73706 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2013–0097; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–AY17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Threatened Species Status 

for the Rufa Red Knot 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

threatened species status under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended, for the rufa red knot 

(Calidris canutus rufa). The rufa red 

knot is a migratory shorebird that breeds 

in the Canadian Arctic, winters in parts 

of the United States, the Caribbean, and 

South America, and primarily uses wellknown spring and fall stopover areas on 

the Atlantic coast of the United States, 

although some follow a midcontinental 

migratory route. The effect of this 

regulation will be to add this species to 

the list of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective 

January 12, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R5–ES–2013–0097 and at http:// 

www.fws.gov/northeast/redknot/. 

Comments and materials we received, as 

well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this rule, are available 

for public inspection at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. All of the 

comments, materials, and 

documentation that we considered in 

this rulemaking are available by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

New Jersey Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Schrading, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field 

Office, 927 North Main Street, Building 

D, Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232, by 

telephone 609–383–3938 or by facsimile 

609–646–0352. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Endangered Species Act, a species 

may warrant protection through listing 

if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Listing a species as an 

endangered or threatened species can 

only be completed by issuing a rule. 

This rule will finalize the listing of the 

rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) as 

a threatened species. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Endangered Species Act, we may 

determine that a species is an 

endangered or threatened species based 

on any of five factors: (A) The present 

or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) 

The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. We have determined that the 

rufa red knot is a threatened species due 

to loss of both breeding and 

nonbreeding habitat; likely effects 

related to disruption of natural predator 

cycles on the breeding grounds; reduced 

prey availability throughout the 

nonbreeding range; and increasing 

frequency and severity of asynchronies 

(mismatches) in the timing of the birds’ 

annual migratory cycle relative to 

favorable food and weather conditions. 

Peer review and public comment. We 

sought comments from three 

independent specialists with expertise 

on red knot biology and sea level rise to 

ensure that our designation is based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We invited these peer 

reviewers to comment on our listing 

proposal. Only one of the three peer 

reviewers provided comments on the 

proposal. This peer reviewer was 

generally supportive of the proposal, 

and provided substantive comments and 

documentation regarding biological 

differences between red knots in 

northern versus southern wintering 

areas. Many of these differences were 

already in the proposal but in separate 

locations; we consolidated and 

emphasized these differences, updating 

as appropriate with new information. 

Previous Federal Action 

Please refer to the proposed listing 

rule for the rufa red knot (78 FR 60024; 

September 30, 2013) and its Previous 

Actions supplement available online at 

www.regulations.gov under Docket 

Number FWS–R5–ES–2013–0097 for a 

detailed description of previous Federal 

actions concerning this species. 

Background 

Species Information 

The rufa red knot (Calidris canutus 

rufa) is a medium-sized shorebird about 

9 to 11 inches (in) (23 to 28 centimeters 

(cm)) in length. (Throughout this 

document, ‘‘rufa red knot,’’ ‘‘red knot,’’ 

and ‘‘knot’’ are used interchangeably to 

refer to the rufa subspecies. ‘‘Calidris 

canutus’’ and ‘‘C. canutus’’ are used to 

refer to the species as a whole or to 

birds of unknown subspecies. 

References to other particular 

subspecies are so indicated.) The red 

knot migrates annually between its 

breeding grounds in the Canadian Arctic 

and several wintering regions, including 

the Southeast United States (Southeast), 

the Northeast Gulf of Mexico, northern 

Brazil, and Tierra del Fuego at the 

southern tip of South America. During 

both the northbound (spring) and 

southbound (fall) migrations, red knots 

use key staging and stopover areas to 

rest and feed. 

The November 2014 Rufa Red Knot 

Background Information and Threats 

Assessment (Supplemental Document; 

Service 2014, entire), available online at 

www.regulations.gov under Docket 

Number FWS–R5–ES–2013–0097, 

provides a thorough assessment of the 

rufa red knot biology and ecology, 

historical distribution and abundance, 

population surveys and estimates, and 

threats to its survival. The 

Supplemental Document has been 

updated since the September 30, 2013 

publication of the proposed rule with 

data received during the peer review 

and public comment processes and 

relevant scientific data that have 

become available. In the Supplemental 

Document, we compile biological data 

and a description of past, present, and 

likely future threats facing the red knot. 

Because data in these areas of science 

can be limited, some uncertainties are 

associated with the data and 

conclusions drawn from the data. We 

have attempted to clearly identify these 

uncertainties and assumptions, which 

are based on the best available scientific 

and commercial data, explicit in the 

Supplemental Document. The 

Supplemental Document provides the 

scientific basis for our decision (see 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats in this final rule), the legal basis 

for which is the Act and its regulations 

and policies (see Determination in this 

final rule). 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this section, we summarize the 

population and threats information 

previously provided in the proposed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73707 

rule (78 FR 60024; September 30, 2013) 

and updated as appropriate from new 

information received since the proposed 

rule’s publication. See the Summary of 

Changes from the Proposed Rule section 

below for what has been updated. 

We note that the proposed rule 

referenced four separate documents of 

supporting material—Previous Federal 

Actions, Rufa Red Knot Ecology and 

Abundance, Climate Change 

Background, and Factor D: The 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms. For this final rule, we 

have combined those documents into 

one Supplemental Document. From here 

forward, when we are referencing 

information in the proposed rule, we 

will use the proposed rule’s Federal 

Register citation and page number (e.g., 

78 FR 60024, p. 60032); when we are 

referencing information in one of the 

proposed rule’s supporting documents, 

we will use the document’s name and 

page number (e.g., Rufa Red Knot 

Ecology and Abundance, p. 5); and 

when we are referencing information 

now contained in the final rule’s 

Supplemental Document, we will use 

the Supplemental Document’s title and 

section (e.g., Supplemental Document, 

Factor E—Reduced Food Availability— 

Horseshoe Crab Harvest). 

Population Information: After a 

thorough review of the best available 

population data, we conclude that we 

do not have sufficient reliable data on 

which to derive a precise rangewide 

population estimate for the rufa red 

knot. For example, there are no 

rangewide population estimates for fall 

migration or breeding areas because 

birds are too dispersed. We have limited 

confidence in any population trends 

inferred from wintering areas in Brazil’s 

north coast, the northern Gulf coast, and 

the Southeast United States because 

available data from these areas vary in 

geographic coverage, methods, and level 

of effort. However, there are several 

areas where surveys have been 

conducted using more consistent 

observers, methods, and geographic 

coverage: Tierra del Fuego and the 

Argentine coast (winter), Delaware Bay 

(spring), the east coast of South America 

(spring), and Virginia (spring). 

For Tierra del Fuego, baseline 

population data are available from the 

1980s, and annual counts are available 

from 2000 to 2013, all collected with the 

same methodology and surveyors. The 

most recent counts (2011 to 2013) are 

about 75 percent lower than the 1980s 

baseline. The annual counts (2000 to 

2013) show that the decline began after 

2000, but the population has apparently 

stabilized at a low level since 2011. 

For Delaware Bay, baseline data are 

available from the early 1980s, and 

annual peak counts are available for 

1986 to 2014. The core years of 1986 to 

2008 were collected with consistent 

methodology and surveyors. Based on 

these data, there may have been 

declines in the Delaware Bay stopover 

population in the 1990s, but variability 

in the data makes it difficult to detect 

trends. In contrast, the decline in 

Delaware Bay red knot counts in the 

2000s was sufficiently pronounced and 

sustained that we have confidence in 

the downward trend over this time 

period despite the variability in the 

data. The average of peak counts in 

Delaware Bay over the past decade 

(2005 to 2014) was about 70 percent 

lower than the 1980s baseline. However, 

Delaware Bay numbers appear to have 

stabilized or increased slightly from 

2009 to 2014, despite our lower 

confidence in the data over this later 

period due to shifts in methodology and 

surveyors. 

Data sets from three South American 

Atlantic coast spring stopovers also 

suggest declines roughly over this same 

timeframe (early 2000s relative to 

1990s). We previously concluded that 

the Virginia spring stopover had been 

stable since the mid-1990s, but new 

information now indicates a decline in 

Virginia relative to the 1990s. 

In summary, our analysis of the best 

available data concludes that an overall, 

sustained decline of red knot numbers 

occurred at Tierra del Fuego and 

Delaware Bay in the 2000s, and that 

these red knot populations may have 

stabilized at a relatively low level in the 

last few years. Although we lack 

sufficiently robust data to conclude if 

other wintering and stopover areas also 

declined, we conclude it is likely that 

declines at Tierra del Fuego and 

Delaware Bay drove an overall 

population decline (i.e., lower total 

numbers), because these two sites 

supported a large majority of rangewide 

knots during the baseline 1980s period. 

This conclusion is consistent with 

efforts (by others) to evaluate long-term 

population trends using national or 

regional data from volunteer shorebird 

surveys and other sources, which have 

also generally concluded that red knot 

numbers have declined. Please refer to 

this final rule’s Supplemental 

Document—Population Surveys and 

Estimates for a more detailed discussion 

of the population information available 

for the rufa red knot throughout its 

range, available online at 

www.regulations.gov under Docket 

FWS–R5–ES–2013–0097. 

Threats: Substantial threats exist 

throughout the red knot’s breeding, 

migration, and wintering range and 

these threats are likely to continue or 

intensify into the future. For a full 

discussion of the five factors (i.e., 

Factors A, B, C, D, and E) assessed as 

a basis for making the listing 

determination, please see the 

Supplemental Document—Summary of 

Factors Affecting the Species available 

online at www.regulations.gov under 

Docket Number FWS–R5–ES–2013– 

0097. A summary is provided below: 

(1) Past habitat losses in wintering 

and migration areas have reduced the 

resilience of the red knot (Factor A). 

Ongoing losses in these areas from sea 

level rise, shoreline hardening, and 

development are expected to continue 

into the coming decades (Factor A). 

Beach nourishment can be beneficial or 

detrimental to red knot habitat, though 

any negative effects are mostly 

considered to be short-term. More 

recently, vegetation and ecosystem 

changes resulting from climate change, 

and potentially from development, have 

begun to threaten habitat loss on the 

breeding grounds as well (Factor A). 

(2) Threats to the current and future 

quality and quantity of prey resources 

occur throughout the red knot’s range 

from climate change and other causes 

(e.g., ocean acidification; warming 

coastal waters; marine diseases, 

parasites, and invasive species; 

sediment placement; recreation; and 

fisheries) (Factor E). Reduced food 

availability in Delaware Bay due to 

commercial harvest of the horseshoe 

crab (Limulus polyphemus) (HSC) is 

considered a primary causal factor in 

red knot population declines in the 

2000s. (Red knots rely on horseshoe 

crab eggs as food during their spring 

stopover in Delaware Bay.) We do not 

consider the HSC harvest a threat under 

the science-based management 

framework that has been developed and 

adopted to explicitly link harvest quotas 

to red knot population growth (Factor 

D). However, HSC monitoring necessary 

for the implementation of the 

management framework was not 

conducted in 2013 or 2014 due to lack 

of funding; thus, the framework is not 

currently being implemented as it was 

intended to function. There is 

uncertainty regarding implementation of 

the framework in the future (Factor D). 

While we anticipate a fully functioning 

management framework would continue 

to adequately abate the threat to red 

knots from the HSC harvest, there are 

other biological factors independent of 

harvest that may limit the availability of 

HSC eggs into the future. For example, 

HSC population growth may be limited 

by a biological lag time because HSCs 

take up to 10-years to become sexually 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73708 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

mature and therefore it may take at least 

that long for harvest restrictions (which 

have been phased in since 2000) to 

produce a corresponding increase in 

HSC populations. Other factors (e.g., 

early life stage mortality, undocumented 

or underreported mortality) may also be 

slowing HSC population growth (Factor 

E). Most data suggest that the volume of 

horseshoe crab eggs is currently 

sufficient to support the Delaware Bay’s 

stopover population of red knots at its 

present size. However, because of the 

uncertain trajectory of horseshoe crab 

population growth, it is not yet known 

if the HSC egg resource will continue to 

adequately support red knot population 

growth over the next decade. 

(3) The red knot faces ongoing and 

future increases in asynchronies (timing 

mismatches) throughout its migration 

and breeding range as a result of climate 

change and unknown causes (Factor E). 

Successful annual migration and 

breeding of red knots is highly 

dependent on the timing of departures 

and arrivals to coincide with favorable 

food and weather conditions in the 

spring and fall migratory stopover areas 

and on the Arctic breeding grounds 

(Factor E). 

(4) On the arctic breeding grounds, 

normal 3- to 4-year cycles of high 

predation, mediated by rodent (e.g., 

lemming) cycles, result in years with 

low reproductive output of red knots (in 

some years it is zero), but do not 

threaten the survival of the red knot at 

the subspecies level (Factor C). That is, 

when lemmings are abundant, predators 

(e.g., arctic fox) concentrate on the 

lemmings, and shorebirds breed 

successfully, but when lemmings are in 

short supply, predators switch to 

shorebird eggs and chicks (Niles et al. 

2008, p. 101; COSEWIC 2007, p. 19; 

Meltofte et al. 2007, p. 21; USFWS 2003, 

p. 23; Blomqvist et al. 2002, p. 152; 

Summers and Underhill 1987, p. 169). 

It is believed shorebirds, such as red 

knots, have adapted to these cycles, 

therefore these natural cycles are not 

considered a threat to the red knot. 

What is a threat, however, is that these 

natural rodent/predator cycles are being 

disrupted by climate change, which may 

increase predation rates on shorebirds 

over the long term and have subspecieslevel effects (Factor C and Factor E) 

(Chapter 28 in IPCC 2014, p. 14; Fraser 

et al. 2013, pp. 13, 16; Brommer et al. 

2010, p. 577; Ims et al. 2008, p. 79; 

Kausrud et al. 2008, p. 98). The 

documented collapse or dampening of 

rodent (e.g., lemmings) population 

cycles of over the last 20 to 30 years in 

parts of the Arctic can be attributed to 

climate change with ‘‘high confidence’’ 

(Chapter 28 in IPCC 2014, p. 14). We 

conclude that disruptions in the rodent/ 

predator cycle pose a substantial threat 

to the red knot, as they may result in 

prolonged periods of low reproductive 

output of red knots due to increased 

predation (Factor C). The substantial 

impacts of elevated egg and chick 

predation on shorebird reproduction are 

well known. Disruptions in the rodent/ 

predator cycle may have already 

affected red knot populations and are 

likely to increase due to climate change 

(Factor C). 

Other factors may cause additive red 

knot mortality. Individually these 

factors are not expected to have 

subspecies level effects; however, 

cumulatively, these factors could 

exacerbate the effects of the primary 

threats if they further reduce the 

species’ resiliency. These secondary 

factors include hunting (Factor B); 

predation in nonbreeding areas (Factor 

C); and human disturbance, oil spills, 

and wind energy development 

especially near the coasts (Factor E). 

In summary, the rufa red knot faces 

numerous threats across its range on 

multiple geographic and temporal 

scales. These threats are affecting the 

subspecies now and will continue to 

have subspecies-level effects into the 

future. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

The following minor but substantive 

changes have been made to the listing 

rule and the Supplemental Document 

(available online at www.regulations.gov 

under Docket FWS–R5–ES–2013–0097) 

based on new information that has 

become available since the publication 

of the proposed rule, including 

information received through peer 

review and public comments. These 

changes did not alter our previous 

assessment of the rufa red knot from the 

proposed rule to the final rule. 

(1) We present new data and insights 

regarding the nonbreeding distributions 

of rufa red knots versus Calidris canutus 

roselaari. 

(2) We have emphasized and 

consolidated information about the 

differences between rufa red knots from 

northern versus southern wintering 

areas. 

(3) We have added new geolocator 

data and new analyses of available 

resightings data showing (a) movement 

of rufa red knots between the North 

American Central and Atlantic Flyways; 

(b) clusters of sightings along the Great 

Lakes, the Mississippi River and its 

tributaries, and other major water bodies 

away from the coasts; (c) apparent use 

of saline (or alkaline) lakes in the 

Northern Plains by northbound red 

knots using the Central Flyway; and (d) 

use of U.S. Atlantic coast habitats used 

by juveniles in summer and winter. 

(4) We updated population 

information with winter counts in South 

America and the southeast United 

States. The 2013 red knot winter counts 

in Tierra del Fuego were down to the 

second lowest level on record, while the 

counts in northern Brazil were nearly 

double the previous high count 

recorded in 1986. The large number of 

knots found in Brazil in 2013 was likely 

the result of the survey team 

experiencing favorable tidal conditions 

throughout the survey period, and this 

is probably the team’s best aerial survey 

estimate to date. In addition, a new 

report from the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources (GDNR) based on 

mark-recapture mathematical models 

estimated that the northern wintering 

population may be around 20,000 birds; 

this number is consistent with some 

previous estimates but notably higher 

than the best available field survey from 

the Southeast of about 4,000 to 5,000 

birds. However, we do not yet have 

information to determine whether the 

geographic extent of the ‘‘northern’’ 

population in the GDNR study includes 

areas outside the Southeast. 

(5) We updated our analysis of 

climate change information based on 

new reports from the International Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC) and National 

Climate Assessment. Updates include: 

(a) The IPCC’s increased certainty in 

the overall trajectory of global and 

regional climate changes over the next 

few decades. 

(b) Recent assessments of the red 

knot’s vulnerability to climate change 

indicating a large increase in extinction 

risk due to the likely loss of breeding 

(from arctic warming) and nonbreeding 

habitat (from sea level rise), as well as 

the red knot’s high degree of habitat 

specialization and dependence on 

ecological synchronicities, and long 

migration distance. 

(c) New reports finding, with high 

certainty, that arctic ecosystem changes 

are already under way and will 

continue, in some cases faster than 

previously anticipated. (The IPCC notes 

early warning signs that arctic 

ecosystems are already experiencing 

irreversible regime shifts.) 

(d) A new conclusion by the IPCC that 

the documented collapse or dampening 

of rodent population cycles in some 

parts of the Arctic over the last 20 to 30 

years can be attributed to climate 

change with ‘‘high confidence.’’ 

(e) An updated analysis of threats to 

red knot prey species from ocean 

acidification, temperature changes, and 

other aspects of climate change. (A new 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73709 

report highlights the vulnerability of 

mollusks (which include the red knot’s 

primary prey species in most of its 

range) to acidification (‘‘high 

confidence’’).) 

(6) We updated the best available data 

regarding current and likely future rates 

of sea level rise. We also noted a new 

study showing that expected effects to 

migratory shorebird populations from 

sea level rise are disproportionally 

larger than the extent of projected 

habitat loss, especially for species (such 

as red knots) whose migration routes 

contain ‘‘bottlenecks’’ through which a 

large fraction of the population passes. 

(7) We discussed new voluntary, 

regulatory, or proposed restrictions on 

red knot hunting (e.g., in Barbados, 

Guadeloupe, Martinique, and French 

Guiana), but acknowledged that best 

available data are insufficient to 

determine if hunting is or was at levels 

in South America that may have a 

population-level effect. 

(8) We updated Federal and State 

authorities to regulate the importation of 

Asian HSC species, which may pose a 

threat to native HSC populations. 

(9) We noted the results of the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission’s (ASMFC) 2013 HSC stock 

assessment update showing that, in the 

Delaware Bay Region, there is evidence 

of increases in certain age or sex classes, 

but overall population trends have been 

largely stable (neither increasing nor 

decreasing) since the previous stock 

assessment in 2009. 

(10) We updated our analysis of 

possible undocumented or 

underestimated HSC mortality with new 

information on poaching, bycatch, and 

sublethal effects of biomedical bleeding. 

(11) We updated the discussion as 

follows about the Adaptive Resource 

Management (ARM) monitoring efforts 

to reflect uncertainty (due to lack of 

funding) in ongoing implementation: 

(a) We continue to conclude that, as 

long as the ARM is in place and 

functioning as intended, ongoing HSC 

bait harvests should not be a threat to 

the red knot. 

(b) Data necessary to support the ARM 

previously came from an annual HSC 

trawl survey conducted by the Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech) 

that was ended after 2012 due to lack of 

funding. The ARM modelers are 

working on the best way to switch to 

another, newer survey, the North East 

Area Monitoring and Assessment 

Program (NEAMAP), and we support 

those efforts. 

(c) As of fall 2014, however, these 

efforts have not identified a method by 

which NEAMAP or other alternate data 

sets can be appropriately used to allow 

the functioning of the ARM models 

(ASMFC 2014b). Stable funding sources 

for other baywide monitoring programs 

necessary to support the ARM are also 

a concern. 

(d) If the ARM cannot be 

implemented in any given year, ASMFC 

would choose between two options 

based on which it determines to be more 

appropriate—either use the previous 

year’s harvest levels (as previously set 

by the ARM), or revert to an earlier 

management regime. Although the HSC 

fishery would continue to be managed 

under either of these options, the 

explicit link to red knot populations 

would be lost. 

(e) Insufficient monitoring has already 

impacted the ability of the ASMFC to 

implement the ARM as intended 

(ASMFC 2014b; ASMFC 2012c, p. 13). 

Absent the necessary HSC monitoring 

data to use the ARM models for the 

2015 season, ASMFC (2014b) has opted 

to use the 2014 harvest levels which we 

considered at the time to adequately 

ensure the red knot’s food supply. 

(12) We updated our analysis of 

disturbance with new findings from two 

sites on the Atlantic coast of New Jersey, 

showing that disturbance affected red 

knots’ spatial uses of these sites and 

displaced knots from otherwise suitable 

habitats. 

(13) We reorganized the wind energy 

development discussion by moving 

general information on avian collision 

and displacement hazards to a 

background section, not specific to 

either offshore or terrestrial 

development. We updated this section 

with new information including a new 

report on avian vulnerability to offshore 

wind development. We updated our 

conclusions that collision and 

displacement risks per turbine 

(notwithstanding differences in specific 

factors such as turbine size, design, 

operation, and siting) are likely higher 

along the coasts than far inland or far 

offshore. 

(14) We updated the 50 CFR 17.11 

table to add Martinique and the District 

of Columbia. We received new 

information that red knots occur on 

Martinique. The District of Columbia 

was already included in the known 

range of the red knot, but was 

inadvertently left off the table in the 

proposed rule. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

September 30, 2013 (78 FR 60024), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on the 

proposal by November 29, 2013. We 

also contacted appropriate Federal and 

State agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. A newspaper notice 

inviting general public comment was 

published in the USA Today on October 

3, 2013. We received four requests for a 

public hearing. On April 4, 2014 (79 FR 

18869), we reopened the comment 

period on the proposed rule until May 

19, 2014, and announced that two 

public hearings would take place on 

May 6, 2014, in Corpus Christi, Texas, 

and Morehead City, North Carolina. On 

May 14, 2014 (79 FR 27548), we 

extended the public comment period 

until June 15, 2014, and announced that 

another public hearing would take place 

in Manteo, North Carolina on June 5, 

2014. All substantive information 

provided during the comment periods is 

summarized above in the Summary of 

Changes from the Proposed Rule and 

has either been incorporated directly 

into this final determination or 

addressed in the more specific response 

to comments below. 

A number of commenters, including a 

peer reviewer, Federal agencies, and 

States, provided new information or 

clarifications on information presented 

in the red knot proposed listing rule (78 

FR 60024) and its supporting 

documents. Categories of new or 

clarified information include additional 

years of population estimates or sighting 

information throughout the rufa red 

knot’s range, status of the rufa red knot 

and ecology in Argentina and French 

Guiana, beach cleaning, sea level rise 

and its projected effects on migratory 

shorebirds, disturbance, the Deepwater 

Horizon and Galveston oil spills, status 

of offshore wind energy development 

leases along the Atlantic coast, 

historical and current food resources 

and foraging habitat, migration and 

staging areas, updated stopover 

population size estimates in Delaware 

Bay, State restrictions on importing 

Asian HSC, ongoing management of 

HSC, habitat protection in Maine, and 

geolocator scope of inference. This new 

or clarified information has been 

incorporated, as appropriate, into this 

final rule or its Supplemental 

Document. 

General Issues 

(1) Comment: Several public, State, 

and Federal commenters submitted 

comments on topics related to other 

issues not specific to the red knot listing 

proposal. These issues include (a) 

general criticism of the Act (funding 

species’ conservation and Service 

employees being a target of litigation, 

imposing fines that are too punitive, 

having negative effects on local 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73710 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

communities, producing decisions on 

which species survive and where public 

hearings are held, and using science that 

would not withstand National Academy 

of Science Review); (b) the information 

and analysis required to designate 

critical habitat; and (c) red knot or HSC 

population targets, other species, 

research, actions, or resources that 

should be considered, as well as where 

funding should be directed and whom 

the Service should work with as part of 

ongoing or future conservation activities 

and recovery planning for the rufa red 

knot. 

Our Response: All of these comments 

are outside the scope of this final listing 

rule and will not be addressed here. 

Substantive comments related to critical 

habitat issues will be addressed during 

development of a proposed critical 

habitat rule for the red knot. Substantive 

comments related to future conservation 

of the red knot will be addressed during 

the development of a recovery outline 

and draft recovery plan. 

(2) Comment: Several commenters, 

including one State, expressed concerns 

that the rufa red knot’s listing could (a) 

result in restrictions on pedestrian and 

vehicular beach recreation, additional 

regulatory hurdles, decreased property 

values, and increased costs to otherwise 

lawful activities, all of which could 

cause negative effects to local 

communities, economies, and quality of 

life, and could erode the current 

goodwill of partners to work on red knot 

conservation; (b) result in reduced HSC 

harvest levels, causing economic 

impacts to fishermen reliant on the HSC 

bait fishery, potentially shifting harvest 

pressure to areas outside of Delaware 

Bay, and potentially creating incentives 

to import Asian HSC species for bait; (c) 

reduce availability of HSCs for 

biomedical uses; and (d) restrict beach 

access for HSC conservation programs 

(e.g., rescue programs for volunteers to 

flip stranded crabs). Additionally, some 

commenters expressed frustration over 

existing beach access and management 

on National Park Service (NPS) lands 

because of other listed species and 

asked for expanded management 

options beyond beach closures. 

Conversely, other commenters asked for 

additional restrictions in places like 

Delaware Bay. 

Our Response: While we appreciate 

the concern about potential 

management actions that may result 

from listing the rufa red knot or any 

species, the Act does not allow us to 

factor those concerns into our listing 

decision. Section 4(a)(1) of the Act 

specifies that we shall determine 

whether any species is threatened or 

endangered because of any of the 

following factors: (A) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. Section 4(b)(1)(A) further 

specifies that we shall make such 

determinations based solely on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available. See Our Response 60 

regarding other implications of listing 

that we may not consider in evaluating 

whether a species meets the definition 

of threatened or endangered under the 

Act. 

The Service does not make 

management decisions about any lands 

other than National Wildlife Refuges 

and National Hatcheries, but we remain 

committed to working with coastal 

communities to evaluate any effects of 

coastal management on the rufa red 

knot, and to implement actions in a 

manner consistent with the species’ 

conservation using many of the Act’s 

available tools. We will strive to build 

on existing management practices in 

local areas to limit disturbance to red 

knots and other shorebirds through 

coordination and partnership with the 

States, other Federal agencies, 

conservation groups, and local 

communities. 

The Service does not have authority 

to directly regulate the HSC fishery, but 

we intend to continue our active role in 

the ASMFC’s management of the HSC 

fishery, and will provide 

recommendations and technical 

assistance to ensure that future harvests 

of HSCs do not result in take of red 

knots under section 9 of the Act. See 

Our Responses 45, 46, 48 through 50, 

52, 111, 117, 120, and 121 below and 

the Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Reduced Food Availability—Horseshoe 

Crab Harvest) for detailed answers 

related to other aspects of HSC 

management, including biomedical use 

and implications of importation of 

Asian HSC species. 

(3) Comment: Several commenters 

asked how listing will benefit the red 

knot when its range spans several 

countries, yet the Act’s jurisdiction is 

limited to the United States. Many of 

the threats discussed in the proposed 

rule either occur only in areas outside 

of the United States (e.g., hunting) or are 

issues (e.g., climate change) that cannot 

be affected by management under the 

Act. The Service cannot expect to 

achieve a fraction of the conservation 

success that has been achieved in 

Delaware Bay, given that the Act’s 

prohibitions do not apply outside of the 

United States. 

Our Response: The Act requires 

listing of a species that meets the 

definition of threatened or endangered 

even if we currently lack the means to 

fully abate the threats that cause it to be 

threatened or endangered. 

Notwithstanding, we disagree that 

listing will have no effect on threats 

such as adequacy of food supplies and 

hunting, and we expect these threats to 

be addressed during recovery planning. 

The development of a recovery plan will 

guide efforts intended to ensure the 

long-term survival and eventual 

recovery of the rufa red knot, as 

discussed in the proposed rule (78 FR 

60024, p. 60097). While we 

acknowledge that listing will not have a 

direct impact on those aspects of 

climate change impacting the rufa red 

knot (e.g., sea level rise, arctic and 

ocean warming, ocean acidification, 

timing changes in the annual cycles of 

natural systems, possible changes in 

storm patterns or predation pressures), 

we expect that listing will enhance 

national and international cooperation 

and coordination of conservation efforts, 

enhance research programs, and 

encourage the development of 

mitigation measures that could help 

slow habitat loss and population 

declines. 

Benefits to the species outside the 

United States from listing include a 

prohibition on import. By regulating 

this activity, the Act ensures that people 

under the jurisdiction of the United 

States do not contribute to the further 

decline of listed species. Although the 

Act’s prohibitions regarding listed 

species apply only to people subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States, the 

Act can generate additional 

conservation benefits such as increase 

awareness of listed species, encourage 

research efforts to address conservation 

needs, or prioritize funding for in-situ 

conservation of the species in its range 

countries. The Act also provides for 

limited financial assistance to develop 

and manage programs to conserve listed 

species in foreign countries, encourages 

conservation programs for such species, 

and allows for assistance for programs, 

such as personnel and training. 

While we agree that limiting HSC 

harvests and other actions in Delaware 

Bay have been instrumental in halting 

(though not yet reversing) the decline of 

the red knot, we do not agree that 

conservation of this species is 

impossible in other geographic areas. 

For example, the rufa red knot is listed 

as endangered in Canada and Argentina, 

was recently protected from hunting in 

the Caribbean, has been listed as a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73711 

protected species in French Guiana, and 

is a focus of active conservation 

programs in several countries including 

Canada, Argentina, and Chile. In the 

United States, there are ongoing 

conservation and research efforts in 

many areas outside Delaware Bay 

including Massachusetts, Virginia, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 

Florida, and Texas. Many important red 

knot areas within and outside the 

United States have been recognized as 

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network sites. 

(4) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the Act is currently under revision 

and it is advisable to postpone further 

listings until the changes are finalized. 

Our Response: While we are aware of 

several proposed legislative changes to 

the Act, those changes may not come to 

fruition and we may not delay 

implementing the current Act while 

those proposed changes are being 

debated. In addition to the proposed 

legislative changes, we are actively 

working on a series of regulatory 

changes to improve the implementation 

of the Act (see our ‘‘Improving ESA 

Implementation’’ Web site for more 

information: http://www.fws.gov/

endangered/improving_ESA/

index.html). 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinion 

from three knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the rufa red knot and its 

habitat, biological needs, and threats. 

We received responses from one of the 

peer reviewers. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewer for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the listing of the rufa red knot. This peer 

reviewer was generally supportive of the 

overall proposal and, in addition to 

providing further site-specific 

information, generally confirmed our 

use of the best available scientific 

information. Peer reviewer comments 

are addressed in the following summary 

and incorporated into the final rule as 

appropriate. 

(5) Comment: The peer reviewer 

stated there is nonscientifically reported 

evidence (newspaper articles, animal 

care center reports) that red tide 

poisoning has caused extensive death of 

knots on Florida’s west coast. 

Our Response: We appreciate the peer 

reviewer bringing this information to 

our attention. Unfortunately, we were 

unable to locate the sources of the 

suggested information and, therefore, 

cannot verify the content. However, we 

have obtained a report of one nonfatal 

case of red tide poisoning of a red knot 

in Florida (H. Barron pers. comm. April 

29, 2014); the bird’s blood was tested 

and confirmed to have a brevetoxin 

level of 2.64 nanograms/milliliter (ng/

ml). Brevetoxin is a highly potent 

neurotoxin produced by red tide events. 

We have added this information to the 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Harmful Algal Blooms—Gulf of 

Mexico). Though not documenting 

widespread effects or mortality from red 

tide, this report does confirm that red 

tide poisoning of red knots has occurred 

in Florida, which is otherwise 

unreported in the scientific literature. 

(6) Comment: The peer reviewer 

noted that the proposed rule (78 FR 

60024, p. 60045) states that 

uncontrolled invasive vegetation can 

cause a habitat shift from open or 

sparsely vegetated sand to dense 

vegetation, resulting in the loss or 

degradation of red knot roosting habitat. 

The link between dense invasive 

vegetation and red knot habitat 

degradation is conjecture and should be 

strengthened with reference to a 

scientific study. 

Our Response: We agree. We have 

revised this paragraph in the 

Supplemental Document (Factor A— 

Invasive Vegetation) to add citations to 

support the statement that uncontrolled 

invasive vegetation can cause a habitat 

shift from open or sparsely vegetated 

sand to dense vegetation. We have 

removed the wording ‘‘resulting in the 

loss or degradation of red knot roosting 

habitat,’’ because we are not aware of 

any scientific studies or other data 

documenting that such degradation has 

occurred. We have instead added the 

statement that, in nonbreeding habitats, 

Calidris canutus require sparse 

vegetation to avoid predation (Niles et 

al. 2008, p. 44; Piersma et al. 1993, pp. 

338–339, 349). 

(7) Comment: The peer reviewer 

stated that the Southeast coast of the 

United States is important during 

northward migration. Many red knots 

marked in Argentina and Chile are seen 

on the Atlantic coasts of Florida, 

Georgia, South Carolina, and North 

Carolina during, but not before, May. In 

addition, several other commenters 

stated the proposed rule did not identify 

North Carolina as having major or 

important spring or fall stopover areas. 

Our Response: The Southeast, 

including North Carolina, was identified 

in the proposed rule as providing spring 

and fall stopover sites (Rufa Red Knot 

Ecology and Abundance, pp. 18, 50–51). 

Data characterizing the stopover usage 

of the Southeast, including North 

Carolina, are presented unchanged in 

the Supplemental Document (e.g., figure 

4; Population Surveys and Estimates— 

Spring Stopover Areas—Southeast 

United States). However, we have 

revised the text of the Supplemental 

Document (Population Surveys and 

Estimates—Spring Migration) to clarify 

that our review focused on 

geographically large spring stopovers 

with multiple years of survey data, but 

that other important spring stopover 

areas are known (e.g., from International 

Shorebird Survey data, eBird, localized 

surveys). We have also revised the 

wording of the Supplemental Document 

(Migration—Atlantic Coast) to refer to 

‘‘well-known’’ instead of ‘‘major’’ or 

‘‘important’’ spring and fall stopover 

areas, since many potentially significant 

stopover areas have been surveyed only 

sporadically or are yet undiscovered. 

Finally, we have added the information 

provided by the peer reviewer regarding 

passage of southern-wintering birds 

along the Southeast coast during May 

(Migration—Atlantic Coast—Spring 

Timing and Distribution). 

(8) Comment: The peer reviewer 

stated the proposed rule presented 

comprehensive evidence about threats 

to red knots during winter and 

northbound migration seasons, mostly 

focused on the longest-distance 

migrating knots that winter in Argentina 

and Chile. However, the proposed rule 

presented less information regarding 

northbound or southbound passage of 

the knots that spend winter seasons in 

regions north of the Equator. One issue 

that needs elaboration is the relative 

numbers of knots that winter in each of 

these two large regions and the 

differences of habitat use and migration 

strategies that exist between them. 

Our Response: The proposed rule 

presented available data regarding 

numbers of red knots in each wintering 

area (Rufa Red Knot Ecology and 

Abundance pp. 38–45), summarized by 

Atkinson et al. (in Wader Study Group 

2005) and Harrington et al. (2010b) 

regarding differences in migration 

strategy by wintering area (Rufa Red 

Knot Ecology and Abundance pp. 22, 

32), and presented information 

regarding possibly greater reliance on 

HSC eggs by migrants from Argentina 

and Chile relative to birds from more 

northern wintering areas (Rufa Red Knot 

Ecology and Abundance pp. 31–33). In 

the Supplemental Document, we have 

added a section (Wintering—Northern 

Versus Southern) to summarize the 

differences between red knots from 

northern versus southern wintering 

areas that are discussed elsewhere in the 

document, moved and supplemented 

information to a new section 

(Migration—Differences in Migration 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73712 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Strategy by Wintering Region) on 

differences in migration strategies, and 

clarified information regarding 

differential reliance on HSC eggs 

(Wintering and Migration Food). 

(9) Comment: The peer reviewer 

noted the proposed rule stated that red 

knots require stopovers rich in easily 

digested food to achieve adequate 

weight gain due to changes in the 

digestive system that birds undergo 

before long flights. This may be less true 

for the knots from northern wintering 

grounds. 

Our Response: In the proposed rule, 

we noted this possible physiological 

difference between southern- and 

northern-wintering rufa red knots (Rufa 

Red Knot Ecology and Abundance, pp. 

30–31), but we did not mention this 

possible difference in the section cited 

by this commenter (Rufa Red Knot 

Ecology and Abundance, p. 17). In the 

Supplemental Document (Species 

Information—Migration—Migration 

Biology), we have added a sentence to 

this paragraph to clarify that some 

researchers have suggested that 

digestive system changes are more 

pronounced, or have a more 

pronounced effect on energy budgets at 

the stopover areas, in southernwintering (Argentina and Chile) than in 

northern-wintering (Southeast United 

States) rufa red knots (Niles et al. 2008, 

p. 36; Atkinson et al. 2006b, p. 41). We 

have also added a cross reference in this 

paragraph to refer readers to a more 

detailed discussion of this issue that is 

presented under Migration and 

Wintering Food—Horseshoe Crab 

Eggs—Possible Differential Reliance on 

Horseshoe Crab Eggs. 

(10) Comment: The peer reviewer 

suggested the term ‘‘full segregation’’ is 

unclear with regard to migration 

strategies, routes, or stopover areas 

among red knots from different 

wintering areas. There is a good deal of 

segregation in stopover regimens and in 

molt regimens between southbound 

knots with destinations in Argentina 

and Chile versus northern-hemisphere 

wintering birds. There also appears to 

be some degree of difference in stopover 

habitat use between these two groups in 

northbound migration. 

Our Response: We have clarified the 

lack of full segregation by providing 

examples in the Supplemental 

Document (Migration—Differences in 

Migration Strategy by Wintering Area). 

Also see Our Responses 8 and 9 above. 

(11) Comment: The peer reviewer 

stated northern- versus southernwintering knots have different strategies 

in southward migration. The southern 

group has essentially passed through 

Atlantic regions of North America 

before September, and strongly depends 

upon being able to accumulate fat and 

protein prior to launching on over-ocean 

flights between North and South 

America. Northern-wintering birds, 

however, linger on the North American 

coast (e.g., Massachusetts, Georgia 

coasts), are using ‘‘stopover’’ locations 

as molting areas, and are using different 

food and habitat resources as compared 

to the southern-wintering knots. The 

resource requirements by birds of these 

two groups during southward migration 

are quite different. 

Our Response: We have added this 

information with supporting citations to 

the new section of the Supplemental 

Document (Migration—Differences in 

Migration Strategy by Wintering 

Region). 

(12) Comment: The peer reviewer 

noted that, historically, oiling was 

perhaps an important problem to knots 

in Patagonia, and suggested limited 

information was available in the 

reference Harrington and Morrison 

1980. 

Our Response: Some of the data from 

Harrington and Morrison (1980) were 

presented in the proposed rule (78 FR 

60024, p. 60086) from a secondary 

source (Niles et al. 2008, p. 98). We have 

added the rest of these data and this 

reference to the Supplemental 

Document (Factor E—Oil Spills and 

Leaks—South America). 

(13) Comment: The peer reviewer 

stated that, although the Costa del Este 

area of Panama City, Panama 

(referenced in the proposed rule, 78 FR 

60024, p. 60043), is a very important 

location for many kinds of shorebirds, 

few knots have been reported from here. 

Our Response: We agree that only 

moderate numbers of Calidris canutus 

have been reported in most seasons 

from Panama’s Pacific coast (which 

includes habitats near Panama City as 

well as other sites). However, larger 

numbers have been reported from 

Pacific Panama during fall migration. In 

the proposed rule (Rufa Red Knot 

Ecology and Abundance, pp. 41–42, 52), 

we presented available data regarding 

numbers of C. canutus in Panama. We 

have consolidated and updated these 

data with new information in the 

Supplemental Document (see 

Population Surveys and Estimates— 

Central America and Pacific South 

America). 

(14) Comment: The peer reviewer 

stated that recently published data show 

dramatic declines and shifting of 

stopover locations during south 

migration in Massachusetts. 

Our Response: This information 

(Harrington et al. 2010a; Harrington et 

al. 2010b) was presented in the 

proposed rule (Rufa Red Knot Ecology 

and Abundance, p. 51). We have 

expanded the discussion of these results 

in the Supplemental Document 

(Migration—Atlantic Coast—Fall 

Timing and Distribution; Population 

Surveys and Estimates—Fall Stopover 

Areas). 

(15) Comment: The peer reviewer 

stated that the proposed rule was 

incorrect in describing only small 

numbers of red knots on mid-Atlantic 

and northern Atlantic beaches between 

Memorial Day and Labor Day. Currently 

about 1,000 to 2,000 knots occur on the 

Massachusetts coast during the fall 

migration period, and numbers were 

previously much higher. Peak dates for 

these southbound migrants are in July 

and August. 

Our Response: This statement 

appeared in the section of the proposed 

rule addressing beach cleaning (78 FR 

60045). We have revised the 

Supplemental Document (Population 

Surveys and Estimates—Fall Stopover 

Areas; Factor A—Beach Cleaning) to 

correct this information. 

(16) Comment: The peer reviewer 

stated that there has been a major shift 

of key stopover areas of knots in south 

migration in Massachusetts since the 

1980s when up to 10,000 southernwintering knots were heavily 

concentrated on the western shore of 

Cape Cod Bay (Harrington et al. 2010a). 

Our Response: We discussed the 

findings of Harrington et al. (2010a) in 

the proposed rule (Rufa Red Knot 

Ecology and Abundance, p. 51). We 

have revised several sections of the 

Supplemental Document to provide 

more specific results from this study 

(Migration—Differences in Migration 

Strategy by Wintering Region; Historical 

Distribution and Abundance; 

Population Surveys and Estimates—Fall 

Stopover Areas). 

(17) Comment: The peer reviewer 

stated that the proposed rule (78 FR 

60024, p. 60046) notes that more red 

knots were documented in northeast 

Brazil in the 2000s than during the early 

1980s. The wording of this paragraph 

could be misconstrued to suggest that 

habitats were improved by the 

development from shrimp farm ponds. 

Our Response: We agree and have 

clarified this point in the Supplemental 

Document (Factor A—Agriculture and 

Aquaculture). 

(18) Comment: The peer reviewer 

commented that the proposed rule (78 

FR 60024, p. 60045) stated that beachcleaning machines are likely to cause 

disturbance to roosting and foraging red 

knots. This is more of an issue with 

respect to roosting than to foraging. In 

almost all cases, raked areas would be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73713 

beaches that knots might use during 

high tides for roosting (if not for high 

levels of human disturbance), but not as 

sites for foraging. Beach cleaning 

generally happens on beaches 

intensively used for human recreation. 

Because of heavy human use, knots that 

might otherwise roost in these areas 

would generally avoid such locations. 

Thus, the issue would be disturbance 

versus beach cleaning. 

Our Response: The proposed rule (78 

FR 60024, p. 60077) noted that roosting 

red knots are particularly vulnerable to 

disturbance. We have revised the 

Supplemental Document to crossreference this information under Factor 

A—Beach Cleaning, and to note in this 

same section that beach-cleaning 

typically occurs along or landward of 

the high tide line where red knots may 

roost but are unlikely to forage. The 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60044) 

states that mechanical beach cleaning is 

most commonly conducted on beaches 

that are heavily used for tourism. We 

agree that disturbance to red knots from 

recreational activities may, on many 

beaches, be greater than the disturbance 

from the beach cleaning machines. 

However, beach cleaning may occur at 

times of day (e.g., early morning, 

evening) when few recreational 

activities are taking place, thus 

increasing the total daily duration that 

knots are disturbed by human activities. 

Conversely, many raked beaches may 

have such high levels of human 

recreational use that red knots are 

precluded from using them entirely; in 

such cases there would be no 

incremental additional disturbance from 

the raking activities. We have added 

these conclusions to the Supplemental 

Document (Factor A—Beach Cleaning). 

In addition, the proposed rule already 

described (78 FR 60024, p. 60044) 

physical impacts to beach habitats from 

mechanical beach cleaning. 

Federal Agency Comments 

(19) Comment: One Federal agency 

provided data regarding the seasonality 

and abundance of red knots in or near 

units managed by the NPS in the Central 

and Eastern United States. To assess 

gross trends in occurrence of red knots 

across NPS units, this commenter 

considered vetted eBird data points 

where birding effort was reported, and 

found that, in the NPS units where most 

red knot occurrences were reported 

(Assateague Island, Cape Lookout, Cape 

Hatteras, Cape Cod, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, and Timucuan 

Ecological and Historic Preserve), a 

clear declining trend in red knot 

observations was detected since 1980. 

Our Response: We thank the 

commenter and have added this trend 

information to the Supplemental 

Document (Population Surveys and 

Estimates). The information regarding 

the seasonality and abundance of red 

knots at individual NPS units will be 

valuable for purposes of recovery 

planning, management under section 

7(a)(1) of the Act, and consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 

(20) Comment: One Federal agency 

noted that several Navy installations 

within the range of the red knot have 

Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plans in place that benefit 

the red knot, including provisions for 

shoreline protection. 

Our Response: We appreciate this 

information and anticipate working 

closely with these installations as we 

develop a critical habitat designation, 

and develop and implement a recovery 

plan for the red knot. 

(21) Comment: One Federal agency 

commented that the proposed rule and 

supporting document overemphasized 

the risks to the red knot, and birds in 

general, associated with offshore wind 

energy development. In addition, 

several States and other commenters 

stated that wind energy development 

outside of coastal areas is unlikely to be 

a significant threat to red knots. 

Our Response: In both the proposed 

rule (78 FR 60024, pp. 60089–60093) 

and the Supplemental Document (Factor 

E—Wind Energy Development), we have 

summarized and characterized the best 

available data regarding risks to the red 

knot from both offshore and terrestrial 

wind energy development. We have 

made considerable revisions to this 

section of the Supplemental Document 

to reflect substantive public comments 

and new information (see also Our 

Responses 62, 134 to 137). We conclude 

that wind energy development, 

especially near the coasts, may cause 

some unquantifiable amount of red knot 

mortality into the foreseeable future, 

and that one model indicated this 

species is vulnerable to population-level 

effects from even low levels of 

anthropogenic mortality (Watts 2010, 

pp. 1, 39). Unless facilities are 

constructed at key stopover or wintering 

habitats, we do not expect wind energy 

development, especially offshore or 

inland, to cause significant direct 

habitat loss or degradation, or 

displacement of red knots from 

otherwise suitable habitats. 

(22) Comment: One Federal agency 

stated that, in addition to the total 

number and height of offshore turbines, 

exposure is a factor contributing to 

avian collision risks. For red knots, 

exposure to offshore wind facilities is 

reduced because (1) they can fly 

nonstop for 1,500 miles (mi) (2,414 

kilometers (km)), which limits their 

time over the open ocean, and (2) birds 

on long-distance flights, such as red 

knots crossing the offshore 

environment, fly at higher altitudes than 

short-distant migrants. 

Our Response: We agree that exposure 

to wind turbines is a contributing factor 

to avian collision risk. The proposed 

rule (78 FR 60024, pp. 60090–60091) 

presented the findings of Burger et al. 

(2011, entire), who used a weight-ofevidence approach to examine the risks 

and hazards to red knots from offshore 

wind energy development on the OCS at 

three spatial levels of exposure. We 

concur that the red knot can fly nonstop 

for 1,500 mi (2,414 km) and that some 

knots have limited temporal exposure to 

the offshore environment (Normandeau 

Associates, Inc. 2011, p. 202). 

Geolocator data show certain knots 

crossing the OCS as many as six times 

per year, and because these numbers 

reflect only long flights, more crossings 

of the OCS may occur as birds make 

shorter flights between States (Burger et 

al. 2012c, p. 374). 

It is estimated that the normal 

cruising altitude of red knots during 

migration is between 3,281 to 9,843 feet 

(ft) (1,000 to 3,000 meters (m)) (Burger 

et al. 2011, p. 346), well above the 

estimated height of even a 10-megawatt 

(MW) offshore turbine (681 ft; 207.5 m). 

However, lower flight altitudes may be 

expected when red knots encounter bad 

weather or high winds, and these lower 

flight altitudes are known to occur on 

ascent or descent from long-distance 

flights, during short-distance flights if 

they are blown off course, during short 

coastal migration flights, or during daily 

commuting flights (e.g., between 

foraging and roosting habitats) (Burger 

et al. 2012c, pp. 375–376; Burger et al. 

2011, p. 346), as discussed in the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60090). 

(23) Comment: One Federal agency 

stated that some studies and analyses 

used in the proposed rule (78 FR 60024) 

fail to distinguish between onshore/

nearshore and offshore wind energy 

development. This distinction is 

important because the species at risk 

and the magnitude of the risk can be 

considerably different. The agency 

further stated that coastal environments 

generally have higher concentrations of 

birds than offshore areas and that birds 

taking off from land may fly through the 

rotor zone before reaching cruising 

elevation. In addition, this commenter 

questioned our conclusions about the 

risk of bird collisions with offshore 

wind facilities, which were based on a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73714 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

scientific paper (Kuvlesky et al. 2007) 

summarizing research from Europe. 

Our Response: In the proposed rule 

(78 FR 60024, p. 60089–60092), we 

addressed separately land-based wind 

energy development (including along 

the coasts) versus in the offshore 

environment. Based on the high 

frequency and lower altitudes of red 

knot flights along the coast (e.g., ascent 

or descent from long-distance flights, 

during short coastal migration flights, or 

during daily commuting flights between 

foraging and roosting habitats) (D. 

Newstead pers. comm. March 5, 2013; 

Burger et al. 2012c, pp. 375–376; Burger 

et al. 2011, p. 346; Stewart et al. 2007, 

p. 1; Alerstam et al. 1990, p. 201), we 

agree with the commenter that collision 

risk per turbine (notwithstanding 

differences such as size, design, 

operation, local habitats) along the 

coasts (both on land and nearshore) is 

likely higher than in areas either far 

offshore or far inland. We have revised 

the Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Wind Energy Development—Terrestrial) 

to reflect this conclusion. We have also 

revised the Supplemental Document 

(Factor E—Wind Energy Development) 

to move the discussion of avian 

collision risk factors (e.g., weather, light 

levels, lighting, turbine characteristics, 

habitats) and displacement effects to be 

generalized across both terrestrial and 

offshore wind energy facilities, as the 

citations supporting this discussion 

pertain to both. 

In the proposed rule (78 FR 60024, 

pp. 60089–60091), we did not attempt to 

differentiate between nearshore (e.g., 

State waters) and the OCS. Although we 

still have little information on avian 

impacts from turbines far offshore, we 

have updated our conclusions in the 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Wind Energy Development—Offshore) 

to reflect geolocator results by Burger et 

al. (2012c, p. 373) and analysis by 

Burger et al. (2011, p. 346) suggesting 

red knot collision risk may decrease far 

offshore. Finally, we have removed the 

following statement from the 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Wind Energy Development—Offshore): 

‘‘Research from Europe, where several 

offshore wind facilities are in operation, 

suggests that bird collision rates with 

offshore turbines may be higher than for 

turbines on land.’’ Upon further review 

of the source cited for this statement 

(Kuvlesky et al. 2007, p. 2489), we 

found that these authors presented 

results from both coastal and nearshore 

wind facilities. Further, these authors 

went on to present countervailing 

findings from other studies, and did not 

cite any studies from wind turbines 

located far offshore. Therefore, we 

reasoned that this statement from the 

Kuvlesky et al. 2007 paper was not 

appropriate to include in this final rule. 

(24) Comment: One Federal agency 

commented that the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM) has 

worked with State Task Forces to 

determine the best locations for wind 

energy development to help avoid 

impacts. For example, areas being 

considered are greater than 9 mi (14 km) 

offshore; the Virginia lease area is 23.5 

nautical miles (nm) (43.5 km) from 

Virginia Beach. 

Our Response: We concur that siting 

far offshore may succeed in reducing 

overall avian collision hazards, 

including for red knots, although 

species that rely on the offshore 

environment for breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering (e.g., certain seabirds and 

waterfowl) may have increased 

exposure risk to turbines farther 

offshore. We appreciate the work of 

BOEM to evaluate and minimize avian 

collision risks in siting decisions, and 

this information has been added to the 

Supplement Document (Factor E—Wind 

Energy Development—Offshore). 

However, we also updated this section 

of the Supplemental Document to 

compare these distances offshore with 

red knot use areas delineated by Burger 

et al. (2012c, p. 373) based on geolocator 

results, which do appear to have some 

overlap with both the offshore 

commercial wind energy development 

leases executed to date and the Wind 

Energy Areas (WEA) where BOEM will 

focus for future leases, including areas 

off the mouth of Delaware Bay (BOEM 

undated, p. 1). 

(25) Comment: One Federal agency 

stated that BOEM recently published a 

study on the relative vulnerability of 

migratory bird species to offshore wind 

energy projects on the Atlantic OCS; the 

study ranked the relative vulnerability 

of 177 migratory bird species to 

collision and displacement by offshore 

wind turbines. The relative collision 

vulnerability of red knot was ‘‘medium’’ 

and the relative vulnerability to 

displacement ‘‘low.’’ 

Our Response: We have reviewed this 

report and incorporated the findings 

into the Supplemental Document 

(Factor E—Wind Energy Development— 

Offshore). We note that some of the 

factors considered in this report are not 

specific to the rufa subspecies of 

Calidris canutus, and thus the 

numerical vulnerability scores are not 

applicable to rufa. 

Comments From States 

(26) Comment: One State expressed 

disappointment in the Service’s 

communication regarding the proposed 

rule. Because of the wide geographic 

scope of this listing proposal, the 

Service should have engaged all of the 

State wildlife agencies for their input 

prior to publication and should have 

briefed the State agency directors about 

the proposed expansion of the rufa red 

knot’s listed range. In addition, several 

States and other commenters stated that 

the proposed rule contained inadequate 

justification for a sweeping change in 

the red knot’s range from previous 

Service documents (e.g., 2006 to 2011 

Candidate Notices of Review (CNORs)). 

Our Response: We regret that this 

State is disappointed in our 

communication efforts on the rufa red 

knot proposed listing. We acknowledge 

the proposed range was greatly 

expanded from what was described in 

the last CNOR update, but the proposed 

rule (78 FR 60024) and this final rule 

contain our analysis of, and conclusions 

drawn from, the best scientific and 

commercial data available. Substantial 

new data have become available since 

2011, the last year we were required to 

update the knot’s CNOR form. We also 

acknowledge that the 2011 CNOR form 

indicates the rufa red knot’s range is 

limited to coastal areas and did not 

include interior portions of the coastal 

States or any inland States. The 2011 

CNOR was based on the best data 

available at the time. Our understanding 

of the species’ biology and occurrence 

records evolved rapidly based on results 

from geolocator research followed by 

enhanced analysis of national and 

regional databases. The proposed rule 

(Rufa Red Knot Ecology and 

Abundance, pp. 21, 23) explained the 

best available data and supported the 

expanded geographic scope of analysis 

under the Act. The discussion of these 

data has been updated and expanded in 

the Supplemental Document (Species 

Nonbreeding Distributions; Migration— 

Midcontinent; Migration and Wintering 

Habitat—Inland; Population Surveys 

and Estimates—Inland Areas Spring and 

Fall). We will strive to improve our 

communication with the States as we 

greatly value our conservation 

partnerships. 

(27) Comment: Several States and 

other commenters stated that the 

proposed rule is generally lacking in 

scientific evidence and is based on 

speculative information. For example, 

(1) in the proposed rule, the Service 

repeatedly made undocumented claims 

and speculated that a variety of items 

‘‘may’’ be a factor that could cause the 

demise of the species; (2) in describing 

threats and risks to the red knot, the 

proposed rule used terms such as high 

uncertainty, expected, likely, may, 

could, possibly, and unknown but 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73715 

possible; (3) although the best available 

science has been used to generate 

predictions about some possible future 

impacts, best available science has not 

been used to examine and explain the 

relevance of potential threats (e.g., sea 

level rise, climate change) to recent red 

knot population trends; (4) because of 

the potentially serious ramifications of a 

Federal listing on Federal programs and 

permitting processes, it is neither 

sufficient nor professional to base listing 

decisions so heavily upon speculation; 

and (5) the principle of best available 

science must be used to demonstrate 

causal relationships between threats and 

population change. In a related 

comment, one commenter stated that it 

is well-established that the Act does not 

provide for the listing of species on the 

basis of speculative, uncertain, or 

inconclusive information. A number of 

courts (i.e., Conner v. Burford, Trout 

Unlimited v. Lohn, Ctr. for Biological 

Diversity v. Lubchenco, Bennett v. 

Spear, and Nat’l Res. Council v. Daley) 

have determined that the threshold 

decision to list a species as threatened 

or endangered is not to be based on 

speculation or a misplaced intent to err 

on the side of species conservation. The 

default position for all species is that 

they are not protected under the Act. 

Our Response: We disagree that our 

analysis is ‘‘speculative.’’ The Service is 

required to make listing determinations 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available. Sources of 

data include peer-reviewed journal 

articles; field notes and other 

unpublished data; and personal 

communications with species, habitat, 

and policy experts. We analyze these 

sources of data and use our best 

professional judgment to determine 

their credibility, in accordance with 

applicable data standards (Interagency 

Policy on Information Standards Under 

the Endangered Species Act (59 FR 

34271); Information Quality Act (P.L. 

106–554, section 515); Information 

Quality Guidelines and Peer Review 

(USFWS 2012f, entire). All data have 

some level of uncertainty, but the 

proposed rule properly identified, 

through citations, the data sources and 

was transparent in qualifying areas and 

levels of uncertainty. 

In making a listing determination, we 

evaluate the threats affecting a species 

in the past, currently, and into the 

foreseeable future. What constitutes the 

foreseeable future may be different for 

each threat, given our confidence in the 

sources of the data and their level of 

certainty regarding future conditions. 

The proposed rule and Supplemental 

Document discuss what information we 

can reliably use to reasonably foresee 

into the future. As discussed below, the 

Act and our policies do not require a 

definitive knowledge of what will 

happen in the future, only what we may 

reasonably predict is likely to occur. 

Although there is some inherent 

uncertainty surrounding the threats we 

evaluated for the red knot, this does not 

prevent us from making a credible 

assessment of the likely direction and 

magnitude of those impacts, even 

though it may not be possible to make 

such predictions with precision. In 

addition, the proposed rule and its 

underlying data were available for peer 

review and extensive public review and 

comment, but the commenters did not 

provide additional substantive 

information to refute our analysis or 

assumptions. 

Under section 4 of the Act, a species 

shall be listed if it meets the definition 

of threatened or endangered because of 

any (one or more) of the five factors that 

are a basis for making a listing 

determination, considering solely best 

available scientific and commercial 

data. Although many species proposed 

for listing have undergone, or are 

undergoing, a population decline, 

declining numbers (rangewide or in 

portions of the range) are not necessary 

for listing if a species is facing sufficient 

threats, now or in the foreseeable future, 

to meet the definition of threatened or 

endangered. Accordingly, not all threats 

contributing to a species’ threatened or 

endangered status must be tied to past 

or ongoing population declines; threats 

for which the species is listed may not 

be affecting the species at the time it is 

being evaluated for listing, but are likely 

to do so in the future. 

The commenter is incorrect in 

asserting that ‘‘the default position for 

all species is that they are not protected 

under the Act,’’ or that listings must be 

based on conclusive evidence. As stated 

above, the Act and our policies do not 

require a definitive knowledge of what 

will happen in the future, only what we 

may reasonably predict is likely to occur 

when making a listing determination. 

Further, our decisions are not based 

on speculation or misplaced intentions. 

The Act requires the Service to base its 

listing determination on the ‘‘best 

scientific and commercial data 

available’’ (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). The 

‘‘best available science’’ requirement 

does not equate to the best possible 

science. Instead, this information 

standard simply prohibits the Service 

from disregarding available scientific 

evidence that is better than the evidence 

it initially relied upon. The Service is 

required to rely upon the best available 

science, even if that science is uncertain 

or even ‘‘quite inconclusive’’ (i.e., Trout 

Unlimited v. Lohn, 645 F. Supp. 2d 929, 

947 (D. Or. 2007) (‘‘Trout Unlimited’’); 

Southwest Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Babbitt, 215 F.3d 58, 60, 342 

U.S. App. D.C. 58 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). The 

case law cited by the commenters 

supports this position. 

In distinguishing endangered from 

threatened, Congress defined 

‘‘threatened’’ species as a species that is 

‘‘likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range’’ 

(16 U.S.C. 1532(20)) (emphasis added). 

Courts have acknowledged the word 

‘‘likely’’ clearly means something less 

than 100 percent certain (Trout 

Unlimited at 947). Moreover, courts 

have found that an agency is entitled to 

particular deference where it has drawn 

conclusions from scientific data (i.e., 

Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 

U.S. 360, 375–77 (1989); Ethyl Corp. v. 

EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 36 (D.C. Cir. 1976); 

Oceana v. Evans, 384 F. Supp. 2d 203, 

219 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing cases)). 

(28) Comment: Several States and 

other commenters stated that the rufa 

red knot geographic range should 

include only areas where the species 

occurs regularly (annually or near 

annually), and should avoid identifying 

jurisdictions (e.g., States) merely 

because they represent continuous 

geographies between discrete regularly 

used stopover sites. As presented in the 

proposed rule, the red knot range is 

inconsistent with how the Service has 

defined the range of other listed 

migratory birds. These commenters also 

noted that although eBird is a useful 

resource, the Service should not have 

used it as the sole source for 

determining the species’ range in a 

listing process, and suggested a more 

thorough and comprehensive review of 

occurrence records should be 

conducted. 

Our Response: In both the proposed 

and final rules, we have defined the rufa 

red knot’s range based on the best 

available data; however, we recognize 

that scientific understanding of this 

species’ range will likely continue to 

improve over time. The Service may 

define a species’ range using State 

boundaries or other geographically 

appropriate scale. How range is defined 

depends on characteristics of the 

species’ biology and how it is listed (i.e., 

as species/subspecies or a distinct 

population segment (DPS)). A species’ 

or subspecies’ range is typically 

described at the state or country scale. 

While the range of a DPS listing can 

include entire States, it is more typically 

defined at a more refined geographic 

scale because we must define where the 

discrete entity occurs. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73716 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

We defined the rufa red knot’s range 

based on the data from reliable 

published scientific literature, 

submitted manuscripts, and species’ 

experts; occurrence data; and analysis 

(e.g., estimated flight paths based on 

known wintering and breeding grounds 

combined with siting records). The 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(e) state, the 

‘‘historic range’’ indicates the known 

general distribution of the species or 

subspecies as reported in the scientific 

literature. The present distribution may 

be greatly reduced from this historic 

range. This column [in the table at 50 

CFR 17.11(h)] does not imply any 

limitations on the application of the 

prohibitions in the Act or implementing 

rules. Such prohibitions apply to all 

individuals of the species, wherever 

found [emphasis added]. Therefore, 

whether a specific State or geographic 

area is included or excluded from the 

textual description of the rufa red knot’s 

range, the subspecies would be 

protected under the Act wherever it may 

be found, for as long as it remains 

federally listed. (See also Our Response 

33 below.) Although a species is listed 

wherever found, we strive to accurately 

describe the range in the 50 CFR 17.11 

table based on the best available data at 

the time of listing. For earlier listed 

species such as the piping plover and 

Kirtland’s warbler, certain tools to help 

us understand the migration routes of 

birds (e.g., satellite transmitters, 

geolocators, eBird) were not available at 

the time. 

See Our Response 82 for explanation 

of how we have interpreted and utilized 

eBird data. We did not solely rely on 

eBird data to determine the rufa red 

knot’s range. In addition to eBird, we 

also relied heavily on Newstead et al. 

2013 (draft manuscript we had at the 

time) and Morrison and Harrington 

1992, and to a lesser degree on Skagen 

et al. 1999. These four sources 

constituted the best available data at the 

time. For this final rule, we have also 

considered an analysis for the 

Mississippi Flyway done by our 

Midwest Region Migratory Bird Program 

(Russell 2014), the State reports 

provided by the Central Flyway Council 

and other commenters, updated 

versions of Newstead et al. (2013) and 

Carmona et al. (2013), and all other 

relevant new information we have 

received since March 2013 when we 

completed drafting of the proposed rule. 

These new sources further validate our 

assumptions and conclusions outlined 

in the proposed rule. See Our Response 

35, below, and the Supplemental 

Document (Subspecies Nonbreeding 

Distribution) regarding how we have 

delineated the nonbreeding ranges of 

C.c. rufa versus C.c. roselaari based on 

the best available data. 

(29) Comment: Several commenters, 

including States, stated that they were 

unaware of any reliably used stopover 

sites for the red knot in the interior 

portion of the United States. These 

commenters contended that bird 

occurrence data do not support the 

existence of stopover sites (defined as 

habitats or locations that consistently 

provide migrants with the opportunity 

to refuel and rest) within the Central 

Flyway States, and that observed 

behavior and diet reinforce the concept 

that red knots do not regularly use and 

do not require any inland wetland 

locations as stopover sites within the 

interior of the Central Flyway. Further, 

most interior records are for vagrant, 

single birds, and interior sightings are so 

sparse that they are ecologically 

insignificant. These State commenters 

specifically requested removal of their 

particular States from the range, and 

requested that listing of the rufa red 

knot not confer any requirements for 

any Federal or State agency or private 

landowner. Conversely, one commenter 

rebutted that, as is frequently the case 

for ‘‘jump’’ migrants, periodic weather 

events or other circumstances 

occasionally result in birds being 

grounded in locations or habitats that 

are only infrequently used along the 

flyway. This commenter also stated that 

while this may be the case for some of 

the interior areas, recent 

communications with biologists 

working in North Dakota indicate that 

habitats in this region (e.g., Missouri 

River sandbars) are far more regularly 

used than eBird records or other 

databases would indicate. Further, 

additional unpublished geolocator 

tracks also show use of sites throughout 

the Missouri Coteau, on both U.S. and 

Canadian sides of the border, as spring 

migration stopovers. This commenter 

stated that the Service should make a 

more complete assessment of the 

occurrence of the species in North 

Dakota, and possibly other States, by 

contacting other biologists that may 

have additional information that is not 

captured in electronic databases. 

Our Response: We also are unaware of 

any consistently used rufa red knot 

stopover sites in the U.S. portion of the 

Central Flyway. However, all three of 

our primary sources (Newstead et al. 

2013, Skagen et al. 1999, and eBird.org 

2014) suggest that habitats in the plains 

of southern Canada (Alberta, 

Saskatchewan, Manitoba) are routinely 

relied upon by migrating knots at least 

under certain conditions (e.g., favorable 

water levels). In addition, from the 

relatively small sample size in 

Newstead et al. (2013, p. 56), one of six 

birds used North Dakota for 14 days in 

spring. We do not yet know how 

aberrant or representative this bird was, 

but these results indicate the possibility 

that the documented Northern Plains 

stopover region may be found to extend 

into the United States, as research on 

midcontinental migrants continues. 

This possibility is supported by the new 

geolocator information regarding 

additional knots on the U.S. side of the 

Missouri Coteau (D. Newstead pers. 

comm. May 8, 2014), including three in 

northern North Dakota, two in northern 

Montana, and one possibly further south 

(e.g., Nebraska) (D. Newstead pers. 

comm. May 16, 2014). Newstead et al. 

(2013, p. 56) found that the Northern 

Plains were used as a northbound 

stopover by five of six birds in 2010 

(including the one in North Dakota), 

with the sixth bird using Hudson Bay. 

Hudson Bay was used by three of three 

birds in 2011. Although the sample size 

(e.g., recovered geolocators) is small, a 

large proportion of the recovered 

geolocators show red knots using a 

midcontinental flyway. Therefore, these 

results suggest that, in years when 

conditions favor it, a large proportion of 

midcontinental migrants may use 

Northern Plains stopovers in spring. In 

addition, birds using the Northern 

Plains as a spring stopover stayed an 

average of 16.2 days (Newstead et al. 

2013, Table 3); this was not a short stop 

but actually similar to the stopover 

duration in Delaware Bay. 

In the proposed rule, we did not 

define ‘‘stopover site.’’ In the 

Supplemental Document (Migration— 

Stopover Areas), we have added 

clarification that places where migrant 

birds stop to rest, drink, and eat are 

often described as either stopover or 

staging sites, with the two terms 

frequently used interchangeably 

(Warnock 2010, p. 621). We have 

adopted the definitions of Warnock 

(2010, p. 621) that all sites where 

migrants rest and feed are stopover sites, 

while staging sites are a subset of 

stopovers that provide abundant and 

predictable food resources without 

which birds would incur significant 

fitness costs. 

We agree that many of the inland red 

knot sightings to date represent single 

birds. However, we understand the term 

‘‘vagrant’’ to mean a bird that has 

strayed or been blown far from its usual 

range or migratory route; synonymous 

with ‘‘accidental.’’ According to Russell 

(2014, p. 1), ‘‘accidental’’ implies an 

extraordinary record, out of the normal 

pattern, and unlikely to occur again. 

Based on this understanding of the term, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73717 

we disagree with characterizing rufa red 

knots in the Central Flyway as vagrant, 

based on geolocator results showing that 

the midcontinent does constitute the 

most prevalent migratory route for at 

least some birds that winter in Texas (D. 

Newstead pers. comm. May 8, 2014; 

Newstead et al. 2013, entire). Based on 

these geolocator data, we conclude that 

a substantial proportion of Texaswintering knots pass over the Central 

Flyway twice annually during 

migration. Other than the Northern 

Plains of southern Saskatchewan (and 

potentially extending into the northern 

U.S. plains), we are not currently aware 

of any other stopover sites in the Central 

Flyway that are routinely or 

intermittently relied upon by a 

substantial number of birds. 

Further, there are clusters of sightings 

records in both the midcontinent and 

further east through the Mississippi 

Valley and along the Great Lakes. These 

cluster areas warrant further study to 

more fully evaluate their usage as red 

knot stopovers. (See Supplemental 

Document section Migration— 

Midcontinent—Stopovers.) As 

recommended by one commenter, we 

anticipate a more complete assessment 

of unpublished or anecdotal sightings 

data in the course of recovery planning. 

The existence of such additional 

sightings data, and the geographic 

clustering of the eBird data along water 

bodies, suggest that some inland areas 

may, upon further study, be found to 

routinely or intermittently support 

roosting and feeding red knots during 

migration. 

(30) Comment: Several States and 

other commenters noted Newstead et 

al.’s (2013) findings that more than 

10,000 red knots from the Atlantic coast 

have been uniquely marked. These 

commenters highlighted the authors’ 

conclusion that ‘‘The paucity of 

resightings in Texas suggests that most 

of these knots probably do not share the 

same wintering or stopover sites as 

those associated with the West Atlantic 

flyway.’’ 

Our Response: We agree that available 

data do not show any use of a 

midcontinental (inland Texas through 

North Dakota) flyway by knots known to 

winter or stopover along the U.S. 

Atlantic coast. However, Newstead et al. 

2013 go on to say, ‘‘The paucity of 

resightings in Texas suggests that most 

of these knots probably do not share the 

same wintering or stopover sites as 

those associated with the West Atlantic 

flyway, though the paucity may be the 

result of limited effort and/or reporting’’ 

[emphasis added]. Indeed, we have 

updated the Supplemental Document 

with new geolocator data confirming 

earlier indications (from resightings) 

that at least some Texas-wintering knots 

do mix with Atlantic coast birds during 

migration, both in Canada (Migration— 

Midcontinent—Spring) and the United 

States (Migration—Midcontinent— 

Flyway Fidelity). 

(31) Comment: Several States and 

other commenters stated that records of 

this species’ occurrence in the 

midcontinent suggest red knots use a 

‘‘jump’’ migration strategy, whereby 

birds fly over the Southern and Central 

Great Plains and stopover at sites in the 

Northern Great Plains, principally in 

Southern Canada. Further, both spring 

and fall migrations involve a single 2- or 

3-day flight between the Gulf coast and 

Canada. 

Our Response: We agree that this 

picture of midcontinent migration (long 

‘‘jumps’’ mainly to Southern Canada) is 

consistent with best available data. 

However, that body of available data 

(mainly Newstead et al. 2013, Skagen et 

al. 1999, and eBird.org 2014) is not 

extensive. Newstead et al. (2013) did 

find 2- or 3-day migration flights 

between Texas and the northern 

stopovers, based on a sample size of 

eight geolocators, some of which had 

been carried by the same birds for 2 full 

years. In addition to Newstead’s 

research, our review of reliable national 

and regional occurrence data (Central 

Flyway Council 2013; eBird 2012; A. 

Simnor pers. comm. October 15, 2012) 

found multiple rufa red knot sighting 

records in every interior State. See Our 

Response 29 for discussion of potential 

stopover areas in the interior United 

States. 

(32) Comment: Several States and 

other commenters stated that a separate 

population of rufa red knots exists in 

the midcontinent of the United States 

and this population may constitute a 

DPS; therefore, a DPS analysis should be 

conducted. Further, these commenters 

stated that there is no compelling 

evidence that the midcontinental 

population meets the definition of 

threatened and none of the threats 

affecting the Atlantic coast population 

are applicable to the midcontinental 

population. 

Our Response: Under the Act, we may 

list a species, subspecies, or a DPS of a 

vertebrate species. The Act’s definition 

of ‘‘species’’ includes ‘‘any subspecies 

of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreed when mature.’’ We 

have no evidence that the rufa red knot 

is composed of separate populations 

that may warrant protection of the Act 

at less than the subspecies level. Based 

on the best scientific and commercial 

data available, we determined the rufa 

subspecies of the red knot to warrant 

listing as threatened throughout its 

entire range. 

(33) Comment: Several States and 

other commenters stated that giving 

infrequently or unused areas the same 

standing as regularly used and critically 

important sites ultimately hinders 

conservation efforts and is 

counterproductive. Listing in the 

Central Flyway States will result in 

expenditure of resources and create 

unnecessary bureaucracy (e.g., to 

conduct consultations) in areas with 

little to no occupancy, potentially 

diverting resources away from coastal 

habitats where they would have 

substantially greater conservation 

benefit. Further, listing in the Central 

Flyway States has no conceivable 

conservation benefit to red knots or to 

noncoastal wetland habitats, which 

already derive protection from other 

listed species like the piping plover, 

whooping crane, and interior least tern. 

Our Response: We disagree. The 

Service must make its determination on 

whether a species, subspecies, or DPS 

meets the definition of threatened or 

endangered based solely on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

data. This determination is based only 

on an analysis of the population and 

threats affecting the species as set forth 

under sections 4(a) and 4(b) of the Act. 

The extent to which a potential listing 

will or will not advance the 

conservation of any particular 

ecosystem (e.g., noncoastal wetlands) is 

not a factor we may consider when 

determining whether a species meets 

the definition of threatened or 

endangered, nor may we consider 

economic information, including 

workload implications. As discussed 

above in Our Response 28, the 

provisions of the Act apply to all 

individuals of a listed species wherever 

found (emphasis added). Upon listing, 

therefore, the rufa red knot is protected 

by the Act wherever it occurs, even as 

scientific understanding of its range will 

likely continue to improve over time. 

That said, the Service has the 

appropriate tools under sections 7 and 

10 of the Act to work with our State, 

Federal, and private partners to 

appropriately evaluate the likelihood of 

effects to red knots stemming from 

proposed activities. Such evaluations 

will be based on the species’ level of 

exposure to the proposed activity, 

including the frequency and consistency 

of the species’ occurrence in the affected 

area, and the type of activity, including 

its timing and duration. These 

evaluations may be done at different 

geographic scales. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73718 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

During the recovery planning process 

we will focus on those stopover sites, 

both coastal and inland, that support the 

largest concentrations of birds, based on 

best available data. Inland habitats 

could be an important feature for certain 

flyways at certain times (e.g., during 

particular weather conditions). Based on 

best available information, the Texaswintering birds using the Central 

Flyway are important to the red knot’s 

overall conservation because these birds 

contribute to the subspecies’ resiliency 

and geographic representation. 

Protecting these birds and their habitats 

under the Act does have conservation 

benefit to the rufa red knot. 

(34) Comment: One State commented 

that, given the longitudinal relationship 

between the Atlantic coast of the United 

States and the Pacific coast of South 

America, as well as the documented 

occurrence of marked Calidris canutus 

rufa in Panama and the central coast of 

Chile (Gonza ́lez et al. 2006), it is 

conceivable that some C.c. rufa winter 

in sympatry (e.g., occur in the same 

area) with C.c. roselaari along the 

Pacific coasts of Peru and Chile. 

Further, the subspecific affiliation of the 

knots that winter along the Pacific coast 

from southern Mexico through Chile is 

currently uncertain (78 FR 60024, p. 

60026). 

Our Response: We agree. We have 

updated the Supplemental Document 

(Subspecies Nonbreeding Distributions) 

with considerable new information and 

new conclusions regarding the 

nonbreeding distributions of the rufa 

and roselaari subspecies, including 

areas of likely or potential overlap. 

(35) Comment: Several States and 

other commenters noted that the 

proposed rule includes inland States 

with low Calidris canutus occurrence 

(e.g., Nebraska) while excluding other 

inland States with more numerous C. 

canutus occurrence records (e.g., Utah). 

Despite past uncertainty, C.c. roselaari 

is now believed to be restricted to the 

Pacific coast based on current 

information. 

Our Response: Numerical prevalence 

of Calidris canutus does not shed light 

on which subspecies (C.c. roselarri or 

C.c. rufa) predominate in any particular 

area. There is considerable uncertainty 

regarding the subspecific identity of C. 

canutus in the western interior United 

States, and it is possible that the two 

subspecies both occur in this area 

during migration. This uncertainty was 

reflected in questions 5 and 10 under 

‘‘Information Requested’’ in the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60025). Despite a 

number of population-wide 

morphological differences (USFWS 

2011a, p. 305), the rufa and roselaari 

subspecies cannot be distinguished in 

the field because physical variability 

among individuals results in overlaps in 

many physical parameters (e.g., wing 

and bill length) between the two 

subspecies (USFWS 2011a, p. 205; 

Harrington 2001, pp. 4–5; Harrington et 

al. 1988, p. 441). Because these two 

subspecies cannot be distinguished in 

the field, other methods (e.g., markresighting efforts, stable isotope 

analysis, genetics) are needed to 

delineate their distributions (D. 

Newstead pers. comm. September 14, 

2012). 

As discussed under Our Response 28 

and detailed in the Supplemental 

Document (Subspecies Nonbreeding 

Distributions—Western Interior United 

States), we defined the rufa red knot’s 

Western U.S. range based on best 

available data from reliable published 

scientific literature, submitted 

manuscripts, and species’ experts; 

occurrence data; and analysis (e.g., 

estimated flight paths based on known 

wintering and breeding grounds 

combined with siting records). While it 

is possible that rufa red knots range 

nearly all the way to the Pacific coast 

during migration, we do not have any 

evidence to date (e.g., genetics, markresightings, geolocator data, or stable 

isotope data) of rufa west of the Great 

Plains. We acknowledge considerable 

uncertainty around the subspecies 

composition in the Western States but 

conclude, based on best available data, 

that the rufa range likely extends to the 

western limit of the Great Plains (as 

mapped by the Level I ecoregions (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) 2013a)). See also Our Response 

82 below. 

(36) Comment: One State and several 

other commenters stated that, prior to a 

listing determination, more information 

is needed regarding the status and 

characteristics of red knot populations 

(e.g., population status in Texas, 

connectivity of migratory flyways). In 

addition, gathering more scientific 

research on the red knot population in 

Texas will improve viability 

assessments of the entire subspecies 

throughout its range. 

Our Response: The proposed rule 

presented best available data regarding 

red knot population size, diet, habitat 

use, and threats in Texas, as well as the 

prevalence and migration patterns of 

Calidris canutus rufa versus C.c. 

roselaari in Texas (Rufa Red Knot 

Ecology and Abundance pp. 5–7, 9, 14– 

16, 21–24, 27, 34–35, 42; Factor D pp. 

10–11; 78 FR 60024, pp. 60030, 60033, 

60035, 60039–60042, 60044–60045, 

60052, 60056, 60059, 60063, 60078, 

60081, 60085–60086, 60089, 60092). 

Section 4 of the Act directs that listing 

determinations be made on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. We evaluated approximately 

1,400 references during the preparation 

of the proposed rule, and communicated 

with numerous species and threats 

experts, to comply with this data 

standard required by the Act. We 

solicited peer review on the proposed 

rule. Peer review comments are 

reflected in the Supplemental 

Document, which has also been updated 

with new data regarding Texas, the 

nonbreeding distribution of rufa red 

knots, and connectivity of the flyways 

(Subspecies Nonbreeding Distributions; 

Migration; Migration and Wintering 

Habitat) that has subsequently become 

available through the public comment 

period and clarification from experts. 

Although a more complete picture of 

red knot ecology in Texas will be 

helpful for recovery planning, research 

to generate these new data is not yet 

available. As discussed in Our Response 

27 above, the ‘‘best available science’’ 

requirement does not equate to the best 

possible science. We acknowledge 

certain data gaps (78 FR 60024, pp. 

60024–60025) and uncertainties, some 

of which are inherent in all natural 

systems and all evaluations of future 

conditions; however, we conclude that 

the best available data are sufficient to 

document several population-level 

threats to the red knot, as well as its 

reduced population size relative to the 

early 1980s, and thus conclude that the 

red knot meets the definition of a 

threatened species. 

(37) Comment: One State commented 

that the proposed rule did not provide 

comprehensive population numbers for 

either the historical or current 

population size for this subspecies or 

estimates that encompass the entire 

wintering range, the entire nesting 

range, or all of the potential migration 

stopover habitats along the U.S. Atlantic 

coast. This commenter believes the 

proposal gave undue importance to 

population trends at only two locations, 

Delaware Bay and Tierra del Fuego, and 

that maximum percent declines at these 

two sites are not sufficient for an 

evaluation of the severity of the 

apparent [rangewide] population 

decline. Further, because the red knot is 

highly mobile and individual birds and 

flocks appear to be capable of using 

different locations as stopover points 

from year to year, a more rigorous 

approach than subsampling should be 

used to assess population changes. 

Another commenter believes 40 years of 

data are not enough to show a trend in 

red knot populations and the Service 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73719 

should look at hundreds of years of 

data. 

Our Response: As discussed in the 

Supplemental Document (Population 

Surveys and Estimates), we conclude 

that we do not have sufficient reliable 

data on which to base a precise 

rangewide population estimate. Thus, 

we have instead considered the best 

available data, which consists of survey 

data for specific regions. In the 

proposed rule, we limited our 

conclusions to trends within each 

regional data set (Rufa Red Knot Ecology 

and Abundance, pp. 53–54), though we 

did note a temporal correlation between 

declines at Tierra del Fuego and 

Delaware Bay (Rufa Red Knot Ecology 

and Abundance, p. 48). Although we 

lack sufficiently robust data to conclude 

if other wintering and stopover areas 

also declined, we conclude it is likely 

that declines at Tierra del Fuego and 

Delaware Bay drove an overall 

population decline (i.e., lower total 

numbers), because these two sites are 

believed to have supported a large 

majority of rangewide knots (see Our 

Response 38). We note that our 

calculation of those regional declines 

(75 percent at Tierra del Fuego and 70 

percent at Delaware Bay) are based on 

averages of early and late time periods, 

calculated to smooth out inherent 

variability in the data. In contrast, the 

maximum declines (i.e., comparing only 

the single lowest count with the single 

highest count) were both recorded in 

2011 and show an 81 percent decline at 

Tierra del Fuego and an 87 percent 

decline at Delaware Bay. Despite the 

above-mentioned limitations in 

producing a rangewide population 

estimate, we do note that several 

analyses conducted by others all 

concluded red knot numbers declined, 

probably sharply, in recent decades. 

While we did not rely on these other 

analyses, we do note that they are 

independently consistent with the 

conclusions we draw from the available 

(regional) data sets. 

A more rigorous survey regime to 

estimate rangewide population changes 

over time may become available in the 

future. For example, mathematical 

population size estimates based on 

marked birds were begun in 2011 in 

Delaware Bay (J. Lyons pers. comm. 

September 3, 2013) and Georgia (GDNR 

2013). This new method does not yet 

allow for trend analysis because only a 

few data points are available, and does 

not yet have the geographic coverage to 

permit a rangewide population estimate. 

However, the Act requires that we make 

listing determinations based on the best 

available data. The proposed rule 

identifies and evaluates the best 

available population information, which 

is associated with high confidence in 

those regions with long time series and 

consistent survey methods (e.g., 

Delaware Bay, Virginia, Tierra del 

Fuego). 

We disagree that these best available 

data cover an insufficient time period 

for trend analysis. Even with inherent 

annual variability, we conclude the 

available data are sufficient to document 

a sharp and prolonged period of decline 

in red knot counts in Delaware Bay and 

Tierra del Fuego in the 2000s. Further, 

we have gathered best available 

historical data dating back to the mid1800s, as presented in the proposed rule 

(Rufa Red Knot Ecology and 

Abundance) and the Supplemental 

Document (Historical Distribution and 

Abundance, pp. 33–36). Although these 

historical data do not permit a 

quantitative analysis, they do convey a 

consistent qualitative account of 

historical declines and followed by, at 

least, a partial recovery. 

(38) Comment: One State questioned 

the validity of applying the observed 

decline in Delaware Bay to the entire 

population since, despite its apparent 

importance, the bay represents only a 

small portion of the Atlantic coast and 

the potential stopover habitat available 

to migrating red knots. 

Our Response: While, geographically, 

Delaware Bay represents only a small 

proportion of the total U.S. Atlantic 

coast, we conclude the bay supports a 

significant proportion of the total rufa 

red knot population during spring 

migration (Brown et al. 2001, p. 10), as 

discussed in the proposed rule (Rufa 

Red Knot Ecology and Abundance, p. 

29). Although no current, reliable, 

rangewide population estimate is 

available, reliable regional population 

data are available (see Our Response 77; 

Rufa Red Knot Ecology and Abundance, 

pp. 38–52; and Population Surveys and 

Estimates in the Supplemental 

Document). We have analyzed the most 

recent estimates of red knot numbers 

from each wintering region, Delaware 

Bay peak counts from the past 10 years, 

and Delaware Bay total passage 

population estimates from the past 3 

years. Based on this analysis, we 

conclude that Delaware Bay continues 

to support the majority of red knots 

during spring. 

That said, we agree that extrapolation 

of population declines in Delaware Bay 

to the rest of the red knot population 

should be conservative and undertaken 

only when supported by corroborating 

data. In the proposed rule, we presented 

data for specific regions (Rufa Red Knot 

Ecology and Abundance, pp. 38–52) and 

limited our conclusions to trends within 

each regional data set (Rufa Red Knot 

Ecology and Abundance, pp. 53–54). 

However, we also stated, ‘‘the pattern 

and timing of these declines in 

Delaware Bay relative to Tierra del 

Fuego and other stopovers is suggestive 

of a decrease in the overall population’’ 

(Rufa Red Knot Ecology and 

Abundance, p. 48). We agree that this 

statement was imprecise and have 

revised the Supplemental Document 

(Population Surveys and Estimates— 

Spring Stopover Areas—Delaware Bay) 

to clarify our conclusions drawn from 

best available data. We have also revised 

the Supplemental Document 

(Summary—Population Surveys and 

Estimates) to clarify, ‘‘Although we lack 

sufficiently robust data to conclude if 

other wintering and stopover areas also 

declined, we conclude it is likely that 

declines at Tierra del Fuego and 

Delaware Bay drove an overall 

population decline (i.e., lower total 

numbers), because these two sites 

supported a large majority of rangewide 

knots during the baseline 1980s period.’’ 

(39) Comment: One State commented 

that the annual variation in the 

Delaware Bay peak counts suggests that 

knots are capable of altering their 

stopover behavior between years. It is 

unlikely that the actual population 

fluctuates at the high magnitude 

reflected in the Delaware Bay peak 

counts; therefore, year-to-year changes 

are probably related to variations in 

passage rates for birds moving through 

the region and variations in the use of 

multiple stopover sites. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

Delaware Bay peak counts are highly 

variable, but conclude that much of the 

short-term (year-to-year) variation can 

be attributed to the fact that peak counts 

are only a proxy measure for the total 

passage population. Year-to-year 

differences in the month-long patterns 

of arrival and departure would affect the 

percentage of total passage population 

that is captured by each year’s peak 

count (e.g., some years more birds may 

depart early and be missed by the lateMay peak count). It is also possible that 

the survey date has missed the true peak 

number of birds in some years, 

particularly after 2008 when weekly, 

season-long survey efforts were scaled 

back to focus only on the end of May. 

That said, we also agree that red knots 

may switch between mid-Atlantic 

stopovers between, and even within, 

years, and that this flexibility may 

explain part of the variability in the data 

from both Delaware Bay and Virginia 

(Supplemental Document tables 8 and 

11). We noted this flexibility in spring 

stopovers in the proposed rule (Rufa 

Red Knot Ecology and Abundance, p. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73720 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

20). Despite the high variability, we 

attach high confidence to the long-term 

trend evident in the Delaware Bay peak 

count data, based on the consistent 

methods and observers, particularly 

during the core years of 1986 to 2008. 

(40) Comment: One State and several 

other commenters stated that recent 

population estimates calculated from 

resightings of banded knots using 

capture-recapture statistical methods 

should not be conflated with long-term 

data sets of maximum 1-day (peak) 

counts. 

Our Response: The proposed rule 

(Rufa Red Knot Ecology and 

Abundance, pp. 47–51) did not conflate 

population estimates derived from these 

two different methods. As we explain in 

the Supplemental Document 

(Population Surveys and Estimates— 

Spring Stopover Areas), because birds 

pass in and out of a stopover area, the 

peak count (the highest number of birds 

seen on a single day) for a particular 

year is lower than the total passage 

population (i.e., the total number of 

birds that stopped at that site over the 

course of that migration season). For 

this reason, we have not compared data 

sets estimating total passage population 

(from capture-recapture statistical 

methods) with those of peak counts 

(maximum 1-day counts). We present 

these data sets separately in tables 9 to 

13 of the Supplemental Document, with 

data updates where available. 

(41) Comment: One State concluded 

that peak red knot numbers in Delaware 

Bay have been stable to increasing since 

2002, while another commenter 

concluded that red knot numbers in 

Delaware Bay continue to decline. 

Our Response: We disagree with both 

of these conclusions. We find that peak 

counts from 2002 through 2008 

continued to show a slight downward 

trend. Peak counts from 2009 through 

2014 appear to have been stable to 

slightly increasing, despite lower 

confidence in these recent counts due to 

multiple shifts in methodology and 

surveyors. Average peak counts for the 

last decade (2005 to 2014) remain about 

70 percent lower than during the 

baseline period of 1981 to 1983. See 

Supplemental Document, Population 

Surveys and Estimates—Spring 

Stopover Areas—Delaware Bay. 

(42) Comment: One State and several 

other commenters noted that the ARM 

model established a threshold of red 

knot abundance (45,000 or half of the 

historical peak counts) which, when 

reached, will trigger female crab harvest. 

As this threshold was derived from peak 

counts, it must be adjusted upward to 

account for differences in methods 

before it can be judged against new 

estimates of total stopover population 

derived from mark-resighting data. One 

State also commented that the markresighting method is of limited value in 

trend assessment because population 

estimates cannot be made 

retrospectively, but did acknowledge 

that it is probably the most robust 

method of estimating actual stopover 

population numbers and, therefore, will 

be useful in developing future trend 

information. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

threshold must be revised and note that 

this adjustment has already been made. 

This threshold, used in the ASMFC’s 

management of the HSC fishery under 

the ARM, has now been adjusted 

upward to account for differences in 

methodology. In September 2013, the 

ASMFC’s Delaware Bay Ecosystem 

Technical Committee adopted a ratio of 

1.82, and adjusted the threshold from 

45,000 to 81,900 red knots. This ratio 

may be refined when the ARM model is 

re-evaluated in the future (ASMFC 

2013e, p. 1). We agree that this is a 

robust method of estimating stopover 

populations, but also agree that the 

mark-resighting method cannot yet be 

used for trend analysis because too few 

data points are available to date. No 

accurate estimates of the total stopover 

population using the methods of J. 

Lyons (pers. comm. September 3, 2013) 

can be calculated prior to 2011, when 

the required data began to be collected. 

However, estimates prior to 2011 are not 

needed to implement the ARM model as 

decisions on HSC harvest are based 

upon the current populations of HSCs 

and red knots. For red knot population 

trend analysis in Delaware Bay, we have 

relied on the peak counts (see Our 

Responses 37 and 39.) 

(43) Comment: One State said that it 

had difficulty evaluating the geographic 

adequacy of the winter surveys in Tierra 

del Fuego and the southern coastline of 

Argentina, because these surveys may or 

may not cover a sufficiently large 

portion of the wintering range to 

develop a comprehensive population 

estimate. This State questioned if it is 

possible that red knots winter outside of 

the surveyed area further north along 

the coast lines of Argentina and Chile, 

or on the Falkland Islands. 

Our Response: Much of what we 

know about the distribution of 

wintering red knots along the coasts of 

South America comes from Morrison 

and Ross (1989), who reported the 

results of aerial surveys conducted from 

1982 to 1986. This survey effort covered 

nearly the entire Atlantic, Pacific, and 

northern coasts of South America 

(Morrison and Ross 1989, Vol. 1, p. 22). 

During these extensive surveys, Calidris 

canutus was observed only in Tierra del 

Fuego and the Patagonian coast of 

Argentina, the north coast of Brazil, and 

western Venezuela (Morrison and Ross 

1989 Vol. 1, pp. 37, 40–41). Although 

Morrison and Ross (1989) did not 

observe C. canutus along the Pacific 

coast of South America, they recorded 

substantial numbers of unidentified 

medium-sized shorebirds in several 

locations, including some areas with 

reports of C. canutus from other sources 

(eBird.org 2014; Carmona et al. 2013, 

pp. 175, 180; Ruiz-Guerra 2011, p. 194; 

Morrison and Ross 1989 Vol. 1, p. 40; 

Hughes 1979, pp. 51–52). In the 

proposed rule (Rufa Red Knot Ecology 

and Abundance, pp. 38–42), we 

presented the data of Morrison and Ross 

(1989) as well as all available results of 

more recent survey efforts for the known 

and possible range of C.c. rufa, which 

includes the east and north coasts of 

South America. These data have been 

updated in the Supplemental Document 

(Population Surveys and Estimates). 

Based on new information indicating 

that at least some of the C. canutus on 

the central Pacific coast of Chile are also 

C.c. rufa, we have also added best 

available abundance data for the west 

coast of South America (Population 

Surveys and Estimates—Central 

America and Pacific South America). 

We are unaware of any published or 

unpublished C. canutus reports from the 

Falkland Islands, there are no reports of 

these species for that area in eBird 

(eBird.org 2014), and no other datasets 

for the Falkland Islands were provided 

during the comment period. The lack of 

data may be explained by an apparent 

lack of survey efforts. 

(44) Comment: One State commented 

that, based upon its review of the threats 

analysis published in the listing 

proposal, it does not find compelling 

evidence that the rufa subspecies of the 

red knot warrants listing as a federally 

threatened species throughout the 

eastern half of the United States. Other 

commenters stated that listing of the 

rufa red knot is not warranted based on 

a lack of compelling evidence in the 

proposed rule, and that the threatened 

determination relies on speculative 

future conditions. An additional 

commenter stated that a reasonable 

determination could also be made that 

adequate conservation measures already 

exist to reasonably protect red knot 

populations and that forecasting 

cumulative worst case scenarios to 

determine species risk does not meet the 

test of 50 CFR 424.4(a)(1) for adding a 

new species to the list of threatened and 

endangered species. Conversely, other 

commenters stated that we should list 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73721 

the red knot as endangered or use our 

authorities for emergency listing, while 

another commenter mentioned that the 

previous change in the rufa red knot’s 

listing priority number was no 

guarantee that it would be listed. 

Our Response: See Our Responses 27, 

36, and 71 regarding how we satisfied 

the Act’s information standard. The 

proposed rule and its underlying data 

were available for extensive public and 

peer review and comment. The 

commenters did not provide additional 

substantive information to refute our 

analysis or assumptions. We disagree 

that this listing determination relies on 

cumulative-worst case scenarios, and 

instead find that the red knot meets the 

definition of a threatened species based 

on several population-level threats. 

Particularly considering the cumulative 

effects of ongoing and emerging threats, 

and considering that several 

populations of red knots have already 

undergone considerable declines and 

remain at low levels, we conclude that 

the best available data constitute 

compelling scientific evidence that the 

red knot meets the definition of a 

threatened species. 

As noted in the proposed rule 

(Previous Federal Actions, p. 2), the 

listing priority number was changed 

(from 6 to 3) in 2008. The commenter 

is correct that candidate species of any 

listing priority number are not 

guaranteed to be listed—new 

information may become available that 

causes us to change our conclusion that 

listing is warranted. However, this is not 

the case for the red knot. As for the need 

to emergency list, this request is moot 

because the red knot will become listed 

as threatened upon the effective date of 

this rule. As noted in the proposed rule 

(Previous Federal Actions, pp. 1–2), we 

previously determined that emergency 

listing was not warranted, and we had 

no new information to indicate 

emergency listing was warranted at the 

time of, or subsequent to, the proposed 

rule. 

We have carefully reviewed all new 

information since the proposed rule, 

and continue to find that the red knot 

meets the definition of a threatened 

species under the Act. We do not find 

that the red knot warrants listing as 

endangered based largely on the fact 

that red knot populations in Tierra del 

Fuego and Delaware Bay, although still 

at historically low levels, appear to have 

stabilized since about 2009, suggesting 

that the red knot is not currently at risk 

of extinction, but is likely to become so 

in the foreseeable future. 

(45) Comment: One State and an 

additional commenter expressed 

concerns that threats in other habitats 

outside of Delaware Bay are having a 

disproportionate effect on the red knot 

because the Delaware Bay remains in a 

‘‘depauperate state,’’ at least as it 

pertains to shorebirds (i.e., HSC 

population levels are too low to provide 

the ‘‘super-abundance of eggs’’). 

Because of this egg insufficiency, threats 

in other habitats used during the red 

knot’s annual cycle will have a 

proportionately greater effect on red 

knot population viability. Thus, 

addressing the HSC egg food supply in 

the bay must remain at the forefront of 

red knot recovery efforts. 

Our Response: We disagree that the 

bay is currently ‘‘depauperate’’ for 

shorebirds, but agree that the HSC egg 

supply should remain a focus of red 

knot recovery work. As noted in the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60063), 

most data suggest that the volume of 

HSC eggs is currently sufficient to 

support the Delaware Bay’s stopover 

population of red knots at its present 

size. This conclusion seems to be 

holding, as red knot weight gain was 

good during spring 2014, for a third 

consecutive year (A. Dey pers. comm. 

July 23, 2014). However, it is not yet 

known if the egg resource will continue 

to adequately support red knot 

population growth over the next decade. 

Thus, we agree that sustained focus on 

protecting the red knot’s food supply is 

vital to the recovery of the red knot, and 

will be addressed during the recovery 

planning process. Further, we intend to 

continue our active role in the ASMFC’s 

management of the HSC fishery. Under 

the ARM we do not anticipate the bait 

harvest will slow red knot population 

growth (see Our Response 48) (Smith et 

al. 2013, p. 8). 

We also agree that a number of other 

threats are likely contributing to habitat 

loss, anthropogenic mortality, or both, 

and thus contribute to the red knot’s 

threatened status, particularly 

considering the cumulative effects of 

these threats, and that populations of 

this species have already undergone 

considerable declines in key areas. 

(46) Comment: One State and several 

other commenters stated that the 

Delaware Bay HSC population has not 

recovered and concluded that 

management of this fishery to date has 

not accomplished its objectives and has 

proven inadequate to reverse declines. 

Several commenters noted that no class 

of HSC (by sex or age) has shown any 

recovery as measured by the Virginia 

Tech Horseshoe Crab Trawl Survey or 

the Delaware Bay 16-foot Trawl Survey. 

Further, positive trends in female HSC 

populations are absent, even after 7 

years of male-only harvest, which is 

consistent with significant unaccounted 

losses of female crabs, for example, from 

mortality caused by biomedical harvest, 

poaching, and bycatch. In addition, one 

State commented that the 2013 

defunding of the Virginia Tech Trawl 

Survey adds to uncertainty that the data 

sources relied upon in the ARM models 

will be consistently available. In 

contrast, one commenter stated that, 

while the benthic trawl survey is the 

best survey to support the ARM, a 

sound strategy has been developed to 

use the NEAMAP data to support the 

2014 modeling efforts for the 2015 

fishery, and the ASMFC Horseshoe Crab 

Management Board and ARM Working 

Group anticipate the continued use of 

the ARM framework for management. 

Our Response: Numerous data sets are 

available regarding the Delaware Bay 

HSC population. We rely on ASMFC’s 

periodic stock assessments to 

appropriately weigh and statistically 

analyze these data sets to draw 

conclusions regarding HSC population 

trends, as discussed in the proposed 

rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60066). The 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Reduced Food Availability—Horseshoe 

Crab Harvest—Link A, Part 2) has been 

updated to include the results of the 

2013 stock assessment update. The 2013 

stock assessment update concluded that, 

in the Delaware Bay Region, there is 

evidence of increases in certain age or 

sex classes, but overall population 

trends have been largely stable (neither 

increasing nor decreasing) since the 

previous stock assessment in 2009 

(ASMFC 2013b, p. 22). These 2013 stock 

assessment findings are consistent with 

our conclusions in the proposed rule (78 

FR 60024, p. 60066) that HSC 

population declines were observed 

during the 1990s, increases (though not 

a full return to 1980s levels) and 

stabilization occurred in the early 

2000s, and various data sets have 

differed with no consistent trends since 

2005. We note that the ARM framework 

does not define a ‘‘recovery’’ population 

level for Delaware Bay HSCs, but 

instead seeks to set the crab harvest at 

a level that does not slow the 

achievement of an agreed-upon red knot 

population target. 

We disagree that ASMFC’s regulatory 

approach has been inadequate. In 

addition to restricting harvests through 

the Fisheries Management Plan 

(including the most recent iteration, the 

ARM), the ASMFC has taken several 

proactive steps including establishment 

of a Technical Committee to focus on 

shorebirds, requesting the establishment 

of an HSC reserve in Federal waters, 

supporting work on alternative baits, 

and reducing demand by promoting 

bait-saving devices. These efforts 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73722 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

reduced reported landings (ASMFC 

2009a, p. 1) from 1998 to 2011 by more 

than 75 percent (78 FR 60024, p. 60064). 

We believe it is premature to state that 

the ASMFC’s regulatory approach has 

not accomplished its objectives. Rather, 

we anticipate that this regulatory 

approach, currently reflected in the 

ARM framework, will allow for HSC 

and red knot population growth to meet 

ASMFC objectives. However, even 

highly successful harvest management 

under the ARM will only meet its 

objectives to the extent that the HSC 

population remains limited by harvest. 

For example, food resources, habitat 

conditions, and other conditions that 

affect growth, survival, and carrying 

capacity of HSCs in the Delaware Bay 

Region may have changed over time and 

cannot be affected by management of 

the fishery. 

Regarding when to expect female 

HSCs to show an increase based upon 

existing monitoring programs, several 

areas need to be considered including 

the ability of the monitoring programs to 

detect change in the populations, our 

understanding of how the population 

may respond, and other factors such as 

food availability for HSCs, as well as 

bait and biomedical mortality. 

Horseshoe crabs take 9 to 12 years to 

reach breeding age, and modeling 

suggests that it will likely take longer 

than one generation for adult abundance 

to increase. See Our Response 49 below 

regarding possible sources of HSC 

mortality not explicitly accounted for in 

the ARM models. 

We agree that the Virginia Tech 

survey is the best benthic trawl survey 

to support the ARM. In the absence of 

the Virginia Tech survey, we support 

the ongoing efforts of the ASMFC to 

adapt the NEAMAP data for use in the 

models. However, efforts to date have 

not identified a method by which the 

NEAMAP data can allow for the 

functioning of the ARM models 

(ASMFC 2014b). Stable funding sources 

for the other baywide monitoring 

programs are also a concern. Insufficient 

monitoring has already impacted the 

ability of the ASMFC to implement the 

ARM as intended (ASMFC 2014b; 

ASMFC 2012c, p. 13). If the ARM 

cannot be implemented in any given 

year, the ASMFC would choose between 

two options based on which it 

determines to be more appropriate— 

either use the previous year’s harvest 

levels (as previously set by the ARM), or 

revert to an earlier management regime 

(ASMFC 2012e, p. 6). Although the HSC 

fishery would continue to be managed 

under either of these options, the 

explicit link to red knot populations 

would be lost. Absent the necessary 

HSC monitoring data to use the ARM 

models for the 2015 season, ASMFC 

(2014b) has opted to use the 2014 

harvest levels which we considered at 

the time to adequately ensure the red 

knot’s food supply. We have revised the 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Reduced Food Availability—Horseshoe 

Crab Harvest—Adaptive Resource 

Management) to reflect this new 

uncertainty about the future of the 

ARM. 

(47) Comment: One State commented 

that recent efforts to develop an 

artificial bait for the conch and eel 

fisheries could reduce demand for HSCs 

as bait and reduce the HSC harvest, 

thereby benefitting HSC (and red knot) 

rebuilding. However, to realize a 

significant benefit to the HSC 

population, the use of artificial bait 

would need to reduce harvest/demand 

for HSCs to a level below quota levels. 

Our Response: We agree that HSC 

alternatives offer the possibility of 

substantial conservation benefits to the 

red knot. In the proposed rule (78 FR 

60024, p. 60067), we noted efforts to 

develop an artificial bait to replace 

HSCs, as well as work toward 

alternatives to the biomedical HSC 

product Limulus Amebocyte Lysate. We 

have updated the Supplemented 

Document (Factor E—Reduce Food 

Resources—Horseshoe Crab Harvest— 

Link A, Park 2) with new information 

on artificial bait from the University of 

Delaware (Wakefield 2013). We support 

these efforts, which would reduce or 

eliminate the demand for harvesting 

HSCs. However, until bait or lysate 

alternatives are widely adopted, we 

anticipate that management of HSC 

harvests under the ARM will continue 

to adequately abate the food supply 

threat to red knots from HSC harvest in 

the Delaware Bay. (However, see Our 

Response 46 regarding new uncertainty 

about the future of the ARM.) 

(48) Comment: One State and several 

other commenters expressed concern 

that, under the ARM, Delaware Bay HSC 

populations are not expected to recover 

for 60 years. One State indicated that 

the carrying capacity of Delaware Bay 

for female crabs is estimated at 14 

million individuals while the current 

female population estimate is 4.5 

million, and growth to carrying capacity 

would take more than 100 years 

according to simulations by Smith et al. 

(2013). Another commenter stated that 

the number of crabs must return to the 

levels of the early 1990s to support the 

recovery of the red knot. Several of 

these commenters believed that the 

ARM models value harvest (give it 

‘‘utility’’) above a speedy recovery of 

HSCs. Another commenter stated that it 

remains to be seen if the HSC 

population will respond to recent 

harvest quotas set by the ASMFC and 

that the food supply for red knots in 

Delaware Bay remains uncertain for at 

least the near term. Conversely, one 

commenter stated that assertions that 

the HSC population must increase by an 

order of magnitude to have a beneficial 

impact on survival of the red knot 

population are not supported by 

defensible data. 

Our Response: We disagree with these 

conclusions regarding HSC population 

growth rates and target population 

levels. In a recent study, Smith et al. 

(2013, entire) ran computer simulations 

to test how uncertainty affects the 

management of the Delaware Bay HSC 

population under the ARM. These 

authors presented charts with simulated 

population trajectories of both HSCs and 

red knots. However, these simulations 

were intended to illustrate the role of 

uncertainty in the ARM framework, not 

to predict recovery times. Because it is 

adaptive in nature (i.e., each year’s 

harvest limits are based on the previous 

year’s crab and knot population 

estimates), the ARM is not designed to 

answer the question of how long it will 

take to achieve any particular HSC or 

red knot population size in Delaware 

Bay. The findings of Smith et al. (2013) 

have been incorporated into the 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Reduce Food Availability—Horseshoe 

Crab Harvest—Adaptive Resource 

Management). 

As explained above in Our Response 

46, the ARM framework does not define 

a ‘‘recovery’’ population level for 

Delaware Bay HSCs. We do not assert 

that any particular HSC population level 

is necessary to have a beneficial impact 

on the red knot stopover population in 

Delaware Bay. Further, we do not have 

any information to indicate that the HSC 

population must reach carrying 

capacity—or must return to early 1990s 

levels, or increase by an order of 

magnitude—to support the full recovery 

of the Delaware Bay’s red knot stopover 

population. Instead, we rely on the 

adaptive, scientific modeling of the 

ARM framework to determine the 

appropriate HSC harvest level necessary 

to maximize red knot population 

growth. 

We disagree that the ARM framework 

values harvest over maximum HSC 

population growth. Under the ARM 

framework, utility is given to harvest 

(i.e., harvest is ‘‘valued,’’ and, therefore, 

allowed) only when knot and crab 

populations are above a threshold. 

Although the simulations by Smith et al. 

(2013, p. 8) are not intended to predict 

actual timeframes for population 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73723 

growth, they did show that the bait 

harvest levels allowed by the ARM did 

not slow red knot population growth 

relative to a complete moratorium (see 

Our Response 121). The simulations by 

Smith et al. (2013) suggest these species 

will take a long time to rebuild 

(although we cannot predict how long) 

due to their inherent biology (long time 

to maturity and low survival in early life 

stages), not due to the ARM utility 

values. 

We agree that food supply for red 

knots in Delaware Bay remains a point 

of concern. As long as the ARM is in 

place and functioning as intended (see 

Our Response 46 regarding new 

uncertainty about the future of the 

ARM), we anticipate future quotas will 

continue to be set at levels that ensure 

the bait harvest does not impede 

progress toward achieving maximum 

red knot population growth. However, 

even with highly successful harvest 

management under the ARM, the HSC 

population will continue to grow only 

to the extent that it remains limited by 

harvest; other factors affecting crab 

populations cannot be affected by 

management of the fishery (see Our 

Response 46 and Supplemental 

Document section Factor E—Reduced 

Food Availability—Horseshoe Crab 

Harvest—Link A, Part 2). Our 

assessment of the best available data 

concludes that the volume of HSC eggs 

is currently sufficient to support the 

Delaware Bay’s stopover population of 

red knots at its present size; but because 

of the uncertain trajectory of HSC 

population growth, it is not yet known 

if the egg resource will continue to 

adequately support red knot population 

growth over the next decade. This 

conclusion is unchanged from the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60063). 

(49) Comment: One State and several 

other commenters stated that the ARM 

model is based on a number of 

assumptions that the ASMFC has not 

adequately tested, and includes a high 

degree of uncertainty in many of the 

data inputs. These include a lack of 

information on crab mortality to 

sufficiently inform the adaptive 

management process. These 

assumptions and sources of uncertainty 

render the model less risk-averse than 

the commenters find acceptable given 

the dependence of red knot recovery on 

a sufficient growth in Delaware Bay’s 

spawning HSC population. 

Assumptions and uncertainties noted by 

the commenters include (a) the 

boundary (geographic extent) of the 

Delaware Bay Region (which, if 

incorrect, could allow for harvest of 

Delaware Bay crabs that would not be 

accounted for in the models); (b) illegal 

harvest; (c) crabs harvested and used at 

sea (not landed in any State); (d) crabs 

harvested in Federal waters; (e) bycatch; 

(f) underreporting, inaccurate or missing 

reporting of the sex of harvested crabs; 

and (g) mortality from the biomedical 

harvest. 

Our Response: While we agree that 

there is good correlation between 

declines in red knots and declines in 

HSC abundance based on the best data 

available, we note that late arrivals of 

red knots in Delaware Bay (for unknown 

reasons) was a key synergistic factor 

accounting for the knot’s decline in the 

2000s (Baker et al. 2004, p. 878). We 

recognize the uncertainties and 

assumptions raised by the commenters. 

Such uncertainties were one reason the 

ARM was developed, as the purpose of 

adaptive management is to allow 

decisions under uncertainty. The 

uncertainties and assumptions, many of 

which are common to all managed 

fisheries, mentioned by the commenters 

were taken into account when the ARM 

was developed. We have reviewed the 

ARM framework at length and have 

spoken with the authors of the 

modeling. We conclude that the ARM is 

risk averse and deals explicitly with 

uncertainties, and that these 

uncertainties do not preclude effective 

decision-making, a conclusion 

supported by Smith et al. (2013). 

Updates regarding our previous 

analysis of each uncertainty or 

assumption are presented below. While 

the ARM framework does not currently 

account for these factors explicitly, 

mortality from sources other than the 

bait harvest is potentially reflected in 

the survival parameters used in the 

ARM. Based on best available 

information, we conclude that explicit 

addition of these factors to the models 

would not change the harvest levels set 

by the ARM process. However, we have 

revised the Supplemental Document 

(Factor E—Reduced Food Availability— 

Horseshoe Crab Harvest—Adaptive 

Resource Management) to clarify that 

we expect the ARM framework will 

continue to adapt as substantive new 

information becomes available about 

important factors (other than the bait 

harvest) that may limit the continued 

growth of the Delaware Bay HSC 

population (see Our Response 50). In 

addition, we note that, since New Jersey 

has a full moratorium in place, the 

actual harvest of HSCs is less than that 

recommended by the ARM models. 

(a) Delaware Bay Region boundary. In 

the proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 

60070), we concluded that the ASMFC’s 

current delineation of the Delaware Bay 

Region HSC population is based on best 

available information and is appropriate 

for use in the ARM modeling, but we 

acknowledged some uncertainty 

regarding the population structure and 

distribution of Delaware Bay HSCs. The 

commenters have not provided any new 

data to help resolve this uncertainty, or 

alternate boundaries for consideration. 

In documenting the technical 

underpinnings of the ARM, the ASMFC 

(2009b, p. 7) acknowledged that the 

proportion of Maryland and Virginia 

landings that come from Delaware Bay 

is currently unresolved, but stated that 

their approach to estimating this 

proportion, based on genetic analysis, 

was conservative. We have revised the 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Food Availability—Horseshoe Crab 

Harvest—Adaptive Resource 

Management) to state that we anticipate 

the ARM process will adapt to 

substantive new information that 

reduces uncertainty about the Delaware 

Bay HSC population structure and 

geographic distribution. See Our 

Response 114. 

(b) Illegal harvest. In the proposed 

rule (78 FR 60024, pp. 60066–60067), 

we evaluated available information 

regarding illegal harvest (poaching) of 

HSCs. We have revised the 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Reduced Food Availability—Horseshoe 

Crab Harvest—Link A, Part 2) to update 

the poaching discussion with new 

findings from the ASMFC (2014a). 

Although notable poaching has been 

reported outside the Delaware Bay 

Region, we have no data to indicate that 

poaching in the Delaware Bay Region is 

occurring at levels that would have 

population-level effects. See also Our 

Response 52 below. 

(c) Crabs used at sea. In the proposed 

rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60067), we 

discussed the unregulated harvest of 

HSCs from Federal waters that are not 

landed in any State, but exchanged 

directly to a dependent fishery. We have 

updated the Supplemental Document 

(Factor E—Reduced Food Availability— 

Horseshoe Crab Harvest—Link A, Part 2) 

with new information from the ASMFC 

(2014a) regarding the possibility of such 

crabs, mainly crabs caught as bycatch, 

being harvested and used at sea. While 

there is no indication of the extent or 

amount of this activity or whether it 

exceeds the legal bycatch allowances 

that are set by each State, there is also 

no direct evidence of significant illegal 

activity and no enforcement cases 

(ASMFC 2014a, p. 2; M. Hawk pers. 

comm. May 27, 2014). We continue to 

conclude that the level of any such 

unreported and unregulated harvest 

(i.e., that does not result in landings) is 

small and unlikely to have populationlevel effects (M. Hawk pers. comm. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73724 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

April 29, 2013; G. Breese pers. comm. 

April 26, 2013). 

(d) Harvest from Federal waters. 

Horseshoe crabs caught in Federal 

waters and landed in any State count 

toward the quotas established by the 

ASMFC. Horseshoe crabs caught in 

Federal waters and not landed in any 

State (used at sea) were discussed under 

item (c), above. 

(e) Bycatch. Bycatch was discussed in 

the proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 

60067). We have updated the 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Reduced Food Availability—Horseshoe 

Crab Harvest—Link A, Part 2) with new 

information about bycatch as well as 

commercial discard. Horseshoe crabs 

caught as bycatch that are landed in any 

State count toward the quotas 

established by the ASMFC and may be 

kept only if the harvester holds a permit 

(M. Hawk pers. comm. May 27, 2014). 

Horseshoe crabs caught as bycatch that 

are not landed in any State (used at sea) 

were discussed under item (c), above. 

(f) Reporting problems. We have no 

data that underreporting and inaccurate 

or missing reporting of the sex of 

harvested crabs is impeding the 

functioning of the ARM process. 

(g) Biomedical harvest. See Our 

Response 50 below regarding 

biomedical harvest of HSCs. 

(50) Comment: One State and several 

other commenters expressed concern 

that the mortality of HSCs bled for 

biomedical use is not included in the 

ARM models, and that mortality rates 

have been documented well above those 

used by the ASMFC (e.g., for assessing 

if the biomedical threshold has been 

surpassed). In addition, sublethal effects 

on bled crabs are not considered, and 

the biomedical harvest is expected to 

continue growing. Further, it is unclear 

if bled crabs captured in Delaware Bay 

are released near the location of their 

capture or nearer to the bleeding 

facilities, all of which are outside of the 

Delaware Bay region and would 

represent a loss of these crabs to the 

Delaware Bay population. One 

commenter noted that the ASMFC’s 

Delaware Bay Ecosystem Technical 

Committee recommended in September 

2013 that the ASMFC investigate 

options to incorporate biomedical data 

into future stock assessments, which has 

not been possible to date due to 

confidentiality issues. 

Our Response: In the proposed rule 

(78 FR 60024, pp. 60064–60065), we 

noted that biomedical collection is 

currently not capped, but the ASMFC 

may consider implementing action to 

reduce mortality if estimated mortality 

exceeds a threshold of 57,500 crabs. 

This threshold has been exceeded 

several times, but thus far the ASMFC 

has opted only to issue voluntary ‘‘best 

practices’’ guidelines to the biomedical 

industry (ASMFC 2009a, p. 18). We also 

noted that, using a constant 15 percent 

mortality of bled crabs, the estimated 

contribution of biomedical collection to 

total (biomedical plus bait) mortality 

coastwide rose from about 6 percent in 

2004 to about 11 percent in 2011. We 

have updated the Supplemental 

Document (Factor E—Reduced Food 

Availability—Horseshoe Crab Harvest— 

Link A, Part 2) with new information on 

sublethal effects from bleeding 

(Anderson et al. 2013), and to note that, 

despite a recommendation by the 

ASMFC’s Horseshoe Crab Technical 

Committee to use of a range of 5 to 30 

percent mortality (ASMFC 2013c, p. 8; 

ASMFC 2012a, p. 6), the ASMFC 

continues to assume a constant 15 

percent mortality rate for bled crabs (M. 

Hawk pers. comm. May 28, 2014; 

ASMFC 2013b, p. 9; ASMFC 2009a, p. 

3). Available data suggest the 

biomedical industry generally returns 

bled crabs to their waters of origin. 

As shown in the Supplemental 

Document (table 23), the 2012 estimate 

of coastwide biomedical mortality 

(about 80,000 crabs) remains small 

compared to the coastwide bait harvest 

(about 730,000 crabs) (note that these 

figures are not specific to the Delaware 

Bay Region). Given the relative 

magnitude of biomedical mortality, we 

conclude that even considerable 

uncertainty around this estimate would 

not currently prevent the ARM 

framework from functioning as 

intended. However, we support the 

recommendation of the Technical 

Committee for ASMFC to investigate 

options to incorporate biomedical data 

into future stock assessments while 

avoiding breaches in confidentiality 

(ASMFC 2013e, p3). Further, we have 

revised the Supplemental Document 

(Factor E—Reduced Food Availability— 

Horseshoe Crab Harvest—Adaptive 

Resource Management) to clarify that 

we expect the ARM framework will 

continue to adapt as substantive new 

information becomes available about 

any important factors (other than the 

bait harvest) that may limit the 

continued growth of the Delaware Bay 

HSC population. Such factors are not 

currently well known, but could include 

demographic and ecological constraints 

on population growth, as well as 

sources of direct mortality that are not 

currently captured by the ARM models 

(e.g., biomedical, poaching, bycatch). In 

particular, accounting for biomedical 

mortality may become important if the 

contribution of the biomedical harvest 

to total mortality continues to increase. 

It should be noted, however, that much 

of the biomedical harvest occurs outside 

the Delaware Bay Region and would, 

therefore, fall outside of the ARM 

framework. 

(51) Comment: One State commented 

that removing Mispillion Harbor from 

the analysis of annual Delaware Bay egg 

density estimates has no biological or 

statistical justification and introduces 

bias. The Delaware Bay Ecosystem 

Technical Committee reviewed these 

data and determined that the high egg 

densities observed in Mispillion Harbor 

are not an outlier because they are 

consistently high from year to year and 

play a significant role for red knots in 

the Delaware Bay ecosystem. 

Furthermore, HSC egg densities in 

Delaware are increasing since 2005 (see 

Kalasz 2013 interim report). 

Our Response: In the proposed rule 

(78 FR 60024, p. 60068), we stated that 

Mispillion Harbor consistently supports 

a substantial portion of the red knots in 

Delaware Bay, and that exclusion of 

Mispillion Harbor from statistical 

analyses is problematic. Thus, we 

discussed the statistical relationship 

between egg density and red knot 

weight gain both with and without 

Mispillion Harbor, as reported by Dey et 

al. (2013, pp. 18–19). We have added 

the findings of Kalasz (2014) to the 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Reduced Food Availability—Horseshoe 

Crab Harvest—Link B, Part 2). 

(52) Comment: One State commented 

that the proposed rule contains an 

unsubstantiated allegation of HSC 

poaching as a factor impacting HSC 

populations, which is unreasonable 

given that the current HSC population is 

likely no less than the estimated 20 

million HSCs in the Delaware Bay in 

2003, indications that the spawning 

HSC population in the Delaware Bay 

has been stable or increasing, the 

scrutiny and capabilities of State 

enforcement officials, the fact that HSC 

bait prices have increased tremendously 

in response to restrictions put in place 

(as evidenced by the import of Asian 

HSCs), and the difficulty in concealing 

large quantities of [illegal] HSCs. 

Conversely, another commenter stated 

that they have witnessed HSC harvest in 

a salt marsh on the North Shore of Long 

Island, New York, and found that 

oversight of harvest regulations is 

lacking. In addition, this commenter 

also believes that the harvest limit is too 

high. 

Our Response: We disagree with this 

characterization of our conclusions in 

the proposed rule. In the proposed rule 

(78 FR 60024, p. 60066), we reported 

that the ASMFC’s Delaware Bay 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73725 

Ecosystem Technical Committee had 

speculated about possible factors that 

may explain the lack of recent HSC 

population growth in the Delaware Bay 

Region, but committee members did not 

reach consensus regarding which factors 

are more likely (ASMFC 2012c, p. 12; 

ASMFC 2012d, p. 2). The possibility of 

excessive documented and 

undocumented mortality was among 

these factors (ASMFC 2012d, p. 2). 

Therefore, we further investigated 

several possible sources of additional 

mortality outside the authorized bait 

harvest quotas, including biomedical 

mortality, poaching, bycatch, and 

unregulated harvest (i.e., from Federal 

waters and not landed in any State) (see 

Our Response 49). Specific to poaching, 

we presented documented instances of 

enforcement actions in New Jersey and 

New York. We have updated the 

poaching discussion in the 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Reduced Food Availability—Horseshoe 

Crab Harvest—Link A—Part 2) with new 

findings from the ASMFC (2014a), 

which further document notable levels 

of illegal harvest outside of Delaware 

Bay, but which have not changed our 

conclusion that minimal poaching (well 

below the levels that would cause 

population-level effects) has been 

observed in the Delaware Bay Region. 

Specific to oversight in New York, 

officials are aware of significant harvest 

pressure in the spring, and anticipate 

possible illegal activity by 

implementing significant spring 

enforcement details (ASMFC 2014a, p. 

1). We agree that the best available 

estimate of the HSC population in 

Delaware Bay is about 20 million crabs 

and that spawning HSC abundance has 

been stable, though not increasing (see 

Our Response 109). We also agree that 

poaching is receiving appropriate 

scrutiny from enforcement officials 

(ASMFC 2014a). See Our Responses 2 

and 120 regarding the price of bait and 

the import of Asian HSCs. 

(53) Comment: One commenter stated 

that dredging beginning in the 1960s has 

degraded HSC habitat. 

Our Response: In the proposed rule 

(78 FR 60024, p. 60039), we addressed 

effects to HSC spawning habitat from 

shoreline stabilization including hard 

structures and beach nourishment, but 

not from dredging. We do not doubt that 

dredging has and continues to degrade 

HSC habitat in some locations. 

However, we do not address this issue 

in the Supplemental Document because 

we have no information that dredging is 

impacting HSC habitat in Delaware Bay, 

which is the only region in which red 

knots are highly reliant on HSC eggs as 

a food resource. That said, we have 

revised the Supplemental Document 

(Migration and Wintering Food) with 

new information that HSC eggs are 

eaten, and often preferred, by red knots 

along other parts of the U.S. Atlantic 

coast, and may be a locally important 

component of the knot’s spring diet. 

Thus, we anticipate that the recovery 

planning process will include 

evaluating threats to the HSC egg supply 

in other areas outside Delaware Bay. 

(54) Comment: One State commented 

that the recent reduction in food 

availability in Delaware Bay was 

identified as the most detailed and 

persuasive threat, but this threat affects 

only those birds that migrate along the 

Atlantic coast, and it may not affect all 

migrating birds equally. The birds 

wintering along the northern coast of 

South America or along the Florida 

peninsula should have a lesser need to 

gain as much weight because of their 

shorter migration and may be minimally 

affected by food reduction. Another 

commenter stated that the Tierra del 

Fuego wintering population, which 

relies most heavily on HSCs, has 

declined disproportionately. 

Our Response: We agree that best 

available data suggest southernwintering red knots (from Argentina and 

Chile) are more reliant on Delaware Bay 

than are northern-wintering birds (e.g., 

from northern Brazil and the Southeast), 

as discussed in the proposed rule (Rufa 

Red Knot Ecology and Abundance, pp. 

31–33). We have revised the 

Supplemental Document (Wintering and 

Migration Food—Possible Differential 

Reliance on Horseshoe Crab Eggs) to 

more clearly present these data, and to 

emphasize observed differences 

between red knots that winter in 

Argentina and Chile versus knots that 

winter farther north (Wintering— 

Northern Versus Southern Wintering 

Regions; Migration—Differences in 

Migration Strategy by Wintering Area). 

However, we conclude that the best 

available data are insufficient to 

evaluate effects of the HSC harvest on 

northern-wintering red knots over 

recent decades, and we cannot conclude 

they were ‘‘minimally affected’’ by food 

reduction in Delaware Bay. We 

presented information about the Tierra 

del Fuego wintering population decline 

in the proposed rule (Rufa Red Knot 

Ecology and Abundance pp. 39–45; 53) 

and have revised the Supplemental 

Document (Wintering—Northern Versus 

Southern Wintering Regions) to clarify 

and emphasize this point. 

(55) Comment: One State commented 

that the 70 percent loss of HSC 

spawning habitat in Delaware Bay 

reported in the proposed rule due to 

Hurricane Sandy is only reflective of 

New Jersey and not, necessarily, 

Delaware. The State said it is also 

difficult to determine how the 70 

percent loss was quantified or how 

much of any such loss can actually be 

attributed to that one event. Another 

commenter agreed with the estimate of 

a 70 percent decrease in HSC spawning 

from Hurricane Sandy and noted that, 

while the beach was restored in time for 

the red knot spring stopover because of 

successful fundraising efforts, a similar 

winter or early spring storm could result 

in beaches stripped of sand with no 

time or funds for restoration. 

Our Response: As noted in the 

proposed rule, biologists found a 70 

percent decrease in optimal HSC 

spawning habitat in New Jersey 

following Hurricane Sandy (Niles et al. 

2012, p. 1), and beach nourishment is 

being pursued as a means of restoring 

this habitat (Niles et al. 2013a, entire 

Niles et al. 2013b, entire). We have 

revised the Supplemental Document 

(Factor A—Accelerating Sea Level 

Rise—United States—Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic—Delaware Bay Horseshoe 

Crab Habitat) to clarify that the 70 

percent loss refers to the New Jersey 

side of Delaware Bay only, and that this 

loss is relative to 2002 but was 

identified by Niles et al. (2012) to be 

mostly a result of Hurricane Sandy. 

We agree that changes in storm 

patterns may be a threat to the red knot. 

While variation in weather is a natural 

occurrence and is normally not 

considered a threat to the survival of a 

species, persistent changes in the 

frequency, intensity, or timing of storms 

at key locations where red knots 

congregate (e.g., key stopover areas) due 

to climate change can pose a threat. 

Storms impact migratory shorebirds like 

the red knot both directly and 

indirectly, including through changes in 

habitat suitability. Beach losses 

accumulate over time, mostly during 

storms, and even the long-term coastal 

response to sea level rise depends on 

the magnitudes and timing of 

stochastically unpredictable future 

storm events (Ashton et al. 2007, pp. 7, 

9). Should storm patterns change, red 

knots in Delaware Bay would be more 

sensitive to the timing and location of 

coastal storms than to a change in 

overall frequency. Changes in the 

patterns of tropical or extra-tropical 

storms that increase the frequency or 

severity of these events in Delaware Bay 

during or just prior to May would likely 

have dramatic effects on red knots and 

their habitats (Kalasz 2008, p. 41) (e.g., 

through direct mortality, delayed HSC 

spawning, delayed departure for the 

breeding grounds, and short-term 

habitat loss) (78 FR 60024, pp. 60028– 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73726 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

60029, 60032, 60034, 60037, 60073). 

This information is presented, 

unchanged and under the same 

headings, in the Supplemental 

Document. 

(56) Comment: One State commented 

that the potential near-term threat posed 

by sea level rise is reduced by the fact 

that coastal habitats are likely to shift 

and re-form as sea level changes, except 

in those areas that are armored or 

constrained by coastal infrastructure (78 

FR 60024, p. 60032). 

Our Response: We agree. However, as 

noted in the proposed rule (78 FR 

60024, p. 60035), if shorelines 

experience a decades-long period of 

high instability and landward migration, 

the formation rate of new beach habitats 

may be slower than the rate at which 

existing intertidal habitats are lost. In 

addition, low-lying and narrow islands 

may disintegrate rather than migrate, 

representing a net loss of red knot 

habitat. Furthermore, the extent to 

which habitat migration is constrained 

by human activity is extensive—about 

40 percent of the U.S. coastline within 

the range of the red knot is already 

developed (78 FR 60024, p. 60042). 

These conclusions are supported by 

new studies evaluating the vulnerability 

of shorebirds (including Calidris 

canutus) to sea level rise (Galbraith et 

al. 2014, p. 7; Iwamura et al. 2013, p. 

6; National Wildlife Foundation 2013, p. 

28; Whitman et al. 2013, pp. 2, 19, 64); 

we have added these updates to the 

Supplemental Document (Factor A—Sea 

Level Rise). 

(57) Comment: One State commented 

that, within the listing proposal, all of 

the potential impacts that are predicted 

to occur as a result of sea level rise are 

based upon geomorphic modeling that 

assumes a 1-meter (m) increase in sea 

level. At the current rate of sea level 

rise, which ranges from 2.5 to 3.5 

millimeters (mm)/year (78 FR 60024, pg. 

60030), the 1-m threshold will not be 

reached for another 140 to 300 years. 

Even the low end of this range is well 

beyond the temporal scope that should 

be applied to a listing decision. 

Our Response: We disagree with the 

commenter’s projected rate of sea level 

rise, and conclude that appreciable 

effects to red knot habitats from 

accelerating rates of rising sea levels are 

likely to begin over the next few 

decades, not centuries (Iwamura et al. 

2013, p. 6; Miller et al. 2013, pp. 3, 14; 

Vargas et al. 2013, pp. 22, 80; Galbraith 

et al. 2002, pp. 177–178). In fact, erosion 

has already led to loss of roost habitat 

in Delaware Bay (Niles et al. 2008, p. 97) 

and we expect ongoing erosion due to 

sea level rise to accelerate. As discussed 

in the proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 

60029), and updated in the 

Supplemental Document (Factor A—Sea 

Level Rise—Rates), the rate of sea level 

rise has accelerated and is ‘‘very likely’’ 

to increase further (IPCC 2013a, p. 25). 

Although estimated future rates remain 

rather uncertain, some research suggests 

that sea levels could potentially rise 

another 2.5 to 6.5 ft (0.8 to 2 m) by 2100. 

The IPCC (2013a, p. 26) recently 

concluded there is ‘‘low confidence’’ in 

sea level rise projections over 3.3 ft (1 

m) by 2100. However, for the most 

recent National Climate Assessment 

(Melillo et al. 2014), Parris et al. (2012, 

p. 2) evaluated various sea level rise 

scenarios and have ‘‘very high 

confidence’’ that global mean sea level 

rise will be between 0.7 and 6.6 ft (0.2 

and 2.0 m) by 2100, which is generally 

the range we considered in this listing 

determination. 

(58) Comment: Several States noted 

the beneficial effects of beach 

nourishment in maintaining habitat for 

red knots and other shorebirds. These 

States urged the Service to use caution 

when discussing the detrimental 

impacts of hard structures and beach 

nourishment as restoration or coastal 

protection strategies. These States 

commented that experience clearly 

demonstrates the value of such 

techniques to red knot beach habitats in 

Louisiana, and that beach nourishment 

is the best and only method to maintain 

and prevent the loss of suitable HSC 

spawning habitat due to erosion and sea 

level rise in a hydrologic system with 

limited sediment input, such as 

Delaware Bay. Likewise, one commenter 

noted that not all portions of the coast 

are equally impacted by erosion (i.e., 

from sea level rise); thus, restrictions 

stemming from listing should be 

allowed to vary geographically and 

should leave open management options 

for habitat and beach restoration 

projects. 

Our Response: We make a distinction 

between beach nourishment and beach 

stabilization structures (i.e., hardening 

structures). With few exceptions, we 

have concluded that hard structures are 

detrimental to red knot habitat (Winn et 

al. 2013, p. 22). In contrast, beach 

nourishment may be either detrimental 

or beneficial depending on the 

circumstances (Nordstrom and 

Mauriello 2001, entire; Defeo et al. 

2009, p. 4; Rice 2009, entire; Peterson et 

al. 2006, entire; Peterson and Bishop 

2005, entire; Greene 2002, p. 5). The 

effects of beach nourishment are 

expected typically to be short in 

duration. Human attempts to harden the 

shoreline are considered generally a 

threat to the red knot, because 

hardening curtails the natural coastal 

processes that create and maintain the 

most suitable red knot habitats. 

Notwithstanding our overall conclusion 

on stabilization, we noted in the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60037) 

that, in a few isolated locations, hard 

structures may enhance red knot 

habitat, or may provide artificial habitat. 

We also noted that, where shorebird 

habitat has been severely reduced or 

eliminated by hard stabilization 

structures, beach nourishment may be 

the only means available to replace any 

intertidal habitat for as long as the hard 

structures are maintained (78 FR 60024, 

p. 60037). Further, wholesale 

reorganizations of barrier systems and 

the loss of some low-lying islands may 

occur under scenarios of rapid sea level 

rise, and shorelines may experience a 

decades-long period of high instability 

during which the formation rate of new 

red knot habitats may be slower than the 

loss of existing habitats, as indicated in 

the proposed rule (78 FR 60024, pp. 

60032, 60035). 

We agree with the commenters that, 

under such circumstances, human 

intervention in coastal processes may be 

the only means of maintaining shorebird 

habitat. Due to local and regional 

factors, Louisiana is already 

experiencing extreme rates of land loss 

and barrier island disintegration; we 

acknowledge that Louisiana’s 

stabilization efforts may be maintaining 

habitat in areas where it would 

otherwise be lost. We likewise 

acknowledge the benefits of beach 

nourishment to red knot foraging habitat 

in Delaware Bay. Thus, we have revised 

the Supplemental Document (Factor 

A—U.S. Shoreline Stabilization and 

Coastal Development) to further note 

that both hard and soft (beach 

nourishment) stabilization efforts may 

also benefit red knots under 

circumstances of rapid erosion and land 

loss due to accelerating rates of sea level 

rise, locally or regionally exacerbated by 

limited sediment inputs. Coastal 

management projects generally involve 

Federal funding or authorization and 

may, therefore, be reviewed on a caseby-case basis under section 7 of the Act, 

thus ensuring flexibility for geographic 

differences. 

(59) Comment: One State and several 

other commenters stated that the loss or 

impairment of other migration staging 

areas (outside of Delaware Bay) is of 

great importance to the red knot 

especially at low population levels. 

Geolocator data show that red knots 

spend considerable portions of their life 

cycle along the Atlantic coast, and that 

their habitat use and needs during fall 

migration demand greater attention. July 

and August are the months when the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73727 

greatest numbers of red knots occur 

along the Atlantic coast. This period is 

also the time when beaches and other 

coastal areas are under the most 

pressure from human activities, thus 

creating the greatest potential for 

disturbance to migrating red knots. 

Wintering areas used by red knots, 

particularly in the Southeast, also are 

subject to intense and persistent 

recreational use. 

Our Response: We agree. In the 

proposed rule and in the Supplemental 

Document, we present a comprehensive 

analysis of threats to the red knot from 

habitat loss (Factor A) and disturbance 

(Factor E) throughout its range. 

Conservation actions to abate these 

threats will be evaluated during the 

recovery planning process. 

(60) Comment: One State and several 

other commenters noted that red knots 

are part of one of the largest 

congregations of migrating shorebirds in 

North America, a congregation that 

converges along the shores of the 

Delaware Bay and contributes 

significantly to the local economy (e.g., 

through ecotourism). The threatened 

status of the red knot is substantiated by 

the similar decline in a long list of other 

Arctic-nesting shorebirds, including 

other species that use Delaware Bay as 

a primary staging area during spring 

migration and rely on HSC eggs during 

the spring staging period. Further, 

listing the red knot and creating the 

basis for recovery will improve the 

situation for all of these shorebirds. 

Likewise, some commenters concluded 

that listing the red knot will benefit 

other shorebirds that share its wintering 

habitat in the United States. Conversely, 

some commenters suggested that listing 

the red knot may not be necessary 

because this species already receives 

incidental protections due to its 

geographic overlap with other protected 

species and protected areas. 

Our Response: The Service recognizes 

the importance of Delaware Bay to other 

shorebird species besides the red knot, 

and the importance of the bay’s 

ecosystem to local communities. We 

also recognize that listing the red knot 

may bring incidental conservation 

benefits to other species that share its 

habitats in Delaware Bay and 

rangewide. However, the Act requires 

that we use only the best available 

scientific and commercial data to 

evaluate whether a species meets the 

definition of a threatened or endangered 

species based on the five ‘‘listing’’ 

factors (section 4(a)(1)(b)). Thus, in 

making a listing determination, we may 

not consider the implications of 

possible listing for other species, the 

broader ecosystem, or local 

communities. (Once a species is listed, 

however, conservation of its supporting 

ecosystems is a principal focus of our 

recovery planning, and a central 

purpose of the Act.) We evaluated the 

conservation efforts that are already 

benefitting the red knot, including those 

that accrue from its overlap with other 

listed species and its occurrence in 

some protected areas. Notwithstanding 

several important ongoing conservation 

efforts, we conclude that the rufa red 

knot meets the definition of a threatened 

species, based on best available data. 

See Our Response 2 regarding other 

implications of listing that we may not 

consider in evaluating whether a species 

meets the definition of a threatened or 

endangered species under the Act. 

(61) Comment: Juvenile red knot 

survival and recruitment into the adult 

population may currently be the most 

significant factor facing the species. 

Over the past decade, juvenile survival 

has been low and recruitment into the 

adult population has been limited. Little 

is known about where juveniles spend 

their first 2 years or their survival rate. 

Given the suggestion that their range is 

in the Caribbean or northern South 

America, there is potential that hunting 

could impact survival, as juveniles 

would be more vulnerable to hunting 

pressure. 

Our Response: We agree it is possible 

that low juvenile survival and 

recruitment may be limiting population 

growth, and that juvenile survival may 

be impacted by hunting (e.g., if 

juveniles spend a large percent of their 

annual life cycle in regions where 

shorebirds are hunted, if juveniles are 

naı ̈ve to hunting, or both). Because we 

find these theories plausible and worthy 

of further investigation, we have 

mentioned them in the Supplemental 

Document (Longevity and Survival; 

Factor B—Hunting—Caribbean and 

South America). However, we note that 

these theories currently lack supporting 

documentation. We have also updated 

the Supplemental Document 

(Breeding—Nonbreeding Birds; 

Wintering—Juveniles; Migration) with 

the first two available geolocator results 

from juvenile birds showing where they 

spent their first years. 

(62) Comment: Several States and 

other commenters stated that wind 

energy development was an unlikely 

threat to the red knot in the interior 

United States because research by 

Newstead et al. (2013) indicates that 

midcontinental migrating birds travel at 

a rate of approximately 58 km per hour. 

It is unlikely that birds could migrate 

this rapidly by flying at low altitude. 

Most likely, these birds are migrating at 

a height of several thousand feet and are 

passing well above all wind turbines 

and communications towers. 

Conversely, one commenter rebutted 

that the referenced speed is an average 

of the minimum flight speeds of those 

individuals. In reality, birds experience 

both headwinds and favorable tailwinds 

over the duration of a 2- or 3-day 

nonstop flight, which would effectively 

reduce or increase their speed, 

respectively. It is also likely that the 

birds would increase or decrease their 

altitude in response to those conditions, 

so it is not appropriate to infer that all 

flights follow the same trajectory or 

altitude. Further, red knots and other 

shorebirds are capable of considerable 

speeds in still air, approaching or 

exceeding 58 km per hour. Thus, red 

knots would not necessarily need the 

wind assistance found at high altitudes 

to achieve the estimated (average, 

minimum) flight speed. 

Our Response: As discussed in the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60090), 

some experts estimate the normal 

cruising altitude of red knots during 

migration to be in the range of 3,281 to 

9,843 ft (1,000 to 3,000 m), well above 

the estimated height of even a 10-MW 

turbine (681 ft; 207.5 m). However, 

much lower flight altitudes may be 

expected when red knots encounter bad 

weather or high winds, on ascent or 

descent from long-distance flights, 

during short-distance flights if they are 

blown off course, during short coastal 

migration flights, or during daily 

commuting flights (e.g., between 

foraging and roosting habitats) (Burger 

et al. 2012c, pp. 375–376; Burger et al. 

2011, p. 346). Supporting evidence for 

these expert opinions comes from other 

Calidris canutus subspecies and other 

shorebirds in Europe (see Supplemental 

Document section Factor E—Wind 

Energy Development—Offshore). 

Although the aforementioned sources 

constitute best available information, we 

lack any direct empirical data to verify 

the typical migration altitude of rufa red 

knots, or the degree to which they adjust 

their migration altitudes in response to 

weather or other factors. We agree that, 

typically, red knots on long-distance, 

nonstop flights likely migrate at high 

altitudes of 3,281 feet (1,000 m) or more 

(Burger et al. 2011, p. 346). However, 

we disagree with the interpretation that 

the minimum flight speed calculated by 

Newstead et al. (2013) indirectly 

indicates the migration altitude of red 

knots along the Central Flyway; thus, 

we have not incorporated this 

interpretation into the Supplemental 

Document. (Also see Our Response 22.) 

(63) Comment: One State commented 

that the proposed rule failed to include 

the dwarf surf clam (Mulinia lateralis) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73728 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

as an important food resource to fall 

migrating red knots in Georgia. This 

State noted densities of dwarf surf clam 

vary widely from year to year, appearing 

to drive the number of red knots using 

certain areas, and they are concerned 

that a number of predicted changes 

associated with global climate change 

(ocean acidification and warming) may 

negatively affect this important prey 

item. 

Our Response: In the proposed rule 

(Rufa Red Knot Ecology and 

Abundance, pp. 26–27), we noted that 

the spatial distribution of red knots has 

been correlated with prey availability in 

Georgia, and that the dwarf surf clam is 

a prey species in Georgia during winter. 

We have revised the Supplemental 

Document (Migration and Wintering 

Food) to indicate that the dwarf surf 

clam is also a primary prey species for 

knots during fall. We have also revised 

the Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Reduced Food Availability—Ocean 

Acidification; Temperature Changes) to 

include new information provided by 

the commenter regarding the likely 

impacts of climate change on the dwarf 

surf clam in Georgia. 

(64) Comment: Several States and 

other commenters provided new 

information regarding habitat and prey 

in inland areas (e.g., some knots may 

use saline lakes in southern Canada, 

such as Reed, Chaplin, and Quill Lakes, 

that are known to support large, mixedspecies shorebird concentrations due to 

abundant invertebrate resources), while 

other commenters contend that red 

knots may not use inland stopover sites 

during migration because of the 

unpredictable availability of appropriate 

prey. Within the interior portion of the 

Central Flyway, water levels fluctuate 

dramatically; therefore, few sites have 

reliable gastropod resources, and none 

support freshwater mussels at a depth 

that would be available to red knots. 

Our Response: We agree that new 

information available since the 

proposed rule was published suggests 

that some red knots likely use inland 

saline lakes as stopover habitat in the 

Northern Great Plains. We have no 

information to indicate whether red 

knots may also use inland freshwater 

habitats during migration, but some of 

the new information discussed under 

Our Response 29 suggests that certain 

freshwater areas may warrant further 

study as potential stopover habitats. We 

have added this new information to the 

Supplemental Document (Migration— 

Midcontinent; Migration and Wintering 

Habitat—Inland). We also agree that 

inland prey resources may be 

unpredictable. Newstead et al. (2013, p. 

57) supported the idea that inland prey 

resources may be unpredictable, but 

showed inland stopovers are used by 

red knots in some years. At least on 

smaller geographic scales (e.g., stopover 

areas in Argentina, Georgia, South 

Carolina, Virginia, the Atlantic coast of 

New Jersey, and Delaware Bay), knot 

distribution has been shown to follow 

areas of high prey availability, 

suggesting some plasticity in migration 

strategy as prey resources vary in time 

and space (Musmeci et al. 2011). 

Likewise, Newstead et al. (2013, pp. 57– 

58) have suggested that knot use of the 

Northern Great Plains may vary from 

year to year based on water levels. 

Geolocator data indicate the 

midcontinental flyway is consistently 

used by some birds, but the stopovers 

within this migratory route may vary 

depending on environmental 

conditions. These conclusions continue 

to be borne out by many more 

geolocator tracks that have yet to be 

published (D. Newstead pers. comm. 

May 8, 2014). 

(65) Comment: Several States and 

other commenters suggested the Service 

should conduct a thorough literature 

review of all available resources to 

determine where the red knot occurs 

regularly because the species’ 

conservation and recovery will be most 

effective if they remain focused on the 

important coastal habitats that are used 

by all individuals. 

Our Response: We agree with this 

conclusion, but assert that we have 

already conducted a thorough review of 

the literature available. Identifying and 

protecting the network of important red 

knot sites is work that has been ongoing 

by an international community of 

shorebird researchers and 

conservationists since the late 1970s 

and continues today. The results of this 

extensive work were reviewed in depth 

for the proposed rule and the 

Supplemental Document, and will be 

further utilized and built upon during 

recovery planning. 

Public Comments 

(66) Comment: A commenter stated 

that the proposed rule does not comply 

with applicable law because the 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ used by the Service 

in this instance is not expressly 

identified or otherwise explained. Upon 

reconsideration, should the Service 

decide to proceed with a threatened 

listing, it must issue a new proposed 

rule that clearly identifies the applicable 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ explains the 

Service’s bases for identifying that 

foreseeable future, and describes how 

the Service’s interpretation is consistent 

with the language and intent of the Act. 

The best available scientific data and 

information, previous findings by the 

Service, and applicable case law all 

dictate that a foreseeable future 

premised upon climate change impacts 

does not extend past mid-century. 

Our Response: The Act does not 

define the term ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ 

and the Act and its implementing 

regulations and policies do not require 

the Service to quantify the time period 

of foreseeable future. For each threat 

evaluated in the proposed rule and in 

the Supplemental Document, we have 

specified, when possible, the time 

horizon over which we conclude likely 

effects to the red knot can be reasonably 

foreseen. 

(67) Comment: A commenter stated 

that if the Service proceeds with a 

determination to list the rufa red knot as 

threatened, the Service must issue a 

special rule pursuant to section 4(d) of 

the Act that exempts from the section 9 

take prohibition all lawful activities that 

have not been found to directly and 

adversely impact the rufa red knot 

species. To avoid unnecessary and 

unintended burdens, or the misuse of 

the Act, the Service should propose a 

special 4(d) rule. Further, the Service’s 

rationale in support of the polar bear 

4(d) rule applies equally to the red knot. 

Our Response: The Act does not 

specify particular prohibitions for 

threatened species. Instead, under 

section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary of 

the Interior was given the discretion to 

issue such regulations as she deems 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of such species. 

Exercising this discretion, the Service 

has developed general prohibitions (50 

CFR 17.31) and exceptions to those 

prohibitions (50 CFR 17.32) under the 

Act that apply to most threatened 

species. At this time, we have no 

information to suggest that the take 

prohibitions are not ‘‘necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation’’ of the rufa red knot to 

justify a species-specific 4(d) rule that 

exempts certain activities from the take 

prohibition. However, we will 

reevaluate this decision in the future if 

new information becomes available that 

indicates a change in the 4(d) 

regulations may be necessary and 

advisable for the red knot’s 

conservation. 

(68) Comment: One commenter 

requested clarification regarding how 

the public comments are evaluated by 

the Service, and how different 

comments are weighed, so that the 

analysis and decision-making are based 

on the input received. 

Our Response: We have reviewed all 

the public comments for substantive 

new information and for any 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73729 

substantiated alternative interpretations 

of information we previously 

considered. To the extent that such new 

information and new interpretations 

represent best available data, we have 

incorporated them into the 

Supplemental Document and evaluated 

them in light of our threats assessment 

using the five listing factors set forth in 

section 4 of the Act. Oral testimony on 

a proposed rulemaking given at a public 

hearing is given the same weight as 

written comments received during the 

open public comment period. 

(69) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the Service failed to conduct, and 

provide for comment on, analysis 

required by the Act in its proposal to list 

the rufa red knot. 

Our Response: We disagree. As stated 

above, the proposed rule to list the red 

knot as threatened under the Act was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 30, 2013 (78 FR 60024) and 

made available for public comment for 

a total of 133 days (78 FR 60024; 79 FR 

18869; 79 FR 27548). In addition, three 

separate public hearings were held on 

the proposal, which exceeded the 

requirement to hold one hearing if 

requested. As explained above under 

numerous responses to comments, we 

appropriately evaluated whether the red 

knot meets the definition of a threatened 

or endangered species under sections 

4(a) and 4(b) of the Act. 

(70) Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern about how we 

conduct peer review or use peerreviewed documents, stating that 

scientific peer review should happen 

before proposing a species for listing, 

not during the public comment period, 

and that the Service should include the 

peer review results next to any cited 

information that it disseminates to the 

public in hearings, documents, and the 

Federal Register. Likewise, one 

commenter stated that designation of a 

species as threatened must be based on 

unquestionable scientific evidence 

gathered and analyzed before the 

designation, not after. 

Our Response: As detailed in Our 

Response 71 below, we use several 

sources of data in our listing 

determinations, including articles from 

peer-reviewed journals. In addition, the 

Service’s 1994 Interagency Cooperative 

Policy for Peer Review in Endangered 

Species Act Activities (59 FR 34270) 

specifies that we will ‘‘(a) Solicit the 

expert opinions of three appropriate and 

independent specialists regarding the 

pertinent scientific or commercial data 

and assumptions . . . (b) Summarize in 

the final decision document (rule or 

notice of withdrawal) the opinions of all 

independent peer reviewers received.’’ 

We have complied with the Policy by 

soliciting peer review during the open 

public comment period so that any peer 

review comments received would be 

transparently available to the public; 

peer reviewer comments were posted in 

the proposed rule’s docket at 

www.regulations.gov along with all 

other received comments. In addition, 

we made the list of references reviewed 

and cited for the proposed rule available 

via the proposed rule’s docket at 

www.regulations.gov, properly 

identified those citations in the 

proposed rule, and made it clear in the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60025) 

that these references, along with other 

information in the decision record, were 

available for public inspection by 

appointment at the Service’s New Jersey 

Field Office. Information about the 

proposed rule summarized in 

presentations at the public hearings may 

not have explicitly identified the 

citations due to size limitations on the 

PowerPoint© slides, but hearing 

participants could obtain this 

information by reading the proposed 

rule and supporting documents, visiting 

www.regulations.gov, or making an 

appointment with the New Jersey Field 

Office. As required by the Act, we relied 

on best available data in determining 

that the red knot meets the definition of 

a threatened species in both the 

proposed and final rules. We disagree 

that listing requires ‘‘unquestionable 

scientific evidence.’’ Rather, as 

discussed in Our Response 27, the 

Service is required to rely solely upon 

the ‘‘best available’’ science, even if that 

science is uncertain. New information 

that becomes available after listing will 

be considered during recovery planning 

and implementation, and in the course 

of status reviews we conduct every 5 

years to determine if the species 

continues to meet the definition of a 

threatened or endangered species. 

(71) Comment: One commenter 

suggested that the quality of the data in 

the proposed rule was undermined by 

the number of personal communications 

and unpublished sources cited in the 

document. The reliance on unpublished 

data and personal communications 

suggest a link to falsified data. Likewise, 

one commenter stated that the 

information contained in the proposal 

and in supporting documents does not 

meet the scientific standards, and 

another commenter found that the best 

available science is poor and incomplete 

science at best. 

Our Response: We disagree. The 

Service is required to make listing 

determinations based on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available. Sources of data include peerreviewed journal articles; field notes 

and other unpublished data; and 

personal communications from species, 

habitat, and policy experts. We analyze 

all available sources of data and use our 

best professional judgment to determine 

their credibility, in accordance with 

applicable data standards (Interagency 

Policy on Information Standards Under 

the Endangered Species Act (59 FR 

34271); Information Quality Act (P.L. 

106–554, section 515); Information 

Quality Guidelines and Peer Review 

(USFWS 2012f, entire)). As required by 

the Interagency Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act, all sources we reviewed 

have been retained as part of the 

decision record, and all sources we 

relied upon are listed in the Literature 

Cited section of the Supplemental 

Document and were available for public 

review. We are not aware of any 

documented instances of falsification or 

any other scientifically unethical 

practices associated with any of the data 

we cited in the proposed rule, this final 

rule, or the Supplemental Document. As 

discussed in Our Response 27, the ‘‘best 

available science’’ requirement does not 

equate to the best possible science. 

Although we acknowledge certain data 

gaps (78 FR 60024–60025) and 

uncertainties, some of which are 

inherent in all natural systems and all 

evaluations of future conditions, we 

conclude that overall the best available 

data are sufficient to document several 

population-level threats to the red knot, 

as well as its reduced population size 

relative to the early 1980s, and thus 

conclude that the red knot meets the 

definition of a threatened species. 

(72) Comment: One commenter 

suggested that some red knot 

researchers inappropriately published 

the same data in two or more 

publications; designed research to give 

inaccurate results; and excluded, 

altered, or manipulated data. Further, 

vague or ambiguous language in the red 

knot data may rise to falsification, 

fabrication, and scientific fraud. This 

commenter states that the inclusion of 

flawed data in the 2007 red knot status 

assessment prepared for and 

disseminated by the Service violates the 

Service’s information quality standards; 

the Service was informed during peer 

review of the 2007 status review that 

several of the citations were in error, 

including inappropriate interpretation 

of data as evidence of red knot declines. 

Our Response: We disagree. We are 

not aware of any documented instances 

of falsification or any other scientifically 

unethical practices associated with any 

of the data we cited in the proposed 

rule, this final rule, or the Supplemental 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73730 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Document. See Our Response 71 above 

on our data standards. The 2007 

document ‘‘Status Review of the Red 

Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) in the 

Western Hemisphere’’ was prepared for 

the Service by a group of independent 

red knot experts and made available on 

our Web site. An updated version was 

published independent of the Service in 

2008 (Niles et al. 2008, entire). While 

some of the information in Niles et al. 

(2008) has been subsequently updated 

with new information and improved 

insights, we have used appropriate 

information from Niles et al. (2008) in 

our listing determination whenever we 

consider it reliable, current, and best 

available. 

(73) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the Service has red knot bird 

banding data from North and South 

America and will not release these data, 

citing privilege to authors. 

Our Response: This comment is 

incorrect. Most data regarding the 

marking and resighting of red knots are 

housed and maintained by 

BandedBirds.org, which is affiliated 

with the New Jersey Audubon Society. 

Although the Service has provided 

support to BandedBirds.org, we do not 

operate this database, nor set the 

policies regarding the dissemination of 

the data it contains. Throughout the 

proposed rule and the Supplemental 

Document, we present summary 

information, analysis, and conclusions 

drawn from BandedBirds.org data. This 

is possible because we obtained limited 

excerpts from the database through a 

data sharing agreement with 

BandedBirds.org, and we coordinated 

with the database manager to ensure 

that we obtained all necessary 

permissions from the individual 

contributors of the data, as per the 

policies of BandedBirds.org. These 

excerpts have been and remain available 

to the public by appointment at the 

Service’s New Jersey Field Office. 

Certain red knot resightings data are 

also available to the public directly at 

BandedBirds.org, and access to 

additional data can be requested from 

the database administrator. 

(74) Comment: One commenter noted 

that there are six subspecies of Calidris 

canutus and that the Service needs to 

know more about the other five 

subspecies to make a decision about C.c. 

rufa. This commenter contends that all 

the subspecies migrate to the same area, 

albeit by different routes, and breed in 

the same area. However, no one knows 

for certain if they interbreed or not. 

Our Response: We disagree with this 

assessment. In the proposed rule (Rufa 

Red Knot Ecology and Abundance, pp. 

4–7, 9), we presented best available data 

that the three recognized North 

American subspecies do not interbreed. 

We have updated the Supplemental 

Document (Subspecies Nonbreeding 

Distributions) with new information 

regarding the nonbreeding ranges of 

Calidris canutus rufa and C.c. roselaari. 

There are a few areas of known overlap 

and additional regions of potential 

overlap between the nonbreeding 

distributions of these two subspecies. 

However, all newly available 

information supports our previous 

conclusions that the breeding areas of 

these two subspecies are distinct, with 

C.c. roselaari breeding in Alaska and 

eastern Russia, and C.c. canutus 

breeding in the central Canadian Arctic. 

Although C.c. islandica breeds in 

Canada just north of C.c. rufa, the 

islandica subspecies migrates and 

winters in Europe and does not occur in 

the United States. The other three 

subspecies do not occur in North 

America. 

(75) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the International Union for 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List 

of Threatened Species, cited by the 

respected Cornell University Lab of 

Ornithology, lists the conservation 

status of the red knot as one of ‘‘Least 

Concern’’ and, therefore, concludes the 

science does not support the Service’s 

proposal. 

Our Response: Under section 4 of the 

Act, a species shall be listed if it meets 

the definition of a threatened or 

endangered species because of any of 

the five factors, considering solely best 

available scientific and commercial 

data. We may not adopt the 

conservation classification criteria of 

other agencies or organizations, such as 

the IUCN. However, we do evaluate and 

consider the underlying data other 

agencies or organizations have relied 

upon in making their own conservation 

classifications. Thus, we have reviewed 

the IUCN Red List (BirdLife 

International 2012), and found that the 

data presented by this source are for the 

entire global population (all six 

subspecies) of Calidris canutus, and are 

not specific to the rufa red knot, and are 

thus not relevant to this listing 

determination for the rufa subspecies. 

However, based on this review of the 

IUCN’s underlying data sources, we 

have made a minor revision to the 

Supplemental Document, specifically, 

the addition of a new reference 

(Goldfeder and Blanco in Boere et al. 

(2006, p. 193)), which supports several 

of the threats that were already detailed 

in the proposed rule. 

(76) Comment: One commenter stated 

that many threats to red knots are 

pervasive across the Gulf coast. For 

example, habitat loss is occurring across 

the Gulf Coast (from alteration of 

hydrology to development and from sea 

level rise to mismanagement of the 

Mississippi River), and disturbance of 

migrating and wintering birds is 

common. 

Our Response: We agree that these 

and other threats are likely contributing 

to habitat loss, anthropogenic mortality, 

or both, along the Gulf coast, and thus 

contribute to the red knot’s threatened 

status, particularly considering the 

cumulative effects of these and other 

threats rangewide. 

(77) Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern over the apparent 

contradiction between the Service 

justifying a threatened status for red 

knot while acknowledging difficulty in 

estimating the total population of red 

knots and recognizing that knot 

numbers have been stable in recent 

years. 

Our Response: First, we disagree that 

there is a contradiction. While a precise 

estimate of a species population is an 

ideal piece of information to have, it is 

not a required piece of information for 

a listing determination. Under section 4 

of the Act, a species shall be listed if it 

meets the definition of a threatened or 

endangered species because of any (one 

or more) of the five factors (threats), 

considering solely best available 

scientific and commercial data. 

Although many species proposed for 

listing have undergone, or are 

undergoing, a population decline, 

declining numbers are not required for 

listing if a species is facing sufficient 

threats, now or in the foreseeable future, 

to meet the definition of a threatened or 

endangered species. Based on our 

analysis of the five factors, we conclude 

the red knot meets the definition of a 

threatened species, particularly 

considering the cumulative effects of 

ongoing and emerging threats, and 

considering that several populations of 

red knots have already undergone 

considerable declines and remain at low 

levels. Second, although we have 

concluded that no current, reliable, 

rangewide population estimate is 

available, we disagree that no reliable 

population statistics are available. We 

have evaluated the best available 

population data, consisting of survey 

data for specific regions (Rufa Red Knot 

Ecology and Abundance, pp. 38–52; 

Population Surveys and Estimates in the 

Supplemental Document); see Our 

Responses 37, 38, and 44 for additional 

information. 

(78) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the threat identified by the Service 

as driving the recent population decline 

has been addressed by management of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73731 

the HSC fishery. Therefore, the red knot 

may already be on a course to recovery 

without listing. 

Our Response: We disagree with this 

conclusion. Although the threat from 

HSC harvest is adequately managed 

under the ARM and red knot 

populations have stabilized, knot 

numbers remain at low levels. We 

continue to conclude that reduced food 

availability at the Delaware Bay 

stopover site due to commercial harvest 

of the HSC—combined with late arrival 

of birds in Delaware Bay for unknown 

reasons—were the primary causal 

factors in the decline of rufa red knot 

populations in the 2000s (78 FR 60024, 

pp. 60063, 60076). The threat of late 

arrivals has not been abated, and further 

asynchronies are likely in the future due 

to climate change. In addition, we 

conclude that a number of other threats 

are likely contributing to habitat loss, 

anthropogenic mortality, or both, and 

thus contribute to the red knot’s 

threatened status, particularly 

considering the cumulative effects of 

these threats, and that several 

populations of this species have already 

undergone considerable declines. (Also 

see Our Response 46 regarding new 

uncertainty about the future of the 

ARM.) 

(79) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that there are insufficient data to 

draw credible conclusions about the 

possible adaptation and recovery of this 

species. One commenter stated that the 

species having existed for at least 

hundreds of years is evidence that it has 

adapted and survived many previous 

cycles of natural change without human 

intervention. Likewise, another 

commenter stated that, in the millions 

of years red knots have been in 

existence, extreme variance in 

predation, climate, food sources, and 

other factors have surely occurred, yet, 

the birds have survived and thrived at 

times. 

Our Response: We disagree that the 

red knot’s ability to survive past cycles 

of natural change—or even past 

anthropogenic threats like hunting—are 

evidence that its adaptive capacity is 

adequate to survive the threats it 

currently faces. First, population 

declines in the 2000s demonstrate the 

red knot’s vulnerability to inadequate 

food resources and asynchronies. 

Second, the nature and extent of current 

threats are unprecedented, as are the 

scope and rates of some changes that are 

likely to occur over coming decades. For 

example, the extent of coastal 

development and shoreline stabilization 

has likely never been greater, rates of 

sea level rise continue to accelerate, and 

arctic ecosystems are projected to 

change more in the next 100 years than 

they did over the last 6,000 years, which 

is longer than the rufa red knot is 

thought to have existed as a subspecies. 

We also disagree that the rufa red knot 

has been in existence for millions of 

years. As discussed in the proposed rule 

(Rufa Red Knot Ecology and 

Abundance, p. 4), the rufa red knot is 

thought to have diverged from other 

subspecies within the past 1,000 to 

5,500 years. However, we agree that 

information is quite limited regarding 

the adaptive capacity of the rufa red 

knot. Where we have such information, 

we stated it in the proposed rule (78 FR 

60024, pp. 60028, 60035, 60047–60049, 

60054, 60057, 60061, 60071, 60072, 

60074, 60075, 60093, 60095). 

(80) Comment: One commenter stated 

that there is no upward trend in rufa red 

knot populations as measured by any 

consistently applied methodology. 

Our Response: As discussed in the 

proposed rule (Rufa Red Knot Ecology 

and Abundance, pp. 53–54), we 

generally concur with this conclusion. 

One shorter-term data set (2007 to 2013) 

based on ground counts in Virginia did 

show an upward trend through 2012 but 

was down sharply in 2013, and a 2013 

count from Brazil was markedly higher 

but this was likely due, at least in part, 

to favorable tidal conditions during the 

survey. However, two data sets 

associated with high confidence (Tierra 

del Fuego, Delaware Bay) show 

stabilization at low levels in recent 

years following sharp declines in the 

2000s. Two other data sets (South 

American and Virginia spring stopovers) 

suggest declines in the 2000s relative to 

the 1990s. All other available data sets 

are insufficient for trend analysis. Our 

conclusions regarding trends in 

available population data are presented, 

with only minor updates, in the 

Supplemental Document (Summary— 

Population Surveys and Estimates). 

(81) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the apparent red knot decline is 

based on the inconsistent 

methodologies, geographic areas, dates, 

and times of day, and compares 

multiple years’ estimates against a 

single day. Further, total rangewide 

population estimates reported by some 

authors in certain years (e.g., 2004, 

2005) have been lower than counts at 

individual migration stopovers. 

Likewise, one commenter stated that 

data are insufficient to draw credible 

conclusions about the decline of this 

species. 

Our Response: We disagree. We did 

not rely upon or cite the total rangewide 

population estimates mentioned by the 

commenter. In the proposed rule (Rufa 

Red Knot Ecology and Abundance, p. 

53), we concluded that substantial 

declines occurred in two key red knot 

areas in the 2000s: The Patagonia and 

Tierra del Fuego wintering area and the 

Delaware Bay stopover area. We 

associated these trends with higher 

confidence levels based on consistency 

of methods, coverage, and observers 

(Rufa Red Knot Ecology and 

Abundance, pp. 39, 48). 

(82) Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern with the Service’s 

apparent reliance on eBird data because 

it is citizen science and not considered 

scientifically rigorous, is skewed 

towards recreational birders and easily 

accessible locations, and is not 

representative of all the places, known 

or unknown, red knots utilize. The red 

knot population does not breed in 

colonies, which makes gathering 

credible population data beyond the 

reach of recreational birders. There are 

certain areas where red knot counts are 

made, mostly where birdwatchers are. 

Many more red knots may be utilizing 

unknown habitats and thus may be 

missed by surveys. 

Our Response: First, we disagree that 

citizen science cannot be scientifically 

rigorous. Specific to eBird, we have 

reviewed the quality control protocols, 

which include vetting to minimize the 

risk of mistaken bird identification. 

Second, we conclude that, for some 

parts of the red knot’s range (e.g., 

interior States) during some seasons 

(e.g., migration), eBird data represent 

the best available information. However, 

we agree that eBird data include reports 

from recreational birdwatchers, which 

are likely skewed toward those times 

and places that birdwatchers are active. 

The data are also temporally skewed, 

with far more recent than historical 

records, likely due to the growing access 

and popularity of recording 

observations electronically. For these 

reasons, we have not interpreted eBird 

records as a complete geographic 

representation of the range, nor have we 

relied upon these data for trend 

analysis. We did consider eBird, along 

with other data, for certain purposes 

relevant to listing, such as 

documentation or seasonality of 

occurrence in a particular area. We note 

that eBird records for Calidris canutus 

do not distinguish among subspecies; 

see Our Response 35 and the 

Supplemental Document (Subspecies 

Nonbreeding Distribution) regarding 

how we have delineated the 

nonbreeding ranges of C.c. rufa versus 

C.c. roselaari based on best available 

data. 

Third, we have relied on numerous 

data sets for our analysis of population 

trends (see Population Surveys and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73732 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Estimates in the Supplemental 

Document). Long-term professional (as 

opposed to volunteer) surveys have 

been conducted in several key areas 

because these areas are known to 

support important concentrations of red 

knots and other shorebirds, not based on 

convenient locations. Sharp and 

protracted declines in two of these areas 

(Tierra del Fuego and Delaware Bay) in 

the 2000s were an important 

consideration in our listing 

determination, although declining 

numbers (rangewide or in portions of 

the range) are not necessary for listing 

if a species is facing population-level 

threats (see Our Responses 27 and 77). 

We agree that the vast and remote 

breeding range of the rufa red knot, 

along with its solitary nesting habits, 

largely preclude any comprehensive 

surveys on the breeding grounds, either 

professional or volunteer. Nonetheless, 

we conclude that credible population 

data can and are collected in certain 

nonbreeding areas through consistent 

ground and aerial counts and, more 

recently, have been calculated by 

mathematical modelling based on 

resightings of marked birds. 

Finally, we agree that not all red knot 

habitats are fully known, and some 

portions of the range are difficult to 

access or accurately survey. Although 

new information continues to emerge 

about such areas, new information 

available since the proposed rule has 

not changed our assessment of red knot 

population declines in Delaware Bay 

and Tierra del Fuego in the 2000s, or 

our evaluation of threats facing this 

species. 

(83) Comment: One commenter stated 

that no controlled studies have been 

done to compare current red knot 

populations to prior red knot 

populations for the same area. In 

addition, the two areas (breeding and 

wintering) where this species spends 

most of the year are remote and not 

conducive to accurate population and 

biological studies. 

Our Response: We disagree. While the 

size and remoteness of the breeding 

grounds have generally precluded 

comprehensive surveys, red knots 

typically spend only about 4 to 6 weeks 

per year in the Arctic. The rest of the 

year the birds use migration and 

wintering habitats. Repeated annual 

counts are available for several 

nonbreeding areas, some of them 

remote. Some of these counts date back 

to the early 1980s (see Population 

Surveys and Estimates in the 

Supplemental Document). In addition, 

we have gathered best available 

historical data dating back to the mid1800s, as presented in the proposed rule 

(Rufa Red Knot Ecology and 

Abundance, pp. 33–36) and the 

Supplemental Document (Historical 

Distribution and Abundance). Although 

these historical data do not permit a 

quantitative analysis, they do convey a 

consistent qualitative account of 

historical population trends. 

(84) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the notion that Delaware Bay is the 

only place used by rufa red knots omits 

Virginia’s red knot counts, which the 

commenter states represent 74 percent 

of the red knot population in some 

years. 

Our Response: We agree that 

Delaware Bay is not the only important 

spring stopover area. However, due to 

the HSC egg resource, we conclude that 

no single stopover area is more 

important for the red knot than the 

Delaware Bay (Harrington 1996, p. 73). 

As discussed under Our Response 38, 

we have analyzed more recent 

population data and conclude that 

Delaware Bay continues to supports the 

majority of red knots each spring. 

Notwithstanding the importance of 

Delaware Bay, the proposed rule (Rufa 

Red Knot Ecology and Abundance, pp. 

17–23) and the Supplemental Document 

(Migration) also present information 

about numerous other stopover areas 

across the species’ range, including 

Virginia. We agree that Virginia is an 

important spring stopover site, but 

disagree that it supports 74 percent of 

the total red knot population. We do not 

have an estimate of the percent of the 

total rufa red knot population that uses 

Virginia. However, by comparing lateMay peak counts from Virginia and 

Delaware Bay, we can estimate how the 

total mid-Atlantic stopover population 

is typically distributed between these 

two areas in spring. Across those years 

with available data (1995, 1996, 2005 to 

2014), average peak counts in Virginia 

were about 40 percent as large as those 

in Delaware Bay. 

(85) Comment: Several commenters 

noted that annual counts of red knots 

stopping at Delaware Bay dropped from 

around 95,000 in 1982 and 1989 to 

fewer than 15,000 in 2007, 2010, and 

2011. Peak counts in 2009, 2012, and 

2013 were higher, between 24,000 and 

25,000. 

Our Response: We agree that the size 

of the red knot population stopping in 

Delaware Bay has declined substantially 

since the 1980s. However, we note that 

1982 and 1989 were the all-time high 

counts in the bay and, therefore, not 

typical of annual peak counts recorded 

during this time period. From 1981 to 

1983, average peak counts were 59,946, 

and from 1986 to 1994, average peak 

counts were 46,886. (See Our Response 

37 regarding the extent of the decline.) 

We also agree that, on average, counts 

since 2009 have increased somewhat, 

and we conclude that the population 

has apparently stabilized at a relatively 

low level (compared to baseline data 

from the 1980s), or slightly increased 

over this period. The proposed rule 

(Rufa Red Knot Ecology and 

Abundance, pp. 48–50) and 

Supplemental Document (Population 

Surveys and Estimates—Spring 

Stopover Areas—Delaware Bay) present 

the best available data regarding 

population trends in Delaware Bay. 

(86) Comment: One commenter stated 

that data collection methods in North 

Carolina are incomplete. Only birds 

sighted within Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore are counted and not the birds 

on surrounding land or the dredge 

islands in the sound. 

Our Response: We agree that data 

collection in North Carolina is 

incomplete, but we disagree that 

surveys occur only in Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore. While Cape Hatteras 

staff only survey areas within the 

National Seashore, additional areas are 

monitored by others. A public comment 

letter from North Carolina Wildlife 

Resource Commission (NCWRC 2013) 

summarized all red knot data that could 

be obtained in a timely manner, and 

shows numbers of red knots along North 

Carolina’s coast, not only in the Cape 

Hatteras area. Survey efforts outside of 

Cape Hatteras include aerial surveys of 

the North Carolina coast, surveys at 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

surveys at shoals in the New Drum Inlet 

area, contract shorebird surveys at beach 

nourishment project areas, shorebird 

surveys at a storm-created inlet, and red 

knot observations incidental to other 

surveys (NCWRC 2013). Although data 

collection in North Carolina already 

goes well beyond the Cape Hatteras 

area, additional survey improvements 

can be made to increase understanding 

of the seasonal locations and numbers of 

red knots in the State (S. Schweitzer 

pers. comm. June 29, 2014). We 

anticipate that a holistic, rangewide 

review of data collection efforts and 

gaps will be an important component of 

the recovery planning process. 

(87) Comment: Several commenters 

noted information about red knots along 

the Gulf Coast. One commenter stated 

that although several data sets do exist 

to provide some red knot abundance 

data, rigorous surveys that are typically 

used to detect long-term species trends 

are lacking for many parts of the Gulf 

coast. Other commenters provided new 

data, including some anecdotal, 

regarding declines in the population of 

red knots wintering on the Gulf of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73733 

Mexico from Florida to Texas. Likewise, 

one commenter stated that long-term 

data show significant declines of rufa 

red knots across the Gulf of Mexico. 

Our Response: We agree that longterm data sets for the Gulf Coast are 

lacking and anticipate that a holistic, 

rangewide review of data collection 

efforts and gaps will be an important 

component of the recovery planning 

process. However, we consider the 

existing and new data received to be the 

best available data and have used it 

appropriately to draw conclusions in 

the Supplemental Document 

(Population Surveys and Estimates). 

Available information is quite limited 

and localized for Louisiana and Texas, 

but suggest that declines may have 

occurred (D. Newstead pers. comm. May 

8, 2014; Johnson 2013, p. 1). In eastern 

parts of the Gulf, any declines likely 

reflect (at least in part) the shifting of 

some southeastern knots to the Atlantic 

coast. 

(88) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the red knot marked with flag B95 

has lived at least 20 years. Thus, red 

knots have a very slow repopulation 

rate. 

Our Response: We do not dispute the 

age of B95, but we disagree with the 

conclusion the commenter derives from 

it. We agree red knot reproductive rates 

are likely low, but note that little 

information is available on this issue. 

First, B95 is the oldest known rufa red 

knot, and thus believed to be not typical 

of the average life span. In the proposed 

rule (Rufa Red Knot Ecology and 

Abundance, p. 7), we stated that few red 

knots live for more than about 7 years. 

We have revised this section of the 

Supplemental Document (Longevity and 

Survival) with new information about 

long-lived individuals, such as B95, that 

suggests the typical life span may be 

somewhat longer than 7 years, but 20 

years is still considered an outlier. 

Second, although long life spans can be 

related to slow reproductive rates in 

some groups of animals, we have little 

data to indicate typical reproductive 

rates in rufa red knots. The 

Supplemental Document (Breeding 

Chronology and Success) presents what 

little data we have regarding red knot 

reproductive rates. Although there is 

much uncertainty around typical 

reproductive rates, certainty is high that 

the red knot’s reproductive success 

varies widely among areas and years 

and is highly sensitive to predation and 

weather, as discussed in the proposed 

rule (Rufa Red Knot Ecology and 

Abundance, pp. 11–12). 

(89) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the United States serves only 

as a migration corridor twice a year. 

What little bit of time the red knot 

spends in the eastern United States is a 

situation that has not been fully studied. 

Our Response: We disagree. First, red 

knots winter along parts of the U.S. 

coast, mainly from North Carolina to 

Florida and from Louisiana to Texas. 

Geolocator data show that red knots 

wintering in the Southeast-Caribbean 

and in Texas spent about 60 and 78 

percent of their year, respectively, along 

the U.S. coasts (Newstead et al. 2013, p. 

55; Burger et al. 2012b, p. 1). Second, 

red knots would be unable to complete 

their annual migrations without a 

network of high-quality stopover sites at 

which to rest and gain weight, as 

discussed in the proposed rule (Rufa 

Red Knot Ecology and Abundance, p. 

23) and the Supplemental Document 

(Migration—Stopover Areas). 

(90) Comment: One commenter stated 

that virtually the entire North American 

population of red knots uses the shores 

of the Delaware Bay during their 

migration in the spring. Likewise, 

another commenter stated that the red 

knot in North Carolina is at the 

extremity of its range because 90 

percent of the entire population can be 

found in a single day in Delaware Bay. 

Our Response: We disagree. The range 

of the rufa red knot extends from the 

central Canadian Arctic to the southern 

tip of South America. We acknowledge 

that no single stopover area is more 

important for the red knot than the 

Delaware Bay (Harrington 1996, p. 73). 

However, as discussed in the proposed 

rule (Rufa Red Knot Ecology and 

Abundance, p. 29), Delaware Bay 

provides the final Atlantic coast 

stopover each spring for the majority of 

the red knot population, but not the 

entire population (see Our Response 38 

above). The proposed rule (Rufa Red 

Knot Ecology and Abundance, pp. 17– 

23) and the Supplemental Document 

(Migration) present information about 

numerous other stopover areas across 

the species’ range. Specific to North 

Carolina, habitats in this State support 

wintering red knots, and provide 

stopover during spring and fall 

migration (see Population Surveys and 

Estimates in the Supplemental 

Document). Some of the same birds that 

stop in Delaware Bay also winter or 

stopover in North Carolina 

(BandedBirds.org 2012; Niles et al. 

2012a, entire), and new geolocator data 

from two juveniles show these birds 

spent much of their first (nonbreeding) 

year (winter and summer) in the 

Southeast between North Carolina and 

Georgia (S. Koch, L. Niles, R. Porter, and 

F. Sanders pers. comm. August 8 and 

12, 2014). 

(91) Comment: One commenter 

provided new geolocator results that 

several Texas-wintering knots followed 

a fall migration route along the Atlantic 

coast, rather than exclusively through 

the interior of the United States as 

stated in the proposed rule. While a 

midcontinental migration is probably 

the most common strategy, there are 

exceptions that are potentially 

important with respect to distinctness of 

the population, and the caveat about the 

inherent bias in geolocator studies 

should be given appropriate 

consideration. Further, high interannual 

variability in migratory strategy is 

illustrated by one individual red knot 

for which the commenter has 3 full 

years of migration data. Though some 

sites were used in multiple years, the 

actual routes and number of sites varied 

considerably among years. 

Our Response: We thank the 

commenter, and have added this new 

information to the Supplemental 

Document (Migration—Midcontinent). 

We have also eliminated the referenced 

statement from the proposed rule, 

which we agree was an 

oversimplification, and we have noted 

the caveat about the inherent bias in 

geolocator studies (Research Methods). 

We referenced the new data about the 

migration of Texas-wintering knots 

along the Atlantic coast in Our 

Response 31. 

(92) Comment: One commenter stated 

that red knots have not declined, but 

have instead changed their migratory 

path and habitat use. Red knots seem to 

be in smaller groups in many remote 

places in both North and South 

America. 

Our Response: We agree there is 

evidence of changes in the use of 

particular migration stopover areas, both 

historically (Cohen et al. 2008) and 

more recently (Harrington et al. (2010a, 

pp. 188, 190). We also agree that many 

additional rufa red knot wintering and 

stopover areas have been documented in 

recent decades, some supporting 

relatively small numbers of birds. 

However, we attribute these recent 

findings to increased survey efforts, 

rather than a shift in migration strategy 

toward smaller and more widely 

distributed nonbreeding areas. In fact, 

there is evidence that, as numbers 

declined in the 2000s, red knot 

populations wintering in Argentina and 

Chile actually become more 

concentrated, contracting to the core 

sites on Tierra del Fuego and leaving 

few birds at the ‘‘peripheral’’ Patagonian 

sites (Committee on the Status of 

Endangered Wildlife in Canada 

(COSEWIC) 2007, p. 11). Further, we 

disagree that any such distributional 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73734 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

changes can explain the observed 

declines in the 2000s in Delaware Bay 

in spring, and in Argentina and Chile in 

winter. We have revised the 

Supplemental Document (Population 

Surveys and Estimates—Spring 

Stopover Areas—Delaware Bay) to 

clarify that, although we cannot rule out 

the possibility that some or all of the 

decline in Delaware Bay could have 

been caused by birds switching to other 

U.S. Atlantic stopover areas, we 

consider this unlikely based on surveys 

from Virginia, and on similarities in the 

magnitude and timing of the declines in 

Delaware Bay relative to Tierra del 

Fuego and several South American 

stopover sites. 

(93) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the longest distance migrants 

(i.e., those red knots that winter in 

Tierra del Fuego) are entirely reliant on 

HSC eggs since the extreme 

physiological changes that they undergo 

for migration, including to their 

digestive systems, restrict their diet to 

soft prey at stopover sites. While knots 

from the southeast U.S. wintering areas 

may still be able to consume small 

bivalves, the Tierra del Fuego birds 

cannot. 

Our Response: We disagree with the 

conclusion that red knots from Tierra 

del Fuego cannot digest bivalves during 

spring migration. We do recognize that 

red knots from the Tierra del Fuego 

wintering area may be more reliant on 

HSC eggs than other migrating red knots 

during the spring stopover in Delaware 

Bay, as we discussed in the proposed 

rule (Rufa Red Knot Ecology and 

Abundance, pp. 31–33). However, this 

section of the proposed rule also 

discussed data from Virginia and the 

Atlantic coast of New Jersey, where 

knots from Tierra del Fuego are known 

to feed on small bivalves (P. Atkinson 

pers. comm. November 8, 2012; Smith et 

al. 2008, p. 16). The Supplemental 

Document (Wintering and Migration 

Food—Possible Differential Reliance on 

Horseshoe Crab Eggs) has been revised 

to more clearly present these data; see 

Our Response 54. 

(94) Comment: One commenter stated 

that recent studies from Dr. Allan Baker 

at the Royal Ontario Museum in Canada 

show genetic differences between the 

rufa population that winters in Florida, 

the population that winters along the 

northern coast of Brazil, and the longest 

distance migrant population that 

winters in Chile and Argentina. This 

commenter cites conclusions from 

Buehler and Piersma (2008) that 

Argentina-Chile populations are more 

vulnerable to energy, nutritional, 

timing, and immune ‘‘bottlenecks’’ with 

potential fitness consequences than the 

shorter-distance migrant populations of 

red knots. The commenter believes the 

red knot is only one species with several 

populations, but shows that what 

happens on the tip of one continent can 

have effects across the flyway. 

Our Response: We are aware of this 

study by Dr. Baker investigating 

possible genetic differences between red 

knots by wintering area, but we do not 

have permission to cite his preliminary 

results, which have not yet been 

published. Therefore, we do not 

consider it to be ‘‘available,’’ and thus, 

we may not consider its findings in our 

listing determination. We have reviewed 

Buehler and Piersma (2008) and 

conclude that both shorter- and longerdistance migrants face tradeoffs among 

the various ‘‘bottlenecks’’ they face 

throughout their annual cycles. 

However, we have also revised the 

Supplemental Document (Wintering— 

Northern Versus Southern; Migration— 

Differences in Migration Strategy by 

Wintering Region) to discuss more fully 

the observed differences between 

northern- and southern-wintering knots, 

including evidence of greater 

vulnerability of the southern-wintering 

group (the longest-distance migrants) to 

food supplies and arrival times in 

Delaware Bay. Based on the best 

available data, we agree that the rufa red 

knot represents one subspecies with 

several wintering populations. We also 

agree that substantial threats anywhere 

along the flyway can potentially result 

in population-level effects. 

(95) Comment: One commenter stated 

that, while Calidris canutus is 

somewhat unique among shorebirds as 

being a specialized molluscivore during 

much of its annual cycle, consumption 

of prey aside from mollusks in 

nonbreeding areas is well-documented, 

especially during prolonged migratory 

stopovers (e.g., C.c. rufa and HSC eggs 

in Delaware Bay and C.c. roselaari and 

Pacific grunion eggs in the Gulf of 

California). The documented red knot 

stopovers in the Northern Great Plains 

and the seasonal emergence of insect 

populations in the Central Flyway, 

various invertebrates on riverine 

sandbars, and brine shrimp in the saline 

lakes of Saskatchewan may be an 

ecological correlate to HSC eggs in the 

Atlantic flyway. 

Our Response: Because we find these 

ideas plausible, based on our knowledge 

of red knot biology, and worthy of 

further investigation during forthcoming 

recovery efforts, we have mentioned 

them in the Supplemental Document 

(Migration and Wintering Food— 

Inland). However, we note that these 

ideas currently lack supporting 

documentation and did not rely on this 

information for our analyses. 

(96) Comment: One commenter stated 

that, in 2012, only 55 percent of red 

knots studied in New Jersey reached the 

departure weight necessary to ensure 

their chance to breed in the Arctic. The 

remaining birds likely fail to survive the 

journey or reproduce, which results in 

serious population declines. 

Our Response: The proportion of red 

knots attaining the target departure 

weight in Delaware Bay should not be 

confused with the annual survival rate. 

Amanda Dey (pers. comm. October 12, 

2012) reported that 54 percent of red 

knots in Delaware Bay reached the 

target weight by the end of May 2012. 

Although this metric fell to 46 percent 

in 2013, these 2 years continued an 

overall upward trend in the percentage 

of birds reaching the target departure 

weight since the mid-2000s (Dey et al. 

2014, pp. 1, 4), and remained relatively 

high for a third consecutive year in 2014 

(A. Dey pers. comm. July 23, 2014). 

Further, although we agree that 

adequate weight gain in Delaware Bay is 

vital to red knot conservation, we 

disagree that most birds under the target 

weight fail to survive the subsequent 

year (i.e., most low-weight birds do not 

die). Using data from 1997 to 2008, 

McGowan et al. (2011a, p. 13) 

confirmed that heavy birds had a higher 

average survival probability than light 

birds, but the difference was small 

(0.918 versus 0.915), as discussed in the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60069). 

These survival rates, averaged over the 

period 1997 to 2008, could mask more 

pronounced effects of low departure 

weights on survival over shorter 

periods. For example, the lowest 

survival estimates occurred in 1998, just 

before the period of sharpest declines in 

red knot counts (McGowan et al. 2011a, 

p. 13). The 1998 to 1999 survival rate 

estimate was 0.851 for heavy birds and 

0.832 for light birds (McGowan et al. 

2011a, p. 9). Based on best available 

information, we agree that low 

departure weights (caused by 

insufficient food supplies and late 

arrivals) were a primary causal factor in 

the decline of the rufa subspecies in the 

2000s. 

(97) Comment: One commenter stated 

that, for the most part, the barrier 

islands along the Atlantic coast are in 

public ownership, not private, and are 

not frequently used for development. 

Our Response: We disagree. Land 

ownership varies widely along the U.S. 

Atlantic coast. Past and ongoing coastal 

development in some areas is extensive 

(78 FR 60024, pp. 60038–60043). 

(98) Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern over how the Service 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73735 

characterized threats to the red knot 

stemming from climate change and how 

that same climate information could be 

applied to other species. One 

commenter acknowledged that effects to 

the red knot from climate change could 

be significant in the future, but noted 

they are not currently. Other 

commenters stated that the proposed 

rule does not cite scientific data or 

information linking red knot population 

declines with any climate-related 

effects, nor does the proposed rule 

present a detailed analysis of how or 

whether climate-related impacts will 

result in either reductions in fitness to 

the red knot species or future 

population declines, nor are there 

models showing the expected effects of 

climate change on rufa red knot 

abundance. The proposed rule 

acknowledged that the effects of climate 

change on the rufa red knot are 

unknown, uncertain, and speculative. 

Further, the proposed rule purports to 

forecast the effects of a complex global 

issue (climate change) up to 100 years 

into the future. This approach requires 

the Service to rely upon controversial 

modeling projections of complex data to 

forecast a future that is well beyond our 

reasonable ability to predict, and to 

imagine what the speculative biological 

consequences of these forecasts will be 

for the rufa red knot. This is an exercise 

in speculation, not an analysis based on 

existing scientific evidence, and if used 

as such then virtually every species may 

be considered threatened and this 

establishes a precedent that renders the 

Act’s listing process unworkable. These 

same commenters stated that many of 

the threats identified by the proposal 

(e.g., sea level rise and other effects of 

climate change) are by no means unique 

to the rufa red knot and may, therefore, 

be an unreasonable basis for listing 

since so many other species would be 

likewise affected. 

Our Response: We disagree with these 

conclusions. Based on our review of 

best available information, we conclude 

that threats to the red knot, including 

those stemming from climate change, 

are likely to place this species in danger 

of extinction in the next few decades 

(see Our Response 66 regarding 

‘‘foreseeable future’’). Not all threats 

contributing to a species’ threatened or 

endangered status must be tied to past 

or ongoing population declines, if future 

declines are likely (see Our Responses 

27 and 77). While we continue to 

conclude that reduced food availability 

and late arrivals at the Delaware Bay 

stopover site were the primary causal 

factors in the decline of rufa red knot 

populations in the 2000s (78 FR 60024, 

pp. 60063, 60076), climate-induced 

environmental changes likely to affect 

the red knot are already occurring and 

likely to intensify. We have updated the 

Supplemental Document (Overview of 

Threats Related to Climate Change) with 

information from recent assessments of 

the red knot’s vulnerability to climate 

change indicating a large increase in 

extinction risk (Galbraith et al. 2014, p. 

7; National Wildlife Federation 2013, p. 

28; Whitman et al. 2013, pp. 2, 19, 64). 

We disagree that this listing 

determination relies upon 

‘‘controversial modeling projections of 

complex data to forecast a future that is 

well beyond our reasonable ability to 

predict.’’ Instead, we relied upon 

mainstream and thoroughly vetted 

climate science publications (e.g., from 

the IPCC, the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, the National 

Research Council, and the Arctic 

Climate Impact Assessment) that 

present scientifically based ranges of 

likely future climate conditions under 

various emissions scenarios. The IPCC 

(2013b) defines a scenario as a coherent, 

internally consistent, and plausible 

description of a possible future state of 

the world; it is not a forecast; rather, 

each scenario is one alternative image of 

how the future can unfold. Various 

levels of uncertainty are associated with 

all scientific data and with all analyses 

of future conditions. The uncertainty 

levels associated with different aspects 

of climate change have been 

standardized by the IPCC (see 

Supplemental Document table 14). We 

used this standardized terminology 

transparently and consistently in the 

proposed rule (Climate Change 

Background, p. 2) and in the 

Supplemental Document (Climate 

Change—Background). The key findings 

of climate science—that human-caused 

climate change is occurring and will 

continue to affect temperatures, 

precipitation patterns, sea levels, and 

ocean pH levels—continue to be 

associated with high levels of certainty 

(Melillo et al. 2014, pp. 20–49; IPCC 

2013a, p. 7). 

We also disagree that the effects of 

climate change on the rufa red knot are 

‘‘unknown, uncertain, and speculative’’ 

and that the proposed rule does not 

present a detailed analysis as to ‘‘how 

or whether climate-related impacts will 

result in either reductions in fitness to 

the red knot or future population 

declines.’’ Throughout the proposed 

rule (and summarized at 78 FR 60024, 

pp. 60028–20029), we presented 

detailed analyses of best available data 

(and associated levels of uncertainty, 

when available) regarding how red knot 

habitats and populations are likely to 

respond to climate changes over the 

coming decades. While biological 

modeling showing the expected effects 

of climate change on rufa red knot 

abundance may be helpful in future 

recovery efforts, such models are not 

currently available and research to 

generate them is not required for the 

Service to make a listing determination 

under the Act’s ‘‘best available’’ data 

standard. We acknowledge that climate 

change is a complex global issue and 

that uncertainties exist. However, the 

best available science indicates climate 

change is expected to affect red knot 

fitness and, therefore, survival through 

direct and indirect effects on breeding 

and nonbreeding habitat, food 

availability, and timing of the birds’ 

annual cycle. Ecosystem changes in the 

arctic (e.g., changes in predation 

patterns and pressures) may also reduce 

reproductive output. Together, these 

anticipated changes will likely 

negatively influence the long-term 

survival of the rufa red knot. 

Finally, we disagree that virtually 

every species may be considered for 

listing due to the effects of climate 

change, or that climate-related threats 

are equally applicable to all species 

within the coastal zone. The Act 

requires the Service to evaluate each 

species of concern or petitioned species 

individually to assess whether listing as 

threatened or endangered is warranted. 

Not all species will be affected by the 

effects of climate change in the same 

manner; each species’ biological traits 

and population dynamics will make it 

more or less resilient to any stressor. 

That said, it is likely that additional 

species will be found to meet the 

definition of a threatened or endangered 

species based on threats stemming from 

climate change as its effects intensify in 

the future. 

(99) Comment: One commenter stated 

that climate change has affected the red 

knot because wintering zones have 

moved farther up in South America than 

in the past. 

Our Response: We agree that climate 

change effects are a primary threat to the 

red knot, but disagree that such effects 

have caused a range shift to date. 

Although we anticipate that changing 

climatic conditions will likely cause 

latitudinal shifts in the position of some 

red knot habitats, we expect such 

habitat shifts will primarily affect the 

red knot within its breeding range (78 

FR 60024, pp. 60047–60049), because 

the nonbreeding range already spans the 

entire latitudinal gradient from Tierra 

del Fuego to southern Canada. We have 

no evidence that red knots have shifted 

their winter ranges in response to 

climate change. We do note that the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73736 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Argentina-Chile wintering area has 

contracted by about 1,000 mi (1,600 km) 

poleward (south), which is the direction 

that would be consistent with the effects 

of climate change (Root et al. 2003, p. 

57). However, we conclude that this 

contraction was not primarily caused by 

climate change, but instead a result of 

an overall decreasing winter population 

size in this region (COSEWIC 2007, p. 

11). Population declines are often 

accompanied by abandonment of 

‘‘peripheral’’ habitats and a geographic 

contraction into only the best (‘‘core’’) 

habitats. A similar phenomenon was 

noted for HSCs within Delaware Bay 

(Lathrop 2005, p. 4). 

(100) Comment: One commenter 

stated that Congress did not intend for 

the Act to be used to regulate 

greenhouse emissions or climate 

change. This commenter is concerned 

that a final listing rule may be misused 

or impose undue burdens on American 

industries or activities, particularly 

those that have greenhouse gas 

emissions. Another commenter stated 

that the Service has previously 

recognized there is insufficient evidence 

to establish a causal connection between 

greenhouse emissions from particular 

activities and impacts to certain species. 

Our Response: As stated in the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60097), 

a determination to list the rufa red knot 

as a threatened species under the Act 

will not regulate greenhouse gas 

emissions. Rather, it will reflect a 

determination that the rufa red knot 

meets the definition of a threatened 

species, thereby establishing certain 

protections for it under the Act. 

(101) Comment: One commenter 

stated that no field data have been 

gathered or analyzed to compare the 

status of red knot populations that are 

isolated from human activity to those 

that are exposed to human activity. 

Our Response: We disagree that field 

data are not available regarding the 

effects of disturbance. In the proposed 

rule (78 FR 60024, pp. 60076–60079), 

we presented several studies that 

include field data on the effects of 

human disturbance on red knots and 

other shorebirds. We are not aware of 

any comparative studies of red knot 

population trends in high-disturbance 

versus low-disturbance areas, but 

conclude that such studies would be 

confounded by the migratory 

connectivity of red knot sites (i.e., 

factors affecting survival in any part of 

the range may affect populations 

rangewide), and by other site-specific 

factors (e.g., habitat quality, food 

availability, predation rates) influencing 

local or regional population trends. 

(102) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that anecdotal data from longterm barrier island residents suggest that 

red knots feed and carry on unaffected 

by the presence of some human activity 

(e.g., surf fishing) and that operation of 

offroad vehicles (ORVs) driving within 

10 yards of a cluster of red knots that 

are feeding does not cause them to be 

disturbed or fly. Further, drivers of 

ORVs do not drive in the same part of 

the beach used by red knots for feeding, 

and if there is any reaction, the flock 

goes up while the vehicle goes by only 

to land again either in the same spot or 

a little farther away. Thus, the birds are 

not being harassed to the point their life 

cycle is being threatened. These 

commenters also contend that cannon 

netting by researchers causes a higher 

degree of disturbance than these 

recreational activities. 

Our Response: We disagree that red 

knots are unaffected by human activity. 

We agree that red knots may have a 

minimal response to low levels of 

disturbance, and that reaction distances 

and durations likely vary with the type 

and intensity of the disturbance, as well 

among sites and among seasons. We also 

agree that no one particular disturbance 

event is likely to impact a red knot’s 

fitness or survival. However, the 

cumulative effects of repeated or 

prolonged disturbance have been shown 

to preclude shorebird use of otherwise 

preferred habitats and can impact the 

birds’ energy budgets (i.e., their ability 

to gain and maintain adequate weight) 

(78 FR 60024, p. 60079). We disagree 

that ORV drivers always remain out of 

the wet sand of the intertidal zone 

where red knots feed. On some beaches, 

driving on the dry beach is restricted to 

prevent damage to dunes and wrack, 

and in some areas drivers avoid the dry 

sand to prevent getting stuck. Even 

where driving is restricted to the dry 

beach, ORV use may disturb roosting, 

instead of foraging, red knots. 

We agree that certain research 

methods are highly disturbing to red 

knots. Therefore, we anticipate that any 

recovery permits issued under the Act 

will include conditions to strictly limit 

the extent and duration of disturbance 

to red knots from research activities, 

typical of the best practices that are 

already generally followed by the 

research community. 

(103) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the Delaware Bay-wide HSC 

egg densities show no upward trend. 

Another commenter stated that the 

decline in HSC egg density on New 

Jersey’s Delaware Bay beaches as 

described in the 2007 status assessment 

is deceptive, there are no data 

supporting a problem of egg availability 

for the red knots on the Delaware Bay 

beaches, and the Delaware Bay egg 

density data and studies should not be 

used for management or listing of red 

knots. 

Our Response: We concur that the 

Delaware Bay-wide HSC egg densities 

show no upward trend, but note that we 

have only moderate confidence in this 

data set. We recognize the importance of 

surface egg availability to red knots in 

Delaware Bay, and egg densities have 

been statistically correlated with red 

knot weight gain (Dey et al. 2013, pp. 

18–19; H. Sitters pers. comm. April 26, 

2013). However, methodological 

concerns with the egg density surveys 

are described in the proposed rule and 

in the Supplemental Document, and 

limit our confidence in this data set. 

The ASMFC recently dropped the 

requirement for the States of New Jersey 

and Delaware to conduct the egg density 

surveys, largely because these data are 

not used in the ARM framework; 

however, New Jersey plans to continue 

the survey on its side of Delaware Bay 

(M. Hawk pers. comm. April 8, 2014; 

ASMFC 2013e, p. 4). 

We did rely partly, but not solely, on 

the egg density analysis as presented in 

the 2007 status assessment (which was 

later updated and published 

independent of the Service as Niles et 

al. 2008). Based on our own analysis of 

the egg density data (78 FR 60024, pp. 

60067–60068 and Supplemental 

Document section Factor E—Reduced 

Food Availability—Horseshoe Crab 

Harvest—Link B, Part 2), and 

considering several different data 

sources, we regarded trends in egg 

density data as a secondary line of 

supporting evidence that insufficiency 

of food resources was an important 

factor (along with late arrivals) 

contributing to the decline of the 

Delaware Bay stopover population. 

Thus, Delaware Bay egg density data 

were a relatively minor consideration in 

our determination of the threatened 

status of the red knot. Despite the lack 

of upward trends in baywide egg 

densities, our assessment of the best 

available data from several lines of 

evidence concludes that the volume of 

HSC eggs is currently sufficient to 

support the Delaware Bay’s stopover 

population of red knots at its present 

size. However, because of the uncertain 

trajectory of HSC population growth, it 

is not yet known if the egg resource will 

continue to adequately support red knot 

population growth over the next decade. 

This conclusion is unchanged from the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60063). 

(104) Comment: One commenter 

stated that the number of HSC eggs on 

Delaware Bay shores dropped from 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73737 

40,000 eggs per square meter (m2) in the 

1990s to only 1,500 eggs per m2 in 2005. 

Our Response: In the proposed rule 

(78 FR 60024, pp. 60067–60068), we 

discussed methodological concerns with 

the HSC egg density data, particularly 

prior to 2005. We attached somewhat 

higher confidence to trends since 2005 

because methodologies have been more 

consistent over that period—there was 

no significant trend in baywide egg 

densities from 2005 to 2012. However, 

the Delaware Bay egg density data were 

a relatively minor consideration in our 

determination of the threatened status of 

the red knot, and are not used in 

management of the HSC fishery under 

the ARM (see Our Response 103 above). 

(105) Comment: One commenter 

stated that the early (1981 through 2000) 

declines in red knot counts in Delaware 

Bay were not reflected in the ArgentinaChile wintering area, which contradicts 

the assertion that later (after 2000) 

declines in this wintering area were 

caused by inadequate weight gains in 

Delaware Bay. Conversely, another 

commenter stated that, with fewer eggs 

to feed on, up to 75 percent of red knots 

surveyed on the Delaware Bay suffered 

a year-on-year decline in their rate of 

weight gain between 1990 and 2006. 

Further, lower weight birds have been 

shown to have lower survival rates, and 

scientific models predicted that the red 

knot may become extinct by 2010. 

Our Response: We agree there may 

have been declines in the Delaware 

Bay’s red knot stopover population prior 

to 2001, but we also note considerable 

variability in the peak count data set 

that makes it difficult to detect trends. 

In contrast, the decline in peak counts 

in the 2000s was sufficiently 

pronounced and sustained that we have 

confidence in the downward trend over 

this time period despite the variability 

of the data set. We agree that a number 

of data sets have been used to draw 

conclusions about the correlation 

between HSC harvest and red knot 

population trends. Not all of the data 

sets agree completely, suggesting that 

other factors likely contributed to the 

red knot decline (e.g., late arrivals in 

Delaware Bay, other threats discussed in 

the proposed rule). Keeping in mind the 

limitations of the various data sets and 

the biology of HSCs and red knots and 

looking at the general trends, we find a 

temporal correlation between high 

harvest levels leading up to the year 

2000, and a relatively sudden decline in 

the red knot Argentina-Chile wintering 

population around that same time 

period, concurrent with a pronounced 

decline in Delaware Bay. Moving from 

correlation to causation, our conclusion 

is based on a detailed analysis (78 FR 

60024, pp. 60063–60071 and 

Supplemental Document section Factor 

E—Reduced Food Availability— 

Horseshoe Crab Harvest): Although the 

causal chain from HSC harvest to red 

knot populations has several links 

associated with various levels of 

uncertainty, the weight of evidence 

supports these linkages, points to past 

harvest as a key factor in the decline of 

the red knot, and underscores the 

importance of continued HSC 

management to meet the needs of the 

red knot. 

In the proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 

60069), we discussed trends in red knot 

weight gain, relying mainly on the 

percentage of red knots greater than the 

target weight at the end of May. This 

metric for weight gain showed a 

downward trend in the percentage of 

heavy birds starting in 1997, which 

started to reverse by the late 2000s. In 

the proposed rule (78 FR 60024, pp. 

60069–60079), we also evaluated the 

best available data regarding the link 

between red knot spring weight gain in 

Delaware Bay and the birds’ subsequent 

survival. In this analysis, we relied 

primarily on Baker et al. (2004) and 

McGowan et al. (2011a), both of which 

found a link between spring weight gain 

in Delaware Bay and survival. We 

acknowledge the following statement by 

Baker et al. (2004, p. 879), ‘‘if the 1997/ 

1998 to 2000/2001 levels of annual 

survival prevail, the population is 

predicted to approach extremely low 

numbers by 2010 when the probability 

of extinction will be correspondingly 

higher than it is today.’’ However, we 

did not evaluate this statement in the 

proposed rule because the newer results 

of McGowan et al. (2011a) indicate 

those earlier (and lower) survival rates 

were no longer prevailing. 

(106) Comment: One commenter 

suggested that other threats such as 

disease and research activities may have 

been responsible for red knot and HSCs 

declines, rather than overharvesting of 

HSCs. Conversely, another commenter 

believes gross mismanagement of the 

HSC fishery has dramatically decreased 

the availability of HSC eggs for the red 

knot and other migratory shorebirds. 

Our Response: As discussed in the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60063), 

we completed a detailed analysis of all 

three threats (disease, research, HSC 

harvest) and recognize the effect that 

formerly excessive harvesting of HSCs 

had on the red knot’s food resources and 

the contribution this activity had to the 

knot’s population decline. See Our 

Responses 45 and 46 regarding egg 

availability and the ASMFC’s regulation 

of the HSC fishery, respectively. 

(107) Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that supplemental feeding of 

red knots in Delaware Bay may be 

needed until HSC populations return to 

levels that provide adequate egg 

supplies for the birds. 

Our Response: As noted in the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60063), 

most data suggest that the volume of 

HSC eggs is currently sufficient to 

support the Delaware Bay’s stopover 

population of red knots at its present 

size. However, ensuring the future HSC 

egg supply will be addressed during the 

recovery planning process, and we 

intend to continue our active role in the 

ASMFC’s management of the HSC 

fishery. We acknowledge considerable 

uncertainty around the future food 

supplies for red knots, in Delaware Bay 

and in nonbreeding habitats rangewide. 

We would not rule out direct human 

intervention (e.g., supplemental feeding) 

as an appropriate conservation response 

if food supplies in any part of the range 

should someday become so depleted as 

to present an imminent, populationlevel threat. However, we would 

consider such a step only as a last resort 

because it fails to fulfill a central 

purpose of the Act, ‘‘to provide a means 

whereby the ecosystems upon which 

endangered species and threatened 

species depend may be conserved.’’ 

Although supplemental feeding of wild 

birds is not the same as controlled 

propagation, it has similar conservation 

implications (e.g., direct human 

intervention as opposed to the 

conservation of the supporting 

ecosystem). Thus, we feel this excerpt 

from the Policy Regarding Controlled 

Propagation of Species Listed Under the 

Endangered Species Act (65 FR 5690) 

would also apply to supplemental 

feeding: ‘‘Controlled propagation is not 

a substitute for addressing factors 

responsible for an endangered or 

threatened species’ decline. Therefore, 

our first priority is to recover wild 

populations in their natural habitat 

wherever possible, without resorting to 

the use of controlled propagation.’’ 

(108) Comment: One commenter 

stated that since the ARM framework 

establishes a conservative HSC harvest 

level for the Delaware Bay spawning 

population of HSCs, significant threats 

are more likely to occur at other points 

along the migratory flyways. 

Our Response: We agree that, as long 

as the ARM is in place and functioning 

as intended, the ongoing HSC bait 

harvest should not be a threat to the red 

knot (see Our Responses 46 and 48). We 

also agree that a number of other threats 

throughout the knot’s range are 

contributing to habitat loss, 

anthropogenic mortality, or both, and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73738 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

that these threats are likely to increase 

in the future. Thus, new attention to 

these emerging threats will be 

imperative for red knot recovery. 

However, we also conclude that a 

sustained focus on protecting the red 

knot’s food supply—in Delaware Bay 

and throughout the range—will also be 

vital to red knot recovery (see Our 

Responses 45, 78, and 126). 

(109) Comment: One commenter 

stated that the HSC population in 

Delaware Bay has fluctuated between 

1.5 and 2 million since 2007. Several 

commenters stated that there have been 

no increases in the number of female 

HSCs, or of total crabs, spawning in 

Delaware Bay. 

Our Response 109: We disagree that 

the HSC population in Delaware Bay 

has fluctuated between 1.5 and 2 

million. This estimate of 1.5 to 2 million 

crabs is for spawning adults, and is not 

the same as the size of the total baywide 

HSC population. As indicated in the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60065), 

Smith et al. (2006, p. 461) estimated the 

population of HSCs in the Delaware Bay 

Region in 2003 at about 20 million 

adults, based on modeling of marked 

HSCs. We have updated the 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Food Availability—Horseshoe Crab 

Harvest—Link A, Part 1) with newer 

estimates from Smith (2013), based on a 

different methodology but showing 

similar results. Smith (2013, p. 2) 

reported annual estimates of the 

baywide population size from 2002 to 

2012, with an average over this period 

of about 19 million and consistently 

more males than females. 

Specific to spawning crab counts, 

Swan et al. reported season-long total 

counts of roughly 1.3 to 2 million 

spawning adults along the Delaware Bay 

shoreline from 2007 to 2012 (Swan et al. 

2012, p. 1; Swan et al. 2011, p. 1; Swan 

et al. 2010, p. 1; Swan et al. 2009, p. 1; 

Swan et al. 2008, p. 1; Swan et al. 2007, 

p. 1). We reviewed but, for 

methodological reasons, did not rely on 

this data set from Swan et al. (2007 to 

2012) to evaluate trends in numbers of 

spawning adult crabs. Instead, we have 

relied on spawning HSC density reports 

prepared for the ASMFC. We agree there 

have been no increases in the number of 

female HSCs spawning in Delaware Bay. 

The most recent report of the density 

data concluded that baywide spawning 

activity shows no statistically 

significant trends from 1999 through 

2012 (Zimmerman et al. 2013; p. 1). 

This is a change from Zimmerman et al. 

(2012, pp. 1–2), which reported that, 

although there was no trend in females, 

numbers of spawning males showed a 

statistically significant increase from 

1999 through 2011. This new 

information has been incorporated into 

the Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Reduced Food Availability—Horseshoe 

Crab Harvest—Link B, Part 1). See Our 

Response 46 for more discussion of 

female HSC population trends. 

(110) Comment: One commenter 

stated that, due to the bait harvest, the 

Delaware Bay population of HSCs 

declined by 90 percent between 1990 

and 2006. 

Our Response: We disagree that the 

percent decline for the HSC population 

in the Delaware Bay Region can be 

determined over this time period, 

because there are no estimates of the 

size of this population prior to 2003 

(done by Smith et al. 2006). As no 

population size estimates are available 

prior to the 1990s increase in harvest 

levels, we rely on the ASMFC’s periodic 

stock assessments to appropriately 

weigh and statistically analyze available 

data sets to draw conclusions regarding 

HSC population trends, as discussed in 

the proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 

60066) and the Supplemental Document 

(Factor E— Reduced Food 

Availability—Horseshoe Crab Harvest— 

Link A, Part 2); see Our Response 46. 

(111) Comment: One commenter 

stated that females are the limiting sex 

within the HSC population and have a 

direct ecological link to migratory 

shorebirds through their eggs. Under the 

ARM, female HSCs in the Delaware Bay 

region are fully protected for the benefit 

of migratory shorebirds. The ARM does 

not authorize the harvest of females 

until the HSC population reaches 80 

percent of its carrying capacity, which 

is well beyond the realm of traditional 

fishery management parameters, 

reflecting the ecological importance of 

the resource, and the risk-averse 

characteristics of the current 

management plan. The ARM model 

builds upon a male-only or male-biased 

regulatory strategy for Delaware Bay 

HSCs that was adopted by the ASMFC 

in 2006. The biological and ecological 

basis for the male-only harvest is based 

on the best available science for the 

species; males are not limiting within 

the HSC population dynamics, and are 

not ecologically limiting with respect to 

HSC egg availability for shorebirds. Well 

before the adoption of the male-only 

harvest strategy in 2006 and the ARM 

implementation in 2012, the ASMFC 

had already reduced the coastwide 

harvest of HSCs by approximately 70 

percent from reference period landings, 

through a series of increasingly 

restrictive addenda. The HSC quotas in 

the Delaware Bay region have been 

specified by the ASMFC at very low 

rates of removal that are fully consistent 

with both population growth and 

ecological sustainability. The 2009 HSC 

stock assessment indicated the fishing 

mortality rates for HSCs in the Delaware 

Bay region were consistent with 

population growth. 

Our Response: We agree with this 

assessment of the importance of female 

HSCs. We agree that the strongly malebiased fishery management was 

appropriate prior to adoption of the 

ARM, and a male-only harvest 

continues to be warranted based on the 

current ARM outputs. We conclude that 

the ARM provides adequate protection 

for females from the bait harvest, but we 

note that some female mortality does 

occur as a result of the biomedical 

harvest. Other commenters noted that 

positive trends in female HSC 

populations are absent, even after 7 

years of male-only harvest, possibly 

suggesting losses of female crabs from 

unregulated or undocumented sources 

including biomedical mortality. We 

discuss this and other possible 

explanations for the lack of growth in 

measures of female abundance under 

Our Responses 46 and 49. In the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, pp. 60064– 

60065), we noted the shift to a strongly 

male-biased harvest, and the successive 

harvest restrictions that reduced 

reported landings from 1998 to 2011 by 

over 75 percent. We also discussed the 

findings of the 2009 stock assessment 

(78 FR 60024, pp. 60064–60065). The 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Reduced Food Availability—Horseshoe 

Crab Harvest—Link A, Part 2) has been 

updated to include the results of the 

2013 stock assessment update. 

(112) Comment: One commenter 

stated that the 2009 HSC stock 

assessment indicated the mortality rates 

were approximately 70 to 75 percent 

below the fishing mortality rate 

associated with maximum sustainable 

yield (FMSY). Even without the benefit 

of the subsequent ARM model, these 

removal rates were already well below 

conservative levels for important forage 

species. The 2012 Lenfest report 

included a comprehensive examination 

of marine ecosystems and concluded 

that fishing at half of traditional FMSY 

values results in a low probability of 

collapse for forage fish and lower risk 

for dependent species. The quotas set by 

the ASMFC under addenda IV, V, and 

VI were already well below these 

guidelines, and were specifically malebiased to ensure the ecological 

sustainability of the fishery. 

Our Response: We agree that the 2009 

stock assessment reflects substantial 

reductions in harvest levels, from their 

peak at 2 to 3 times FMSY in 1998 and 

1999 to 23.2 percent of FMSY (both 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73739 

sexes combined) in 2008 (ASMFC 

2009a, pp. 25, 57). However, we 

disagree that the findings of the 2012 

Lenfest report can be extrapolated to 

HSCs (e.g, to suggest a harvest level 

relative to FMSY that is adequate for 

dependent species such as red knot and 

other shorebirds). The authors of the 

Lenfest report (Pikitch et al. 2012, p. 4) 

defined forage fish characteristics, some 

of which are not shared by HSCs (e.g., 

provide energy flow from plankton to 

higher trophic levels, relatively small 

body size, fast growth, early maturity). 

Instead, we rely on the ARM to establish 

conservative harvest limits that ensure 

an adequate supply of HSC eggs to 

support red knots in Delaware Bay. 

(113) Comment: One commenter 

stated that under addenda IV, V, and VI 

to the ASMFC’s fishery management 

plan, HSC harvests in Delaware and 

New Jersey were limited, by quota, to 

100,000 male HSCs annually per State. 

New Jersey’s legislature closed its HSC 

fishery. If both States utilized their 

quotas at that time, total harvest would 

have been less than 2 percent of the 

adult male HSC population, which was 

estimated at 12 million. 

Our Response: We agree with this 

estimate of the percentage of the male 

population annually authorized for 

harvest under these addenda. In the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60065), 

we noted that recent annual harvests of 

roughly 200,000 HSCs from the 

Delaware Bay Region (which reflects 

New Jersey’s moratorium as well as 

harvest from the other three States in 

the Region) represent about 1 percent of 

the total adult (male and female) 

population. Our estimate of 1 percent is 

unchanged in the Supplemental 

Document (Factor E—Food 

Availability—Horseshoe Crab Harvest— 

Link A, Part 1) even upon updating the 

landings and estimated population size 

with new data. 

(114) Comment: One commenter 

stated that the analysis of HSC tagging 

data by the ASFMC’s Technical 

Committee has suggested that 

approximately 13 percent of Maryland’s 

catch of HSCs and approximately 9 

percent of Virginia’s catch, east of the 

COLREGS line (which delimits internal 

from ocean waters), are of Delaware Bay 

origin. A line of genetic evidence 

suggested that 51 percent of Maryland’s 

catch and 35 percent of Virginia’s catch, 

east of the [International Regulations for 

Preventing Collisions at Sea] COLREGS 

line, is of Delaware Bay origin. When 

the ASMFC implemented the ARM 

model in 2012, it required all of 

Maryland’s catch and all of Virginia’s 

catch east of the COLREGS line to be 

male-only, as a precautionary measure, 

to ensure the ecological sustainability of 

these fisheries in waters adjacent to the 

Delaware Bay Region. 

Our Response: In the proposed rule 

(78 FR 60024, p. 60070), we concluded 

that the ASMFC’s current delineation of 

the Delaware Bay Region HSC 

population is based on best available 

information and is appropriate for use 

in the ARM modeling, but we 

acknowledged some uncertainty 

regarding the population structure and 

distribution of Delaware Bay HSCs. In 

documenting the technical 

underpinnings of the ARM, the ASMFC 

(2009b, p. 7) acknowledged that the 

proportion of Maryland and Virginia 

landings that come from Delaware Bay 

is currently unresolved, but stated that 

their approach to estimating this 

proportion was conservative. We have 

revised the Supplemental Document 

(Factor E—Food Availability— 

Horseshoe Crab Harvest—Adaptive 

Resource Management) to state that we 

anticipate the ARM process will adapt 

to substantive new information that 

reduces uncertainty about the Delaware 

Bay HSC population structure and 

geographic distribution. See Our 

Response 49. 

(115) Comment: One commenter 

stated that table 9 (reported Atlantic 

coast landings) in the proposed rule 

does not describe the conversion 

between pounds and numbers of HSC 

harvested; thus reviewers cannot 

provide meaningful comment on the 

data. 

Our Response: As explained in the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60064), 

the HSC landings data given in pounds 

come from the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), but should be 

viewed with caution as these records are 

often incomplete and represent an 

underestimate of actual harvest (ASMFC 

1998, p. 6). In addition, reporting has 

increased over the years, and the 

conversion factors used to convert crab 

numbers to pounds have varied widely 

(ASMFC 2009a, p. 2), thus we are 

unable to convert the pounds to 

numbers of crabs. (For this same reason, 

the ASFMC also retains these data in 

pounds in its stock assessments.) 

Despite these inaccuracies, the reported 

landings show that commercial harvest 

of HSCs increased substantially from 

1990 to 1998 and has generally declined 

since then (ASMFC 2013b, p. 8; ASMFC 

2009a, p. 2). The ASMFC (1998, p. 6) 

also considered other data sources to 

corroborate a significant increase in 

harvest in the 1990s. Despite the known 

problems with this data set, no other 

data are available regarding harvest 

levels prior to 1998; thus, we have 

considered these data only to document 

the very sharp increase in harvest levels 

that occurred in the mid-1990s. The 

ASMFC relies on these data for the same 

purpose in its periodic stock 

assessments (ASMFC 2013b; ASMFC 

2009a; ASMFC 2004)—we consider 

these stock assessments the best 

available information regarding trends 

in harvest levels. We have revised the 

Supplemental Document (added a 

footnote to table 23) to clarify that the 

landings reported to NMFS are provided 

for context only and cannot be 

converted to numbers of crabs and thus 

cannot be directly compared to the data 

reported to the ASMFC. 

(116) Comment: One commenter 

stated that the proposed rule does not 

make clear in the discussions of egg 

availability or harvest pressure that 

female HSC harvest in the Delaware Bay 

bait fishery has been prohibited since 

2006. 

Our Response: We have revised the 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Reduced Food Availability—Horseshoe 

Crab Harvest—Link A) to clarify this 

point. 

(117) Comment: One commenter 

stated that efforts to restrict the HSC 

fishery are inconsistent from State to 

State, and that restrictions imposed by 

individual States are being successfully 

challenged and overturned by the 

commercial fishing industry. One 

commenter stated that other States 

(besides New Jersey) still do not have a 

ban on HSC harvesting, and this needs 

to be changed. Another commenter 

stated that the New Jersey moratorium 

on HSC fishing in its portion of 

Delaware Bay is insufficient to protect 

the red knot from continued population 

decline in the face of coastal 

development and constant disturbance 

at migratory stopover sites and with 

climate change affecting food 

availability in the Arctic. 

Our Response: Regulation of the HSC 

fishery by the ASMFC is consistent 

coastwide, in that all member States 

follow the same Fisheries Management 

Plan. However, due to regional and local 

differences (e.g., status and trends of 

HSC populations; nature and intensity 

of harvests), each State ends up with 

different quotas. In addition, each 

member State within the ASMFC is 

required to establish and enforce its 

own harvest regulations that ensure 

compliance with the Fishery 

Management Plan, and the specifics of 

these regulations vary from State to 

State. Each ASMFC member State may 

opt to adopt harvest limits that are more 

restrictive than those mandated by the 

ASMFC, but these limits would be 

subject to legal challenges within the 

regulatory framework of that State. New 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73740 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Jersey’s moratorium, which is more 

restrictive than required by the ASMFC, 

results in implementation of the ARM 

being more conservative (see Our 

Response 49), but has also raised 

concerns about unintended 

consequences (see Our Response 120). 

Notwithstanding the potential risks and 

benefits of New Jersey’s moratorium, we 

continue to conclude that management 

of HSC harvests under the ARM is 

adequate to abate the food supply threat 

to red knots from HSC harvest in 

Delaware Bay. However, even with 

highly successful harvest management 

under the ARM, the HSC population 

will continue to grow only to the extent 

that it remains limited by harvest; other 

factors affecting crab populations cannot 

be affected by management of the 

fishery. (See Our Response 46 regarding 

these other factors, as well as new 

uncertainty about the future of the 

ARM). In addition, we agree that, 

beyond the supply of HSC eggs, there 

are other substantial and widespread 

threats to the red knot (see Our 

Response 108). 

(118) Comment: One commenter 

stated that New Jersey’s moratorium on 

HSC harvest does not appear to have a 

scientific basis. 

Our Response: Each ASMFC member 

State may opt to adopt harvest limits 

that are more restrictive than those 

mandated by the ASMFC. We factored 

New Jersey’s moratorium into our 

analyses of current harvest levels and 

management practices, but we recognize 

that the New Jersey legislature could 

decide to lift the moratorium at any 

time. If that happens, New Jersey would 

be required to abide by the ASMFC 

harvest recommendations set forth by 

the ARM process. We conclude that 

harvest levels set through the ARM 

process are adequate to manage the 

threat to red knots from insufficient 

food resources in Delaware Bay. 

(119) Comment: One commenter 

doubted that overharvest of HSCs could 

have occurred based on the successively 

restrictive harvest regulations 

implemented in New Jersey from 1993 

through 1997. 

Our Response: We disagree. No 

definitions of ‘‘overfishing’’ or 

‘‘overfished’’ have been adopted by the 

ASMFC for HSC (ASMFC 2013b, p. 21). 

That said, Delaware Bay’s HSC 

population is affected by harvests in 

Delaware and parts of Maryland and 

Virginia, as well as in New Jersey. Our 

evaluation of best available data (78 FR 

60024, pp. 60064–60067 and 

Supplemental Document section 

Horseshoe Crab—Harvest and 

Population Levels) shows that 

coastwide harvest levels grew sharply 

from 1993 through 1997, and that the 

2004 stock assessment found a clear 

preponderance of evidence that HSC 

populations in the Delaware Bay Region 

declined from the late 1980s to 2003 

(ASMFC 2004, p. 27). 

(120) Comment: One commenter 

stated that the State of New Jersey still 

maintains its ultraconservative HSC 

management strategy of a moratorium 

when the ARM framework would allow 

commercial fishermen to harvest 

162,000 male HSCs from New Jersey 

outside of the spawning season. New 

Jersey’s insistence of maintaining a 

moratorium has led to some negative 

biological consequences in redirecting 

fishing effort to New York and 

Massachusetts spawning populations of 

HSCs, which are now in decline. The 

HSC bait shortage has also led to the 

dangerous importation of Asian HSCs, 

all species of which are highly depleted, 

to meet the bait needs of the domestic 

whelk/conch and eel fisheries. 

Our Response: We are aware of the 

finding that decreased harvest of the 

Delaware Bay population has redirected 

harvest to other parts of the Atlantic 

coast that now may be at unsustainable 

levels (ASMFC 2013b, p. 22). As 

discussed in the proposed rule (78 FR 

60024, p. 60067; Factor D: The 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms, p. 12), we also agree the 

importation of Asian HSCs is a threat to 

both the native HSC and the red knot. 

We have updated the Supplemental 

Document (Factor E—Reduced Food 

Availability—Horseshoe Crab Harvest— 

Link A, Part 2) with new information 

regarding efforts by individual States to 

restrict the import of Asian HSCs. The 

Service will evaluate the need to expand 

Lacey Act restrictions on the import of 

Asian HSCs at the Federal level. In 

addition, a Service biologist was 

recently selected by the IUCN as one of 

six scientists to assess and make 

recommendations on the status of the 

HSC throughout its range, with a 

counterpart team assessing the Asian 

species. The Service shares the concern 

of this commenter for the coastwide 

management and conservation of the 

HSC, and we intend to continue our 

active role in the ASMFC’s management 

of the HSC fishery that considers the 

Delaware Bay population in a coastwide 

context. 

We are aware that some ASMFC 

members have expressed concern that 

harvest levels in the Delaware Bay 

Region, which are set by the ASMFC 

and further reduced by New Jersey’s 

moratorium, have raised the price of 

bait crabs and thus contribute to both 

the redirecting of harvest to other parts 

of the coast and the increasing interest 

in importing Asian crabs as alternative 

bait (ASMFC 2013f, p. 1). We lack data 

to determine the relative roles, if any, of 

the New Jersey moratorium versus the 

coastwide regulation by the ASMFC in 

driving these trends. We continue to 

support the ARM as a scientifically 

sound mechanism for managing 

Delaware Bay’s HSC fishery that 

adequately abates the threat to red knots 

from food supply issues in the bay. See 

Our Responses 117 and 118 regarding 

New Jersey’s moratorium. 

(121) Comment: Several commenters 

disagreed with our conclusion that, as 

managed under the ARM, current HSC 

harvest levels are not a current threat to 

the red knot. Conversely, several other 

commenters stated that the ARM 

framework adopted by the ASMFC 

appears to be an effective approach to 

managing harvest in Delaware Bay so 

that conservation of red knots and other 

shorebirds and HSCs are balanced with 

societal demands. In addition, since the 

model was favorably peer-reviewed in 

2009, its management strategy 

prioritizes the needs of migratory 

shorebirds, and it is based on the best 

available science, it should fully satisfy 

section 9 of the Act if the listing is 

approved. 

Our Response: We have reviewed 

information and analyses of the ARM 

provided by several commenters, but 

continue to conclude based on the best 

available data that, as long as it is 

functioning as intended, the ARM 

framework adequately abates the threat 

to the red knot from the HSC bait 

harvest. We agree that the ARM is based 

on best available science and is a sound 

process. The Supplemental Document 

(Factor E—Reduce Food Availability— 

Horseshoe Crab Harvest—Adaptive 

Resource Management) has been 

updated to clarify that our conclusions 

about the ARM are based on (1) the 

technical soundness of the peerreviewed models; (2) the explicit linking 

of HSC harvest quotas to red knot 

population targets; and (3) the adaptive 

nature of both the models and the 

framework, which are intended to 

regularly adjust as new information 

becomes available. Our conclusion is 

supported by recent computer 

simulations by Smith et al. (2013, 

entire). Although these simulations are 

not intended to predict actual 

timeframes for population growth, they 

did show that simulated red knot 

population trajectories under HSC 

harvest scenarios governed by the ARM 

almost matched simulated red knot 

population trajectories under a fixed 

HSC moratorium scenario; thus, the bait 

harvest levels allowed under the ARM 

are expected to have a negligible effect 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73741 

on the red knot’s Delaware Bay stopover 

population. 

In the proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 

60097), we concluded that the harvest of 

HSCs in accordance with the ARM, 

provided the ARM is implemented as 

intended (e.g., including 

implementation of necessary monitoring 

programs) and enforced, is not likely to 

result in a violation of section 9 of the 

Act. Thus, we do not anticipate 

recommending additional HSC harvest 

restrictions in Delaware Bay (beyond the 

ARM) as a result of listing the red knot. 

(However, see Our Response 46 

regarding new uncertainty about the 

future of the ARM.) We intend to 

continue our active role in the ASMFC’s 

management of the HSC fishery, and 

will provide recommendations and 

technical assistance to ensure that 

future harvests of HSCs do not result in 

take of red knots under section 9 of the 

Act. 

(122) Comment: One commenter 

stated that both the HSC trawl survey 

and spawning survey have generally 

experienced difficulty detecting changes 

in the regional HSC population, 

although the trawl survey measured 

some significant increases in response 

to management, and both surveys have 

shown some improvement since the 

early 2000s. The temporal and spatial 

extent of the spawning survey may be 

inadequate to detect population growth, 

and it may not be able to accommodate 

changing shoreline conditions caused 

by erosion and flooding. Similarly, the 

Virginia Tech trawl survey did not 

originally sample any stations within 

the Delaware Bay, and the scale and 

design of the survey may not be 

sufficient to detect population changes 

consistently. With quotas that have been 

specified at levels consistent with 

population rebuilding since Addendum 

III, the power of the existing surveys to 

detect population changes warrants 

review. 

Our Response: We disagree. 

Evaluations of these surveys and their 

methods have been done in the past and 

continue to be done by the ASMFC. See 

Our Response 46 regarding 

discontinuation of the Virginia Tech 

trawl survey. 

(123) Comment: One commenter 

stated that existing data to evaluate 

trends in red knot weight gain at 

Delaware Bay are flawed. This 

commenter cited statements from a 

peer-reviewed report prepared for the 

ASMFC: ‘‘existing data . . . are not 

adequate to evaluate their relative 

importance [late arrivals versus 

insufficient food supply] for any year of 

record . . . attempts to estimate growth 

rate based on independent samples of 

body mass are inherently flawed’’ 

(USFWS 2003, p. 6). Based on these 

statements, this commenter concluded 

that all the weight gain data from 1997 

to 2002 are flawed. 

Our Response: While we agree that 

these statements appear in a USFWS 

report (2003, p. 6), we disagree with the 

conclusion of the commenter. On the 

previous page, this report states, ‘‘there 

is agreement that a smaller percentage of 

rufa red knots are making threshold 

departure weights by the end of May in 

recent years,’’ and goes on to discuss the 

two possible explanations (late arrivals 

and insufficient food supply), as well as 

different analytical methods for 

determining weight gains (USFWS 2003, 

p. 5). Although the available weight gain 

data set could not be used to determine 

the relative importance of late arrivals 

versus insufficient food supply, USFWS 

(2003, p. 6) concluded, ‘‘the two 

hypotheses forwarded to explain 

changes in weight gain in Delaware Bay 

red knots are not mutually exclusive, 

but instead represent two factors which 

operate in tandem to affect departure 

weights from Delaware Bay.’’ That these 

two factors (late arrivals and insufficient 

food supplies) worked synergistically to 

cause a decline in red knot departure 

weights was the same conclusion we 

reached in the proposed rule (78 FR 

60024, pp. 60072, 60094). We agree that 

attempts to estimate growth rates (i.e., 

rates of weight gain) from samples of 

birds taken over the course of the 

stopover period are problematic for the 

same reason cited by USFWS (2003, p. 

6) (i.e., uncertainty in arrival times of 

the birds in each sample), as we noted 

in the proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 

60068). That said, we did not rely on 

this parameter (rates of weight gain over 

the course of the season) in our analysis. 

Instead, we relied on a different 

analytical parameter, the proportion of 

red knots above a threshold weight at 

the end of May, which we conclude is 

an appropriate index for trends in red 

knot weight gain since 1997, as 

discussed in the proposed rule (78 FR 

60024, p. 60068) and in the 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Reduced Food Availability—Horseshoe 

Crab Harvest—Link B, Part 2). 

(124) Comment: One commenter, 

citing comments of individual Service 

representatives at meetings of various 

ASFMC bodies, concluded that Service 

managers find the basic red knot science 

is flawed. 

Our Response: Various levels of 

uncertainty are associated with all 

scientific data. As an active participant 

in the ASMFC’s management of the HSC 

fishery, Service representatives 

routinely engage in robust discussions 

regarding the strengths and weaknesses 

of available HSC and red knot data sets. 

Our current agency conclusions, based 

on a detailed analysis, are presented in 

the proposed rule (78 FR 60024, pp. 

60063–60071) and the Supplemental 

Document (Factor E—Reduced Food 

Availability—Horseshoe Crab Harvest). 

Our key conclusion is that, although the 

causal chain from HSC harvest to red 

knot populations has several links 

associated with various levels of 

uncertainty, the weight of evidence 

supports these linkages, points to past 

harvest as a key factor in the decline of 

the red knot, and underscores the 

importance of continued HSC 

management to meet the needs of the 

red knot. 

(125) Comment: One commenter 

reported anecdotal information that no 

red knots had been observed by midMay 2014 in Delaware Bay, and that 

HSCs were unusually small and few. 

Our Response: Red knot distribution 

and abundance within Delaware Bay 

vary considerably from year to year, and 

within years, based on weather, food 

availability, disturbance patterns, and 

other factors. Likewise, spatial and 

temporal patterns of HSC spawning are 

highly dependent on weather 

(especially water temperature) as well as 

habitat conditions. We may consider 

anecdotal data when no other data sets 

are available. However, in Delaware 

Bay, other data sets (e.g., red knot peak 

counts, red knot total passage 

population estimates, red knot weight 

gain data, HSC spawning and trawl 

surveys) are available that are based on 

consistent methodologies, such that 

these data sets can be evaluated for 

long-term trends despite the naturally 

high variability in these natural systems. 

Preliminary reports from two of these 

data sets show both red knot abundance 

and weight gain in Delaware Bay 

continued at a somewhat improved 

level in 2014, for a third consecutive 

year (A. Dey pers. comm. June 30 and 

July 23, 2014). 

(126) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that commercial fishermen from 

Maine through Florida have made great 

sacrifices for well over a decade of 

increasing regulation of the HSC bait 

fishery. Some fishermen went out of 

business, not only because the allowable 

harvest for bait was severely restricted, 

but also because the other fisheries that 

relied on HSCs as bait (e.g., whelk/

conch, eel, and minnow) experienced a 

bait shortage and spiraling bait costs. 

The Service maintains that a serious red 

knot population decline occurred in the 

2000s caused primarily by reduced food 

availability from increased harvests of 

HSCs, but the Service also 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73742 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

acknowledges that red knot numbers 

appear to have stabilized in the past few 

years. Since knot numbers have 

stabilized, the restrictions placed on the 

HSC harvests (i.e., the Fishery 

Management Plan and subsequent 

addenda, most recently the ARM 

framework), appear to have been 

effective in providing sufficient food 

resources for the shorebirds. The 

regulatory regime for the HSC fishery 

was designed to meet the feeding needs 

of migratory shorebirds. Based on the 

success of these harvest restrictions in 

stabilizing the knot population, the 

commercial industry has done its part. 

The commercial fishermen and related 

industries have borne a disproportionate 

share of protecting these migratory 

shorebirds. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

actions of the ASMFC and the 

commercial fishing industry have been 

instrumental in halting the decline of 

the red knot’s stopover population in 

Delaware Bay. In addition to restricting 

harvests through the Fisheries 

Management Plan (including the most 

recent iteration, the ARM), the ASMFC 

has taken several proactive steps to 

substantially reduce landings (see Our 

Response 46 and proposed rule 78 FR 

60024, p. 60064). We recognize and 

appreciate these efforts. As noted in the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60063), 

most data suggest that the volume of 

HSC eggs is currently sufficient to 

support the Delaware Bay’s stopover 

population of red knots at its present 

size. However, it is not yet known if the 

egg resource will continue to adequately 

support red knot population growth 

over the next decade. Further, the red 

knot population in Delaware Bay 

appears to have stabilized at a notably 

low level. Therefore, sustained focus on 

protecting the red knot’s food supply 

continues to be vital to the recovery of 

the red knot, and will be addressed 

during the recovery planning process. 

We intend to continue our active role in 

the ASMFC’s management of the HSC 

fishery and do not anticipate 

recommending additional HSC harvest 

restrictions in Delaware Bay (beyond the 

ARM) as a result of listing the red knot 

(however, see Our Response 46 

regarding new uncertainty about the 

future of the ARM). Also see Our 

Response 2 regarding economic and 

other implications of listing that we may 

not consider in listing determinations, 

and Our Response 120 regarding bait 

prices. 

(127) Comment: One commenter 

suggested that focusing efforts on the 

many foreign countries that continue to 

allow the legal and illegal hunting of red 

knots would be more productive in 

producing tangible results for the longrange survival of the species than 

imposing further restrictions in the 

United States where red knot hunting is 

no longer permitted. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

effects of legal and illegal hunting on 

the red knot should continue to be 

assessed and minimized through 

international conservation partnerships. 

Work in this area has already begun and 

changes are in progress, as noted in the 

Supplemental Document (Factor B— 

Hunting). As noted in the proposed rule 

(78 FR 60024, p. 60053), we have no 

evidence that hunting was a driving 

factor in red knot population declines in 

the 2000s, or that hunting pressure is 

increasing. However, while not 

currently a threat in the United States, 

hunting is one of many threats affecting 

the knot. The Service will continue to 

enhance our work with partners across 

the range of the knot to reduce or 

ameliorate all ongoing or emerging 

threats. 

(128) Comment: Several commenters 

believe that legal and illegal hunting of 

shorebirds is a major issue facing red 

knots and other shorebirds that migrate 

through the Caribbean basin and winter 

along the northern coast of South 

America, and that the proposed rule 

understates the overall importance of 

direct mortality from hunting on driving 

population change in shorebird 

populations. These commenters cite 

recent evidence suggesting that at least 

2,000 red knots pass through the 

Guianas during southbound migration 

and that many birds likely stage in this 

area and coastal Venezuela during 

northbound migration. Further, 

documented hunting pressure is 

significant in Suriname, with estimates 

that between 20,000 and 100,000 

shorebirds are taken annually. While the 

proposed rule suggests that Suriname is 

not likely an important area for red 

knot, there are suitable habitats and 

observations of hundreds of birds from 

this country. Likewise, another 

commenter asked how the Service can 

find that individual hunting mortality 

does not seem to affect the population 

as a whole if there are no data on 

hunting anywhere, especially illegal 

hunting. 

Our Response: We appreciate this 

new information and have incorporated 

it into the Supplemental Document 

(Migration and Winter Habitats; 

Population Surveys and Estimates; 

Factor B—Hunting—Caribbean and 

South America). We have made minor 

changes to our conclusions regarding 

the overall importance of hunting as a 

threat to the red knot. While only low 

to moderate red knot mortality is 

documented, we acknowledge that 

additional undocumented mortality is 

likely. The findings of Watts (2010) 

suggest that even moderate (hundreds of 

birds) direct human-caused mortality 

may begin to have population-level 

effects on the red knot. However, we do 

not have adequate information to 

reasonably know if hunting mortality is 

or was previously at this level in the 

Guianas (CSRPN 2013; Niles 2012b; D. 

Mizrahi pers. comm. October 16, 2011; 

Harrington 2001, p. 22), though we 

conclude that it was likely much lower 

(tens of birds) in the Caribbean islands 

(G. Humbert pers. comm. November 29, 

2013; W. Burke pers. comm. October 12, 

2011; A. Levesque pers. comm. October 

11, 2011; Hutt and Hutt 1992, p. 70). We 

expect mortality of individual knots 

from hunting to continue into the 

future, but at stable or decreasing levels 

due to the recent international attention 

to shorebird hunting. 

(129) Comment: One commenter 

stated that red knots are still heavily 

hunted in many places and in many 

places are called ‘‘snipe.’’ Snipe are 

legally hunted, but the average person 

in the field cannot tell the difference 

between a red knot and a snipe. This 

commenter contends that the Service 

has data on hunted red knots from the 

bands returned during snipe hunts, and 

the August 13, 2011, shorebird hunting 

workshop summary shows close to 

500,000 shorebirds, including snipes 

and red knots, have been killed by 

hunters in the Caribbean and South 

America in just a few years. Further, one 

red knot researcher has in the past 

(2005) publicly denied any hunting of 

shorebirds, but has full knowledge of 

the hunting. 

Our Response: We disagree with the 

conclusions of the commenter. In the 

proposed rule (Rufa Red Knot Ecology 

and Abundance, p. 4), we discussed the 

numerous common names for red knot 

that were historically used by hunters in 

the United States. We agree that red 

knots have been historically called 

snipe, and that hunting of Wilson’s 

snipe (Gallinago delicata) (previously 

called common snipe (Gallinago 

gallinago)) is still legal in the United 

States (USFWS 2012c); however, we 

have no data to suggest that red knots 

are being killed in the United States 

incidental to the legal hunting of 

Wilson’s snipe. Lowery (1974, p. 309) 

notes that, even in winter plumage, the 

red knot’s shape and bill make this 

species comparatively easy to 

distinguish from common snipe and 

other similarly sized shorebirds. Snipe 

occupy different habitats (flooded, 

shallow emergent marsh) than do red 

knots (exposed flats), and snipe are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73743 

solitary while red knots tend to occur in 

flocks (C. Dwyer pers. comm. July 18, 

2014). Although the margins of error are 

large, the best available estimates 

(Raftovich et al. 2014, p. 54) show very 

few snipe hunters in the Atlantic 

Flyway States (C. Dwyer pers. comm. 

July 18, 2014). 

We agree that a rough understanding 

of red knot mortality levels from 

hunting in South America has come 

from band returns, as discussed in the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, pp. 60050– 

60052) and the Supplemental Document 

(Factor B—Hunting). Throughout our 

analysis of hunting, we relied heavily 

on the 2011 shorebird hunting 

workshop report (USFWS 2011e), and 

agree that this report documents high 

levels of shorebird hunting in some 

parts of the Caribbean and South 

America. However, much of the 

information in this report is not specific 

to red knot. Thus, we supplemented this 

information with data from other 

sources. We cannot respond to 

comments about the public statements 

of any particular red knot researcher. 

However, based on our review, we 

conclude that most of the international 

red knot research and conservation 

community has become gradually aware 

of the hunting issue over the past 

decade, and now regard it as an 

important area for conservation actions, 

many of which are underway. See Our 

Responses 127 and 128 above for 

additional information on our 

conclusions regarding hunting as a 

threat to red knot. 

(130) Comment: Several commenters 

contend that the Service must revise its 

oil- and gas-related findings in the 

proposed rule to more accurately state 

that (1) based upon the best available 

data and information, oil spills and 

leaks have had, at most, minimal 

impacts, and there is no available 

information to suggest that the risk of 

future oil spills is likely to be other than 

minimal; and (2) there is no available 

information demonstrating that 

permitted oil and gas activities have had 

any adverse effects on the rufa red knot, 

and such activities do not pose a threat 

to the species. Further, based upon the 

current record, there is no information 

available to support a conclusion that 

potential future spills are ‘‘likely’’ to 

impact red knots. 

Our Response: We agree that 

documented effects of oil and gas 

extraction and transport on red knots 

and their habitats to date have been 

minimal, as stated in the proposed rule 

(78 FR 60024, p. 60087). However, we 

disagree that the future risk is minimal. 

Based on the review and analysis we 

presented in the proposed rule (78 FR 

60024, pp. 60083–60087), we found that 

red knots are exposed to large-scale 

petroleum extraction and transportation 

operations in many key wintering and 

stopover habitats. We also found that a 

number of spills and leaks have 

occurred in red knot areas. The minimal 

effects to red knots from these past 

incidents is attributable to fortunate (for 

the knots) timing or weather conditions, 

and we conclude that such fortunate 

circumstances are unlikely to 

accompany all future spills and leaks 

affecting red knot habitats. Thus, we 

continue to conclude that high potential 

exists for small or medium spills to 

impact moderate numbers of red knots 

or their habitats, such that one or more 

such events is likely over the next few 

decades, based on the proximity of key 

red knot habitats to high-volume oil 

operations. A major spill affecting 

habitats in a key red knot concentration 

area while knots are present is less 

likely but would be expected to cause 

population-level impacts. 

(131) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the proposed rule relied on 

inappropriate and nonscientific sources 

to erroneously associate mosquito 

control adulticides (specifically the 

pesticide fenthion) with adverse effects 

to birds, and that there is no scientific 

evidence to link the bird deaths 

referenced in the proposed rule to a 

particular pesticide or mosquito control 

operation. In addition, the proposed 

rule erroneously stated that fenthion 

had been banned by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA), when actually the USEPA 

regulates, but does not ban, pesticides. 

In fact, the manufacturer of fenthion 

voluntarily cancelled its label for 

mosquito control, thereby withdrawing 

it from the mosquito control market. 

Labels for other uses of fenthion were 

not affected by the withdrawal of the 

mosquito control label. 

Our Response: Although we believed 

the data to be accurate at the time we 

reviewed and used them in the 

proposed rule (78 FR 60024, p. 60088), 

we could not, upon further review, 

verify that fenthion caused the mortality 

of piping plovers. We agree that we 

erroneously misstated that fenthion had 

been banned by the USEPA. We have 

withdrawn the Contaminants—Florida 

section entirely from the final rule and 

Supplemental Document. 

(132) Comment: One commenter 

asked what data support the emerging 

threat on the breeding grounds since the 

Service states that comprehensive 

counts from the breeding grounds are 

not available because nesting knots are 

thinly distributed across a huge and 

remote area of the Arctic. 

Our Response: First, we conclude that 

changing relationships between red 

knots and their predators are likely a 

part of overall ecosystem changes due to 

rapid arctic warming. Although there is 

high uncertainty about how such 

ecosystem changes will unfold, there is 

high certainty that ecosystem changes 

are already occurring and will continue. 

We have updated the Supplemental 

Document (Factor A—Arctic Warming) 

with the IPCC’s new findings of early 

warning signs that arctic ecosystems are 

already experiencing irreversible regime 

shifts (Summary for Policymakers in 

IPCC 2014, p. 12). Given the sensitivity 

of red knots to predation rates on the 

breeding grounds (78 FR 60024, p. 

60057), we conclude that these 

ecosystem changes constitute a threat to 

the red knot. 

Second, Fraser et al. (2013, entire) 

found preliminary evidence for one 

mechanism by which ecosystem 

changes may have already impacted red 

knot populations—through rodentmediated changes in predation pressure. 

Additional studies would be needed to 

support this hypothesis (Fraser et al. 

2013, p. 13). However, we have updated 

the Supplemental Document (Factor C— 

Predation—Breeding Areas) with new 

information that, although factors other 

than climate change may also be 

important, the documented collapse or 

dampening of rodent cycles in some 

parts of the Arctic over the last 20 to 30 

years can be attributed to climate 

change with ‘‘high confidence’’ (Chapter 

28 in IPCC 2014, p. 14). Thus, we 

conclude that the geographic extent and 

duration of future interruptions to these 

rodent cycles is likely to intensify as the 

arctic climate continues to change. 

Disruptions in the rodent-predator cycle 

pose a substantial threat to red knot 

populations, as they may result in 

prolonged periods of very low red knot 

reproductive output. Red knot counts 

from the breeding grounds are not 

necessary to reach this conclusion. 

(133) Comment: One commenter 

asked how confident the Service is in 

dismissing predation in the 

geographically large nonbreeding 

portion of the red knot’s range. 

Our Response: We disagree that we 

have ‘‘dismissed’’ predation in 

nonbreeding areas (see proposed rule 78 

FR 60024, pp. 60055–60057 and 

Supplemental Document section Factor 

C—Predation—Nonbreeding Areas), and 

conclude that predation in these areas is 

likely to exacerbate other threats to red 

knot populations. 

(134) Comment: Several commenters 

noted that areas offshore of Delaware 

Bay are being studied for potential 

installation of wind turbines. The Wind 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73744 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Energy Areas (WEA) proposed for the 

States of Delaware and Maryland appear 

to be placed precisely in the path of the 

red knots arriving in May after flying 

nonstop from northeast South America. 

Our Response: We have updated the 

Supplemental Document to reference 

these WEAs, as well as leases that have 

been, or are scheduled to be issued for 

development of offshore wind energy. 

Our analysis of risks to red knots from 

the likely future development of wind 

energy in the Atlantic OCS is presented 

in the Supplemental Document, with 

only minor changes from the proposed 

rule (see Our Responses 21 through 25). 

(135) Comment: One commenter 

stated that, while the Service may 

‘‘expect ongoing improvements in 

turbine siting, design, and operation [to] 

help minimize bird collision hazards’’ 

in the future, there is no indication this 

has happened or will happen. There is 

no Federal, State, or local ability or 

willingness to regulate wind energy 

projects in Texas or to deter poor siting 

decisions through prosecution of 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act violations. 

Thus, projects continue to be built in 

areas where risk to avian resources, 

including red knots, is potentially high. 

Our Response: The commenter is 

correct that the Service cannot control 

or regulate the development of projects 

that lack a Federal nexus, including 

wind energy projects in any State. 

However, we do work with project 

developers to find locations that pose 

less of a risk to migratory birds and 

other species, and to find methods to 

reduce the risk of collisions during 

operation. This voluntary process is 

informed by an improved 

understanding, through research, of 

migratory bird behavior and project 

design. Researchers from a wide variety 

of government agencies, academic 

institutions, and nongovernmental 

organizations continue to study factors 

related to birds’ wind turbine collision 

risks. As the science evolves and our 

understanding of these risk factors 

increases, measures are developed and 

implemented to help minimize bird 

fatalities. Specifically, research and post 

construction observations have led 

companies to strictly control lighting at 

their projects, thus reducing the 

collision risk for night migrating birds. 

More information is available on our 

Web site at http://www.fws.gov/

windenergy/. 

(136) Comment: One commenter 

stated that, though the Service is ‘‘not 

aware of any documented red knot 

mortalities at any wind turbines to 

date,’’ it is not appropriate to make any 

conclusion based on a lack of data. This 

commenter contends that the wind 

energy projects along the Texas coast 

may represent the highest risk exposure 

red knots face from wind energy 

anywhere, yet data are either not being 

gathered or not being shared by these 

projects. In either case, effectively zero 

data are available on which to base a 

conclusion, and a precautionary 

principle should apply since it is well 

known that wind energy installations 

have the potential to be sources of 

mortality. Further, without data it seems 

unjustifiable to assume that this is either 

currently insignificant or that the 

cumulative impacts from current and 

future buildout in the area will be 

insignificant. 

Our Response: We have revised the 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Wind Energy Development—Terrestrial) 

with new findings from Loss et al. 

(2013, pp. 201, 202, 207) that 

accessibility to relevant data remains a 

problem, particularly for the tallest 

(greater than 262 ft (80 m)) turbines, 

because most of the mortality data are 

in industry reports that are not 

subjected to scientific peer review or 

available to the public. We have also 

revised the Supplemental Document to 

conclude that, based on the higher 

frequency and lower altitudes of red 

knot flights along the coasts, as well as 

the coastal location of most large, 

known U.S. nonbreeding red knot 

roosting and foraging areas, collision 

and displacement risks per turbine 

(notwithstanding differences in specific 

factors such as turbine size, design, 

operation, siting) are likely higher along 

the coasts than in areas either far 

offshore or far inland. In the 

Supplemental Document (Factor E— 

Wind Energy—Summary) we state that 

we do not believe any turbine related 

mortality is causing subspecies level 

effects. However our primary concern is 

that as buildout of wind energy 

infrastructure progresses, especially 

near the coasts, mortality from turbine 

collisions may contribute to a 

subspecies-level effect due to the red 

knot’s modeled vulnerability to low 

levels of mortality (Watts 2010, p. 1). 

(137) Comment: One commenter 

stated that red knots will not be killed 

by wind turbines. The claim of red knot 

mortality will be used to stop the 

placement of wind turbines at a time 

when clean energy is needed. 

Our Response: We disagree that red 

knots will not be killed and that risks to 

red knots will prevent wind energy 

development (see Comments 21 and 22). 

The Department of the Interior supports 

the development of wind energy, and 

the Service works to ensure that such 

development is bird- and habitatfriendly (USFWS 2012d; Department of 

Energy and Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation, and 

Enforcement 2011; Manville 2009). 

(138) Comment: Several commenters 

requested that we recognize North 

Carolina’s proactive coastal oversight at 

the State and local levels, which has 

resulted in the construction and 

maintenance of high-quality sandy 

shorelines via beach nourishment and 

inlet relocation. These commenters 

contend that North Carolina has done a 

great deal to create the right balance 

between use of beaches and protection 

of wildlife and that the State’s 

regulatory approach to coastal storm 

damage reduction projects, borrow 

source and native beach compatibility, 

and inlet location management is 

ensuring these sandy habitat areas 

continue functioning in multispecies 

resilient manners. One commenter 

stated that North Carolina does not 

allow hard structures. 

Our Response: We recognize that 

North Carolina is working to sustainably 

manage sandy habitats to meet 

multispecies resiliency. We have 

revised the Supplemental Document 

(Factor D—United States—Coastal 

Management) to recognize North 

Carolina’s Technical Standards for 

Beach Fill (15A NCAC 07H .0312), 

which address sediment compatibility 

of material proposed to be placed on 

beaches. We have also revised the 

Supplemental Document (Factor A— 

U.S. Shoreline Stabilization—Hard 

Structures) to recognize that, as a result 

of a 1985 State prohibition on new hard 

structures, there are only a few 

permanent, hard stabilization structures 

along North Carolina’s beaches. Despite 

such measures, however, some red knot 

habitats in North Carolina are 

vulnerable to degradation due to beach 

hardening practices. For example, 2011 

legislation authorized an exception for 

construction of up to four new terminal 

groins in North Carolina (Rice 2012a, p. 

8, discussed at 78 FR 60024, p. 600369), 

and some of North Carolina’s coastal 

communities have begun seeking 

authorization from the State legislature 

for additional hard structures. Although 

the construction of new hard 

stabilization structures remains highly 

restricted in North Carolina, extensive 

temporary structures have been utilized 

including sand tube groins, sand tube 

bulkheads, and approximately 350 

sandbag revetments (Rice 2012a, p. 9). 

Finally, beach nourishment and beach 

bulldozing are prevalent in North 

Carolina. Most of these beaches are 

nourished at least every 3 years, some 

as often as every year (K. Matthews pers. 

comm. May 2, 2014). Even with State 

regulations to ensure sediment 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73745 

compatibility, such frequent 

nourishment can interfere with natural 

coastal processes and affect shorebird 

habitat (e.g., benthic prey availability) 

(K. Matthews pers. comm. May 2, 2014; 

Zajac and Whitlatch 2003, p. 101; 

Greene 2002, p. 25; Peterson and 

Manning 2001, p. 1; Hurme and Pullen 

1988, p. 127). However, it is noted that 

beach nourishment can be important in 

establishing or maintaining beachfront 

red knot habitat in some areas. 

Depending on the site and situation, 

beach nourishment can be beneficial or 

detrimental to red knot habitat (see 

Comment 58). The negative effects to 

habitat associated with beach 

nourishment are expected typically to 

be short term, though repeated 

renourishing may prolong the adverse 

effects to habitat. 

Determination 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424, set forth the procedures 

for adding species to the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, we may list a species based on (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. Listing 

actions may be warranted based on any 

of the above threat factors, singly or in 

combination. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the rufa red knot. 

We have identified substantial threats to 

the red knot attributable to Factors A, B, 

C, and E. The primary driving threats to 

the red knot are from habitat loss and 

degradation due to sea level rise, 

shoreline hardening, and Arctic 

warming (Factor A), and reduced food 

availability and asynchronies 

(mismatches) in the annual cycle (Factor 

E). Other factors may cause additive red 

knot mortality. Individually these other 

factors are not expected to have 

subspecies level effects; however, 

cumulatively, these factors could 

exacerbate the effects of the primary 

threats if they further reduce the 

species’ resiliency. These secondary 

factors include hunting (Factor B); 

predation in nonbreeding areas (Factor 

C); and human disturbance, oil spills, 

and wind energy development, 

especially near the coasts (Factor E). All 

of these factors affect red knots across 

their current range and are expected to 

continue or intensify into the future. 

Conservation efforts are being 

implemented in many areas of the red 

knot’s range (see Factors A, B, C, and E 

in the Supplemental Document— 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species). For example, in 2012, the 

ASMFC adopted the ARM (ASMFC 

2012e, entire) for the management of the 

HSC population in the Delaware Bay 

Region to meet the dual objectives of 

maximizing crab harvest and red knot 

population growth. In addition, 

regulatory mechanisms exist that 

provide protections for the red knot 

directly (e.g., MBTA protections against 

take for scientific study or by hunting) 

or through regulation of activities that 

threaten red knot habitat (e.g., section 

404 of the Clean Water Act, Rivers and 

Harbors Act, Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and 

State regulation of shoreline 

stabilization and coastal development) 

(see Supplemental Document— 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species—Factor D). While these 

conservation efforts and existing 

regulatory mechanisms reduce some 

threats to the red knot (see Factor D 

discussion in the Supplemental 

Document—Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species), significant risks 

to the subspecies remain. 

Red knots migrate annually between 

their breeding grounds in the Canadian 

Arctic and several wintering regions, 

including the Southeast United States, 

the Northeast Gulf of Mexico, northern 

Brazil, and Tierra del Fuego at the 

southern tip of South America. During 

both the spring and fall migrations, red 

knots use key staging and stopover areas 

to rest and feed. This life history 

strategy makes this species inherently 

vulnerable to numerous changes in the 

timing of quality food (Factor E) and 

habitat resource availability (Factor A) 

across its geographic range. While a few 

examples suggest the species has some 

flexibility in migration strategies, the 

full scope of the species’ adaptability to 

changes in its annual cycle is unknown. 

The Act defines an endangered 

species as any species that is ‘‘in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range’’ and a 

threatened species as any species ‘‘that 

is likely to become endangered 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range within the foreseeable future.’’ 

We find that the rufa red knot meets the 

definition of a threatened species due to 

the present and likely continued 

destruction and modification of habitat 

and curtailment of the species’ range 

driven by the effects of climate change, 

and reduced food resources and further 

asynchronies in its annual cycle that 

result in the species’ reduced 

redundancy, resiliency, and 

representation. We base this 

determination on the immediacy, 

severity, and scope of the threats 

described above. Therefore, on the basis 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data available, we are listing the rufa red 

knot as a threatened species in 

accordance with sections 3(6) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that an 

endangered species status is not 

appropriate for the rufa red knot 

because, while there is uncertainty as to 

how long it may take some of the 

climate-induced changes to manifest in 

population-level effects to the rufa red 

knot, we find that the best available data 

suggest the rufa red knot is not at a high 

risk of a significant decline in the near 

term such that it is currently in danger 

of extinction and, therefore, meeting the 

definition of an endangered species 

under the Act. However, should the 

reduction in redundancy, resiliency, or 

representation culminate in an abrupt 

and large loss, or initiation of a steep 

rate of decline, of reproductive 

capability and success (corresponding to 

Factor E) or we subsequently find that 

the species does not have the adaptive 

capacity to adjust to shifts in its food 

and habitat resources (corresponding to 

Factor E), then the red knot would be at 

higher risk of a significant decline in the 

near term and we would reassess 

whether it meets the definition of an 

endangered species under the Act. 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The rufa red knot is wideranging, and the threats occur 

throughout its range. Therefore, we 

assessed the status of the subspecies 

throughout its entire range. The threats 

to the survival of the subspecies are not 

restricted to any particular significant 

portion of that range. Accordingly, our 

assessment and proposed determination 

applies to the subspecies throughout its 

entire range. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness, and conservation by 

Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, 

private organizations, and individuals. 

The Act encourages cooperation with 

the States and requires that recovery 

actions be carried out for all listed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73746 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

species. The protection required by 

Federal agencies and the prohibitions 

against certain activities are discussed, 

in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of 

the Act requires the Service to develop 

and implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning includes the 

development of a recovery outline 

shortly after a species is listed and 

preparation of a draft and final recovery 

plan. The recovery outline guides the 

immediate implementation of urgent 

recovery actions and describes the 

process to be used to develop a recovery 

plan. Revisions of the plan may be done 

to address continuing or new threats to 

the species, as new substantive 

information becomes available. The 

recovery plan identifies site-specific 

management actions that set a trigger for 

review of the five factors that control 

whether a species remains endangered 

or may be downlisted or delisted, and 

methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Recovery teams 

(composed of species experts, Federal 

and State agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) are 

often established to develop recovery 

plans. When completed, the recovery 

outline, draft recovery plan, and the 

final recovery plan will be available on 

our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/

endangered), or from the New Jersey 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. We 

also recognize that for some species, 

measures needed to help achieve 

recovery may include some that are of 

a type, scope, or scale that is 

independent of land ownership status 

and beyond the control of cooperating 

landowners. 

Following publication of this final 

listing rule, additional funding for 

recovery actions will be available from 

a variety of sources, including Federal 

budgets, State programs, and cost-share 

grants for non-Federal landowners, the 

academic community, and 

nongovernmental organizations. In 

addition, pursuant to section 6 of the 

Act, the States of Alabama, Arkansas, 

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, 

Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, 

New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, 

North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South 

Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, 

Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, 

Wisconsin, and Wyoming and Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands would 

be eligible for Federal funds to 

implement management actions that 

promote the protection or recovery of 

the rufa red knot. Information on our 

grant programs that are available to aid 

species recovery can be found at: 

http://www.fws.gov/grants. 

Please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for the rufa red knot. 

Additionally, we invite you to submit 

any new information on this species 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is listed as an endangered or threatened 

species and with respect to its critical 

habitat, if any is designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. If a species 

is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act requires Federal agencies to 

ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species or destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. If a Federal 

action may affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency must enter into consultation 

with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

conference or consultation or both as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

include management and landscapealtering activities on Federal lands 

administered by the Department of 

Defense, the Service, and NPS; issuance 

of section 404 Clean Water Act permits 

and shoreline stabilization projects 

implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers; construction and 

management of gas pipeline rights-ofway by the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission; leasing of Federal waters 

by BOEM for the construction of wind 

turbines; and construction and 

maintenance of roads or highways by 

the Federal Highway Administration. 

Under section 4(d) of the Act, the 

Service has discretion to issue 

regulations that we find necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of threatened species. The 

Act and its implementing regulations set 

forth a series of general prohibitions and 

exceptions that apply to threatened 

wildlife. The prohibitions of section 

9(a)(1) of the Act, as applied to 

threatened wildlife and codified at 50 

CFR 17.31, make it illegal for any person 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States to take (which includes harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt 

any of these) threatened wildlife within 

the United States or on the high seas. In 

addition, it is unlawful to import; 

export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, 

or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity; or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. It is also illegal to 

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or 

ship any such wildlife that has been 

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply 

to employees of the Service, NMFS, 

other Federal land management 

agencies, and State conservation 

agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving threatened wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: for scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, and for 

incidental take in connection with 

otherwise lawful activities. There are 

also certain statutory exemptions from 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73747 

the prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

(1) It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a final listing on proposed 

and ongoing activities within the range 

of a listed species. 

Based on the best available 

information, the following activity is 

unlikely to result in a violation of 

section 9, if this activity is carried out 

in accordance with existing regulations 

and permit requirements; this list is not 

comprehensive: Harvest of HSC in 

accordance with the ARM, provided the 

ARM is implemented as intended (e.g., 

including implementation of necessary 

monitoring programs), and enforced. 

Based on the best available 

information, the following activities 

may potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 the Act; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, 

possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, 

or transporting of the species, including 

import or export across State lines and 

international boundaries, except for 

properly documented antique 

specimens of these taxa at least 100 

years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) 

of the Act; 

(2) introduction of nonnative species 

that compete with or prey upon the rufa 

red knot, or that cause declines of the 

red knot’s prey species; 

(3) unauthorized modification of 

intertidal habitat that regularly supports 

concentrations of rufa red knots during 

the wintering or stopover periods; and 

(4) unauthorized discharge of 

chemicals or fill material into any 

waters along which the rufa red knot is 

known to occur. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the New Jersey Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Requests for copies of the regulations 

concerning listed animals and general 

inquiries regarding prohibitions and 

permits may be addressed to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered 

Species Permits, 300 Westgate Center 

Drive, Hadley, MA, 01035 (telephone 

413–253–8615; facsimile 413–253– 

8482). 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act need 

not be prepared in connection with 

listing a species as an endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship with Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to tribes. 

We coordinated with applicable Tribes 

throughout the U.S. range of the rufa red 

knot, but received no information 

indicating that the species is known to 

occur on Tribal lands. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on online at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket Number FWS–R5–ES–2013– 

0097 and upon request from the New 

Jersey Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are the staff members of the New Jersey 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11(h), add an entry for 

‘‘Knot, rufa red’’ to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

alphabetical order under Birds to read 

as set forth below: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
73748 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate 

population 

where 

endangered or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

Common rules 

name 

Scientific 

name 

*******

BIRDS.

*******

Knot, rufa 

red.

Calidris 

canutus 

rufa.

Argentina, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, 

Belize, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Cayman Islands, Chile, Colombia, 

Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El 

Salvador, France (Guadeloupe, French 

Guiana, Martinique), Guatemala, Guyana, 

Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, 

Uruguay, Venezuela, U.S.A. (AL, AR, CO, 

CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, 

LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, 

NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, 

RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV, WY, 

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands).

Entire ............. T 855 N/A N/A 

*******

* * * * * Dated: November 21, 2014. 

Matthew Huggler, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28338 Filed 12–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2