast (wintering in 

Florida, Brazil, and Tierra del Fuego) 

are C. c. rufa. The conclusion is based 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
306 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

on banding records confirming that red 

knots found on the Pacific coast of 

North America breed in Alaska and 

Wrangel Island, Russia, and 

morphological measurements of 

wintering red knots captured in Baja, 

Mexico, indicating these birds were 

larger than red knots at other wintering 

sites where it was previously unclear if 

the birds were C. c. roselaari or C. c. 

rufa (Niles et al. 2008, p. 3). 

Currently, C. c. roselaari primarily use 

a few stopover sites during their 

northward migration to breeding areas 

in northern Alaska and Wrangel Island, 

Russia. The most important stopover 

sites are Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay 

in Washington, and Yukon-Kuskokwim 

Delta and Copper River Delta in Alaska 

(Isleib 1979, p. 128; Gill and Handel 

1990, p. 712; Page et al. 1999, p. 467). 

Smaller numbers have been 

documented during migration in the 

Yakutat Forelands, Alaska, and the San 

Francisco Bay, California, and during 

both migration and wintering along the 

southern coast of California (Andres and 

Browne 1998, p. 328; Page et al. 1999, 

p. 468; Stenzel et al. 2002, p. 75). The 

subspecies primarily bypasses Oregon 

and British Columbia (McGie 2003, p. 

232; Buchanan 2007, p. 65). Use of 

stopover sites during fall migration is 

unclear, as the migration is protracted 

and large concentrations are not 

reported in fall at sites used during 

spring (Harrington 2001, p. 7). Red 

knots are known to undertake long 

flights during migration that may span 

thousands of miles (Harrington 2001, p. 

1); thus during fall migration they may 

bypass sites used in spring. Important 

wintering aggregations of C. c. roselaari 

have been documented in Western 

Mexico at Guerrero Negro, Baja 

California Sur (Carmona et al. 2008, p. 

10), and along the Pacific Northwest 

coast of Mexico in the Gulf of California 

at Ensenada Pabellones and Bahia Santa 

Maria, Sinaloa (Engilis et al. 1998, p. 

338). C. c. roselaari probably also 

winters farther south than Mexico (Niles 

et al. 2007, p. 20), but important sites 

have not been identified. We lack 

information on the historical range of C. 

c. roselaari. 

Different habitats are used by red 

knots for breeding and migration/ 

wintering. During migration stopovers 

and in wintering areas, red knots are 

primarily found in coastal habitats, 

particularly in areas with extensive 

sandy intertidal flats or near tidal inlets 

or mouths of bays and estuaries 

(Harrington 2001, pp. 8–9). Prey items 

for C. c. roselaari include bivalves and 

other benthic invertebrates (Harrington 

2001, p. 9). 

On the breeding grounds in Alaska, C. 

c. roselaari are widely dispersed inland 

near the Arctic coast (Harrington 2001, 

pp. 5, 8). Nesting has been documented 

in upland habitat, particularly on 

limestone mounds on windswept 

slopes, 42 to 48 kilometers (20 to 30 

miles) inland (Kessel 1989, p. 162; 

Harrington 2001, p. 8). The red knot’s 

diet on the breeding grounds consists 

primarily of terrestrial invertebrates, but 

early in the breeding season they may 

consume a substantial amount of plant 

material, such as grass shoots and seeds 

(Kessel 1989, pp. 162–163; Harrington 

2001, p. 11). Red knots lay one clutch 

(usually 4 eggs) per season. No 

information is available on hatching 

success or chick survival rates. Male 

parents brood and defend their young, 

which leave the nest within 24 hours of 

hatching (Harrington 2001, p. 20; Niles 

et al. 2007, pp. 28, 31–32). While the 

oldest wild red knot recorded 

worldwide was estimated to be 25 years 

old, few red knots are assumed to live 

more than 7 years (Niles et al. 2007, p. 

33). 

The historical and current population 

sizes of C. c. roselaari are uncertain, and 

the trend is unknown. Supporting 

documentation submitted with the 

petition acknowledges that all attempts 

to assess the population size of C. c. 

roselaari have been confounded by 

uncertainty as to which passage 

(migrating) or wintering population 

belongs to which subspecies (Niles et al. 

2008, p. 2). Although C. c. roselaari is 

now considered to be largely or wholly 

confined to the Pacific coast of the 

Americas during migration and in 

winter (Niles et al. 2008, p. 1), limited 

data exist from the sites along the 

Pacific coast of North America that are 

known to be used by this subspecies; in 

addition, the complete extent of 

wintering locations and the numbers 

breeding in Alaska are unknown. 

Population estimates have ranged from 

150,000 (Brown et al. 2001, p. 53; 

Morrison et al. 2001, p. 34) to 20,000 

(Morrison et al. 2006, p. 75) with 

inclusion of red knot populations found 

along the western Atlantic Ocean coast 

(now considered to be C. c. rufa), to less 

than 10,000 when including only the 

Pacific coast of the North America 

population (Niles et al. 2008, p. 6). 

The longest-running data set comes 

from counts on the central YukonKuskokwim Delta at three field sites 

where C. c. roselaari are commonly 

observed during spring migration. While 

a peak daily count of 110,000 red knots 

was observed in 1980 at Tutakoke River 

(Gill and Handel 1990, p. 712), peak 

daily count has not exceeded 6,380 

(Service, unpublished data) in all other 

years before and after 1980 (24 of 31 

years with peak count data from 1978– 

2007). There is no evidence of a longterm decline based on the one 

anomalous count in 1980. Overall, 

observed peak numbers have varied 

substantially among years (range 25— 

6,380 without 1980 count); the observed 

variation is unexplained, and no trend 

is detectable. The reported counts are 

conducted on a small portion of coastal 

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. More 

extensive mudflats occur outside of the 

study area; thus, while unknown, it is 

possible C. c. roselaari also occupies 

these areas to varying degrees during 

spring migration, which could account 

for the observed variation in numbers 

among years. We consider the numbers 

reported from counts on the YukonKuskokwim Delta to represent 

minimum numbers passing through the 

entire delta, with recent observations 

indicating a minimum, but not absolute 

number, of less than 10,000 individuals. 

On the Copper River Delta, Alaska, 

count-based estimates increased from 

10,000 in the 1960s to 40,000–50,000 in 

the early 1970s, to as high as 100,000 in 

late 1970s (Isleib 1979, p. 128). None of 

the data collected at either the YukonKuskokwim or Copper River Deltas 

included systematic or replicate counts, 

evaluation of accuracy, or assessment of 

turnover rates, which would be needed 

to determine actual abundance from the 

counts. We also do not know whether or 

not birds stopping at the Copper River 

Delta also stop at the YukonKuskokwim Delta or migrate directly to 

the breeding grounds and therefore 

represent additional individuals. 

Supporting documentation submitted 

with the petition (Niles et al. 2008, p. 

6) claims that C. c. roselaari might have 

declined from greater than 100,000 (in 

period 1975–1980) to less than 10,000, 

if the large numbers reported in Alaska 

in 1975–1980 were all individuals of 

this subspecies. However, it has been 

suggested (Morrison et al. 2006, p. 76) 

and noted in the supporting 

documentation to the petition (Niles et 

al. 2008, p. 5), that some of the birds 

seen during the high-count years might 

have been due to an unusual arrival of 

C. c. rogersi, which breed in eastern 

Siberia and resemble C. c. roselaari in 

appearance (Morrison et al. 2006, p. 34). 

Alternatively, inter-annual variation in 

movements and migration routes 

through Alaska may have caused large 

variation in the proportion of C. c. 

roselaari that are subject to counting 

among years. Thus, these exceptionally 

large counts are difficult to interpret, 

and cannot with reliability be ascribed 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 307 

to C. c. roselaari, or used to infer trends 

in abundance of C. c. roselaari. 

Data from sites outside Alaska are 

fragmentary and difficult to interpret, 

particularly given that counts at some 

sites have fluctuated among years, 

presumably due to changing 

environmental conditions. The petition 

(p. 4) states that the current C. c. 

roselaari population totals fewer than 

10,000 individuals with uncertainty 

regarding the extent of the subspecies’ 

decline. While it is possible that the 

population size is less than 10,000, 

observations have not been collected in 

a long enough time-series at any of these 

sites to determine population trend at 

particular sites or to accurately estimate 

overall population size. The Service is 

currently collaborating with shorebird 

researchers to estimate the abundance of 

the stopover population of C. c. 

roselaari in important Pacific Flyway 

stopover areas in Washington (Grays 

Harbor and Willapa Bay) as a means of 

determining if a reliable estimate of the 

population size of this subspecies can 

be developed (Brad Andres, Service, 

pers. comm. 2010). 

C. c. roselaari is currently listed as a 

Bird of Conservation Concern by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division 

of Migratory Bird Management (USFWS 

2008, p. 66), which deems it a priority 

species for conservation actions. This 

list is based on an assessment score 

from three bird conservation plans: 

Partners in Flight North American 

Landbird Conservation Plan, United 

States Shorebird Conservation Plan, and 

North American Waterbird Conservation 

Plan (USFWS 2008, p. 2). While this list 

provides no regulatory protection, its 

purpose is to provide a conservation 

benefit by drawing attention to the 

subspecies’ needs. 

Evaluation of Information for This 

Finding 

Request To List C. c. roselaari 

In making this 90-day finding, we first 

evaluated whether information 

regarding the threats to C. c. roselaari, 

as presented in the petition and other 

information available in our files, is 

substantial, thereby indicating that the 

petitioned action of listing the roselaari 

subspecies may be warranted. Section 4 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 

424 set forth the procedures for adding 

a species to, or removing a species from, 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A 

species may be determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species due to 

one or more of the five factors described 

in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats to a species, we must 

look beyond the exposure of the species 

to the factor to evaluate whether the 

species may respond to the factor in a 

way that causes actual or likely impacts 

to the species. If there is exposure to a 

factor and the species responds 

negatively, the factor may be a threat 

and we attempt to determine how 

significant a threat it is. The threat may 

be significant if it drives, or contributes 

to, the risk of extinction of the species 

such that the situation may warrant 

listing the species as endangered or 

threatened as those terms are defined in 

the Act. The identification of factors 

that could impact a species negatively 

may not be sufficient to compel a 

finding that substantial information has 

been presented suggesting that listing 

may be warranted. The information 

should contain evidence or the 

reasonable extrapolation that these 

factors may be operative threats that act 

on the species to the point that the 

species may meet the definition of 

threatened or endangered under the Act. 

We found no information to suggest that 

threats may be acting on, or are likely 

to act on, C. c. roselaari such that the 

subspecies may become in danger of 

extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

In making this 90-day finding, we 

evaluated whether there is substantial 

information regarding the threats to C. c. 

roselaari presented in the petition and 

other information available in our files 

indicating that the petitioned action of 

listing C. c. roselaari may be warranted. 

Our evaluation of this information is 

presented below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Supporting documentation submitted 

with the petition asserts that, as a small 

population, C. c. roselaari is particularly 

vulnerable to habitat loss (Niles et al. 

2008, p. 11), but that documentation 

does not support this statement with 

any evidence that this factor is 

impacting or is likely to impact this 

subspecies. 

The primary factor threatening C. c. 

rufa is destruction and modification of 

its habitat, particularly the modification 

of habitat in Delaware Bay through 

harvesting of horseshoe crabs (74 FR 

57825, November 9, 2009). During 

spring migration, one of the key 

stopover sites for C. c. rufa is Delaware 

Bay, where they forage on horseshoe 

crab (Limulus polyphemus) eggs to 

replenish resources needed to complete 

their migration (Harrington 2001, p. 11). 

As the C. c. roselaari is now considered 

to be confined to the Pacific coast, this 

subspecies is presumably not subjected 

to threats associated with habitat loss in 

Delaware Bay or at other sites used by 

C. c. rufa along the Atlantic coast. 

Because the extent of C. c. roselaari’s 

historical and current range is 

unknown, it is challenging to assess the 

extent of historical habitat loss that has 

occurred and its impact on this 

subspecies. We believe, however, that 

little habitat loss has occurred on the 

breeding grounds or key migration sites 

used by C. c. roselaari in Alaska, due to 

the areas’ remoteness. But wetland loss 

has occurred throughout the United 

States due to development (Dahl 2006, 

p. 15). We, therefore, assume some 

direct loss of habitat due to 

development has occurred at migration 

stopover sites for C. c. roselaari along 

the Pacific coast of the United States. 

We have no evidence in our files, 

however, on the extent of this loss or 

information suggesting that this habitat 

loss has resulted in a decline of this 

subspecies. 

Wetland habitat loss has also occurred 

along the Pacific coast of the United 

States due to the spread of invasive 

plant species, including wetland habitat 

loss at key migration stopover sites used 

by C. c. roselaari. In particular, 

nonnative cordgrass (Spartina) species 

are aggressive weeds that disrupt 

ecosystems of native saltwater estuaries 

by outcompeting native vegetation and 

converting mudflats into monotypic 

Spartina meadows that accumulate 

sediment (Phillips et al. 2008, p. 5). This 

results in decreased plant diversity, 

elevated intertidal areas, and 

displacement of invertebrates, all of 

which reduce useable foraging and 

roosting habitat for shorebirds (Phillips 

et al. 2008, p. 5). 

During the 1990s, the spread of 

Spartina completely covered some key 

spring stopover sites for C. c. roselaari 

in Willapa Bay and portions of Grays 

Harbor, Washington (Buchanan 2003, 

pp. 47–48; Chappell 2005, p. 153; 

Buchanan 2006, p. 65). Eradication 

efforts have been under way in 

Washington, as well as in other 

locations along the Pacific coast, 

including San Francisco Bay, California. 

Since 2004, the Service has cooperated 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
308 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

with Washington and other groups in a 

Statewide effort to eradicate Spartina 

from the State’s marine waters. This 

effort has been extremely successful, 

with an 85 percent reduction in the 

number of solid acres of Spartina 

Statewide by 2007 (Phillips et al. 2008, 

p. 1). 

Spartina was considered to have been 

largely removed from important red 

knot habitat in Willapa Bay by 2006 

(Buchanan 2006, p. 65). Control of 

Spartina meadows has resulted in 

increased use by shorebirds. Over time, 

this increased use occurs as the 

meadows return to pre-invasion natural 

mudflats with invertebrate prey for 

shorebirds (Phillips et al. 2008, pp. 9– 

10). Spartina eradication efforts 

continue, followed by maintenance 

efforts within 3 to 5 years. Various 

eradication and control efforts have 

been underway for other invasive 

wetland plant species, such as the 

common reed (Phragmites australis). 

Other wetland restoration efforts 

include Service awards of 2010 National 

Coastal Wetland Conservation grants to 

Washington to acquire, restore, or 

enhance coastal wetlands, including 

acquisition and protection of wetland 

habitat in Grays Harbor and Willapa 

Bay. Thus, we determine that efforts to 

manage habitat loss in coastal migratory 

routes along the West Coast have likely 

ameliorated potential impacts, and the 

petition has not presented substantial 

information indicating that habitat loss 

may have affected the abundance or 

status of C. c. roselaari. 

Future sea-level rise and shoreline 

erosion may reduce the availability of 

intertidal habitat used by C. c. roselaari 

during migration or wintering. If habitat 

is limited, this could affect the 

subspecies’ ability to build up adequate 

nutrient and energy stores to complete 

their long migrations (Meltofte et al. 

2007, p. 36). The actual rates of sea-level 

rise are hard to predict with any 

reliability. However, sea-level rise is 

predicted to increase, and sea levels will 

likely rise globally by at least 0.18–0.59 

meters (0.6—1.9 feet) by the end of this 

century (IPCC 2007, p. 8). Site-specific 

rates will differ from the global mean; 

thus, the persistence of coastal and 

wetland environments for C. c. roselaari 

will depend on the degree to which 

sedimentation keeps pace with sea level 

rise, as well as local geomorphologic 

and other anthropogenic factors that 

affect wetlands at key migration and 

wintering sites. 

Galbraith et al. (2002, pp. 177–178) 

examined several different scenarios of 

future sea-level rise and projected the 

amount of intertidal habitat loss at key 

shorebird sites in the United States, 

including Willapa Bay and San 

Francisco Bay. Willapa Bay is predicted 

to lose a relatively small amount (8 

percent) of its shorebird intertidal 

feeding habitats by 2050 but a larger 

amount (18 percent) by 2100. San 

Francisco Bay is predicted to lose 12 

percent of its intertidal feeding habitats 

in the northern bay and 24 percent in 

the southern bay by 2050, and 39 

percent in the northern bay and 70 

percent in the southern bay by 2100 

under the 50-percent probability 

scenario (Galbraith et al. 2002, pp. 177– 

178). Such modeling efforts indicate 

that loss of intertidal habitat is expected 

to occur as sea levels rise at some sites 

currently used by C. c. roselaari. In 

other areas along C. c. roselaari’s 

migration route that currently are, or 

could be, used by the subspecies, 

however, there may be a net gain of 

intertidal flats as coastline migrates 

inland. The Service is currently 

participating in multiple efforts to 

model impacts of future sea-level rise 

along the Pacific coast. When 

completed, these models may allow us 

to predict changes in habitat for C. c. 

roselaari, but at present we lack 

sufficient information to evaluate all 

sites used by the subspecies during 

migration and wintering to determine 

the scope and scale of potential habitat 

loss due to sea-level rise. We determine 

that at this time there is inadequate 

information to support the petitioners’ 

contention that sea-level rise may pose 

a population-level threat to C. c. 

roselaari. 

While there appears to be ongoing and 

threatened habitat destruction and 

modification in areas used by migrating 

red knots along the Pacific coast in the 

United States and possibly in wintering 

habitats in Mexico and other unknown 

locations, the information presented or 

readily available does not suggest a 

population-level impact to C. c. 

roselaari from habitat loss in these 

areas. In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information in our files, 

does not present ‘‘substantial scientific 

or commercial information’’ indicating 

that the petitioned action of listing the 

roselaari subspecies may be warranted 

due to the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The petition does not claim that 

overutilization of C. c. roselaari for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes is taking place or 

will take place, and does not provide 

any evidence that this factor may be 

impacting or will likely impact the 

subspecies. In the second half of the 

19th and first quarter of 20th centuries, 

red knots were heavily hunted for both 

market and sport (Harrington 2001, p. 

22). Hunting of red knots is no longer 

allowed in the United States. Based on 

band recoveries, red knots are hunted in 

some regions of South America. Take 

has been documented in Guianas and 

Barbados (Harrington 2001, p. 22), areas 

likely occupied by C. c. rufa. The level 

of hunting and impact to C. c. roselaari 

is unknown. The available information 

does not suggest that hunting poses, or 

is likely to pose, a significant threat to 

the subspecies. In summary, we find 

that the information provided in the 

petition, as well as other information in 

our files, does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action of 

listing the roselaari subspecies may be 

warranted due to overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

education purposes. 

C. Disease or Predation 

The petition does not claim or 

provide any evidence that disease or 

predation of C. c. roselaari is a factor 

impacting or that will impact the 

subspecies. Although there is some 

information in our files that disease has 

been a cause of mortality for individuals 

of C. c. rufa, the Service has determined 

that disease and predation do not 

appear to pose threats to the persistence 

of C. c. rufa (USFWS 2009, pp. 23–24). 

We do not have any specific information 

regarding disease for C. c. roselaari. We 

have no information that predation rates 

have risen in recent years or been 

significantly affected by anthropogenic 

factors. On the breeding grounds, 

microtine rodent (lemming and vole) 

cycles affect shorebird nest predator 

cycles, resulting in year-to-year 

fluctuations in productivity (Niles et al. 

2007, p. 161). The available evidence 

does not indicate that predation during 

the breeding season is having, or is 

likely to have, a long-term or significant 

impact on red knots (USFWS 2009, p. 

23). In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information in our files, 

does not present ‘‘substantial scientific 

or commercial information’’ indicating 

that the petitioned action of listing the 

roselaari subspecies may be warranted 

due to disease or predation. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The petition does not claim that 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms for C. c. roselaari is taking 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 309 

place or is likely to take place, and does 

not provide any evidence that the lack 

of existing regulatory mechanisms is 

impacting or is likely to impact the 

subspecies. 

The petition does claim that existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to conserve foraging habitat on Delaware 

Bay for red knots foraging on horseshoe 

crabs at this key spring migration 

stopover site (Petition, p. 3). The Service 

has identified the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms related to 

habitat destruction and modification, 

particularly in Delaware Bay, as a 

significant threat to C. c. rufa (USFWS 

2009, p. 34). However, as C. c. roselaari 

is believed to be largely or wholly 

confined to the Pacific coast of the 

Americas during migration and in 

winter (Niles et al. 2008, p. 1), there is 

no evidence that this subspecies passes 

through Delaware Bay. Therefore, C. c. 

roselaari is presumably not affected by 

changes to habitat caused by inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms at Delaware Bay. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 

U.S.C. 703–712) (MBTA) is the only 

current Federal protection provided for 

C. c. roselaari. The MBTA prohibits 

‘‘take’’ of individuals but, other than for 

nesting sites, provides no authority for 

protection of habitat or food resources. 

Niles et al. (1997, p. 165) report human 

disturbance as a major threat to C. c. 

rufa throughout its migratory range in 

the United States. The MBTA does not 

afford red knots protection from human 

disturbance on migratory and wintering 

areas. We believe that human 

disturbance to C. c. roselaari on their 

breeding grounds is minimal, due to the 

remoteness of these areas in Alaska and 

on Wrangel Island, Russia. We also 

believe limited human disturbance 

occurs at migration sites in Alaska, 

again due to the remote nature of these 

sites. Human disturbance, such as 

recreational use of beaches, including 

foraging and roosting sites, likely occurs 

on migratory areas along the Pacific 

coast of the United States and in 

wintering areas in Mexico and in other 

unknown locations, but we lack 

information in our files on the extent of 

disturbance and, if it is occurring, on 

the level of impact to the subspecies. 

In April 2007, the Committee on the 

Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 

determined that the C. c. roselaari type 

was threatened (COSEWIC 2007, p. 42). 

As a result, it is now protected under 

Canada’s Federal Species at Risk Act 

(SARA). The designated unit (referred to 

as ‘‘C. c. roselaari type’’) is defined to 

include ‘‘the subspecies roselaari and 

two other populations that winter in 

Florida and northern Brazil and that 

seem to share characteristics of 

roselaari’’ (COSEWIC 2007, p. 43). These 

two populations wintering in Florida 

and northern Brazil are now considered 

to be C. c. rufa (Niles et al. 2008, p. 1), 

and the declines and threats identified 

for listing these two populations are 

confined to C. c. rufa. The SARA covers 

migratory birds in Canada on private, 

provincial, territorial, and Federal 

lands. Under SARA, projects that 

require an environmental assessment 

must consider the project’s effects on 

listed wildlife species, including 

recommendations for measures to avoid 

or reduce adverse effects and plans to 

monitor the impacts of the project. 

Destruction of critical habitat of 

endangered and threatened species 

found on Federal lands is prohibited. 

The SARA has permit issuance criteria 

that include minimizing impacts of the 

proposed activity and avoiding jeopardy 

to the species. 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information in our files, 

does not present ‘‘substantial scientific 

or commercial information’’ indicating 

that the petitioned action of listing the 

C. c. roselaari subspecies may be 

warranted due to inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

The petition and its supporting 

documentation claim that new evidence 

suggests that C. c. roselaari is vulnerable 

to sudden and imminent extinction due 

to the inability of a suggested small 

population size to withstand 

catastrophic, population-altering events 

and harmful genetic mutation (Niles et 

al. 2008, p. 11; Petition, pp. 4–5). 

However, the petition materials do not 

support this statement with any 

evidence that this factor is currently 

impacting or is likely to impact this 

subspecies in the foreseeable future. 

Small populations are generally at 

greater risk of extinction from stochastic 

processes than are large populations. 

However, a given population size will 

not carry with it the same risk for all 

species, and the fact that a species has 

low numbers does not necessarily 

indicate that it may be in danger of 

extinction in the foreseeable future. 

Although there is uncertainty about the 

population size of C. c. roselaari, a 

population with possibly fewer than 

10,000 individuals, we do not have 

information in our files on vulnerability 

of the subspecies to stochastic events in 

the foreseeable future, nor did the 

petitioners provide any information 

regarding this. Consequently, in the 

absence of information identifying 

threats to the species and linking those 

threats to the rarity of the species, the 

Service does not consider rarity alone to 

be a threat. 

The petition also asserts that the 2006 

and 2007 Candidate Notices of Review 

for C. c. rufa failed to discuss impacts 

of climate change to shorebirds or 

account for the potential destruction of 

habitat due to sea-level rise and other 

factors. The petition also asserts that the 

Service must consider these factors in 

its analysis (Petition, p. 4). However, the 

petition does not claim or provide any 

evidence that climate change is 

currently impacting, or is likely to 

impact, C. c. roselaari (Petition, pp. 

4–5) in the foreseeable future. Sea-level 

rise is addressed above under Factor A. 

Besides sea-level rise, climate change 

could impact red knots as a 

consequence of the alteration of weather 

patterns, resulting in changes to habitat 

and environmental conditions, such as 

drying (and therefore potential loss) of 

breeding or intertidal habitat or 

alteration in prey availability. As an 

arctic nesting shorebird, C. c. roselaari 

is adapted to highly variable annual 

conditions on the breeding grounds 

(Meltofte et al. 2007, p. 11). In the short 

term, climatic amelioration could 

benefit Arctic shorebirds because earlier 

snowmelt and warmer summers 

increase both survival and productivity, 

for example by providing more food 

resources for adults and chicks on 

breeding grounds (Meltofte et al. 2007, 

p. 7). In the long term, habitat changes 

to both breeding and non-breeding areas 

could affect the subspecies negatively, 

but it is currently unknown to what 

extent shorebirds are able to adapt to 

rapidly changing climatic conditions 

(Meltofte et al. 2007, p. 34). In Alaska, 

C. c. roselaari currently nests in upland 

tundra habitat, which is drier than the 

Arctic coastal plain; thus, new habitat 

could become available on the Arctic 

coastal plain for this subspecies as 

habitat is lost in montane habitats. 

Weather variations are a natural 

occurrence and normally are not 

considered to be a threat to the 

persistence of a species unless the 

number of individuals is reduced to a 

very low level and the individuals are 

concentrated in an area that is subject to 

weather conditions that are likely to 

result in mortality or poor productivity 

or both (USFWS 2009, p. 30). While we 

expect climate change to continue into 

the future, and there could be a number 

of different types of effects on C. c. 

roselaari from climate change, the 

available information does not suggest 

that impacts from climate change are 

likely to result in population-level 

effects negatively impacting the 

subspecies. The petition does not 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
310 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

present substantial information, nor do 

we have substantial information in our 

files, to suggest that climate change may 

threaten C. c. roselaari in the foreseeable 

future. 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information in our files, 

does not present ‘‘substantial scientific 

or commercial information’’ indicating 

that the petitioned action of listing the 

roselaari subspecies may be warranted 

due to other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

Request To List a Broader Taxon 

Comprising Both the rufa and 

roselaari Subspecies 

We next evaluated whether the 

petition presents substantial 

information that the petitioned action of 

listing a broader taxon comprising both 

the rufa and roselaari subspecies may be 

warranted. However, the only 

taxonomic unit broader than a 

‘‘subspecies’’ is a ‘‘species,’’ and the 

petition does not seek to have the red 

knot species, which consists of six 

subspecies, listed. As there is no 

broader taxonomic unit consisting of the 

C. c. rufa and roselaari subspecies 

together, the Service concludes that the 

petitioned action of listing a broader 

taxon comprising both the C. c. rufa and 

roselaari subspecies does not involve a 

listable entity under the Act. 

Accordingly, based on the information 

set forth in the petition, information in 

the Service’s files, and other readily 

available information, the petition does 

not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information that the 

petitioned action of listing a broader 

taxon comprising the rufa and roselaari 

subspecies may be warranted. 

Request for National Listing Based on 

Similarity of Appearance 

The petitioner also seeks a ‘‘national 

listing based on similarity of 

appearance’’ under section 4(e) of the 

Act, ‘‘[g]iven the potential overlap of 

rufa and roselaari populations within 

the southeastern United States.’’ As a 

result, we have evaluated whether the 

petition presents substantial 

information that ‘‘a national listing’’ 

based on the similarity of appearance 

between the C. c. rufa and C. c. roselaari 

subspecies may be warranted. 

Under section 4(e) of the Act, a 

species not otherwise qualifying as 

endangered or threatened may be listed 

based on its close resemblance to a 

listed species if certain circumstances 

exist. Specifically, section 4(e) of the 

Act states, ‘‘The Secretary may, by 

regulation of commerce or taking, and to 

the extent that he deems advisable, treat 

any species as an endangered species or 

threatened species even though it is not 

listed pursuant to section 4 of the Act 

if he finds that— 

(A) Such species so closely resembles 

in appearance, at the point in question, 

a species which has been listed 

pursuant to such section that 

enforcement personnel would have 

substantial difficulty in attempting to 

differentiate between the listed and 

unlisted species; 

(B) The effect of this substantial 

difficulty is an additional threat to an 

endangered or threatened species; and 

(C) Such treatment of an unlisted 

species will substantially facilitate the 

enforcement and further the policy of 

this Act.’’ 

In short, a threshold requirement for 

listing a species under section 4(e) of 

the Act is that the species must closely 

resemble in appearance ‘‘a species 

which has been listed’’ such that 

enforcement personnel would have 

substantial difficulty in differentiating 

the listed and unlisted species. In this 

instance, however, neither C. c. rufa or 

C. c. roselaari are listed under the Act. 

Therefore, the petition does not present 

a basis for concluding that a 

resemblance between the two 

subspecies would create difficulty for 

enforcement personnel in attempting to 

differentiate between a listed and 

unlisted entity. More importantly, 

however, we are aware of no evidence, 

and none was provided by the 

petitioners, that commerce or taking of 

C. c. rufa (which, as a candidate species, 

may be listed in the near future) poses 

a threat to the subspecies, and that 

confusion with C. c. roselaari on the 

part of enforcement personnel 

contributes to this threat. All subspecies 

of red knots are protected by the MBTA 

and cannot legally be hunted, imported 

into, or exported from the United States. 

Accordingly, we find that the petition 

does not present substantial information 

that listing either C. c. rufa or C. c. 

roselaari based on their similarity of 

appearance to each other under section 

4(e) of the Act may be warranted. 

Finding 

In summary, the petition does not 

present substantial information that the 

petitioned actions may be warranted. 

Specifically, the petition does not 

present substantial information that 

listing C. c. roselaari as endangered may 

be warranted because no specific 

information was provided on threats. 

The petition (p. 4) asserts that the 

Service should consider listing C. c. 

roselaari because its population ‘‘is 

small (probably less than 10,000) and 

therefore vulnerable.’’ However, 

uncertainty currently exists regarding 

the population size and trend of this 

subspecies. In addition, in the absence 

of information identifying threats to the 

subspecies and linking those threats to 

the rarity of the species, the Service 

does not consider rarity alone to be a 

threat. 

On the basis of our determination 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

conclude that the petition does not 

present ‘‘substantial scientific or 

commercial information’’ to indicate 

that listing C. c. roselaari under the Act 

may be warranted. Although we will not 

review the status of the species at this 

time, we encourage interested parties to 

continue to gather data that will assist 

with the conservation of C. c. roselaari. 

The Service is continuing to monitor the 

subspecies, and studies are ongoing. If 

new information on the status or 

distribution of C. c. roselaari is revealed 

at the conclusion of current studies, we 

will evaluate the new information. If 

you wish to provide information 

regarding C. c. roselaari, you may 

submit your information or materials to 

the Field Supervisor, Fairbanks Fish 

and Wildlife Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES), at any time. 

In addition, we find that the petition 

does not present substantial information 

that the petitioned action of listing ‘‘a 

broader taxon comprising both the rufa 

subspecies and the roselaari subspecies’’ 

may be warranted because the 

petitioned action does not involve a 

listable entity. Moreover, we find that 

the petition does not present substantial 

information that a ‘‘national listing 

based on similarity of appearance’’ 

under section 4(e) of the Act may be 

warranted because there is no listed 

species and, thus, no need for 

enforcement personnel to differentiate 

between a listed and unlisted entity. 

Additionally, the petition does not 

present substantial information that 

commerce or taking of C. c. rufa (which 

as a candidate species, may be listed in 

the near future) poses a threat to the 

subspecies, and that confusion with C. 

c. roselaari on the part of enforcement 

personnel contributes to this threat. All 

subspecies of red knots are protected by 

the MBTA and cannot legally be hunted, 

imported into, or exported from the 

United States. Accordingly, we find that 

the petition does not present substantial 

information that listing either C. c. rufa 

or C. c. roselaari based on their 

similarity of appearance to each other 

under section 4(e) of the Act may be 

warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 311 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife 

Field Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Fairbanks Fish 

and Wildlife Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: December 8, 2010. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33187 Filed 1–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1