Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa), 37410-37668 [2021-14406]
Download as PDF
37410
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2021–0032;
FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
1018–BF87
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Rufa Red Knot (Calidris
canutus rufa)
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Eric
Schrading, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, New Jersey
Ecological Services Field Office, 4 East
Jimmie Leeds Road, Suite 4, Galloway,
NJ 08205; telephone 609–382–5272.
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for the
federally threatened rufa red knot
(Calidris canutus rufa) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). In total, approximately
649,066 acres (ac) (262,667 hectares
(ha)) are proposed in 120 units (18 of
which are further subdivided into 46
subunits) in Massachusetts, New York,
New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Texas. We also announce
a public informational meeting and
public hearing and the availability of a
draft economic analysis of the proposed
critical habitat designation.
DATES:
Comment submission: We will accept
comments received or postmarked on or
before September 13, 2021. Comments
submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing
date.
Public informational meeting and
public hearing: On August 18, 2021, we
will hold a public informational
meeting from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m., Eastern
Time, followed by a public hearing from
7:30 to 9:00 p.m., Eastern Time. See
Public Hearing, in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION, for more information.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R5–ES–2021–0032, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
Then, click on the Search button. On the
resulting page, in the Search panel on
the left side of the screen, under the
Document Type heading, check the
Proposed Rule box to locate this
document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’
SUMMARY:
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
to: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
FWS–R5–ES–2021–0032, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see Public
Comments, below, for more
information).
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, when we determine that any
species is an endangered or threatened
species, we are required to designate
critical habitat, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable. Designations
of critical habitat can only be completed
by issuing a rule.
What this document does. This
document proposes a designation of
critical habitat for the rufa red knot, a
threatened species of bird, in portions of
61 counties (or parishes) in 13 States.
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, if we determine that a species is an
endangered or threatened species we
must, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, designate critical
habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states
that the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into
consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other
relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if she determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless she
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area will result in the
extinction of the species.
Peer Review. In accordance with our
joint policy on peer review published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016,
memorandum updating and clarifying
the role of peer review of listing actions
under the Act, we sought the expert
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
opinions of five appropriate specialists
regarding the species status assessment
report (Service 2020a, entire) that
informed this proposed rule. The
purpose of peer review is to ensure that
the science behind our critical habitat
designation is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses.
We received review of the Species
Status Assessment (SSA) report from
two experts outside the Service. We are
also conducting a peer review of this
proposed critical habitat designation
(including the supplemental
‘‘Methodology’’ document available on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R5–ES–2021–0032) to ensure that
this proposal is based on scientifically
sound data and analysis. We have
invited peer reviewers to comment on
our specific assumptions and
conclusions in this proposed rule, and
we will consider any comments
received, as appropriate, before a final
agency determination.
Uncommon Acronyms Used in This
Proposed Rule
For the convenience of the reader,
listed below are some of the acronyms
used in this proposed rule:
Act = Endangered Species Act
ASMFC = Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
DDFW = Delaware Division of Fish and
Wildlife
DEA = draft economic analysis
DHS = Department of Homeland Security
DMR = Department of Marine Resources
DoD = Department of Defense
DHS = Department of Homeland Security
EIS = environmental impact statement
FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental
Protection
FGDC = Federal Geographic Data Committee
FR = Federal Register
GDNR = Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
HCP = habitat conservation plan
IEc = Industrial Economics, Incorporated
IEM = incremental effects memorandum
INRMP = integrated natural resources
management plan
IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
LDWF = Louisiana Department of Wildlife
and Fisheries
MLLW = mean lower low water
NASA = National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
NCWRC = North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
NERR = National Estuarine Research Reserve
NPS = National Park Service
NWR = National Wildlife Refuge
ORV = off-road vehicle
SCDNR = South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources
SCDPRT = South Carolina Department of
Parks, Recreation & Tourism
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Service = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SSA = Species Status Assessment
TNC = The Nature Conservancy
USCCSP = U.S. Climate Change Science
Program
Information Requested
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Public Comments
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposed rule will be
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or
information from other concerned
governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this
proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or
should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical
habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including
information to inform the following
factors that the regulations identify as
reasons why designation of critical
habitat may be not prudent:
(a) The species is threatened by taking
or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of such
threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species’ habitat or range
is not a threat to the species, or threats
to the species’ habitat stem solely from
causes that cannot be addressed through
management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of
the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the
United States provide no more than
negligible conservation value, if any, for
a species occurring primarily outside
the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(d) No areas meet the definition of
critical habitat.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of
rufa red knot habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at
the time of listing (specifically referring
to January 12, 2015, which is the
effective date for the December 11, 2014,
final listing rule (79 FR 73705)) and that
contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species, should be included in the
designation and why;
(c) Special management
considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are
proposing, including managing for the
potential effects of climate change; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(d) What areas not occupied at the
time of listing are essential for the
conservation of the species. We
particularly seek comments regarding:
(i) Whether occupied areas are
adequate for the conservation of the
species; and
(ii) Specific information regarding
whether or not unoccupied areas would,
with reasonable certainty, contribute to
the conservation of the species and
contain at least one physical or
biological feature essential to the
conservation of the species.
(3) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and
reasonably likely impacts of climate
change on the rufa red knot’s proposed
critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national
security, or other relevant impacts of
designating any area that may be
included in the final designation, and
the benefits of including or excluding
specific areas.
(6) Information on the extent to which
the description of probable economic
impacts in the draft economic analysis
is a reasonable estimate of the likely
economic impacts.
(7) Whether any specific areas we are
proposing for critical habitat
designation should be considered for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, and whether the benefits of
potentially excluding any specific area
outweigh the benefits of including that
area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in
particular those based on a conservation
program or plan, and why. These may
include Federal, Tribal, State, county,
local, or private lands with permitted
conservation plans covering the species
in the area such as habitat conservation
plans, safe harbor agreements, or
conservation easements, or nonpermitted conservation agreements and
partnerships that would be encouraged
by designation of, or exclusion from,
critical habitat. Detailed information
regarding these plans, agreements,
easements, and partnerships is also
requested, including:
(a) The location and size of lands
covered by the plan, agreement,
easement, or partnership;
(b) The duration of the plan,
agreement, easement, or partnership;
(c) Who holds or manages the land;
(d) What management activities are
conducted;
(e) What land uses are allowable; and
(f) If management activities are
beneficial to the rufa red knot and its
habitat.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37411
(8) Ongoing or proposed conservation
efforts that could result in direct or
indirect ecological benefits to the
associated habitat for the rufa red knot;
as such, those efforts would lend to the
recovery of the species and therefore
areas covered may be considered for
exclusion from the final critical habitat
designation.
(9) Whether we could improve or
modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for
greater public participation and
understanding, or to better
accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as scientific
journal articles or other publications) to
allow us to verify any scientific or
commercial information you include.
Also, please note that submissions
merely stating support for, or opposition
to, the action under consideration
without providing supporting
information, although noted, will not be
considered in making a determination.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. We request that you send
comments only by the methods
described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the website. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, New Jersey Field Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
a public hearing on this proposal, if
requested. At this time, we have
preemptively scheduled a public
informational meeting and public
hearing on this proposed rule. We will
hold the public informational meeting
and public hearing on the date and at
the times listed above under Public
informational meeting and public
hearing in DATES. We are holding the
public informational meeting and public
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37412
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
hearing via the Zoom online video
platform and via teleconference so that
participants can attend remotely. For
security purposes, registration is
required. To listen and view the meeting
and hearing via Zoom, listen to the
meeting and hearing by telephone, or
provide oral public comments at the
public hearing by Zoom or telephone,
you must register. For information on
how to register, or if you encounter
problems joining Zoom the day of the
meeting, visit https://fws.gov/northeast/
red-knot/. Registrants will receive the
Zoom link and the telephone number
for the public informational meeting
and public hearing. If applicable,
interested members of the public not
familiar with the Zoom platform should
view the Zoom video tutorials (https://
support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/
206618765-Zoom-video-tutorials) prior
to the public informational meeting and
public hearing.
The public hearing will provide
interested parties an opportunity to
present verbal testimony (formal, oral
comments) regarding this proposed rule
to designate critical habitat for the rufa
red knot. While the public informational
meeting will be an opportunity for
dialogue with the Service, the public
hearing is not. Rather, the public
hearing is a forum for accepting formal
verbal testimony. In the event there is a
large attendance, the time allotted for
oral statements may be limited.
Therefore, anyone wishing to make an
oral statement at the public hearing for
the record is encouraged to provide a
prepared written copy of their statement
to us through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal, or U.S. mail (see ADDRESSES,
above). There are no limits on the length
of written comments submitted to us.
Anyone wishing to make an oral
statement at the public hearing must
register before the hearing https://
fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/. The use of
a virtual public hearing is consistent
with our regulations at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).
Reasonable Accommodation
The Service is committed to providing
access to the public informational
meeting and public hearing for all
participants. Closed captioning will be
available during the public
informational meeting and public
hearing. Further, a full audio and video
recording and transcript of the public
hearing will be posted online at https://
fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/ after the
hearing. Participants will also have
access to live audio during the public
informational meeting and public
hearing via their telephone or computer
speakers. Persons with disabilities
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
requiring reasonable accommodations to
participate in the meeting and/or
hearing should contact the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT at least 5 business days prior
to the date of the meeting and hearing
to help ensure availability. An
accessible version of the Service’s
public informational meeting
presentation will also be posted online
at https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/
prior to the meeting and hearing (see
DATES, above). See https://fws.gov/
northeast/red-knot/ for more
information about reasonable
accommodation.
Previous Federal Actions
It is our intent to discuss only those
topics directly relevant to the
designation of critical habitat for the
rufa red knot in this document. For
more information on the rufa red knot
or its habitat, refer to:
(1) The final listing rule published in
the Federal Register on December 11,
2014 (79 FR 73706), available online at
https://www.regulations.gov (at Docket
No. FWS–R5–ES–2013–0097).
(2) The November 2014 Rufa Red
Knot Background Information and
Threats Assessment (Supplemental
Document; Service 2014, entire),
available online at https://fws.gov/
northeast/red-knot/ and https://
www.regulations.gov (at Docket No.
FWS–R5–ES–2013–0097). And
(3) The Species Status Assessment
Report for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris
canutus rufa), Version 1.1, available on
the internet at https://fws.gov/northeast/
red-knot/ and https://
www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS–
R5–ES–2021–0032).
For more information on previous
Federal actions associated with listing
rufa red knot, please refer to the
supplemental document (‘‘Previous
Federal Actions’’) on the internet at
https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/ and
https://www.regulations.gov (Docket No.
FWS–R5–ES–2013–0097).
On June 22, 2018, Defenders of
Wildlife filed a complaint (Case 1:18–
cv–01474–APM) alleging that the
Service violated the Act by missing the
statutory deadline to designate critical
habitat (i.e., 12 months following
publication of the final listing rule on
December 11, 2014). On February 1,
2019, the Service and Defenders of
Wildlife filed with the United States
District Court for the District of
Columbia a joint motion to stay
proceedings until June 30, 2021,
whereby the Service agreed to submit to
the Federal Register a proposed critical
habitat designation. The court granted
the motion on February 7, 2019. This
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
document constitutes the proposed
critical habitat designation for rufa red
knot, and complies with the court order
issued February 7, 2019.
Supporting Documents
An SSA team prepared an SSA report
(Service 2020a, entire) for the rufa red
knot primarily to inform the
development of a draft recovery plan for
the species (Service 2021, entire). The
timing and thoroughness of the peerreviewed SSA report supported the
analysis and development of this
proposed critical habitat rule. The SSA
report represents a compilation of the
best scientific and commercial data
available concerning the status of the
species, including the impacts of past,
present, and future factors (both
negative and beneficial) affecting the
species. The Service sent the SSA report
(which accompanied the draft Recovery
Plan) to five independent peer
reviewers; two peer reviewers provided
a review of the document. The Service
also sent the SSA report and draft
Recovery Plan for review by more than
177 parties, which included both
internal/Service biologists and
managers, and external partners,
including scientists with expertise in
rufa red knot biology, habitat
management, and threats. We received
review from 24 partners, including
Federal and State agencies. We are also
conducting a peer review of this
proposed critical habitat designation
(including the supplemental
‘‘Methodology’’ document available on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R5–ES–2021–0032) during the
open comment period to ensure that this
proposal is based on scientifically
sound data and analysis.
Availability of Supporting Materials
The SSA report and other materials
relating to this critical habitat proposal,
including coordinates or plot points or
both from which the maps are
generated, are included in the
administrative record and are available
at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2021–0032.
Any additional tools or supporting
information that we may develop for the
critical habitat designation will also be
available at https://www.fws.gov/
northeast/red-knot/, and may also be
included in the preamble of this
proposal and/or at https://
www.regulations.gov.
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species, and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02
define the geographical area occupied
by the species as an area that may
generally be delineated around species’
occurrences, as determined by the
Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may
include those areas used throughout all
or part of the species’ life cycle, even if
not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats,
and habitats used periodically, but not
solely, by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited
to, all activities associated with
scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement,
habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
requirement that Federal agencies
ensure, in consultation with the Service,
that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation
does not allow the government or public
to access private lands. Such
designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or
authorization for an action that may
affect a listed species or critical habitat,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
the Federal agency would be required to
consult with the Service under section
7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the
Service were to conclude that the
proposed activity would result in
destruction or adverse modification of
the critical habitat, the Federal action
agency and the landowner are not
required to abandon the proposed
activity, or to restore or recover the
species; instead, they must implement
‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’
to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
are included in a critical habitat
designation if they contain physical or
biological features (1) which are
essential to the conservation of the
species and (2) which may require
special management considerations or
protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the
extent known using the best scientific
and commercial data available, those
physical or biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species (such as space, food, cover, and
protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur
in specific occupied areas, we focus on
the specific features that are essential to
support the life-history needs of the
species, including, but not limited to,
water characteristics, soil type,
geological features, prey, vegetation,
symbiotic species, or other features. A
feature may be a single habitat
characteristic, or a more complex
combination of habitat characteristics.
Features may include habitat
characteristics that support ephemeral
or dynamic habitat conditions. Features
may also be expressed in terms relating
to principles of conservation biology,
such as patch size, distribution
distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the
species. When designating critical
habitat, the Secretary will first evaluate
areas occupied by the species. The
Secretary will only consider unoccupied
areas to be essential where a critical
habitat designation limited to
geographical areas occupied by the
species would be inadequate to ensure
the conservation of the species. In
addition, for an unoccupied area to be
considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37413
certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the
species and that the area contains one
or more of those physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific data available.
Further, our Policy on Information
Standards under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)),
the Information Quality Act (section 515
of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data
available. They require our biologists, to
the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas
should be designated as critical habitat,
our primary source of information is
generally the information from the SSA
report and information developed
during the listing process for the
species. Additional information sources
may include any generalized
conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the
species; the draft recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed
journals; conservation plans developed
by States and counties; scientific status
surveys and studies; biological
assessments; other unpublished
materials; or experts’ opinions or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. We recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time
may not include all of the habitat areas
that we may later determine are
necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, a critical
habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is
unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are
important to the conservation of the
species, both inside and outside the
critical habitat designation, will
continue to be subject to: (1)
Conservation actions implemented
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2)
regulatory protections afforded by the
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37414
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species; and (3) the
prohibitions found in section 9 of the
Act. Federally funded or permitted
projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas
may still result in jeopardy findings in
some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species.
Similarly, critical habitat designations
made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation
will not control the direction and
substance of future recovery plans,
habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or
other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls
for a different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended, and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary shall
designate critical habitat at the time the
species is determined to be an
endangered or threatened species. Our
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state
that the Secretary may, but is not
required to, determine that a
designation would not be prudent in the
following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking
or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of such
threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species’ habitat or range
is not a threat to the species, or threats
to the species’ habitat stem solely from
causes that cannot be addressed through
management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of
the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of
the United States provide no more than
negligible conservation value, if any, for
a species occurring primarily outside
the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of
critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise
determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on
the best scientific data available.
There is currently no imminent threat
of collection or vandalism identified
under Factor B for the rufa red knot, and
identification and mapping of critical
habitat is not expected to initiate any
such threat. In the proposed listing
determination for rufa red knot (79 FR
73705, December 11, 2014) and our
more recent SSA report (Service 2020a,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
entire), we determined that the present
or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of habitat or range is a
threat to rufa red knot and that those
threats in some way can be addressed by
section 7(a)(2) consultation measures.
Additionally, although the species range
occurs in other parts of North, Central,
and South America outside of the
United States, the areas within the
jurisdiction of the United States serve a
significant conservation value to the
species during both its northbound and
southbound migration to/from its
breeding grounds and overwintering
regions, using these migration areas as
key staging and stopover areas to rest
and feed. Some portions of the United
States also provide significant
conservation value for certain
populations of overwintering rufa red
knots. Our analysis of the best available
scientific and commercial information
indicates there are areas within the
range of the species in the United States
that meet the definition of critical
habitat. Therefore, because none of the
circumstances enumerated in our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) have
been met and because there are no other
circumstances the Secretary has
identified for which this designation of
critical habitat would be not prudent,
we have determined that the
designation of critical habitat for rufa
red knot is prudent.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is
prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act
we must find whether critical habitat for
the rufa red knot is determinable. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state
that critical habitat is not determinable
when one or both of the following
situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required
analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species
are not sufficiently well known to
identify any area that meets the
definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’
When critical habitat is not
determinable, the Act allows the Service
an additional year to publish a critical
habitat designation (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available
information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat
characteristics where the species is
located. This and other information
represent the best scientific data
available and led us to conclude that the
designation of critical habitat is
determinable for the rufa red knot.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Physical or Biological Features
Essential to the Conservation of the
Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(b), in determining which areas
we will designate critical habitat from
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing, we
consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and that may
require special management
considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define
‘‘physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species’’ as
the features that occur in specific areas
and that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including,
but not limited to, water characteristics,
soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other
features. A feature may be a single
habitat characteristic or a more complex
combination of habitat characteristics.
Features may include habitat
characteristics that support ephemeral
or dynamic habitat conditions. Features
may also be expressed in terms relating
to principles of conservation biology,
such as patch size, distribution
distances, and connectivity. For
example, physical features essential to
the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size
required for spawning, alkali soil for
seed germination, protective cover for
migration, or susceptibility to flooding
or fire that maintains necessary earlysuccessional habitat characteristics.
Biological features might include prey
species, forage grasses, specific kinds or
ages of trees for roosting or nesting,
symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of
nonnative species consistent with
conservation needs of the listed species.
The features may also be combinations
of habitat characteristics and may
encompass the relationship between
characteristics or the necessary amount
of a characteristic essential to support
the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are
essential to the conservation of the
species, the Service may consider an
appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of
habitat characteristics in the context of
the life-history needs, condition, and
status of the species. These
characteristics include, but are not
limited to, space for individual and
population growth and for normal
behavior; food, water, air, light,
minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements; cover or
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction,
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
or rearing (or development) of offspring;
and habitats that are protected from
disturbance.
We derive the specific physical or
biological features essential for the rufa
red knot from studies of the species’
habitat, ecology, and life history, which
are described more fully in the final
listing rule (79 FR 73706, December 11,
2014) and associated supplemental
materials (Service 2014, entire).
Additionally, these features were most
recently described in the SSA report
(Service 2020a, entire), in the context of
the needs of individuals, populations,
and the species.
With regard to ‘‘space for individual
and population growth and for normal
behavior; food, water, air, light,
minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements; and cover
or shelter,’’ these characteristics are
captured by the summary discussion in
the following paragraphs. The
characteristic of ‘‘sites for breeding,
reproduction, or rearing (or
development) of offspring’’ does not
apply for this proposed critical habitat
designation because the rufa red knot
does not breed in the United States.
Regarding ‘‘habitats that are protected
from disturbance,’’ rufa red knots are
particularly sensitive to disturbance
from human activities, which are nearly
ubiquitous along the U.S. coasts. Thus,
management of habitats to ensure
minimal human activity during those
seasons when birds are present is
essential to the conservation of this
subspecies. Overall, rufa red knot
requires both an abundance of suitable
nonbreeding habitats, as well as a
suitable distribution of those habitats
across the landscape.
Habitat Features
Coastal habitats used by rufa red
knots (i.e., for foraging and roosting) are
similar across both migration and
wintering areas (Harrington 2001, p. 9),
and can be generally characterized as
sparsely vegetated coastal marine and
estuarine habitats with large areas of
exposed intertidal substrates. Migration
and wintering habitats include highenergy ocean- or bay-front barrier island
or mainland beaches, as well as
shorelines and tidal flats in more
sheltered estuaries (e.g., bays, sounds,
lagoons) (Harrington 2001, p. 9).
Beaches used by rufa red knots may be
backed by dune fields, tidal waters, salt
marsh, mangroves, or human
development. Unimproved tidal inlets
(e.g., the mouths of creeks or larger
rivers) often provide an optimal mosaic
of preferred habitat types. Along the
U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts, dynamic
and ephemeral features are important
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
rufa red knot habitats, including sand
spits, islets, shoals, and sandbars,
features often associated with inlets
(Harrington 2001, p. 8; Sitters 2005,
entire; Winn and Harrington in
Guilfoyle et al. 2006, pp. 8–10;
Harrington in Guilfoyle et al. 2007, pp.
18–19; Harrington 2008, pp. 2, 4–5;
Niles et al. 2008, p. 30; Lott et al. 2009,
pp. 18–19; North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) 2013,
entire).
In the United States, there has been
considerable loss or degradation of
dynamic and ephemeral coastal
features, including the associated loss of
rufa red knot habitat as a result of
shoreline stabilization and other
engineering practices that support
coastal development (Nordstrom 2000,
pp. 20, 98–107; Nordstrom and
Mauriello 2001, entire; U.S. Climate
Change Science Program (USCCSP)
2009, pp. 99–100; Defeo et al. 2009, p.
4; Kisiel 2009, p. 65; Titus et al. 2009,
p. 5; Rice 2012, p. 6; Rice 2017, entire).
In some cases, however, engineered or
artificial features may be used as
habitat, or may enhance habitat (Botton
et al. 1994, p. 614; Niles et al. 2008, pp.
40, 46; Schwarzer 2013, pers. comm.;
Breese 2013, pers. comm.; Niles et al.
2013, entire; Firmin 2020, pers. comm.).
In some localized areas, rufa red knots
will use artificial habitats that mimic
natural conditions, such as nourished
beaches, dredge spoil sites, elevated
road causeways, rock structures (e.g.,
jetties, breakwaters), or impoundments.
In other areas, living shorelines or even
traditional (‘‘hard’’) engineering
structures may enhance rufa red knot
habitat, for example by concentrating
surf-cast prey items or by calming wave
energies. Notwithstanding these
localized examples, rufa red knots
generally require areas where natural
coastal processes (e.g., erosion,
accretion, overwashes, island migration,
inlet migration) are allowed to operate
in order to create and maintain optimal
habitat, which is typically dynamic and
ephemeral.
In all nonbreeding habitats, rufa red
knots require sparse vegetation and
open landscapes, affording the birds
good visibility of the surrounding area
in order to avoid predation (Piersma et
al. 1993, pp. 338–339, 349; Niles et al.
2008, p. 44). Rufa red knots tend to
migrate in large single-species flocks,
and may also flock with other
shorebirds, particularly when roosting
or staging for spring and fall migration
(Harrington 2001, p. 8). Thus, areas that
provide foraging and resting habitat
capable of supporting large
concentrations of birds are especially
important.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37415
Foraging Habitat: In coastal areas, rufa
red knot foraging habitats include
intertidal portions of beaches, islands,
and shoals; tidal flats; wind-exposed
bay bottoms or oyster reefs; peat banks;
brackish ponds or impoundments; and
ephemeral tidal pools. Foraging
substrates can include sand, mud, peat,
and sand embedded with shell, gravel,
or cobble (Niles et al. 2008, pp. 30, 47;
Harrington 2001, pp. 8–9; Newstead
2014, pp. 13–14; Service 2014, pp. 63–
67). Feeding birds may be concentrated
at higher tides, pushed into a smaller
area by rising waters and also attracted
to higher food densities along the high
water line, where food may be
concentrated in wrack material and
where horseshoe crabs (Limulus
polyphemus) tend to nest. However,
rufa red knots have also been shown to
spread out and forage across the full
tidal range (Service 2014, pp. 63–67;
Service 2016a, pp. 76–82; Burger et al.
2018, entire).
Roosting Habitat: In many wintering
and coastal stopover areas, quality hightide roosting habitat (i.e., close to
feeding areas, protected from predators,
with sufficient space during the highest
tides, free from excessive human
disturbance) is limited (Kalasz 2008, p.
9; Kalasz 2012, pers. comm.; Niles 2012,
pers. comm.; Conseil Scientifique
Re´gional du Patrimoine Naturel 2013,
entire). Typical roosting areas are
relatively open and flat beaches between
the high water line and the primary
dune line. In some locations, roosts can
include shoals, sand bars, areas of upper
beach between/among unstabilized
dunes, overwashes, patches of mostly
bare ground (e.g., blowouts,
depressions, salt pannes) within salt
marshes, dredge spoil sites, rock
structures (e.g., jetties, breakwaters), or
among wrack including atop mounds of
seaweed deposited on the beach
(Service 2014, pp. 63–67). Such areas
may have microtopographic relief
offering shelter from high winds,
storms, and cold weather. Rufa red
knots’ selection of high-tide roosting
areas on the coast appears to be strongly
influenced by raptor predation (Niles et
al. 2008, p. 28).
Inland Habitat: Rufa red knots use
inland saline lakes as stopover habitat
in the Northern Great Plains (Skagen et
al. 1999, pp. 80–81; Newstead et al.
2013, p. 57). We have little information
to indicate whether or not rufa red knots
may also use inland freshwater habitats
during migration, but certain freshwater
areas (e.g., wetlands, riverine sandbars)
may warrant further study as potential
stopover habitats (Dovichin 2014, pers.
comm.; Russell 2014, entire). Small
numbers of rufa red knots sometimes
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37416
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
use manmade freshwater habitats (e.g.,
impoundments) along inland migration
routes (Simnor 2012, pers. comm.;
Russell 2014, entire; Service 2014, pp.
68–70).
Diet: The rufa red knot is a specialized
molluscivore, eating primarily hardshelled mollusks, though sometimes
supplemented with softer invertebrate
prey such as arthropods, marine worms,
and horseshoe crab eggs (Harrington
2001, pp. 9–11; Piersma and van Gils
2011, p. 9). In most U.S. coastal habitats,
rufa red knots feed primarily on
bivalves such as small clams and
mussels (including mussel spat)
(Harrington 2001, pp. 10–11; Niles et al.
2008, p. 30; Service 2014, pp. 71–73).
Prey size is approximately 0.16 to 0.79
inch (in) (4 to 20 millimeters (mm))
long, and up to 1.18 in (30 mm) in
circumference. Foraging activity is
largely dictated by tidal conditions, as
rufa red knots rarely wade in water
more than 0.8 to 1.2 in (2 to 3
centimeters (cm)) deep (Harrington
2001, p. 10). Due to bill morphology,
rufa red knots forage on only shallowburied prey, within the top 0.8 to 1.2 in
(2 to 3 cm) of sediment (Zwarts and
Blomert 1992, p. 113; Gerasimov 2009,
p. 227). Long-distance migrant
shorebirds, such as rufa red knots, must
take advantage of seasonally abundant
food resources at migration stopovers to
build up fat reserves for the next
nonstop, long-distance flight (Clark et
al. 1993, p. 694). Although migrating
rufa red knots can be found widely
distributed in small numbers within
suitable stopover habitats, birds tend to
concentrate in those areas where
abundant food resources are
consistently available from year to year.
The spatial distribution of rufa red knots
in many different stopover areas has
been correlated with the distribution of
the primary prey species (Service 2014,
p. 71).
A prominent departure from typical
prey items occurs each spring when rufa
red knots feed on the eggs of horseshoe
crabs, particularly during the key
migration stopover at Delaware Bay.
Delaware Bay serves as the principal
spring migration stopover area for the
rufa red knot because of the abundance
and availability of horseshoe crab eggs
(Harrington 2001, pp. 2, 7; Niles et al.
2008, pp. 36–39; Clark et al. 2009, p. 85;
Service 2014, pp. 73–76). Outside of
Delaware Bay, horseshoe crab eggs are
eaten opportunistically when available.
In several areas along the Atlantic coast,
horseshoe crab eggs are a preferred food
resource and may be a locally important
component of the diet, particularly in
spring (Service 2014, pp. 71–76).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Sensitivity to Disturbance
We define ‘‘disturbance’’ as any
human activity that is audible or visible
to rufa red knots and that interrupts the
normal behavior of the birds. The daily
and seasonal selection of non-breeding
habitats by individual rufa red knots
represents an adaptive optimization of
several factors and the fitness trade-offs
among them. These factors include
seasonal time pressures (particularly
during migration) (Hedenstro¨m 2008, p.
287; Service 2014, pp. 249–250), food
availability (Service 2014, p. 71),
predator avoidance (Niles et al. 2008, p.
28), tides (Newstead 2014, pp. 13–14;
Burger et al. 2018, entire), and weather.
It is in this context that disturbance
from human activities occurs, such that
interruption of normal behaviors can
result in reduced fitness of the affected
birds (West et al. 2002, p. 319; GossCustard et al. 2006, p. 88). Typical rufa
red knot behaviors include feeding in
intertidal areas, and roosting, resting, or
preening above the high water line. Rufa
red knot reactions to human activity
that indicate disturbance typically
include stopping or slowing feeding,
assuming an alert posture, calling,
walking, running, or flying (Koch and
Paton 2014, entire). Rufa red knots are
exposed to disturbance from
recreational and other human activities
throughout their non-breeding range
(Niles et al. 2008, pp. 105–107; Service
2014, pp. 266–272).
Among shorebird species, rufa red
knots appear to be particularly reactive
to the presence of humans (Burger and
Niles 2013, p. 657; Koch and Paton
2014, p. 64; Hunt et al. 2018, pp. 18–19).
Although population-level impacts
cannot be concluded from species’
differing behavioral responses to
disturbance (Gill et al. 2001, p. 265;
Stillman et al. 2007, p. 73), behaviorbased models can be used to relate the
number and magnitude of human
disturbances to impacts on the fitness of
individual birds (West et al. 2002, p.
319; Goss-Custard et al. 2006, p. 88).
When the time and energy costs arising
from disturbance were included,
disturbance could be more damaging to
shorebirds than permanent habitat loss
(West et al. 2002, p. 319).
Excessive disturbance precludes rufa
red knot use of otherwise preferred
habitats (Service 2014, pp. 267–270;
Watts 2017, p. 72; Hunt et al. 2018, p.
22). Disturbance can also impact
shorebird energy budgets (Service 2014,
pp. 270–272; Hunt et al. 2018, pp. 26–
29). Both of these effects are likely to
exacerbate other threats to the rufa red
knot, such as habitat loss from erosion
and development, reduced food
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
availability, asynchronies in the annual
cycle, and competition with gulls.
Disturbance that displaces birds from
preferred habitats and/or disrupts their
behavioral patterns can impair the
ability of rufa red knots to gain or
maintain sufficient weight, which can in
turn impact fitness. Studies have found
a link between the weights of rufa red
knots leaving Delaware Bay after their
spring stopover and subsequent survival
rates, and possibly also to reproductive
success (Baker et al. 2004, p. 878;
McGowan et al. 2011, p. 9; Duijins et al.
2017, entire).
Habitat Abundance and Distribution
Rufa red knots move among, and
depend on, multiple foraging and
roosting habitat areas on local, regional,
and rangewide scales. As discussed
above, habitat selection by rufa red
knots represents trade-offs among
factors including seasonal time
pressures, food availability, predator
avoidance, tides, weather, and human
disturbance. This complex suite of
factors results in shifting patterns of
habitat use on daily, seasonal, and
annual temporal scales. In addition, the
dynamic and shifting nature of the
shoreline also influences habitat
selection over multiyear scales (e.g.,
through natural cycles of erosion and
accretion). Rufa red knots make regular
movements within (though not between)
wintering regions (Niles et al. 2012, pp.
198, 200, 202; Newstead 2014, pp. 3, 6–
8; Service 2014, pp. 43–44) and to use
clusters of habitats as regional stopover
complexes during migration (Clark et al.
2009, pp. 87, 89; Watts 2009, entire;
Service 2014, pp. 54–55).
We define ‘‘staging areas’’ as those
stopover sites with abundant,
predictable food resources where birds
prepare for an energetic challenge
(usually a long flight over a barrier such
as an ocean) requiring substantial fuel
stores and physiological changes
without which significant fitness costs
are incurred (Warnock 2010, p. 622).
Staging areas are a subset of stopover
habitats (Service 2020a, p. 31), and they
serve as vital stepping stones between
wintering and breeding areas.
Shorebirds migrate along traditional
routes characterized by a chain of key
staging areas that are essential to
successful migration; staging areas serve
as vital stepping stones between
wintering and breeding areas (Myers
1983, p. 23; International Wader Study
Group 2003, p. 10; Service 2014, p. 49).
However, even a robust network of
staging areas is not sufficient to support
recovery of this subspecies. Rufa red
knots also require an ample supply of
other coastal and inland stopover
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
habitats distributed across the range,
allowing birds to shift among habitat
patches across multiple temporal and
geographic scales in response to a
number of stochastic conditions.
Because rufa red knots require this
flexibility, even some highly suitable
and important nonbreeding habitats
may not be used every year, and, within
a given season, usage of particular
habitat patches is likely to fluctuate
across days and months (Service 2014,
pp. 53–60; Smith et al. 2017a, p. 3;
Service 2020a, p. 32). One particular
non-breeding habitat is that used by
juvenile rufa red knots. Rufa red knots
do not reach adulthood until 2 years of
age, at which point they make their first
full northern migration to their nesting
grounds. Where they spend their first 2
years and their movement patterns are
largely unknown. However, Florida and
the Caribbean are likely important for
this stage of their life (Kalasz 2021, pers.
comm.).
Sea Level Rise
Due to background rates of sea level
rise and the naturally dynamic nature of
coastal habitats, we concluded at the
time of listing that rufa red knots are
adapted to moderate (although
sometimes abrupt) rates of habitat
change in their wintering and migration
areas. However, we also concluded,
based on overwhelming evidence, that
rates of sea level rise have increased
beyond those that have occurred over
recent millennia and continue to
accelerate (Service 2014, pp. 142–143;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) 2013, pp. 11, 25). These
conclusions are further supported by
newer information evaluated in the SSA
report (Service 2020a, pp. 32–36). Over
the period 1902 to 2015, global mean
sea level rose by 0.5 feet (ft) (0.16 meters
(m)) (likely range of 0.4 to 0.7 ft (0.12
to 0.21 m)) (IPCC 2019, p. 42). The rate
of sea level rise since the mid-19th
century has been larger than the mean
rate during the previous two millennia
(high confidence) (IPCC 2014a, p. 4).
Extreme wave heights, which contribute
to extreme sea level events and coastal
erosion, have increased in the North
Atlantic by around 0.3 in (0.8 cm) per
year over the period 1985 to 2018
(medium confidence) (IPCC 2019, p. 42).
The rufa red knot is vulnerable to
inundation of tidal flats and erosion of
sandy beaches, which are typically
caused or accelerated by climate-driven
sea level rise (Service 2014, pp. 126–
143; Vousdoukas et al. 2019, entire). In
most of the rufa red knot’s nonbreeding
range, shorelines are expected to
undergo dramatic reconfigurations over
the next century as a result of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
accelerating sea level rise (USCCSP
2009, pp. 13, 44, 50). Extensive areas of
marsh are likely to become inundated,
which may reduce foraging and roosting
habitats. Marshes may be able to
establish farther inland, but the rate of
new marsh formation (e.g., intertidal
sediment accumulation, development of
hydric soils, colonization of marsh
vegetation) may be slower than the rate
of deterioration of existing marsh,
particularly under the high sea level rise
scenarios (Nikitina et al. 2013, p. 11;
Glick et al. 2008, p. 6). The primary rufa
red knot foraging habitats, intertidal
flats, and sandy beaches will likely be
locally or regionally inundated or
eroded, but replacement habitats are
likely to re-form along the shoreline in
its new position (Scavia et al. 2002, p.
152; USCCSP 2009, p. 186). However, if
shorelines experience a decades-long
period of high instability and landward
migration (i.e., under higher rates of sea
level rise), the formation rate of new
beach habitats may be slower than the
rate of loss of existing habitats (Iwamura
et al. 2013, p. 6). Additionally, lowlying and narrow islands, such as those
along the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic coasts,
may disintegrate rather than migrate
(Titus 1990, p. 67; IPCC 2014b, p. 15),
representing a net loss of rufa red knot
habitat. Galbraith et al. (2002, p. 178)
examined several scenarios of future sea
level rise and projected major losses of
intertidal habitat in Delaware Bay.
Superimposed on these changes are
widespread human attempts to stabilize
the shoreline, which exacerbate losses
of intertidal habitats by preventing their
landward migration, and human
infrastructure that blocks the landward
migration of coastal habitats (Service
2014, pp. 143–159). The cumulative loss
of habitat across the nonbreeding range
could affect the ability of rufa red knots
to complete their annual cycles,
possibly affecting fitness and survival,
and is thereby likely to negatively
influence the long-term survival of the
rufa red knot (Galbraith et al. 2014, p.
7 and Supplement 1).
Summary of Physical or Biological
Features
We derive the specific physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of rufa red knot from
studies of the species’ habitat, ecology,
and life history as described below.
Additional information can be found in
the SSA report (Service 2020a, entire;
available on https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2021–
0032). We have determined that rufa red
knots need areas where natural coastal
processes will be able to continue well
into the future to allow the formation of
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37417
ephemeral features and the landward
migration of coastlines in response to
sea level rise. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify areas
that support natural coastal processes,
as well as localized areas where
artificially created, maintained, or
enhanced habitat supports important
concentrations of red knots, as physical
or biological features for the rufa red
knot. These features are as follows:
(1) Beaches and tidal flats used for
foraging. This feature includes highenergy ocean- or bay-front barrier island
or mainland beaches, as well as
shorelines and tidal flats in more
sheltered estuaries (e.g., bays, sounds,
lagoons). Foraging substrates can
include sand, mud, peat, and sand
embedded with shell, gravel, or cobble.
Foraging areas are between mean lower
low water and mean higher high water.
Suitable foraging habitats provide
abundant quantities of accessible and
appropriately sized prey items (e.g.,
mussels and mussel spat, clams, other
mollusks, horseshoe crab eggs,
crustaceans, polychaete worms), timed
to occur in high densities during those
seasons when rufa red knots are present.
‘‘Superabundant’’ prey densities,
typically bivalves or horseshoe crab
eggs, are needed in migration staging
areas to support rapid weight gain
following long-distance flights. Large
areas capable of supporting
concentrations of shorebirds are
especially important.
(2) Upper beach areas used for
roosting, preening, resting, or sheltering.
This feature includes unvegetated or
sparsely vegetated sand between the
high water line and the primary dune
line. Generally these sites are open, with
a large viewscape for predator
avoidance. Many sites have microtopographic relief offering refuge from
high winds. Large areas capable of
supporting concentrations of
shorebirds—close to foraging areas, with
limited predation pressure and
protected from human disturbance—are
especially important.
(3) Ephemeral and/or dynamic coastal
features used for foraging or roosting.
This includes dynamic and ephemeral
features such as sand spits, islets,
shoals, and sandbars, features often
associated with inlets. Other ephemeral
features used by rufa red knots include
tidal pools; wind-exposed bay bottoms
or oyster reefs; and unvegetated
overwash areas (e.g., among or behind
dunes, as formed by storms or extreme
wave action).
(4) Ocean vegetation deposits or surfcast wrack used for foraging and
roosting. This feature includes
Sargassum (a species of macroalgae in
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37418
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
oceans that inhabits shallow water and
coral reefs), seagrass, or seaweed
deposits with mussel spat attached, or
surf-cast wrack that accumulates along
beaches and supports or captures food
items, such as horseshoe crab eggs. In
some areas, rufa red knots may also
roost atop wrack mounds.
(5) Intertidal peat banks used for
foraging and roosting. In some areas,
exposed intertidal peat banks (e.g.,
along bay front beaches and fronting
tidal marshes) provide important
foraging and roosting habitat.
(6) Features landward of the beach
that support foraging or roosting. In
some areas, rufa red knots use sparsely
vegetated habitats landward of the
beach berm, such as unstabilized dunes,
mangrove edges, brackish ponds, and
patches of mostly bare ground (e.g.,
blowouts, depressions, pannes) within
salt marshes.
(7) Artificial habitat mimicking
natural conditions or maintaining the
physical or biological features 1 to 6
(above). Coastal engineering that
interferes with natural coastal processes
is generally considered a threat to the
rufa red knot. However, in some cases,
artificial habitats mimic the natural
conditions described in the other
physical or biological features described
above. Such artificial habitats can
include nourished beaches, dredged
spoil deposition sites, elevated road
causeways, jetties, or impoundments.
Additionally, some anthropogenic
structures may promote or maintain the
natural physical or biological features.
For example, in parts of Delaware Bay,
rufa red knot habitat features are
enhanced by living shorelines (e.g.,
shell bag reefs), and in one case by a
rock breakwater.
Special Management Considerations or
Protection
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. The
features essential to the conservation of
the rufa red knot may require special
management considerations or
protection to reduce the threats to the
species; these threats are described in
the final listing rule (79 FR 73706,
December 11, 2014; pp. 73707–73708),
the Service’s supplement to the
proposed and final listing rule (Service
2014, pp. 124–314), and an updated
summary in the recent SSA report
(Service 2020a, pp. 15–18). For rufa red
knot habitat, we grouped the primary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
threats that may require special
management considerations or
protection into seven threat categories:
(1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans, pets and
domestic animals (e.g., dogs (Canis
lupus familiaris), cats (Felis catus),
horses (Equus ferus caballus)), vehicles
(e.g., off-road vehicles (ORVs), golf carts,
segways, all-terrain vehicles,
automobiles, heavy equipment, beach
rakes), ships/dredges, powered and
unpowered (e.g., kayaks) boats, personal
watercraft (e.g., jet skis), bicycles, surf
kites, kite boards, dune surfers, surf
fishing, paddle boards, para-sails, lowflying aircraft, drones, and research
activities. Special management
considerations or protection that could
reduce or ameliorate this threat may
include (but not be limited to):
Managing access to rufa red knot
foraging or roosting habitat during
different seasonal windows; reducing
disturbance (e.g., managing sources of
disturbance that could include humans,
pets, vehicles, construction equipment,
watercraft, and aircraft), such as through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities; providing designated
beach access points that reduce conflict
with rufa red knots; enforcing or
creating dog restrictions during key
periods; or minimizing boat or aircraft
activity during key periods.
(2) Predation, especially by peregrine
falcons (Falco peregrinus), hawks (Buteo
spp. or Accipter spp.), red fox (Vulpes
vulpes), coyotes (Canis latrans),
raccoons (Procyon lotor), gulls (Larus
spp.), feral cats, and owls (Bubo spp. or
Tyto spp.). Special management
considerations or protection that could
reduce or ameliorate this threat may
include (but not be limited to):
Conducting predator control, controlling
trash that may attract predators, or
relocating any unnatural perches that
attract avian predators.
(3) Competition with gulls, especially
laughing gulls (Larus atricilla). Special
management considerations or
protection that could reduce or
ameliorate this threat may include (but
not be limited to): Controlling trash and
removing any unnatural perches, both of
which attract gulls; and prohibiting the
feeding of gulls.
(4) Modification or loss of habitat, or
both, due to residential and commercial
development, uncontrolled recreational
activities, beach cleaning, hard and soft
beach stabilization efforts (e.g., beach
nourishment, sediment backpassing,
sand scraping, sand fencing, dredged
material disposal, inlet channelization
or relocation, construction of jetties,
revetments, and other armoring
structures), invasive species, sand
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
mining and dredging, erosion, and sea
level rise. Special management
considerations or protection that could
reduce or ameliorate this threat may
include (but not be limited to):
Implementing conservation measures
(e.g., beach profiles designed to mimic
natural habitat, ensuring a close grain
size match to the native beach, limiting
the frequency of activities to allow
recovery of the prey base, seasonal
timing to allow habitat recovery before
red knots return) that help reduce
modification or loss of habitat;
managing sediment to abate habitat
impacts from coastal engineering
projects and sea level rise, and to
maintain habitat features such as wide
beaches, tidal flats, overwash areas, and
high prey densities; coordinating with
landowners and local managers to
improve beach management practices,
such as beach cleaning and sand
fencing; implementing best management
practices when conducting habitat
restoration activities (e.g., creating
living shorelines, raising marsh
elevations, conducting facilitated
shoreline migration, maintaining and
managing water control structures to
provide rufa red knot habitat);
conducting public outreach and
education (especially on private and
possibly State lands); and addressing
the impacts of potential oil spills or gas
drilling activities through facility
placement, spill response plans, and
training.
(5) Threats to the rufa red knot’s food
supply that can be managed or mitigated
at the local or regional level (e.g.,
unsustainable levels of marine crab
harvest, excessive driving, and certain
coastal engineering practices). Special
management considerations or
protection that could reduce or
ameliorate this threat may include (but
not be limited to): Monitoring and
managing beach invertebrates; limiting
vehicle use; implementing conservation
measures for coastal engineering
projects (e.g., sediment grain size;
frequency, timing, and scope of
sediment placement); and managing
horseshoe crab fisheries, such as for bait
and biomedical uses.
(6) Insufficient water quality or
pollution control that may trigger or
worsen harmful algal blooms. Special
management considerations or
protection that could reduce or
ameliorate this threat may include (but
not be limited to): Working with local
pollution authorities to limit those point
discharges or non-point sources that are
substantially impairing water quality or
contributing to the frequency or severity
of red tides or other harmful blooms.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(7) Human-caused disasters and
response to natural and human-caused
disasters such as oil spills, oil spill
response including beach cleaning and
berm construction, and response to
natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes).
Special management considerations or
protection that could reduce or
ameliorate this threat may include (but
not be limited to): Considering oil
facility placement alternatives,
preparing spill response plans,
conducting oil spill training, conducting
debris cleanup after a natural disaster
while concurrently minimizing
disturbance to rufa red knots, and
establishing protocols and agreements to
allow storm-enhanced habitats to
persist.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we use the best scientific data
available to designate critical habitat. In
accordance with the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(b), we review available
information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of the species and identify
specific areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
of listing and any specific areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the
species to be considered for designation
as critical habitat. We are not currently
proposing to designate any areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the
species because we have not identified
any unoccupied areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat. Within
areas of the species’ range under U.S.
jurisdiction, we determined that
occupied areas are sufficient for the
conservation of the species, following
our evaluation of all suitable habitat
across the species range that has
documented use by rufa red knots.
The recovery strategy detailed in the
species’ draft Recovery Plan (Service
2021, entire) is to prevent loss of the
rufa red knot’s adaptive capacity by
maintaining representation within and
among four Recovery Units: (1)
Southern (Atlantic coasts of Argentina
and Chile), (2) North Coast of South
America, (3) Western Gulf of Mexico/
Central America, and (4) Southeast
United States/Caribbean, and improving
their resiliency and redundancy.
Recovery efforts in the United States
and in other portions of the subspecies’
range will focus on protecting, restoring,
maintaining, and managing important
nonbreeding habitats for adults and
juveniles. Recovery actions are designed
to directly abate threats to rufa red knots
in their wintering and migration ranges
(which includes those areas identified
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
as proposed critical habitat in this rule),
and will also increase resiliency of
populations to withstand threats that
stem from climate change on their
Arctic breeding grounds and elsewhere.
These actions include monitoring and
safeguarding ample food supplies,
preventing impacts from development
and shoreline stabilization, managing
human disturbance, and restoring key
habitats. They may also include land
acquisition, facilitated migration of
certain beaches or tidal flats, and
restoring natural coastal processes that
create and maintain rufa red knot
habitat. Consistent with the Act and
implementing policies, as well as
recovery needs throughout the species’
annual cycles, the draft Recovery Plan
includes necessary recovery actions
across the range of the rufa red knot.
Although many Service-led recovery
actions will focus on the U.S. portions
of the range, the Service will also
coordinate with and support the
recovery efforts of foreign governments
and other partners in portions of the
range outside the United States.
Sources of data for this proposed
critical habitat designation include 2020
eBird data (eBird 2020, website), and
multiple local and regional sources as
available (e.g., reports, databases, and
geolocator/resighting data maintained
by State Fish and Wildlife Departments,
universities, local governments, and
nonprofit organizations across the range
of the species (see SSA report; Service
2020a, entire)). For some areas where
multiple sources of information were
available, we used either one or both
sources, ensuring that records used were
not duplicated and included the best
available information. Our analysis
included reviewing the best available
information that pertains to the habitat
requirements of this species, as
presented in the ‘‘Species Biology’’ and
‘‘Subspecies Needs’’ sections of the SSA
report (Service 2020a, pp. 4–14); sources
of this information include studies
conducted at occupied sites and
published in peer-reviewed articles and
agency reports, and data collected
during monitoring efforts, such as aerial
surveys and tracking or resighting data.
A detailed step-down methodology
was developed for identifying proposed
critical habitat areas (see the
supplemental ‘‘Methodology’’ document
available on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R5–ES–2021–0032). In summary,
for areas within the geographic area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing, we delineated critical habitat
unit boundaries based on our evaluation
and consideration of the following:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37419
(1) Migration patterns/locations across
the range of the subspecies within the
United States, including migratory
stopovers away from the coasts. This
includes the migration premise that 100
percent of rufa red knots winter within
or south of the United States and 100
percent of the subspecies breed north of
the United States. Therefore, 100
percent of rufa red knots migrate
through the United States. However,
rufa red knots from the four different
wintering regions (as described in
Service 2020a, p. 9) are differentially
reliant on the various regions of the U.S.
coast for migration stopovers (Service
2020a, pp. 6–7).
(2) Landforms (e.g., islands, inlet
complexes) and breaks in suitable
habitats (e.g., sections of high-density
development, open water), which are
key factors in delineating units.
(3) Gaps between rufa red knot
records (another key factor in
delineating units).
(4) Temporal metrics to delineate
seasonal occurrence windows (i.e.,
spring migration, fall migration,
wintering) and to minimize the
potential for double-counting birds.
(5) Numerical metrics showing
consistent habitat use by substantial
numbers of rufa red knots, as an
indicator that the physical and
biological features of each area are
essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. Regarding bird numbers, we
adapted the approach of the Western
Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve
Network, which designates as ‘‘Sites of
Regional Importance’’ those areas that
support at least one percent of a
biogeographic population. We used one
percent as a key indicator of a habitat’s
importance, and we applied the one
percent metric to derived estimates of
regional population sizes. Best available
data from several sources were
considered and used to estimate the
wintering and/or migration population
sizes for each of several U.S. regions.
(The various regions were delineated
based on resighting and tracking data.)
Consistency of use was indicated for
those areas that supported the minimum
number of rufa red knots (i.e., at least
one percent of the estimated population
for that region in that season) for at least
3 of the past 10 years. In some areas, 10year data sets were unavailable; in those
cases, we used 1 year in 3 as the
minimum.
(6) Adjustments to account for
differences between observational data
(e.g., ground and aerial surveys, eBird)
versus population estimates derived
from modeling.
(7) Food availability, including the
rufa red knot’s need to take advantage
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37420
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
of seasonally abundant food resources.
This relates to the well-documented
correlations (e.g., Botton et al. 1994, p.
605; Karpanty et al. 2006, p. 1,706; Niles
et al. 2008, pp. 17, 19; Smith et al. 2008,
p. 15; Cohen et al. 2010a, pp. 659–661;
Cohen et al. 2010b, p. 355; Fraser et al.
2010, p. 97; GDNR 2013; SCDNR 2013,
p. 37; Thibault and Levisen 2013, p. 6)
between the spatial distribution of rufa
red knots and the distribution of their
primary prey species.
(8) The subspecies’ need for flexibility
in the selection of wintering and
migration habitats to respond to daily,
seasonal, and annual changes in
conditions such as weather, tides,
coastal processes, predation pressure,
competition, and disturbance from
human activities (Service 2014, pp. 71,
195, 259; Smith et al. 2017a, p. 3).
(9) Once areas were identified to meet
the criteria summarized above, the best
available data was further evaluated to
ensure that the area(s) were occupied at
the time of listing. For example, if all
data used to meet the numerical metrics
were recorded after January 12, 2015
(i.e., the effective date of the rufa red
knot final listing rule), then a separate
check was conducted to verify that the
area was known to be occupied by at
least some rufa red knots at the time of
listing.
Once this methodology was applied
and evaluated across the regions of the
United States where concentrations of
rufa red knots may occur, units and
subunits were then drawn based on the
most recent available aerial or satellite
imagery. In deciding whether to draw a
single large unit or multiple units/
subunits, we aimed to facilitate
consistent management of each unit and
subunit through section 7 consultation
by distinguishing concentration areas of
the same ownership or jurisdiction.
Additionally, we evaluated older
imagery dating back as far as 2010 to
estimate the range of landform
movement (e.g., landward island
migration, landward shoreline
migration, cyclic patterns of erosion/
accretion, movement of shoals). Due to
the dynamic nature of the coastline,
units and subunits inevitably include
some areas that do not currently, or may
not in the future, contain the physical
or biological features such as densely
vegetated marsh or open water. In some
instances, these areas are included to
allow the dynamic physical or
biological features to move across the
landscape, noting that where they occur
within a unit, they will be excluded by
the unit descriptions.
We propose to designate as critical
habitat lands that we have determined
were occupied at the time of listing (i.e.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
specifically referring to January 12,
2015, which is the effective date for the
December 11, 2014, final listing rule (79
FR 73706)), that contain one or more of
the physical or biological features that
are essential to support life-history
processes of the species, and that may
require special management
considerations or protection.
We propose to designate as critical
habitat 120 units (18 of which are
further subdivided into 46 subunits)
based on one or more of the physical or
biological features being present to
support the rufa red knot’s life-history
processes. Some units contain all of the
identified physical or biological features
and support multiple life-history
processes, while other units contain
only some of the physical or biological
features necessary to support the rufa
red knot’s particular use of that habitat.
For the rufa red knot, most of the
units contain highly dynamic barrier
beaches and intertidal seashore areas
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. This area has the
potential to vary year-to-year. In other
words, the precise location of the
physical or biological features may shift
daily as a result of tides, but also may
shift over time because of the
intrinsically dynamic nature of
shorelines, and due to sea level rise. In
general, the physical or biological
features we describe are the intertidal
areas and sandy beaches up to the
vegetated areas that do not contain the
physical or biological features, noting
that availability of different habitats
based on the tide cycle may also cause
rufa red knots to vary foraging or
roosting locations throughout a day and/
or forage at night.
The proposed critical habitat
designation is defined by the map or
maps, as modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document. We include more
detailed information on the boundaries
of the proposed critical habitat
designation in the discussion of
individual units, below. We will make
the coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based available to
the public on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R5–ES–2021–0032. When
determining proposed critical habitat
boundaries, we made every effort to
avoid including developed areas such as
lands covered by pavement, buildings,
and other structures (e.g., docks,
maintained rights-of-way, work yards,
and stormwater facilities) because such
lands lack physical or biological
features necessary for the rufa red knot.
The scale of the maps we prepared
under the parameters for publication
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
within the Code of Federal Regulations
may not reflect the exclusion of such
developed lands. Any such lands
inadvertently left inside critical habitat
boundaries shown on the maps of this
proposed rule have been excluded by
text in the proposed rule and are not
proposed for designation as critical
habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat
is finalized as proposed, a Federal
action involving these lands would not
trigger section 7 consultation under the
Act with respect to critical habitat and
the requirement of no adverse
modification unless the specific action
would affect the physical or biological
features in the adjacent critical habitat.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing 120 units (18 of
which are further subdivided into 46
subunits) as critical habitat for rufa red
knot, all of which were occupied at the
time of listing, and totaling
approximately 649,066 ac (262,667 ha).
Table 1, below, shows the proposed unit
or subunit names, land ownership, and
approximate acreage. The land
ownership values in many (but not all)
proposed critical habitat units also
include a category called
‘‘uncategorized lands.’’ For the purposes
of this analysis and proposed critical
habitat designation, this category refers
to open water. Although open water is
not rufa red knot habitat per se, it is an
integral part of the habitat mosaic that
these birds require. Rufa red knots use
the edges of certain coastal ponds,
marsh blow-outs, salt pannes, and sand
or mud flats that may be classified by
some States as open water if they are
submerged during high tides.
Additionally, open waters at inlets are
regularly reshaped by natural coastal
processes that create and maintain
dynamic and ephemeral rufa red knot
habitat features, such as shoals and
spits.
The areas we propose as critical
habitat for the rufa red knot are
presented below and organized by State,
north to south. Brief descriptions of all
units and subunits are presented,
including the reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat for the rufa
red knot. All units contain one or more
of the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species and that may require special
management considerations or
protection. Also, many of the proposed
units overlap in part or whole with
existing critical habitat designated for
other federally threatened species (i.e.,
the piping plover (Charadrius melodus),
the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta
caretta), the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser
oxyrinchus desotoi), and the West
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37421
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus)),
and one federally endangered species
(i.e., the aboriginal prickly-apple
(Harrisia aboriginum)), as specified
below (Table 2).
Additional considerations include:
(1) Most of the units contain highly
dynamic barrier beaches and intertidal
seashore areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide. This
area has the potential to vary year-toyear. In other words, the precise
location of the physical or biological
features may shift daily as a result of
tides, but also may shift over time
somewhat because of the intrinsically
dynamic nature of shorelines and due to
sea level rise. In general, the physical or
biological features we describe are the
intertidal areas and sandy beaches up to
the vegetated or developed areas that do
not contain the physical or biological
features.
(2) The availability of different
habitats based on the tide cycle may
also cause rufa red knots to vary
foraging or roosting locations
throughout a day and/or forage at night.
TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT LAND OWNERSHIP AND UNIT SIZE FOR THE RUFA RED KNOT
Critical habitat unit or subunit name
(state)
Approximate
acres
Land ownership by type
Approximate
hectares
Massachusetts
MA–1
Pleasant Bay .....................................................................
MA–2
Monomoy and South Beach Islands .................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
126
0
1,596
2,634
51
0
646
1,066
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
4,357
4,047
0
1,045
0
1,763
1,638
0
423
0
Total .....................................................
5,093
2,061
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
78
63
163
697
32
25
66
282
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,001
0
710
1,111
0
405
0
287
450
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,821
5,458
0
0
0
737
2,209
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
5,458
2,209
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,560
3,187
10
4,961
632
1,291
4
2,006
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
9,719
0
0
536
0
3,933
0
0
217
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
536
0
175
735
721
217
0
71
297
292
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
1,631
128
0
0
660
52
0
0
New York
NY–1
Moriches Inlet ....................................................................
NY–2
Jones Inlet .........................................................................
NY–3
Jamaica Bay ......................................................................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
New Jersey
NJ–1
Brigantine and Little Egg Inlets ..........................................
NJ–2
Seven Mile Beach ..............................................................
NJ–3
Hereford Inlet .....................................................................
NJ–4
Two Mile Beach .................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37422
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT LAND OWNERSHIP AND UNIT SIZE FOR THE RUFA RED KNOT—Continued
Critical habitat unit or subunit name
(state)
Approximate
acres
Land ownership by type
NJ–5
Cape May Bayshore ..........................................................
NJ–6
Dennis Creek .....................................................................
NJ–7
Heislerville ..........................................................................
NJ–8
Egg Island ..........................................................................
NJ–9
Newport Neck .....................................................................
Approximate
hectares
Uncategorized .............................................
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
128
133
44
167
858
52
54
18
67
347
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,202
0
279
0
0
487
0
113
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
279
0
524
459
127
113
0
211
186
52
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,110
0
1,908
32
14
449
0
773
13
5
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,955
0
202
176
93
791
0
82
71
38
Total .....................................................
472
191
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
0
37
3
3
0
15
1
1
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
43
0
1
2
0
18
0
0.5
0.6
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
3
0
2
91
0
1
0
1
37
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
93
0
0
70
0
37
0
0
29
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
70
0
32
0
29
29
0
13
0
12
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
61
0
1,139
153
6
25
0
461
62
2
Total .....................................................
1,298
525
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Delaware
DE–1A
St. Jones North ...............................................................
DE–1B
St. Jones South ...............................................................
DE–2A
North Brokonbridge Gut ..................................................
DE–2B
South Brokonbridge Gut .................................................
DE–3A
Main Harbor ....................................................................
DE–3B
Rawley Island Roost .......................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37423
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT LAND OWNERSHIP AND UNIT SIZE FOR THE RUFA RED KNOT—Continued
Critical habitat unit or subunit name
DE–3C
DE–4
(state)
Approximate
acres
Land ownership by type
Slaughter Beach .............................................................
Prime Hook ........................................................................
Approximate
hectares
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1
59
2
528
0.25
24
1
213
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
590
480
0
6
63
239
195
0
2
25
Total .....................................................
549
222
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
2,817
0
0
0
1,140
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
2,817
540
0
0
0
1,140
218
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
540
31
0
0
0
218
13
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
31
633
0
0
0
13
256
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
633
64
56
1,239
110
256
26
22
502
44
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,468
203
77
920
1,074
594
82
31
372
434
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
2,274
0
0
5,631
1,171
920
0
0
2,280
473
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
6,802
0
1,224
285
495
2,753
0
496
116
200
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
2,004
0
16
2,966
253
811
0
7
1,201
101
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
3,235
0
16
1,778
1,309
0
7
720
Virginia
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
VA–1
Assateague Island .............................................................
VA–2A
Wallops Island North .......................................................
VA–2B
Wallops Island South ......................................................
VA–3
Assawoman Island .............................................................
VA–4
Metompkin Island ...............................................................
VA–5
Cedar Island ......................................................................
VA–6
Parramore Island ...............................................................
VA–7
Chimney Pole Marsh .........................................................
VA–8
Hog Island ..........................................................................
VA–9
Cobb Island ........................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37424
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT LAND OWNERSHIP AND UNIT SIZE FOR THE RUFA RED KNOT—Continued
Critical habitat unit or subunit name
(state)
Approximate
acres
Land ownership by type
VA–10
Little Cobb Island .............................................................
VA–11
Wreck Island ....................................................................
VA–12
Myrtle Island ....................................................................
VA–13
Smith Island .....................................................................
Approximate
hectares
Uncategorized .............................................
547
221
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
2,342
0
0
82
0
948
0
0
33
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
82
0
1,270
0
0
33
0
514
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,270
0
0
1,028
388
514
0
0
417
156
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,416
0
0
2,529
0
573
0
0
1,024
0
Total .....................................................
2,529
1,024
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
4,940
0
0
814
1,999
0
0
329
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
5,754
1,427
3,612
0
575
2,329
577
1,462
0
233
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
5,613
6,534
0
0
1,654
2,271
2,644
0
0
669
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
8,187
3,094
0
0
0
3,313
1,252
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
3,094
4,972
0
0
0
1,252
2,012
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
4,972
0
1,908
122
0
2,012
0
772
50
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
2,030
0
0
1,612
0
822
0
0
652
0
Total .....................................................
1,612
652
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
North Carolina
NC–1A
Hatteras Island and Shoals ............................................
NC–1B
Ocracoke Island ..............................................................
NC–2A
North Core Banks ...........................................................
NC–2B
South Core Banks ...........................................................
NC–3
Shackleford Island .............................................................
NC–4
Emerald Isle-Atlantic Beach ..............................................
NC–5
New Topsail Inlet-Topsail Beach ......................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37425
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT LAND OWNERSHIP AND UNIT SIZE FOR THE RUFA RED KNOT—Continued
Critical habitat unit or subunit name
(state)
Approximate
acres
Land ownership by type
NC–6
Cape Fear-Fort Fisher .......................................................
NC–7
Ocean Isle Beach ..............................................................
NC–8
Sunset Beach-Bird Island ..................................................
Approximate
hectares
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
0
1,713
274
0.00
0
693
111
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,986
0
182
116
0
804
0
73
47
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
298
0
345
39
0
120
0
139
16
0
Total .....................................................
384
155
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
0
267
349
0
0
108
141
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
616
0
80
1,554
0
249
0
32
629
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,634
0
7,843
129
283
661
0
3,174
52
115
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
8,256
0
8,312
0
0
3,341
0
3,364
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
8,312
775
495
0
0
3,364
313
200
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,270
1,552
485
0
0
514
628
196
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
2,037
5,324
0
0
0
824
2,154
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
5,324
415
0
0
0
2,154
168
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
415
5,200
941
0
168
2,104
381
0
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
South Carolina
SC–1
Garden City Beach ............................................................
SC–2
Huntington Beach State Park/Litchfield Beach .................
SC–3
Sand and South Island Beaches .......................................
SC–4
Murphy Island Beach .........................................................
SC–5
North Cape Island Beach ..................................................
SC–6
South Cape and Lighthouse Island Beaches ....................
SC–7
Raccoon Key Complex and White Banks Beaches ..........
SC–8
Marsh Island ......................................................................
SC–9
Bulls Island Beach .............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37426
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT LAND OWNERSHIP AND UNIT SIZE FOR THE RUFA RED KNOT—Continued
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Critical habitat unit or subunit name
(state)
SC–10
Capers Island Beach .......................................................
SC–11
Dewees Island Beach ......................................................
SC–12
Isle of Palms Beach ........................................................
SC–13
Sullivan’s Island Beach ...................................................
SC–14
Folly Beach ......................................................................
SC–15
Bird Key-Stono ................................................................
SC–16
Kiawah and Seabrook Island Beaches ...........................
SC–17
Deveaux Bank .................................................................
SC–18
Edisto Island Beaches .....................................................
SC–19
Pine and Otter Island Beaches .......................................
SC–20
Harbor and Hunting Island Beaches ...............................
SC–21
Fripp Island Beach ..........................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Approximate
acres
Land ownership by type
Approximate
hectares
Uncategorized .............................................
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
6,141
0
2,534
0
0
2,485
0
1,026
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
2,534
0
265
1,547
0
1,026
0
107
626
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,812
0
754
3,363
0
733
0
305
1,361
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
4,117
83
694
1,005
0
1,666
34
281
407
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,782
0
0
1,989
0
721
0
0
805
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,989
0
294
0
0
805
0
119
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
294
0
1,399
9,850
0
119
0
566
3,986
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
11,250
0
1,328
0
0
4,553
0
538
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,328
0
650
1,093
0
538
0
263
442
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,743
0
6,296
6
0
705
0
2,548
2
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
6,302
0
3,246
820
0
2,550
0
1,313
331
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
4,066
0
305
429
1,645
0
124
174
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37427
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT LAND OWNERSHIP AND UNIT SIZE FOR THE RUFA RED KNOT—Continued
Critical habitat unit or subunit name
(state)
Approximate
acres
Land ownership by type
SC–22
Hilton Head Island Beach ................................................
SC–23
Daufuskie Island Beach ...................................................
SC–24
Turtle Island Beach .........................................................
SC–25
Jones Island Beach .........................................................
Approximate
hectares
Uncategorized .............................................
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
734
0
1,015
667
0
297
0
411
270
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,682
0
0
6,370
0
681
0
0
2,578
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
6,370
0
1,798
0
0
2,578
0
728
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,798
785
2,240
0
0
728
318
907
0
0
Total .....................................................
3,025
1,225
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
0
6
1,721
319
0
2
697
129
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
2,046
0
0
8,265
0
828
0
0
3,345
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
8,265
3,001
0
274
1,020
3,345
1,215
0
111
412
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
4,296
0
1,599
0
0
1,738
0
647
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,599
0
28,621
0
3,736
647
0
11,591
0
1,503
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
32,357
0
2,106
11,810
2,046
13,094
0
853
4,783
824
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
15,962
4,954
80
0
1,287
6,460
2,006
32
0
519
Total .....................................................
6,321
2,557
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Georgia
GA–1
Tybee Island Beach ..........................................................
GA–2
Little Tybee Island Complex ..............................................
GA–3
Wassaw Island Beach .......................................................
GA–4
Raccoon Key .....................................................................
GA–5
Ossabaw Island Beach .....................................................
GA–6
St. Catherine’s Island Beach .............................................
GA–7
Blackbeard Island Beach ..................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37428
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT LAND OWNERSHIP AND UNIT SIZE FOR THE RUFA RED KNOT—Continued
Critical habitat unit or subunit name
GA–8
(state)
Approximate
acres
Land ownership by type
Sapelo Island Beach .........................................................
GA–9 Wolf Island, Egg Island, Little Egg Island, and Little Egg
Island Bar.
GA–10
Little St. Simon’s Island Beach .......................................
GA–11
Sea and St. Simon’s Island Beaches .............................
GA–12
Jekyll Island Beach .........................................................
GA–13
Little Cumberland and Cumberland Island Beaches ......
Approximate
hectares
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
0
2,481
0
0
0
845
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
2,481
2,975
845
1,204
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
240
0
2,093
97
0
847
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
5,308
0
113
7,462
1,479
2,148
0
46
3,022
596
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
9,053
0
4
3,448
581
3,664
0
1
1,395
235
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
4,033
0
5,944
0
343
1,631
0
2,406
0
139
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
6,287
23,367
1,685
0
3,085
2,545
9,464
682
0
1,241
Total .....................................................
28,137
11,387
Federal ........................................................
996
404
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
522
27
2,779
211
11
6,116
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
4,324
16,660
3,005
0
18
6,742
6,742
1,216
0
7
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
19,683
6,947
0
0
0
7,965
2,811
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
6,947
13,138
12,605
0
470
2,811
5,321
5,105
0
182
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
26,213
0
408
8
0
10,608
0
165
3
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
416
0
168
0
Florida
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
FL–1 Nassau Sound-Fort George Sound-Fort George Inlet
Complex.
FL–2
Ponce Inlet Complex ..........................................................
FL–3
Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Impoundments ......
FL–4A
Cape Romano Complex ..................................................
FL–4B
Marco Island ....................................................................
FL–5
Marco Bay Complex ...........................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37429
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT LAND OWNERSHIP AND UNIT SIZE FOR THE RUFA RED KNOT—Continued
Critical habitat unit or subunit name
Cocohatchee Inlet Complex .............................................
FL–6B
Barefoot Beach ................................................................
FL–7A
Lovers Key .......................................................................
FL–7B
Estero Island ....................................................................
Bunche Beach ....................................................................
FL–9A
J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling National Wildlife Refuge ..................
FL–9B
Sanibel Island ..................................................................
FL–10A
Don Pedro ......................................................................
FL–10B
Stump Pass Beach State Park ......................................
FL–11
Siesta Key ........................................................................
FL–12A
Lido Key .........................................................................
FL–12B
Longboat Key .................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Approximate
acres
Land ownership by type
FL–6A
FL–8
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(state)
Approximate
hectares
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
3,531
58
0
1,429
24
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
3,589
0
9
0
0
1,453
0
4
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
9
0
18
21
0
4
0
7
9
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
39
0
4
0
0
16
0
1
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
4
0
171
0
0
1
0
69
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
171
23
264
47
0
69
9
107
19
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
334
3,451
0
0
0
135
1,397
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
3,451
307
0
0
0
1,397
124
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
307
0
147
0
0
124
0
60
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
147
0
11
0
0
60
0
4
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
11
0
53
0
0
4
0
21
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
53
0
81
0
0
21
0
33
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
81
0
33
0
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37430
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT LAND OWNERSHIP AND UNIT SIZE FOR THE RUFA RED KNOT—Continued
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Critical habitat unit or subunit name
(state)
FL–13
North Anna Maria Island ..................................................
FL–14
Egmont Key ......................................................................
FL–15A
Fort De Soto County Park .............................................
FL–15B
Shell Key Preserve ........................................................
FL–15C
Saint Petersburg Beach .................................................
FL–16
Indian Shores/Redington Beach ......................................
FL–17
Belleair Beach ..................................................................
FL–18A
Caladesi Island ..............................................................
FL–18B
Honeymoon Island .........................................................
FL–18C
Three Rooker Bar ..........................................................
FL–19
Anclote Key ......................................................................
FL–20
Cedar Keys Complex .......................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Approximate
acres
Land ownership by type
Approximate
hectares
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
369
0
0
149
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
369
56
889
0
0
149
23
360
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
945
15
0
0
0
383
6
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
15
0
0
427
0
6
0
0
173
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
427
0
322
0
0
173
0
130
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
322
0
107
0
0
130
0
43
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
107
0
196
0
0
43
0
79
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
196
0
123
0
0
79
0
50
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
123
0
259
0
0
50
0
105
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
259
0
294
0
0
105
0
119
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
294
0
335
0
0
119
0
136
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
335
0
1,547
0
0
136
0
626
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
1,547
2,498
626
1,012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37431
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT LAND OWNERSHIP AND UNIT SIZE FOR THE RUFA RED KNOT—Continued
Critical habitat unit or subunit name
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
FL–21
(state)
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge ..................................
FL–22A
Mashes Sands ...............................................................
FL–22B
Bald Point State Park ....................................................
FL–22C
Alligator Point .................................................................
FL–23A
Turkey Point Shoal ........................................................
FL–23B
Lanark Reef ...................................................................
FL–23C
East Dog Island .............................................................
FL–23D
West Dog Island ............................................................
FL–23E
McKissack Beach, Carrabelle ........................................
FL–23F
East St. George Island State Park ................................
FL–23G
St. George Island State Park and Bayshore Shoals ....
FL–24A
Little St. George Island State Park-West ......................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Approximate
acres
Land ownership by type
Approximate
hectares
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
7,792
5,928
19,407
3,153
2,293
7,959
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
35,626
2,074
0
0
0
14,417
839
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
2,074
0
262
0
0
839
0
106
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
262
0
439
6
0
106
0
178
2
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
445
0
0
722
0
180
0
0
292
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
722
0
531
0
0
292
0
215
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
531
0
805
61
0
215
0
326
25
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
865
0
0
771
0
350
0
0
312
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
771
0
0
751
0
312
0
0
304
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
751
0
114
3
0
304
0
46
1
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
117
0
978
0
0
47
0
396
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
978
0
162
0
0
396
0
65
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
162
0
65
0
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37432
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT LAND OWNERSHIP AND UNIT SIZE FOR THE RUFA RED KNOT—Continued
Critical habitat unit or subunit name
(state)
Approximate
acres
Land ownership by type
FL–24B
St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge ..............................
FL–24C
Flagg Island Shoals .......................................................
FL–25A
Cape San Blas to Indian Pass ......................................
FL–25B
St. Joseph Bay-Eastern Shore ......................................
Approximate
hectares
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
953
0
0
386
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
953
742
0
0
0
386
300
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
742
0
517
0
0
300
0
209
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
517
0
133
486
0
209
0
54
197
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
620
0
761
66
0
251
0
308
27
0
Total .....................................................
827
335
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
484
848
3,834
0
196
343
1,552
0
Total .....................................................
5,167
2,091
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
2,452
0
0
0
993
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
2,452
686
1,305
129
0
993
278
528
52
0
Total .....................................................
2,121
858
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
7,632
0
0
0
3,088
0
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
7,632
0
126
7,669
0
3,088
0
51
3,104
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
7,795
0
2,900
2,172
3,155
0
1,173
879
Alabama
AL–1
Dauphin Island ...................................................................
Mississippi
MS–1
Ship Island ........................................................................
MS–2
Cat Island ..........................................................................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Louisiana
LA–1
Chandeleur Islands ............................................................
LA–2
Barataria Barrier Islands and Headlands ...........................
LA–3
Terrebonne Barrier Islands ................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37433
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT LAND OWNERSHIP AND UNIT SIZE FOR THE RUFA RED KNOT—Continued
Critical habitat unit or subunit name
LA–4
(state)
Approximate
acres
Land ownership by type
Southwest Louisiana Beaches ...........................................
Approximate
hectares
Uncategorized .............................................
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
5,072
0
1,497
4,633
0
2,052
0
606
1,875
0
Total .....................................................
6,130
2,481
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
0
268
996
0
0
108
403
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,264
0
307
282
0
511
0
124
114
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
590
0
1,075
128
0
239
0
438
52
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,204
0
395
253
0
487
0
160
102
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
648
0
505
218
0
262
0
205
88
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
723
2,487
68
262
0
293
1,007
27
106
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
2,817
273
816
68
0
1,140
111
330
28
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
1,157
9,731
23,042
0
0
469
3,938
9,332
0
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
32,773
25,881
34,165
34,125
0
13,270
10,482
13,826
13,802
0
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
94,171
8,145
38,110
3,296
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
25,316
2,190
0
10,245
886
0
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Texas
TX–1
Rollover Pass to Bolivar Flats ...........................................
TX–2
West Galveston Island .......................................................
TX–3
Cedar Lake to Colorado River ...........................................
TX–4
Mustang Island ...................................................................
TX–5
Mollie Beattie Coastal Habitat ...........................................
TX–6
North Padre Island .............................................................
TX–7
Upper Laguna Madre/Nighthawk Bay ................................
TX–8
Dagger Hill/Yarborough Pass/Nine Mile Hole ...................
TX–9
Pintail Lake/Padre Island/La Punta Larga .........................
TX–10 Peyton’s Bay/Arroyo Colorado/Three Islands/Gabrielson
Island.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37434
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT LAND OWNERSHIP AND UNIT SIZE FOR THE RUFA RED KNOT—Continued
Critical habitat unit or subunit name
TX–11
(state)
Approximate
acres
Land ownership by type
South Bay/Boca Chica .....................................................
Approximate
hectares
Total .....................................................
Federal ........................................................
State ............................................................
Private/Other ...............................................
Uncategorized .............................................
35,651
5,536
3,923
5,784
0
14,427
2,242
1,589
2,342
0
Total .....................................................
15,243
6,173
Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
TABLE 2—CO-OCCURRING CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATIONS THAT OVERLAP PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR RUFA
RED KNOT
Area of overlap with designated critical habitat in acres (ac)/hectares (ha)
overlapping)
(# of proposed rufa red knot units or subunits
State
Piping plover
North Carolina ...
South Carolina ...
Georgia ..............
Florida ................
Alabama ............
Mississippi .........
Louisiana ...........
Texas .................
Total ...........
10,621 ac/4,298 ha
(10).
4,955 ac/2,005 ha(13)
15,369 ac/6,220
ha(12).
7,617 ac/3,082 ha
(20).
2,381 ac/963 ha (1) ...
4,538 ac/1,837 ha (2)
17,154 ac/6,942 ha
(4).
153,726 ac/62,211 ha
(11).
216,361 ac/87,558 ha
(73).
Total overlap
(combined)
for each state
in acres (ac)/
hectares (ha)
Loggerhead sea turtle
West indian manatee
Gulf sturgeon
Aboriginal
prickly-apple
3,523 ac/1,426 ha(3)
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
13,874 ac/5,614 ha.
5,315 ac/2,151 ha(12)
10,903 ac/4,412 ha(7)
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
9,302 ac/3,764 ha.
21,698 ac/8,781 ha.
7,114 ac/2,879 ha
(17).
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
20,720 ac/8,385 ha
(11).
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
8,970 ac/3,630 ha(11)
77 ac/31 ha (4) ..........
37,801 ac/15,297 ha.
N/A .............................
1,866 ac/755 ha (2) ...
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
2,381 ac/963 ha.
4,488 ac/ 1,816 ha.
17,154 ac/6,942 ha.
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
153,726 ac/62,211 ha.
26,855 ac/10,868 ha
(39).
20,720 ac/8,385 ha
(11).
10,836 ac/4,385 ha
(13).
77 ac/31 ha (4) ..........
260,424 ac/105,388
ha.
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
We present brief descriptions of all
units and subunits, and reasons why
they meet the definition of critical
habitat for the rufa red knot, below.
Unit MA–1: Pleasant Bay
Unit MA–1 consists of approximately
4,357 ac (1,763 ha) of highly dynamic
barrier beaches and intertidal (i.e.,
seashore that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide) areas in the
towns of Chatham and Orleans in
Barnstable County, Massachusetts. The
unit includes exposed intertidal flats,
shoals, mudflats, and intertidal salt
marsh pannes in Little Pleasant Bay and
Pleasant Bay, and ephemeral tidal pools,
primary sand dunes, and beaches
associated with Nauset Beach South
(Orleans), North Beach (Chatham), and
North Beach Island (Chatham). The unit
begins in the mid-section of Little
Pleasant Bay going east to ‘‘mean lower
low water’’ (MLLW; i.e., the lowest of
the low tides per day averaged over a
19-year period) on the east side of
Nauset Beach South, continuing south
along Nauset Beach South and North
Beach to North Beach Island at MLLW
and terminating at the natural channel
between North Beach Island and South
Beach Island (Chatham). The western
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
side of the unit runs offshore of the
mainland, west of small islands in
Pleasant and Little Pleasant Bays (Little
Sipson Island, Strong Island, and Tern
Island), incorporating intertidal lands
associated with the islands. Lands
within this unit include approximately
126 ac (51 ha; 3 percent) in Federal
ownership, 1,596 ac (646 ha; 37 percent)
in private/other ownership, and 2,634
ac (1,066 ha; 60 percent) that are
uncategorized. General land use within
this unit is primarily recreational,
including off-shore and surf fishing,
shellfish digging, (both recreational and
commercial), boating, over-sand vehicle
use, sunbathing, swimming, and
walking.
Unit MA–1 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. The
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site in the New England
portion of the subspecies range.
Additionally, this location consistently
supports a few thousand migrating rufa
red knots due to the large intertidal
areas and beach habitat that provides
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
multiple foraging and roosting habitat
areas for the birds to build energy
resources for migration.
Threats identified within Unit MA–1
include disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by humans and
human activities including but not
limited to, pets and domestic animals,
ORVs, powered and unpowered boats,
surf kites, and surf fishing, predation
(especially by migrating raptors and
owls), possible modification or loss of
habitat (e.g., dredging or mining of sand
flats), and natural or human-caused
disasters (i.e., oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent saltmarsh
and upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), and addressing the impacts
of potential oil spills through protective
spill response plans and training (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). The National Park
Service (NPS) manages Cape Cod
National Seashore under a
comprehensive shorebird management
plan (NPS 2018, entire) (Shorebird
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Plan). However, due to the small and
isolated nature of NPS inholdings in
this unit, these areas are not actively
managed under the Shorebird Plan.
Unit MA–2: Monomoy and South Beach
Islands
Unit MA–2 consists of 5,093 ac (2,061
ha) of highly dynamic barrier beaches
and intertidal areas in the town of
Chatham in Barnstable County,
Massachusetts. The unit includes
exposed intertidal sand and mud flats
and shoals, ephemeral tidal pools,
saltmarsh, primary sand dunes, and
beaches associated with North and
South Monomoy Islands, Minimoy
Island, and the South Beach Island
complex (multiple islands associated
with South Beach as the island naturally
grows and splits over time). The
northeastern tip of the unit incorporates
the South Beach Island complex and
adjacent intertidal sand and mud flats
and shoals, and runs south to include
North and South Monomoy Islands,
Minimoy Island (part of the Monomoy
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)), and
the extensive intertidal sand flats
adjacent to the islands and south of
Morris Island (Chatham). Lands within
this unit include approximately 4,047 ac
(1,638 ha; 79 percent) in Federal
ownership and 1,045 ac (423 ha; 21
percent) in private/other ownership.
General land use within this unit is
recreational, including off-shore and
surf fishing, shellfish digging, boating,
sunbathing, swimming, wildlife
observation, and walking. Commercial
shellfish harvesting and research also
occur.
Unit MA–2 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site in the New England
portion of the subspecies range.
Additionally, this location consistently
supports a few thousand migrating rufa
red knots due to the large intertidal
areas and beach habitat that provides
multiple foraging and roosting habitat
areas for the birds to build energy
resources for migration.
With the exception of the designated
wilderness area on Monomoy NWR that
incorporates North and South Monomoy
Islands and Minimoy Island, the threats
identified within Unit MA–2 include
disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa
red knots by humans and human
activities, including pets and domestic
animals, powered and unpowered boats,
surf kites, and surf fishing. Predation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(especially by migrating raptors and
owls) and human-caused or natural
disasters may affect the entire unit.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent saltmarsh
and upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), and addressing the impacts
of potential oil spills with protective
spill response plans and training (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Management that
benefits rufa red knots or their habitat
in this unit currently occurs primarily
on Federal lands, which are managed
under the 2016 Monomoy NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(Service 2016b, entire). Ongoing
research occurs throughout this unit as
funds and staffing allow.
Unit NY–1: Moriches Inlet
Unit NY–1 consists of 1,001 ac (405
ha) of highly dynamic beach, sand flats,
bay islands, back bay shoreline,
intertidal areas, and surface water
within the towns of Brookhaven and
Southampton, Suffolk County, New
York. Lands within this unit include
approximately 78 ac (32 ha; 8 percent)
in Federal ownership; 63 ac (25 ha; 6
percent) in State ownership, 163 ac (66
ha; 16 percent) in private/other
(including the towns of Brookhaven and
Southampton) ownership, and 697 ac
(282 ha; 70 percent) that are
uncategorized. The unit is irregularly
shaped and bounded to the south by the
Atlantic Ocean, to the west by West
Inlet Island (Brookhaven), and to the
east by the sand spit north of the Village
of West Hampton Dunes (Southampton).
Its northern boundary lies
approximately in the middle of
Moriches Bay at the widest portion of
the unit. Additionally, the northern and
southern areas of the unit are not
contiguous, as they are separated by a
vegetated dune, parking lot, and
roadway system. General land use
within this unit is recreational activities
(e.g., fishing, bird watching, boating,
open space use) and commercial shell
fishing. Coastal engineering structures
are generally limited to the inlet jetty
and revetment along the north side of
Cupsogue Beach (stretches from Riches
Inlet to the border of the Village of West
Hampton Dunes), but beach
nourishment programs are implemented
along the ocean beach by the Corps (via
coordination and agreements with the
State of New York and Suffolk County).
Unit NY–1 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37435
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
The area has a relatively undeveloped
character that provides protection from
intensive human uses. Episodic storm
events have also contributed to habitat
creation, and, in turn, optimal rufa red
knot habitat conditions. The bay islands
and associated wetlands are managed
for wildlife, which provides some limits
to the amount of disturbance that rufa
red knots or their habitat may
experience from recreation and other
human activities (e.g., commercial shell
fishing, dredging, and shoreline dock/
pier projects).
Threats identified within Unit NY–1
include: (1) Sea level rise; (2) coastal
engineering activities (e.g., beach
nourishment; jetty maintenance; and
dredging that could remove habitat,
preclude the formation of habitat such
as exposed shoals, and impact adjacent
shoreline habitats by altering currents
and sediment transport/deposition
patterns); (3) predation in nonbreeding
areas; and (4) human disturbance (e.g.,
recreational fishing and driving, and
motorized boat traffic or aircraft that
create noise disturbance). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
reducing disturbance (e.g., humans,
pets, vehicles, watercraft), conducting
predator control, and implementing
conservation measures that help reduce
modification or loss of habitat from hard
and soft beach stabilization efforts (e.g.,
time-of-year restrictions for beach
nourishment and dredging activities,
establishing temporary sanctuaries and
management during certain times of
year to address erosion) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands (both
marine and estuarine habitats within
this unit) are managed in cooperation
with the New York State Wildlife
Action Plan (New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation 2015, entire).
Additionally, the designated South
Shore Estuary Reserve implements a
Comprehensive Management Plan
(South Shore Estuary Reserve Council
2001, entire), which encompasses both
Units NY–1 and NY–2, and serves as a
guidance document for municipalities
and private/public sectors to conserve
or protect habitats and waters within the
Reserve.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37436
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Unit NY–2: Jones Inlet
Unit NY–2 consists of 1,821 ac (737
ha) in two areas within the Town of
Hempstead, Nassau County, New York.
This unit is composed of ocean beach
habitat, sand flats, bay islands, and
small embayments. It is irregularly
shaped and is bounded to the south by
the Atlantic Ocean, to the west by Point
Lookout, to the north by a line running
in Hempstead Bay, and to the east at the
eastern extent of Zachs Bay. The
northern and southern areas of the unit
are not contiguous, as they are separated
by a vegetated dune, parking lot, and
roadway system. Lands within NY–2
include approximately 710 ac (287 ha;
39 percent) in State ownership and
1,111 ac (450 ha; 61 percent) that are
under private/other ownership. General
land use includes recreational activities
such as bird watching, surfcast fishing,
sunbathing, nature walks, swimming,
boat fishing, commercial and
recreational fishing and shell fishing.
Coastal engineering structures, as well
as docks and piers, are generally limited
to (or associated with) the Jones Inlet
jetties and revetments, Loop Parkway
bridge, and along the north side of Jones
Island near the U.S. Coast Guard Station
Jones Beach, and in Zach’s Bay.
Unit NY–2 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
This location has a relatively
undeveloped character that provides
protection from intensive human uses
that occur throughout the majority of
Long Island and surrounding area.
Episodic storm events have also
contributed to habitat creation, and, in
turn, optimal rufa red knot habitat
conditions. The bay islands and
associated wetlands are managed for
wildlife, which provides some limits to
the amount of disturbance that rufa red
knots or their habitat may experience
from recreation, channel maintenance
activities (e.g., dredging and dredge
material disposal), and vector control
activities (e.g., aerial mosquito
spraying).
Threats identified within Unit NY–2
include: (1) Sea level rise; (2) coastal
engineering activities (e.g., jetty
maintenance; dredging that could
remove habitat, preclude the formation
of habitat such as exposed shoals, and
impact adjacent shoreline habitats by
altering currents and sediment
transport/deposition patterns); (3)
predation in nonbreeding areas; and (4)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
human disturbance (e.g., recreational
fishing and driving, and motorized boat
traffic or aircraft that create noise
disturbance). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include reducing disturbance (e.g.,
humans, pets, vehicles, and watercraft),
conducting predator control, and
implementing conservation measures
that help reduce modification or loss of
habitat from hard and soft beach
stabilization efforts (e.g., time-of-year
restrictions for beach nourishment and
dredging activities, establishing
temporary sanctuaries and management
during certain times of year to address
erosion) (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
State lands (both marine and estuarine
habitats within this unit) are managed
in cooperation with the New York State
Wildlife Action Plan (New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation 2015, entire).
Additionally, the designated South
Shore Estuary Reserve implements a
Comprehensive Management Plan
(South Shore Estuary Reserve Council
2001, entire), which encompasses both
this unit and Unit NY–1, and serves as
a guidance document for municipalities
and private/public sectors to conserve
or protect habitats and waters within the
Reserve.
Unit NY–3: Jamaica Bay
Unit NY–3 consists of a total of 5,458
ac (2,209 ha) in Queens County, New
York, and falls within a back bay that
is primarily within the NPS’ Jamaica
Bay Wildlife Refuge, Gateway National
Recreation Area. This unit is irregularly
shaped and is bounded in the north by
a line running roughly between the
northernmost bay islands and the
mainland of Long Island, in the west by
a line running roughly between the
westernmost bay islands and the
mainland of Long Island, in the east by
a line running offshore of East Pond,
and in the south by a line running
between the southernmost bay islands
and the Rockaway Barrier Spit. Lands
within NY–2 are all in Federal
ownership. General land use within this
unit includes recreational activities
(e.g., wildlife viewing, bird watching,
recreational fishing, and use of open
space) and development. Coastal
engineering structures, as well as docks
and piers, are generally limited to the
residential and commercial
development at Broad Channel and the
railroad and bridge infrastructure.
Unit NY–3 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site, in
part due to its expansive wetlands and
associated flats that are protected from
intensive human uses. Episodic storm
events have contributed to habitat
creation, and, in turn, optimal rufa red
knot habitat conditions. The bay islands
and associated wetlands are managed
for wildlife, which provides some limits
to the amount of disturbance that rufa
red knots or their habitat may
experience from recreation, dredging,
and dredge spoil deposition activities.
Threats identified within Unit NY–3
include: (1) Sea level rise; (2) coastal
engineering activities (e.g., jetty
maintenance; dredging that could
remove habitat, preclude the formation
of habitat such as exposed shoals, and
impact adjacent shoreline habitats by
altering currents and sediment
transport/deposition patterns); (3)
predation in nonbreeding areas; and (4)
human disturbance (e.g., recreational
fishing and driving, and motorized boat
traffic or aircraft that create noise
disturbance). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include reducing disturbance (e.g.,
humans, pets, vehicles, and watercraft),
conducting predator control, and
implementing conservation measures
that help reduce modification or loss of
habitat from hard and soft beach
stabilization efforts (e.g., time-of-year
restrictions for beach nourishment and
dredging activities, establishing
temporary sanctuaries and management
during certain times of year to address
erosion) (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
The Federal lands are managed by the
NPS via the NPS Gateway National
Recreation Area Final General
Management Plan/Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) dated April 2014
(NPS 2014a, entire), which provides a
management plan for Jamaica Bay
Wildlife Refuge (included, in part, in
the proposed critical habitat
designation).
Unit NJ–1: Brigantine and Little Egg
Inlets
Unit NJ–1 consists of 9,719 ac (3,933
ha) of beach, dune, shoals, open water,
and tidal marsh associated with two
inlets (i.e., small arms of the ocean) in
Ocean and Atlantic Counties, New
Jersey, extending from the northern
boundary of the Holgate Unit of Edwin
B. Forsythe (Forsythe) NWR, west to the
‘‘Seven Islands’’ portion of Great Bay
Boulevard Wildlife Management Area,
and south nearly to 15th Street North in
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Brigantine City. To the north, the unit
encompasses the Holgate Unit of the
Forsythe NWR and includes several
areas within the Great Bay Boulevard
Wildlife Management Area, owned by
the State of New Jersey (e.g., Seven
Islands and other islands on either side
of Great Bay Boulevard south of Big
Sheepshead Creek). The unit also
includes portions of Little Beach Island
within the Forsythe NWR, and portions
of the North Brigantine Natural Area
owned by the State of New Jersey. This
unit includes extensive areas of shoals
and sand or mud flats, which are
generally owned by the State. Lands
within this unit include approximately
1,560 ac (632 ha; 16 percent) in Federal
ownership, 3,187 ac (1,291 ha; 32
percent) in State ownership, 10 ac (4 ha;
less than 1 percent) in private/other
ownership, and 4,961 ac (2,006 ha; 51
percent) that are uncategorized. General
land use within this unit is almost
entirely undeveloped and managed for
wildlife and other natural resource
values, as well as recreation.
Unit NJ–1 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. This unit has an
undeveloped character that provides
protection from intensive human uses.
The lack of hard structures and other
coastal engineering practices in this unit
allows optimal rufa red knot habitat
conditions to be created and maintained
by natural coastal processes, which is a
condition that is rare in the midAtlantic. The Little Egg Inlet is the only
unmodified inlet in New Jersey and one
of only two unmodified inlets between
Montauk, New York, and Chincoteague,
Virginia, a shoreline distance of nearly
350 mi (563 km) (Rice 2016, pp. 24–25).
Nearly all the lands in the unit are
managed for wildlife, which limits
disturbance of rufa red knots from
recreation and other human activities.
Threats identified within Unit NJ–1
include: (1) Sea level rise that may
accelerate faster than landforms can
migrate through natural coastal
processes; (2) coastal engineering
activities (e.g., ongoing updrift beach
nourishment; proposed enlargement of a
terminal groin immediately adjacent to
the unit’s northern limit; ongoing and
proposed dredging that could remove
habitat (e.g., exposed shoals), preclude
habitat formation, and/or impact
adjacent shoreline habitats by altering
sediment transport/deposition patterns);
(3) aquaculture leases; (4) predation in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
nonbreeding areas; and (5) human
disturbance (e.g., recreational fishing
and driving in the fall, motorized boat
traffic and aircraft year round). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing sources of disturbance (e.g.,
humans, pets, vehicles, watercraft, and
aircraft), managing predator
populations, and implementing
conservation measures to abate habitat
impacts from coastal engineering
projects and from sea level rise (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands in this
unit are managed under the Edwin B.
Forsythe NWR Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (Service 2004a,
entire). State lands within the North
Brigantine Natural Area are covered by
a Beach Management Plan (Service and
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection 2019, entire).
Unit NJ–2: Seven Mile Beach
Unit NJ–2 consists of 536 ac (217 ha)
of sandy ocean-front beach in Avalon
and Stone Harbor Boroughs, Cape May
County, New Jersey, from the jetty at 8th
Street in Avalon near Townsends Inlet
and extending south to 102nd Street in
Stone Harbor. The western boundary of
the unit is landward of the beach and
primary dune along the vegetation line
where the habitat changes from sandy
beach or dune with little vegetation to
dense herbaceous or shrub vegetation or
along developed structures when
present. The eastern boundary includes
emergent sand shoals and sand flats
exposed at low tide. All lands within
this unit are in private/other ownership.
General land use within this unit
includes tourism and recreation; the
beach abuts high-density residential and
commercial development and features
many private and public beach access
points.
Unit NJ–2 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the fall migration
period, serving as an important
southbound stopover site.
Threats identified within Unit NJ–2
include: (1) Coastal engineering
activities (e.g., existing hard
stabilization structures, ongoing beach
nourishment and sediment backpassing,
ongoing sand fencing and vegetation
planting); (2) existing coastal
development that may block beach
migration as sea level rise accelerates;
(3) beach cleaning; (4) predation in
nonbreeding areas (e.g., humansupported feral cat concentrations and
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37437
other human-commensal predators such
as gulls and domestic cats); and (5)
human disturbance (e.g., life-guarded
bathing beaches in late spring and
summer, recreational fishing and
driving in fall, personal watercraft,
aircraft including low and slow-flying
‘‘banner’’ (advertisement) planes).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
sediment management to maintain
habitat features such as wide beaches
and high prey densities, managing
predator populations, addressing beach
management practices such as beach
cleaning and sand fencing, and
managing disturbance from recreation
and other human activities (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). All beaches in this
unit are covered by Beach Management
Plans (Avalon Borough Department of
Public Works and the Avalon
Environmental Commission 2008,
entire; Stone Harbor Borough 2009,
entire).
Unit NJ–3: Hereford Inlet
Unit NJ–3 consists of 1,631 ac (660
ha) of sandy oceanfront beaches,
unstabilized barrier peninsula,
undeveloped marsh islands, and several
areas of tidal flats and shoals in Cape
May County, New Jersey, extending
along the ocean from 111th Street in
Stone Harbor Borough south to 22nd
Avenue in North Wildwood City. The
unit also includes areas behind the
barrier island in Middle Township,
Stone Harbor, and North Wildwood
extending from Stone Harbor Boulevard
south along Great Channel to Nummy
Island and the southern shoreline of
Grassy Sound Channel. Lands within
this unit include approximately 175 ac
(71 ha; 11 percent) in State ownership,
735 ac (297 ha; 45 percent) in private/
other ownership, and 721 ac (292 ha; 44
percent) that are uncategorized. General
land use within this unit varies from
intensively developed recreational
beaches along parts of the ocean front,
to mixed management (i.e., the Stone
Harbor Point municipal conservation
area managed for both wildlife and
lower intensity, passive recreation), to
conservation lands (i.e., the Cape May
Coastal Wetlands Wildlife Management
Area owned by the State of New Jersey).
The unit also includes privately and
municipally owned undeveloped
marshes, as well as tidal shoals and flats
that are generally owned by the State.
Unit NJ–3 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37438
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site on the mid-Atlantic Coast
portion of the subspecies range. This
unit also has extensive areas of
conservation lands that offer protection
from disturbance, as well as the
unstabilized Stone Harbor Point
peninsula. The peninsula not only
supports migrants moving primarily
along the Atlantic Coast, but is also well
documented as among the most
important roosting areas for those spring
migrants that forage primarily in
Delaware Bay (Sitters 2005, pp. 1–12).
Threats identified within Unit NJ–3
include: (1) Sea level rise that may
accelerate faster than landforms can
migrate through natural coastal
processes; (2) coastal engineering
activities (e.g., existing hard
stabilization structures, ongoing beach
nourishment, dredging for beach
nourishment and navigation); (3)
existing coastal development that may
block habitat migration as sea level rise
accelerates; (4) beach cleaning; (5)
predation in nonbreeding areas (e.g.,
peregrine falcons, human-commensal
predators); and (6) human disturbance
(e.g., life-guarded bathing beaches,
fishing, motorized boat traffic including
personal watercraft, aircraft including
low and slow-flying banner planes).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
implementing sediment management to
maintain habitat features such as tidal
flats, overwash areas, and high prey
densities; managing predator
populations; addressing beach
management practices such as beach
cleaning; and managing disturbance
from recreation and other human
activities (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Portions of the municipal beaches
within Stone Harbor Borough, and all
municipal beaches within North
Wildwood City, are covered by Beach
Management Plans (Terwilliger
Consulting, Inc. 2008, entire; North
Wildwood City 2018, entire).
Unit NJ–4: Two Mile Beach
Unit NJ–4 consists of 128 ac (52 ha)
of sandy oceanfront beach in Cape May
County, New Jersey, from the
northeastern boundary of the Two Mile
Beach Unit of Cape May NWR extending
southwest to include all beach portions
of the U.S. Coast Guard Loran Support
Unit, ending at the eastern jetty of the
Cape May Inlet. All lands within this
unit are in Federal ownership (NWR
and U.S. Coast Guard). General land use
within this unit is primarily managed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
for wildlife, but also includes
compatible recreation and public access
on the NWR beach, and certain
activities of the U.S. Coast Guard Loran
Support Unit. Under an inter-agency
agreement, Cape May NWR staff manage
sensitive beach species on both the
NWR and U.S. Coast Guard portions of
the beach.
Unit NJ–4 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots along the mid-Atlantic
Coast’s portion of the subspecies range
during the winter period, providing
important wintering habitat for foraging
and roosting. This area is significant as
the northern-most winter concentration
area documented to date. Birds using
this unit during the late fall and early
winter may be more vulnerable to
disturbance due to molting of the flight
feathers.
Threats identified within Unit NJ–4
include: (1) Sea level rise, (2) coastal
engineering (e.g., existing hard
structures, an overly stabilized dune
system), (3) predation in nonbreeding
areas, and (4) human disturbance (e.g.,
pedestrians, aircraft including low- and
slow-flying banner planes). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
management of dunes, vegetation,
predator populations, and human
activity, including foot and air traffic
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Federal lands in this unit are managed
under the Cape May NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(Service 2004b, entire).
Unit NJ–5: Cape May Bayshore
Unit NJ–5 consists of 1,202 ac (487
ha) of Delaware Bay beaches, flats, and
shoals in Cape May County, New Jersey,
from approximately Cloverdale Avenue
in Lower Township to the jetty on the
south shore of the mouth of Bidwell
Creek in Middle Township. Lands
within this unit include approximately
133 ac (54 ha; 11 percent) in Federal
ownership, 44 ac (18 ha; 4 percent) in
State ownership, 167 ac (67 ha; 14
percent) in private/other ownership,
and 858 ac (347 ha; 71 percent) that are
uncategorized. Areas with narrow
beaches adjoining developed human
communities (e.g., Pierces Point, Reeds
Beach) are not included in the unit.
General land use within this unit
includes residential development,
recreation, wildlife conservation,
aquaculture, and research.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Unit NJ–5 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
This unit also has high concentrations
of horseshoe crab eggs, and wide tidal
flats that are important foraging habitat.
Threats identified within Unit NJ–5
include: (1) Sea level rise that may
accelerate faster than landforms can
migrate through natural coastal
processes; (2) coastal engineering
activities (e.g., existing hard
stabilization structures); (3) existing
coastal development that may block
habitat migration as sea level rise
accelerates; (4) aquaculture; (5)
predation in nonbreeding areas (e.g.,
peregrine falcons); (6) vulnerable food
resources (e.g., past overharvest of
horseshoe crabs), (7) timing
asynchronies (e.g., warming bay waters
or erratic storms that change the peak
timing of horseshoe crab spawning); (8)
oil spills (e.g., upstream petroleum
port); and (9) human disturbance (e.g.,
from personal watercraft and other
motorized boats, aircraft including lowand slow-flying banner planes;
pedestrian traffic is minimal due to a
seasonal beach closure to public access).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include habitat
management or restoration (e.g., living
shorelines, facilitated shoreline
migration); management of predator
populations, aquaculture activities, and
horseshoe crab fisheries; oil spill
response planning; and management of
human activities that disturb foraging
rufa red knots (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Management plans are in place and
being actively implemented to address
the horseshoe crab bait harvest (ASMFC
2012, entire) and structural aquaculture
of oysters and other native bivalves
(Service 2016a, entire). Federal lands in
this unit are managed under the Cape
May NWR Comprehensive Conservation
Plan (Service 2004b, entire).
Unit NJ–6: Dennis Creek
Unit NJ–6 consists of 279 ac (113 ha)
of Delaware Bay beaches, flats, and
shoals in Cape May County, New Jersey,
from the northern shore of Bidwell
Creek north to about 0.5 mi (0.8 km)
north of Dennis Creek. All lands within
this unit are in State ownership,
managed by the State of New Jersey as
the Dennis Creek Wildlife Management
Area. General land use within this unit
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
includes natural resource conservation
and recreation.
Unit NJ–6 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
This unit also has high concentrations
of horseshoe crab eggs and an
undeveloped character that allows the
operation of natural coastal processes
and limits disturbance of rufa red knots
from human activity.
Threats identified within Unit NJ–6
include: (1) Sea level rise that may
accelerate faster than landforms can
migrate through natural coastal
processes; (2) marsh loss and
accelerated beach erosion from
historical agriculture practices (e.g.,
impoundments such as for salt hay
farming) (Smith et al. 2017b, p. 36); (3)
predation in nonbreeding areas (e.g.,
peregrine falcons); (4) vulnerable food
resources (e.g., past overharvest of
horseshoe crabs), (5) timing
asynchronies (e.g., warming bay waters
or erratic storms that change the peak
timing of horseshoe crab spawning); (6)
oil spills (e.g., upstream petroleum
port); and (7) human disturbance.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include habitat
management or restoration (e.g., living
shorelines, raising marsh elevations,
facilitated shoreline migration);
management of predator populations
and horseshoe crab fisheries; oil spill
response planning; and management of
human activities that disturb foraging
rufa red knots (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above). A
management plan is in place and being
actively implemented to address the
horseshoe crab bait harvest (ASMFC
2012, entire).
Unit NJ–7: Heislerville
Unit NJ–7 consists of 1,110 ac (449
ha) of Delaware Bay beaches, flats,
shoals, tidal marsh, and open waters in
Cape May and Cumberland Counties,
New Jersey, from approximately 2,000
feet (ft) (0.6 kilometers (km)) east of
West Creek in Dennis Township, Cape
May County and extending west to the
eastern end of Bay Avenue in Maurice
River Township, Cumberland County.
The developed area along Bay Avenue
is excluded from the unit. West of Bay
Avenue, Unit NJ–7 continues north to
the mouth of Andrews Ditch in Maurice
River Township. This unit also includes
a man-made impoundment within the
Heislerville Wildlife Management Area,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
which is owned by the State. Lands
within this unit include approximately
524 ac (211 ha; 47 percent) in State
ownership, 459 ac (186 ha; 41.5 percent)
in private/other ownership, and 127 ac
(52 ha; 11.5 percent) that are
uncategorized. All State-owned lands in
this unit are managed by the State of
New Jersey as the Heislerville Wildlife
Management Area. General land use
within this unit is undeveloped and
includes natural resource conservation
and recreation.
Unit NJ–7 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Specifically, the bayfront portions of
this unit support high concentrations of
horseshoe crab eggs, and its
undeveloped character allows the
operation of natural coastal processes
and limits disturbance of rufa red knots
from human activity. Additionally, the
Heislerville impoundment portion of
the unit serves as a critical alternative
to bayside habitats, for roosting during
high tides when bayfront beaches are
narrow or submerged, or for foraging on
invertebrates at lower tides during times
when horseshoe crab egg availability on
bayfront beaches is reduced.
Threats identified within Unit NJ–7
include: (1) Sea level rise that may
accelerate faster than landforms can
migrate through natural coastal
processes; (2) marsh loss and
accelerated beach erosion from
historical agriculture practices (e.g.,
impoundments such as for salt hay
farming) (Smith et al. 2017b, p. 36); (3)
predation in nonbreeding areas (e.g.,
peregrine falcons) particularly at the
Heislerville impoundment; (4)
vulnerable food resources (e.g., past
overharvest of horseshoe crabs), (5)
timing asynchronies (e.g., warming bay
waters or erratic storms that change the
peak timing of horseshoe crab
spawning); (6) oil spills (e.g., upstream
petroleum port); and (7) human
disturbance (e.g., from personal
watercraft and other motorized boats,
aircraft including low and slow-flying
banner planes; pedestrian traffic is
minimal due to a seasonal beach closure
to public access). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include habitat management or
restoration (e.g., living shorelines,
raising marsh elevations, facilitated
shoreline migration; maintenance of the
berms and water control structures at
the Heislerville impoundment);
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37439
management of predator populations
and horseshoe crab fisheries; oil spill
response planning; and management of
human activities that disturb foraging
rufa red knots (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above). A
management plan is in place and being
actively implemented to address the
horseshoe crab bait harvest (ASMFC
2012, entire).
Unit NJ–8: Egg Island
Unit NJ–8 consists of 1,955 ac (791
ha) of Delaware Bay beaches, flats,
shoals, tidal marsh, and open waters in
Downe Township, Cumberland County,
New Jersey, from the mouth of
Oranoaken Creek extending south to Egg
Island point, and then northwest to
about 850 ft (259 meters (m)) past
Budney Avenue in the community of
Fortescue. Lands within this unit
include approximately 1,908 ac (773 ha;
97 percent) in State ownership, 32 ac
(13 ha; 2 percent) in private/other
ownership, and 14 ac (5 ha; less than 1
percent) that are uncategorized. All
State-owned lands in this unit are
managed by the State of New Jersey as
the Egg Island Wildlife Management
Area. General land use within this unit
is mostly undeveloped and includes
natural resource conservation and
recreation, but with some areas
adjoining residential development.
Unit NJ–8 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit has a very high concentration of
rufa red knot during spring migration,
serving as an important northbound
stopover site. This unit also has an
undeveloped character that allows the
operation of natural coastal processes
and limits disturbance of rufa red knots
from human activity, serving as one of
two significant primary roosting areas
(along with Hereford Inlet) used by
those rufa red knots that forage in
Delaware Bay each spring (Sitters 2005,
pp. 1–12).
Threats identified within Unit NJ–8
include: (1) Sea level rise that may
accelerate faster than landforms can
migrate through natural coastal
processes; (2) predation in nonbreeding
areas (e.g., peregrine falcons); (3)
vulnerable food resources (e.g., past
overharvest of horseshoe crabs); (4)
timing asynchronies (e.g., warming bay
waters or erratic storms that change the
peak timing of horseshoe crab
spawning); (5) oil spills (e.g., upstream
petroleum port); and (6) human
disturbance (e.g., from personal
watercraft and other motorized boats,
aircraft including low and slow-flying
banner planes). Special management
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37440
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include habitat management or
restoration (e.g., living shorelines,
facilitated shoreline migration),
management of predator populations
and horseshoe crab fisheries, oil spill
response planning, and management of
human activities that disturb foraging
rufa red knots (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above). A
management plan is in place and being
actively implemented to address the
horseshoe crab bait harvest (ASMFC
2012, entire).
Unit NJ–9: Newport Neck
Unit NJ–9 consists of 472 ac (191 ha)
of Delaware Bay beaches, flats, shoals,
and tidal marsh in Downe and Lawrence
Townships, Cumberland County, New
Jersey, from the north bank of the mouth
of Fortescue Creek extending northwest
to include both sides of the mouth of
Nantuxent Creek. Beaches adjacent to
the developed community of Gandys
Beach are not included in this unit.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 202 ac (82 ha; 43
percent) in State ownership, 176 ac (71
ha; 37 percent) in private/other
ownership, and 93 ac (38 ha; 20 percent)
that are uncategorized. General land use
within this unit is undeveloped and
includes natural resource conservation
and recreation, with much of the unit
managed by the State of New Jersey as
the Fortescue Wildlife Management
Area.
Unit NJ–9 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this unit has high
concentrations of horseshoe crab eggs,
and its undeveloped character allows
the operation of natural coastal
processes and limits disturbance of rufa
red knots from human activity.
Threats identified within Unit NJ–9
include: (1) Sea level rise that may
accelerate faster than landforms can
migrate through natural coastal
processes, (2) predation in nonbreeding
areas (e.g., peregrine falcons), (3)
vulnerable food resources (e.g., past
overharvest of horseshoe crabs), (4)
timing asynchronies (e.g., warming bay
waters or erratic storms that change the
peak timing of horseshoe crab
spawning), (5) oil spills (e.g., upstream
petroleum port), and (6) human
disturbance (e.g., from personal
watercraft and other motorized boats,
aircraft including low and slow-flying
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
banner planes; pedestrian traffic is
limited by a seasonal closure of certain
beaches to public access). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include habitat
management or restoration (e.g., living
shorelines, facilitated shoreline
migration), management of predator
populations and horseshoe crab
fisheries, oil spill response planning,
and management of human activities
that disturb foraging rufa red knots (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). A management plan
is in place and being actively
implemented to address the horseshoe
crab bait harvest (ASMFC 2012, entire).
Unit DE–1: St. Jones River
Unit DE–1 consists of two subunits
comprising 46 ac (19 ha) of the St. Jones
River area in Kent County, Delaware.
This unit consists of lands owned by the
State of Delaware and private
landowners.
Subunit DE–1A: St. Jones North
Subunit DE–1A consists of 43 ac (18
ha) of land in Kent County, Delaware.
The subunit begins in the north along
the shoreline at the end of South Bay
Drive in South Kitts Hummock where
there is a jetty into Delaware Bay, and
continues to the south where it meets
the St. Jones River inlet. The eastern
boundary is the MLLW of the Delaware
Bay (i.e., highly dynamic beach and
intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide)
and the western boundary runs along
the dune line where the habitat changes
from lightly vegetated, sandy beach to
densely vegetated dunes or marsh.
Lands within this subunit are
approximately 37 ac (15 ha; 86 percent)
in State ownership (Ted Harvey Wildlife
Area), 3 ac (1 ha; 7 percent) of
undeveloped beach privately owned by
Delaware Wildlands, a conservation
organization, and 3 ac (1 ha; 7 percent)
that are uncategorized. General land use
within this subunit includes lowimpact, noncommercial, recreational
day uses (e.g., hiking, bird watching,
surf fishing, and photography) and
scientific research (e.g., surveys and
monitoring for shorebirds).
Subunit DE–1A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site for
foraging birds.
Threats identified within Subunit DE–
1A include disturbance of foraging and
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
roosting rufa red knots by humans and
human activities (i.e., beach
nourishment and sediment disposal
activities), and modification or loss of
habitat from sea level rise and
associated erosion of the beach. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
management of beach nourishment
projects to ensure work is done outside
the time when rufa red knots are present
to avoid disturbing birds and offset
losses from sea level rise (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands in this
subunit are managed as part of the Ted
Harvey Wildlife Area (Delaware
Division of Fish and Wildlife (DDFW)
2020a; entire), which restricts off-leash
dogs, and provides designated hunting
and access points that do not include
the beach area used by foraging birds.
This area is also designated as a
National Estuarine Research Reserve
(NERR) (Delaware NERR 2012, entire),
which provides for long-term research
and monitoring of the site conditions.
Subunit DE–1B: St. Jones South
Subunit DE–1B consists of
approximately 3 ac (1 ha) of shoreline
at the south side of the inlet to the St.
Jones River, Kent County, Delaware. The
eastern boundary is the MLLW of the
Delaware Bay (i.e., the highly dynamic
beach and intertidal seashore that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide), and the western boundary is
where the sandy beach turns to marshy
habitat. Lands within this subunit
include approximately 1 ac (0.5 ha; 47
percent) in State ownership and
approximately 2 ac (0.6 ha; 53 percent)
in private/other ownership. General
land use within this subunit includes
low-impact, noncommercial,
recreational day uses (e.g., hiking, bird
watching, surf fishing, and
photography) and scientific research
(e.g., surveys and monitoring for
shorebirds).
Subunit DE–1B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site for
foraging birds.
Threats identified within Subunit DE–
1B include modification or loss of
habitat from sea level rise and
associated erosion of the beach. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
management of beach nourishment and
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
sediment disposal on eroding beaches
with the project design and timing of
work designed to minimize bird
disturbance, and offset losses from sea
level rise (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Unit DE–2: Brokonbridge Gut
Unit DE–2 consists of two subunits
comprising 163 ac (66 ha) in the area
where Brokonbridge Gut enters the
Delaware Bay in Kent County, Delaware.
This unit consists of lands owned by the
State of Delaware and private
landowners.
Subunit DE–2A: North Brokonbridge
Gut
Subunit DE–2A consists of
approximately 93 ac (37 ha) of shoreline
between the north side of the
Brokonbridge Gut inlet to the south side
of the Murderkill River inlet, Kent
County, Delaware. The eastern
boundary is the MLLW of the Delaware
Bay (i.e., the highly dynamic beach and
intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide),
and the western boundary is where the
sandy beach turns to marshy habitat.
Lands within this subunit are primarily
in private/other ownership (91 ac (37
ha); 98 percent) with a small portion (2
ac; 1 ha; 2 percent) owned by the State.
Approximately 15 percent of the
shoreline is in front of private homes
and includes South Bowers Beach; the
remaining 85 percent is undeveloped
beach that is privately owned. General
land use within this unit includes lowimpact, noncommercial, recreational
day uses (e.g., hiking, bird watching,
surf fishing, and photography) and
scientific research (e.g., surveys and
monitoring for shorebirds).
Subunit DE–2A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site for
foraging birds.
Threats identified within Subunit DE–
2A include disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by humans and
human activities (i.e., beach
nourishment and sediment disposal
activities), and modification or loss of
habitat from sea level rise and
associated erosion of the beach. Special
management considerations and
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
management of beach nourishment and
sediment disposal on eroding beaches
with the project design and timing of
work designed to minimize bird
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
disturbance, and offset losses from sea
level rise (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Subunit DE–2B: South Brokonbridge Gut
Subunit DE–2B consists of
approximately 70 ac (29 ha) of shoreline
at the south side of the inlet to
Brokonbridge Gut, Kent County,
Delaware. The eastern boundary is the
MLLW of the Delaware Bay (i.e., the
highly dynamic beach and intertidal
seashore that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide), and the western
boundary is where the sandy beach
turns to marshy habitat. All lands
within this subunit are private/other
ownership. This private land area is
primarily owned and protected by a
private conservation organization
(Delaware Wildlands) 52 ac (21 ha; 74
percent), with the remaining
approximately 18 ac (7 ha; 16 percent)
as private, undeveloped land. This is a
long stretch of undeveloped beach.
General land use within this subunit
includes low-impact, noncommercial,
recreational day uses (e.g., hiking, bird
watching, and photography) and
scientific research (e.g., surveys and
monitoring for shorebirds).
Subunit DE–2B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site for
foraging birds.
Threats identified within Subunit DE–
2B include modification or loss of
habitat from sea level rise and
associated erosion of the beach, and
recreational activities. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include: (1)
Beach nourishment and sediment
disposal on eroding beaches with the
project design and timing of work
designed to minimize bird disturbance,
and offset losses from sea level rise; and
(2) minimizing disturbance from
recreational activities (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
Unit DE–3: Mispillion Harbor
Unit DE–3 consists of three subunits
comprising 1,949 ac (789 ha) in the
Mispillion Harbor area where the
Mispillion River and Cedar Creek enter
the Delaware Bay in Kent and Sussex
Counties, Delaware. This unit consists
of lands owned primarily by the State of
Delaware, with minor ownership by
Federal and private/other.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37441
Subunit DE–3A: Main Harbor
Subunit DE–3A consists of
approximately 61 ac (25 ha) of shoreline
within the main harbor area and
includes the rock sill and back beach
areas of Mispillion Harbor, Kent and
Sussex Counties, Delaware. The eastern
boundary is the MLLW of the Delaware
Bay (i.e., the highly dynamic beach and
intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide)
and the east side of the rock sill, and the
western boundary is where the sandy
beach turns to marshy habitat and the
west side of the rock sill. Lands within
this subunit include approximately 32
ac (13 ha; 53 percent) in State
ownership and 29 ac (12 ha; 47 percent)
that are uncategorized. General land use
within this subunit includes
recreational boat traffic related to the
harbor and birding and photography
from the property of the Dupont Nature
Center. No walking or fishing from
harbor structures is allowed.
Subunit DE–3A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
This location also provides high
concentrations of horseshoe crabs
during the rufa red knot’s spring
migration period, resulting in the
Mispillion Harbor area supporting the
highest number of foraging rufa red
knots of any area along the Delaware
coast.
Threats identified within Subunit DE–
3A include modification or loss of
habitat from sea level rise and
associated erosion of the shoreline or
harbor structures, and recreational
activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats include
beach nourishment and repairs to
harbor structures with the project design
and timing of work designed to avoid
bird disturbance, and minimizing
recreational disturbance (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands in this
subunit are managed as part of the
Mispillion Marine Reserve with
restrictions that prevent fishing,
crabbing, hunting, or walking on the
harbor structures and beach area,
preventing disturbance to rufa red knots
(DDFW 2020b, entire).
Subunit DE–3B: Rawley Island Roost
Subunit DE–3B consists of
approximately 1,298 ac (525 ha) of
shoreline and marsh on the north side
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37442
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
of the Mispillion River, extending north
to Graco’s Canal, Kent County,
Delaware. The western boundary is
Crooked Gut, and the eastern boundary
is the MLLW of the Delaware Bay (i.e.,
the highly dynamic beach and intertidal
seashore that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). Lands within
this subunit include approximately
1,139 ac (461 ha; 88 percent) in State
ownership, 153 ac (62 ha; 12 percent) in
private/other ownership, and 6 ac (2 ha;
less than 1 percent) that are
uncategorized. Private lands are owned
by a combination of a private
conservation organization—The Nature
Conservancy (TNC; 148 ac (60 ha))—
with a small area of private,
undeveloped land that has a
conservation easement. General land
use within this subunit includes lowimpact, noncommercial, recreational
day uses (e.g., hiking, bird watching,
and photography) and scientific
research (e.g., surveys and monitoring
for shorebirds). Hunting occurs on the
State land but hunters are not present in
the spring when rufa red knots are
present.
Subunit DE–3B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site, and
includes expansive wetlands for
roosting adjacent to the highest
concentration of rufa red knots along the
Delaware coast (Zimmerman 2010,
entire). This subunit also has high
concentrations of horseshoe crab eggs,
and its undeveloped character allows
the operation of natural coastal
processes that limit disturbance of rufa
red knots from human activity.
Threats identified within Subunit DE–
3B include modification or loss of
habitat from sea level rise and
associated erosion of the beach, and
recreational activities. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing recreational disturbance
and beach nourishment and sediment
disposal on eroding beaches, but as part
of the Milford Neck Wildlife Area,
beach nourishment projects would be
designed to minimize bird disturbance
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
State lands in this subunit are managed
by the Delaware Division of Wildlife as
part of their Milford Neck Wildlife Area
(DDFW 2020c, entire).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Subunit DE–3C: Slaughter Beach
Subunit DE–3C consists of
approximately 590 ac (239 ha) of beach
shoreline, marsh, and harbor structures
in Sussex County, Delaware. The
subunit extends from the eastern tip of
the dike that outlines the outer tip of the
Mispillion Harbor, south along the
sandy beach of Slaughter Beach to the
southern end of Isaacs Shore Drive. The
western boundary is where the lightly
vegetated beach becomes marsh in the
northern portions of this subunit, or
where property parcels end in the
southern portion of this subunit. The
eastern boundary is the MLLW of the
Delaware Bay (i.e., the highly dynamic
beach and intertidal seashore that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). Lands within this subunit
include approximately 1 ac (0.25 ha;
less than 1 percent) in Federal
ownership, 59 ac (24 ha; 10 percent) in
State ownership, 2 ac (1 ha; less than 1
percent) in private/other ownership,
and 528 ac (213 ha; 89 percent) that are
uncategorized. General land use within
this subunit includes low-impact,
noncommercial, recreational day uses
(e.g., hiking, bird watching, surf fishing,
and photography) and scientific
research (e.g., surveys and monitoring
for shorebirds).
Subunit DE–3C is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Threats identified within Subunit DE–
3C include modification or loss of
habitat from sea level rise and
associated erosion of the beach, and
recreational activities. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include beach
nourishment and sediment disposal on
eroding beaches, and minimizing
recreational disturbance (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). This area is a public
beach owned by the State of Delaware
and while it does not have a specific
management plan, it has been
designated a horseshoe crab sanctuary
by the Ecological Research and
Development Group, a non-profit
conservation organization.
Unit DE–4: Prime Hook
Unit DE–4 consists of approximately
549 ac (222 ha) of beach shoreline and
associated marsh in Sussex County,
Delaware. The northern boundary is
about 1 mi (1.6 km) north of Fowler
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Beach road, the southern boundary is
the end of South Bayshore Drive, the
eastern boundary is the MLLW of the
Delaware Bay (i.e., the highly dynamic
beach and intertidal seashore that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide), and the western boundary in
the northern portion of the unit runs
along the dune line where the habitat
changes from lightly vegetated sandy
beach to densely vegetated dunes or
marsh. The western boundary of the
central portion of this unit includes
marsh and shallow open water areas
where birds can roost overnight and
forage. The western edge of the southern
portion of the unit is where property
parcels end at the beach. Lands within
this unit include approximately 480 ac
(195 ha; 87 percent) in Federal
ownership (Prime Hook NWR), 6 ac (2
ha; 1 percent) in private/other
ownership, and 63 ac (25 ha; 12 percent)
that are uncategorized. General land use
within this unit includes low-impact,
noncommercial, recreational day uses
(e.g., hiking, bird watching, surf fishing,
and photography) and scientific
research (e.g., surveys and monitoring
for shorebirds).
Unit DE–4 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Threats identified within Unit DE–4
include modification or loss of habitat
from sea level rise and associated
erosion of the beach, and recreational
activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures
include a commitment to shorebird
conservation and management (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above), including
implementation of the Prime Hook NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(Service 2013, entire). Any projects on
the refuge would be designed and timed
to avoid the time of year rufa red knots
are present.
Unit VA–1: Assateague Island
Unit VA–1 consists of 2,817 ac (1,140
ha) of Assateague Island in Accomack
County, Virginia, from the Virginia–
Maryland State line south to the area
known as ‘‘The Hook,’’ a wide
peninsula that curves northwest. The
western boundary is along the dune line
where the habitat changes from sandy
beach with little vegetation to densely
vegetated dunes or marshland, as well
as densely vegetated forested or
herbaceous vegetation landward of the
beach and primary dune. The eastern
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
boundary extends seaward past the
MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
as shoaling areas that are inundated
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water.
With the exception of a 27-ac (11-ha)
tract owned by the NPS, the remainder
of the unit is owned by the Service’s
Chincoteague NWR. The NPS also
manages an overlay easement within the
NWR as a public beach that is part of
the Assateague Island National
Seashore. All lands within this unit are
federally owned. General land use
within this unit includes low-impact
recreational day use (e.g., hiking, bird
watching, photography, and shell
collecting), and high-impact recreational
beach use within designated areas (e.g.,
swimming, sunbathing, fishing, and
ORVs). In addition, scientific research
(e.g., survey and monitoring of natural
resources, such as federally listed
species) may occur year-round.
Unit VA–1 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, rufa red
knots have been documented during the
winter period at this location during the
time of year that birds are seeking to
build energy sources for migration;
however, the number of birds observed
during this period are not large enough
to also meet the winter criteria.
Threats identified within Unit VA–1
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by recreational
beach use (e.g., swimming, sunbathing,
fishing, and ORVs), (2) natural (e.g.,
hurricanes) or human-caused (e.g., oil
spills) disasters, and (3) accelerated loss
of shoreline habitat from erosional
processes in response to sea level rise.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent upland
roosting habitat during migration
(through restrictions on timing,
locations, and types of activities), and
establishing temporary sanctuaries and
management during certain times of
year to address erosion) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Currently,
Chincoteague NWR addresses some of
these threats in their Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (Service 2015, entire)
and the Memorandum of Understanding
between the NWR and NPS (Service and
NPS 2017, entire).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Unit VA–2: Wallops Island
Unit VA–2 comprises two subunits
(totaling 571 ac (231 ha)) owned and
managed by NASA as part of the
Wallops Flight Facility located in
Accomack County. This unit (including
both subunits) are being considered for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
Subunit VA–2A: Wallops Island North
Subunit VA–2A consists of 540 ac
(218 ha) of Wallops Island in Accomack
County, Virginia. The north and east
boundaries of the subunit are
Chincoteague Inlet and seaward past the
MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
as shoaling areas that are inundated
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water.
The western boundary is along the
marsh line where the habitat changes
from lightly vegetated sandy beach and
exposed peat with little vegetation to
densely vegetated marshland, peat
banks, or densely vegetated forested or
herbaceous vegetation landward of the
beach and primary dune. The southern
boundary tapers to a point ending at the
northern end of the facility’s sea wall
structure, extending past the MLLW line
and including the areas that are slightly
inundated with less than 3 in (7.5 cm)
of water. All lands within this subunit
are federally owned by NASA. General
land use within this subunit includes
rocket and drone launches, drone and
aircraft flights, recreational beach uses
(e.g., swimming, sunbathing, ORVs),
beach renourishment and seawall
repair, protected species management,
facility maintenance and construction,
and educational use.
Subunit VA–2A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Threats identified within Subunit
VA–2A include: (1) Disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots
from recreational beach use (e.g.,
swimming, sunbathing, ORVs), (2)
natural disasters (i.e., hurricanes), (3)
predation, (4) noise disturbance from
overflights of unmanned aerial vehicles
and rocket launches, and (5) accelerated
loss of shoreline habitat from erosional
processes in response to climate change
and sea level rise. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include managing access to rufa red
knot foraging habitat and adjacent
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37443
upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), conducting predator control,
implementing conservation measures
that help reduce modification or loss of
habitat from hard and soft beach
stabilization efforts (e.g., time-of-year
restrictions for beach nourishment and
dredging activities, establishing
temporary sanctuaries and management
during certain times of year to address
erosion) (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
This area is currently managed under
the Wallops Island Protected Species
Management Plan (NASA 2020a, entire).
Subunit VA–2B: Wallops Island South
Subunit VA–2B consists of 31 ac (13
ha) of Wallops Island in Accomack
County, Virginia. The northern
boundary is the end of the road south
of the old runway, the southern
boundary is Assawoman Creek, the
western boundary is along the marsh
line where the habitat changes from
lightly vegetated sandy beach and
exposed peat with little vegetation to
densely vegetated marshland, peat
banks, or densely forested or herbaceous
vegetation landward of the beach and
primary dune, and the eastern boundary
extends seaward past the MLLW line,
including dynamic intertidal areas that
are covered at high tide and uncovered
at low tide, as well as shoaling areas that
are inundated with less than 3 in (7.6
cm) of water. All lands within this
subunit are federally owned by NASA.
General land use within this subunit
includes rocket and drone launches,
drone and aircraft flights, beach
renourishment and seawall repair,
protected species management, facility
maintenance and construction, ORV
activity, and educational use.
Subunit VA–2B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Rufa red knots are observed in Subunit
VA–2B, however, specific counts within
the subunit were not available and given
the high concentrations of rufa red knots
on abutting Assawoman Island (Unit
VA–3), this subunit was included.
Threats identified within Subunit
VA–2B include: (1) Disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots by
ORVs, (2) natural (e.g., hurricanes) or
human-caused (e.g., oil spills) disasters,
(3) noise disturbance from overflights of
unmanned aerial vehicles and rocket
launches, and (4) accelerated loss of
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37444
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
shoreline habitat from erosional
processes in response to climate change
and sea level rise. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include managing access to rufa red
knot foraging habitat and adjacent
upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), conducting predator control,
implementing conservation measures
that help reduce modification or loss of
habitat from hard and soft beach
stabilization efforts (e.g., time-of-year
restrictions for beach nourishment and
dredging activities, establishing
temporary sanctuaries and management
during certain times of year to address
erosion (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
This area is currently managed under
the Wallops Island Protected Species
Management Plan (NASA 2020a, entire).
recreational beach use (e.g., surf
fishing), (2) natural (e.g., hurricanes) or
human-caused (e.g., oil spills) disasters,
and (3) modification or loss of habitat
including accelerated loss of shoreline
habitat from erosional processes in
response to climate change and sea level
rise. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include managing access to rufa red
knot foraging habitat and adjacent
upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and establishing temporary sanctuaries
and management during certain times of
year to address erosion (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). This area is currently
managed under the Chincoteague and
Wallops Island NWR Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (Service 2015,
entire).
Unit VA–3: Assawoman Island
Unit VA–3 consists of 633 ac (256 ha)
of Assawoman Island in Accomack
County, Virginia, from Assawoman
Creek south to Kegotank Creek and
Gargathy Inlet and extends east past the
MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
as shoaling areas that are inundated
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water.
The western boundary is formed by
Houseboat Creek, a section of Egg
Marsh, and Kegotank Bay. All lands
within this unit are federally owned by
Chincoteague NWR. General land use
within this unit includes low-impact
recreational day use (during those times
of year when permitted) such as hiking,
bird watching, photography, and surf
fishing. Under current management, the
island is closed to recreation March
15th to September 15th to provide
undisturbed habitat for nesting birds.
Scientific research (e.g., survey and
monitoring of natural resources, such as
federally listed species) may occur yearround.
Unit VA–3 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Rufa red knots have also been
documented at this location during the
fall migration period, although not in
large enough numbers to also meet the
fall migration period criteria.
Threats identified within Unit VA–3
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots, including
Unit VA–4: Metompkin Island
Unit VA–4 consists of 1,467 ac (594
ha) of Metompkin Island in Accomack
County, Virginia, from Kegotank Creek
and Gargathy Inlet south to the mouth
of Folly Creek. The western boundary is
formed by the Virginia Inside Passage of
the Intercoastal Waterway and
Metompkin Bay and includes extensive
areas of overwash and low marsh areas
along the western boundary. The eastern
boundary extends seaward past the
MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
as shoaling areas that are inundated
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 64 ac (26 ha; 5 percent)
in Federal ownership (Chincoteague
NWR), 56 ac (22 ha; 4 percent) in State
ownership, and 1,239 ac (502 ha; 84
percent) in private/other (TNC)
ownership, and 110 ac (44 ha; 7 percent)
that are uncategorized. General land use
within this unit includes low-impact,
noncommercial, recreational beach use
(e.g., hiking, bird watching, surf fishing,
and photography) and scientific
research (e.g., surveys and monitoring
for nesting shorebirds).
Unit VA–4 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots (one of the highest in
Virginia) during the spring migration
period, serving as an important
northbound stopover site. Rufa red
knots also use this island during the fall
migration period as a southbound
stopover site, as well as during the
winter period to build energy sources
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
for migration, but not in large enough
numbers to also meet the criteria for fall
and winter periods. Additionally, this
area harbors peat banks, which are
heavily used by rufa red knots in
Virginia.
Threats identified within Unit VA–4
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by recreational
beach use (e.g., hiking, bird watching,
surf fishing, and photography), (2)
natural (e.g., hurricanes) or humancaused (e.g., oil spills) disasters, and (3)
accelerated loss of shoreline habitat
from erosional processes in response to
climate change and sea level rise.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent upland
roosting habitat during migration
(through restrictions on timing,
locations, and types of activities), and
establishing temporary sanctuaries and
management during certain times of
year to address erosion (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). The majority of the
island is part of the Virginia Coast
Reserve (i.e., reserve lands owned and
managed by TNC), management of
which is identified in a Conservation
Action Plan that outlines priorities and
strategies for conservation activities
(Wilke 2020, pers. comm.). During the
shorebird breeding season (March 15 to
August 31), the southern islands are
managed in partnership with the
Commonwealth of Virginia, TNC, and
the Service to reduce disturbance,
thereby increasing productivity (Service
2015, pp. 2–9). The State-owned portion
of this unit is ungranted State land
managed by the Virginia Marine
Resources Commission under the
Virginia Administrative Code (Va. Code
§ 4–1030).
Unit VA–5: Cedar Island
Unit VA–5 consists of 2,274 ac (920
ha) of Cedar Island in Accomack
County, Virginia, from an inlet between
Cedar Island and the southern end of
Metompkin Island south to
Wachapreague Inlet. The western
boundary is along the marsh line where
the habitat changes from lightly
vegetated sandy beach and exposed peat
with little vegetation to densely
vegetated marshland, peat banks, or
densely vegetated forested or
herbaceous vegetation landward of the
beach and primary dune, or open water
including Burtons Bay. The eastern
boundary extends seaward past the
MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
as shoaling areas that are inundated
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 203 ac (82 ha; 9 percent)
in Federal ownership, 77 ac (31 ha; 4
percent) in State ownership, 920 ac (372
ha; 40 percent) in private/other
ownership, and 1,074 ac (434 ha; 47
percent) that are uncategorized. General
land use within this unit includes lowimpact, noncommercial, recreational
beach use (e.g., hiking, bird watching,
surf fishing, and photography) and
scientific research (e.g., surveys and
monitoring for nesting shorebirds).
Unit VA–5 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this location harbors peat
banks, which are heavily used by rufa
red knots in Virginia.
Threats identified within Unit VA–5
include: (1) Recreational beach use (e.g.,
hiking, bird watching, surf fishing, and
photography), (2) natural (e.g.,
hurricanes) or human-caused (e.g., oil
spills) disasters, and (3) accelerated loss
of shoreline habitat from erosional
processes in response to climate change
and sea level rise. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include managing access to rufa red
knot foraging habitat and adjacent
upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), and establishing temporary
sanctuaries and management during
certain times of year to address erosion
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
The majority of the island is part of
TNC’s Virginia Coast Reserve,
management of which is identified in a
Conservation Action Plan that outlines
priorities and strategies for conservation
activities (Wilke 2020, pers. comm.).
During the shorebird breeding season
(March 15 to August 31), the southern
islands are managed in partnership with
the Commonwealth of Virginia, TNC,
and the Service to reduce disturbance,
thereby increasing productivity (Service
2015, pp. 2–9). The State-owned portion
of this unit is ungranted State land
managed by the Virginia Marine
Resources Commission under the
Virginia Administrative Code (Va. Code
§ 4–1030).
Unit VA–6: Parramore Island
Unit VA–6 consists of 6,802 ac (2,753
ha) of Parramore Island in Accomack
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
County, Virginia, from Wachapreague
Inlet south to Quinby Inlet. The western
boundary is Horseshoe Lead, Drawing
Channel, Swash Bay, and Revel Island
Bay. The eastern boundary extends
seaward past the MLLW line, including
dynamic intertidal areas that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide, as well as shoaling areas that
are inundated with less than 3 in (7.6
cm) of water. Lands within this unit
include approximately 5,631 ac (2,280
ha; 83 percent) in private/other
ownership and 1,171 ac (473 ha; 17
percent) that are uncategorized. General
land use within this unit includes lowimpact, noncommercial, recreational
beach use (e.g., hiking, bird watching,
surf fishing, and photography), and
scientific research (e.g., surveys and
monitoring for nesting shorebirds).
Unit VA–6 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this location harbors peat
banks, which are heavily used by rufa
red knots in Virginia.
Threats identified within Unit VA–6
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by recreational
beach use (e.g., hiking, bird watching,
surf fishing, and photography), (2)
natural (e.g., hurricanes) or humancaused (e.g., oil spills) disasters, and (3)
accelerated loss of shoreline habitat
from erosional processes in response to
climate change and sea level rise.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent upland
roosting habitat during migration
(through restrictions on timing,
locations, and types of activities), and
establishing temporary sanctuaries and
management during certain times of
year to address erosion) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). The island is
managed by TNC as part of TNC’s
Virginia Coast Reserve, management of
which is identified in a Conservation
Action Plan that outlines priorities and
strategies for conservation activities
(Wilke 2020, pers. comm.).
Unit VA–7: Chimney Pole Marsh
Unit VA–7 consists of 2,004 ac (811
ha) of Chimney Pole Marsh and the
southern portion of Sandy Island in
Accomack County, Virginia, within the
area of Quinby Inlet and west of the gap
between Parramore and Hog Islands.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37445
This unit is composed of mud flats, low
marsh, sandy beaches, overwash areas,
and tidal channels. The boundary of the
unit on all sides extends seaward past
the MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
as shoaling areas that are inundated
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 1,224 ac (496 ha; 61
percent) in State ownership, 285 ac (116
ha; 14 percent) in private/other
ownership, and 495 ac (200 ha; 25
percent) that are uncategorized. General
land use of ungranted State lands in this
unit include recreational activities (e.g.,
hunting, fishing, clamming, oystering,
crabbing, picnicking, beachcombing,
birdwatching).
Unit VA–7 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this location is a
presumed night roost site (Cohen et al.
2010b in Heller 2020, p. 90).
Threats identified within Unit VA–7
include: (1) Recreational use (e.g.,
hunting, trapping, camping), (2) natural
(e.g., hurricanes) or human-caused (e.g.,
oil spills) disasters, and (3) accelerated
loss of shoreline habitat from erosional
processes in response to climate change
and sea level rise. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include managing access to rufa red
knot foraging habitat and adjacent
upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), and establishing temporary
sanctuaries and management during
certain times of year to address erosion
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
This unit is primarily ungranted State
land managed by the Virginia Marine
Resources Commission under the
Virginia Administrative Code (Va. Code
§ 4–1030). Sandy Island is managed by
TNC as part of TNC’s Virginia Coast
Reserve, management of which is
identified in a Conservation Action Plan
that outlines priorities and strategies for
conservation activities (Wilke 2020,
pers. comm.).
Unit VA–8: Hog Island
Unit VA–8 consists of 3,235 ac (1,309
ha) of Hog Island in Northampton
County, Virginia, bounded by the
Quinby Inlet to the north and Great
Machipongo Inlet to the south. The
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37446
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
western boundary is along the marsh
line where the habitat changes from
lightly vegetated sandy beach and
exposed peat with little vegetation to
densely vegetated marshland, peat
banks, or densely vegetated forested or
herbaceous vegetation landward of the
beach and primary dune, or open water
including Hog Island Bay. The eastern
boundary extends seaward past the
MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
as shoaling areas that are inundated
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 16 ac (7 ha; less than 1
percent) in State ownership, 2,966 ac
(1,201 ha; 92 percent) in private/other
ownership, and 253 ac (101 ha; 7.8
percent) that is uncategorized. General
land use within this unit includes lowimpact, noncommercial, recreational
beach use (e.g., hiking, bird watching,
surf fishing, and photography) and
scientific research (e.g., surveys and
monitoring for nesting shorebirds).
Unit VA–8 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this location harbors peat
banks, which are heavily used by rufa
red knots in Virginia.
Threats identified within Unit VA–8
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by recreational
beach use (e.g., hiking, bird watching,
surf fishing, and photography), (2)
natural (e.g., hurricanes) or humancaused (e.g., oil spills) disasters, and (3)
accelerated loss of shoreline habitat
from erosional processes in response to
climate change and sea level rise.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent upland
roosting habitat during migration
(through restrictions on timing,
locations, and types of activities), and
establishing temporary sanctuaries and
management during certain times of
year to address erosion (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). The island is
managed by TNC as part of TNC’s
Virginia Coast Reserve, management of
which is identified in a Conservation
Action Plan that outlines priorities and
strategies for conservation activities
(Wilke 2020, pers. comm.). The Stateowned portion of this unit is ungranted
State land managed by the Virginia
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Marine Resources Commission under
the Virginia Administrative Code (Va.
Code § 4–1030).
Unit VA–9: Cobb Island
Unit VA–9 consists of 2,342 ac (948
ha) of Cobb Island in Northampton
County, Virginia, bounded by Great
Machipongo Inlet to the north and
Sandy Shoal Inlet to the south. The
western boundary is formed by Hog
Island Bay, Spidercrab Bay, and Cobb
Bay. The eastern boundary extends
seaward past the MLLW line, including
dynamic intertidal areas that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide, as well as shoaling areas that
are inundated with less than 3 in (7.6
cm) of water. Lands within this unit
include approximately 16 ac (7 ha; less
than 1 percent) in State ownership,
1,778 ac (720 ha; 76 percent) in private/
other ownership, and 547 ac (221 ha; 23
percent) that are uncategorized. General
land use within this unit includes lowimpact, noncommercial, recreational
beach use (e.g., hiking, bird watching,
surf fishing, and photography) and
scientific research (e.g., surveys and
monitoring for nesting shorebirds).
Unit VA–9 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Threats identified within Unit VA–9
include: (1) Predation (especially from
peregrine falcons), (2) disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots by
recreational beach use (e.g., hiking, bird
watching, surf fishing, and
photography), (3) natural (e.g.,
hurricanes) or human-caused (e.g., oil
spills) disasters, and (4) accelerated loss
of shoreline habitat from erosional
processes in response to climate change
and sea level rise. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include managing access to rufa red
knot foraging habitat and adjacent
upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), and establishing temporary
sanctuaries and management during
certain times of year to address erosion
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
The island is primarily managed by
TNC as part of TNC’s Virginia Coast
Reserve, management of which is
identified in a Conservation Action Plan
that outlines priorities and strategies for
conservation activities (Wilke 2020,
pers. comm.). The State-owned portion
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of this unit is ungranted State land
managed by the Virginia Marine
Resources Commission under the
Virginia Administrative Code (Va. Code
§ 4–1030).
Unit VA–10: Little Cobb Island
Unit VA–10 consists of 82 ac (33 ha)
of Little Cobb Island in Northampton
County, Virginia, and lies just west of
the southern end of Cobb Island and
within the waters of Cobb Bay. The
boundary of this small island in all
directions is the waters of Cobb Bay and
the extent of the boundary seaward past
the MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
as shoaling areas that are inundated
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water. All
lands within this unit are in private/
other ownership. General land use
within this unit is scientific research
(e.g., surveys and monitoring for nesting
shorebirds); this area is closed to visitor
use at all times for scientific research
and safety reasons (TNC 2017, p. 1).
Unit VA–10 is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
The threats identified within Unit
VA–10 include: (1) Natural (e.g.,
hurricanes) or human-caused (e.g., oil
spills) disasters, and (2) erosional
processes and accelerated loss of
shoreline habitat in response to climate
change and sea level rise. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing scientific research activity
access to rufa red knot foraging habitat
and adjacent upland roosting habitat
during migration, and establishing
temporary sanctuaries and management
during certain times of year to address
erosion (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
The island is owned and managed by
TNC as part of the Virginia Coast
Reserve, management of which is
identified in a Conservation Action Plan
that outlines priorities and strategies for
conservation activities (Wilke 2020,
pers. comm.).
Unit VA–11: Wreck Island
Unit VA–11 consists of 1,270 ac (514
ha) of Wreck Island in Northampton
County, Virginia, is bounded to the
north by Sandy Shoal Inlet and Red
Drum Drain and New Inlet to the south.
The western boundary is South Bay.
The eastern boundary extends seaward
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
past the MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
as shoaling areas that are inundated
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water. All
lands within this unit are State owned
and managed as Wreck Island Natural
Area Preserve. General land use within
this unit includes recreational beach use
(e.g., fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing)
and natural resource surveys and
monitoring.
Unit VA–11 is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this area is a presumed
night roost site (Cohen et al. 2010 in
Heller 2020).
Threats identified within Unit VA–11
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by recreational
beach use (e.g., fishing, hiking, wildlife
viewing), (2) invasive species, (3)
natural (e.g., hurricanes) or humancaused (e.g., oil spills) disasters, and (4)
accelerated loss of shoreline habitat
from erosional processes in response to
climate change and sea level rise.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent upland
roosting habitat during migration
(through restrictions on timing,
locations, and types of activities), and
establishing temporary sanctuaries and
management during certain times of
year to address erosion (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Unit VA–11 is
managed by the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation under the
Wreck Island Natural Area Preserve
Management Abstract (Field 2014,
entire).
Unit VA–12: Myrtle Island
Unit VA–12 consists of 1,416 ac (573
ha) of Myrtle Island in Northampton
County, Virginia, and is composed of
extensive mud flats, low marsh, sandy
beaches, overwash areas, and tidal
channels. The north boundary is Ship
Shoal Inlet, the south boundary is Little
Inlet, the west boundary is Main Ship
Shoal Channel and Big Creek Marsh,
and the east boundary is the Atlantic
Ocean. The boundary for the island and
marsh complex extends seaward past
the MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
as shoaling areas that are inundated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water.
Lands within this unit include 1,028 ac
(417 ha; 73 percent) that are in private/
other ownership and 388 ac (156 ha; 27
percent) that are uncategorized. General
land use within this unit includes lowimpact, noncommercial, recreational
beach use (e.g., hiking, bird watching,
surf fishing, and photography) and
scientific research (e.g., surveys and
monitoring for nesting shorebirds).
Unit VA–12 is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this unit harbors peat
banks, which are heavily used by rufa
red knots in Virginia.
Threats identified within Unit VA–12
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by humans and
human activities including recreational
beach use (e.g., hiking, bird watching,
surf fishing, photography), (2) natural
(e.g., hurricanes) or human-caused (e.g.,
oil spills) disasters, and (3) accelerated
loss of shoreline habitat from erosional
processes in response to climate change
and sea level rise. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include managing access to rufa red
knot foraging habitat and adjacent
upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), and establishing temporary
sanctuaries and management during
certain times of year to address erosion
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
The island is owned and managed by
TNC as part of the Virginia Coast
Reserve, management of which is
identified in a Conservation Action Plan
that outlines priorities and strategies for
conservation activities (Wilke 2020,
pers. comm.).
Unit VA–13: Smith Island
Unit VA–13 consists of 2,529 ac
(1,024 ha) of Smith Island in
Northampton County, Virginia. It is
bounded to the north by Little Inlet, to
the south by Smith Island Inlet, and to
the west along the dune line where the
habitat changes from sandy beach with
little vegetation to densely vegetated
dunes or marshland, as well as densely
vegetated forested or herbaceous
vegetation landward of the beach and
primary dune, or open water including
Magothy Bay. The eastern boundary
extends seaward past the MLLW line,
including dynamic intertidal areas that
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37447
are covered at high tide and uncovered
at low tide, as well as shoaling areas that
are inundated with less than 3 in (7.6
cm) of water. All lands within this unit
are in private/other ownership. General
land use within this unit includes lowimpact, noncommercial, recreational
beach use (e.g., hiking, bird watching,
surf fishing, and photography), and
scientific research (e.g., surveys and
monitoring for nesting shorebirds).
Unit VA–13 is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Rufa red knots also use this island
during the fall migration period as a
southbound stopover site, as well as
during the winter season period to build
energy sources for migration, but not in
large enough numbers to also meet the
criteria for fall and winter periods.
Threats identified within Unit VA–13
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by recreational
beach use (e.g., hiking, bird watching,
surf fishing, and photography), (2)
natural (e.g., hurricanes) or humancaused (e.g., oil spills) disasters, and (3)
accelerated loss of shoreline habitat
from erosional processes in response to
climate change and sea level rise.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent upland
roosting habitat during migration
(through restrictions on timing,
locations, and types of activities), and
establishing temporary sanctuaries and
management during certain times of
year to address erosion (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). The island is owned
and managed by TNC as part of the
Virginia Coast Reserve, management of
which is identified in a Conservation
Action Plan that outlines priorities and
strategies for conservation activities
(Wilke 2020, pers. comm.).
Unit NC–1: Outer Banks
Unit NC–1 consists of two subunits
comprising 11,367 ac (4,600 ha) in Dare
and Hyde Counties, North Carolina.
This unit consists of Federal lands
owned by the NPS and Service, and
lands owned by the State of North
Carolina. This unit overlaps with
occupied habitat and designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37448
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Subunit NC–1A: Hatteras Island and
Shoals
Subunit NC–1A consists of 5,754 ac
(2,329 ha) of Hatteras Island in Dare
County, North Carolina, from the
southeast side of Oregon Inlet, south
along the ocean-facing side of the island
(including Pea Island NWR) to Cape
Point in Cape Hatteras National
Seashore. From Cape Point, the subunit
stretches along the ocean side of the
island about 13.25 mi (21 km) west to
the east side of Hatteras Inlet. This
subunit includes from MLLW (i.e., the
highly dynamic beach and emergent
sand shoals that are covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide, that are
associated with the northeast side of
Hatteras Inlet’s navigable channel) to
the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat, not used by the rufa
red knot, begins. Lands within this
subunit include approximately 4,940 ac
(1,999 ha; 86 percent) in Federal
ownership (Cape Hatteras National
Seashore and Pea Island NWR), along
with 814 ac (329 ha; 14 percent) that are
uncategorized. Some portions of this
subunit include ocean-facing beaches in
front of the villages of Rodanthe, Waves,
Salvo, Avon, Buxton, Frisco, and
Hatteras. General land use within this
subunit includes beach access for
seasonal rental and residential
communities, recreational day uses (e.g.,
sunbathing, walking, bird watching,
swimming, surfing, surf fishing,
horseback riding and photography),
commercial fishing, natural resource
conservation, and open space.
Subunit NC–1A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the winter period,
providing an important wintering
habitat location in the Southeastern U.S.
portion of the subspecies range for
foraging and roosting during a time of
the year when rufa red knots are seeking
to build energy sources for migration.
Approximately 936 ac (379 ha) of this
subunit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001; 73 FR 62816, October 21, 2008).
Threats identified within Subunit
NC–1A include: (1) Disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots by
humans and human activities (e.g., pets,
powered boats, ORVs); (2) depredation
by native and nonnative predators; (3)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion, and sea level rise; and (4)
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (i.e., hurricanes, oil spills).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent saltmarsh
and upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), conducting habitat
management or restoration (e.g., living
shorelines, raising marsh elevations,
facilitated shoreline migration),
managing predator populations,
managing human activities that disturb
foraging rufa red knots, and managing
sediment sources both within the unit
and the adjacent Pamlico Sound (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands within
this subunit are managed under the
2006 Pea Island NWR Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (Service 2006a,
entire) and under the 2016 Cape
Lookout National Seashore Off-Road
Vehicle Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement
(National Park Service 2016, entire).
Subunit NC–1B: Ocracoke Island
Subunit NC–1B consists of 5,613 ac
(2,271 ha) of Ocracoke Island in Hyde
County, North Carolina, from the
southwest side of Hatteras Inlet along
the ocean-facing side of the island to the
northeast side of Ocracoke Inlet. This
subunit also encompasses shallow areas
and mudflats within Pamlico Sound on
the west side of Ocracoke Island near
Ocracoke Village. This subunit includes
from MLLW (i.e., the highly dynamic
beach and emergent sand shoals that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide) to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat, not
used by the rufa red knot, begins,
including the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the southwest
side of Hatteras Inlet and the northeast
side of Ocracoke Inlet, and the sand and
mud islands identified in Pamlico
Sound northeast of Ocracoke Village.
Lands within this subunit include
approximately 1,427 ac (577 ha; 25
percent) in Federal ownership (i.e., the
entire ocean-facing side of the Ocracoke
Island, which is part of Cape Hatteras
National Seashore), 3,612 ac (1,462 ha;
65 percent) in State ownership (i.e., the
shallow islands in Pamlico Sound on
the north side of Ocracoke), and 575 ac
(233 ha; 10 percent) that are
uncategorized. General land use within
this subunit includes recreational day
uses (e.g., sunbathing, walking, bird
watching, swimming, surfing, surf
fishing, horseback riding and
photography), commercial fishing,
natural resource conservation, and open
space.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Subunit NC–1B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound migration
stopover site. Approximately 471 ac
(190 ha) of the subunit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001; and 73 FR
62816, October 21, 2008).
Threats identified within Subunit
NC–1B include: (1) Disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots by
humans and human activities (e.g., pets,
powered boats, ORVs); (2) depredation
by native and nonnative predators; (3)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion, and sea level rise; and (4)
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (i.e., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent saltmarsh
and upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), conducting habitat
management or restoration (e.g., living
shorelines, raising marsh elevations,
facilitated shoreline migration),
managing predator populations,
managing human activities that disturb
foraging rufa red knots, and managing
sediment sources both within the unit
and the adjacent Pamlico Sound (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands within
this subunit are managed under the
2010 Cape Hatteras National Seashore
ORV Management Plan and EIS (NPS
2010, entire), and State lands are
managed under the 2015 North Carolina
Wildlife Action Plan (State of North
Carolina 2015, entire).
Unit NC–2: Core Banks
Unit NC–2 consists of two subunits
comprising 11,281 ac (4,565 ha) in
Carteret County, North Carolina. This
unit consists of Federal lands owned by
the NPS (Cape Lookout National
Seashore). This unit partially overlaps
with occupied habitat and designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover.
Subunit NC–2A: North Core Banks
Subunit NC–2A consists of 8,187 ac
(3,313 ha) in Carteret County, North
Carolina. The north boundary of the
subunit is the North Core Banks side of
the Ocracoke Inlet channel and the
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
south boundary is the North Core Banks
side of the New Drum Inlet channel, the
west boundary is the toe of the primary
dune or dense vegetation line (where
the physical or biological features do
not occur), and the east boundary is
MLLW on the Atlantic Ocean (i.e., the
highly dynamic beach and emergent
sand shoals that are covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide). This
subunit also includes MLLW on Core
Sound to the MLLW on the Atlantic
Ocean in washover areas associated
with Old Drum Inlet, all emergent sand
shoals within the flood-tidal and ebbtidal deltas associated with the North
Core Banks side of the Ocracoke Inlet
channel, and the emergent sand shoals
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the North Core
Banks side of the New Drum Inlet
channel. Lands within this unit include
6,534 ac (2,644 ha; 80 percent) that are
Federal ownership (Cape Lookout
National Seashore) and 1,654 ac (669 ha;
20 percent) that are uncategorized.
General land use within this subunit
includes camping, recreational day uses
(e.g., walking, bird watching,
swimming, surfing, surf fishing, and
photography), natural resource
conservation, and open space.
Subunit NC–2A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period,
providing important wintering habitat
on the Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 5,493 ac (2,223 ha) of
this subunit overlaps with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover (66 FR 36038,
July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Subunit
NC–2A include: (1) Disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots by
humans and human activities (e.g., pets,
powered boats, ORVs); (2) depredation
by native and nonnative predators; (3)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion, and sea level rise; and (4)
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (i.e., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
foraging habitat and adjacent saltmarsh
and upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), conducting habitat
management or restoration (e.g., living
shorelines, raising marsh elevations,
facilitated shoreline migration),
managing predator populations,
managing human activities that disturb
foraging rufa red knots, and managing
sediment sources both within the unit
and the adjacent Core and Pamlico
Sound (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Federal lands within this subunit are
managed under the 2016 Cape Lookout
National Seashore ORV Management
Plan/EIS (NPS 2016, entire).
Subunit NC–2B: South Core Banks
Subunit NC–2B consists of 3,094 ac
(1,252 ha) in Carteret County, North
Carolina. The north boundary of the
subunit is the South Core Banks side of
the New Drum Inlet Channel, the south
boundary is at the Power Squadron Spit
excluding the jetty, the west boundary
is at the toe of the primary dune or
dense vegetation line where the
physical or biological features do not
occur, and the east boundary is MLLW
on the Atlantic Ocean (i.e., the highly
dynamic beach and emergent sand
shoals that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This subunit
also includes MLLW on Core Sound to
the MLLW on the Atlantic Ocean in
emergent sand shoals within the floodtidal and ebb-tidal deltas associated
with the South Core Banks side of the
New Drum Inlet channel, and all
emergent sand shoals associated with
Cape Point. All of the lands within this
subunit are under Federal ownership
(Cape Lookout National Seashore).
General land use within this subunit
includes camping, recreational day uses
(e.g., walking, bird watching,
swimming, surfing, surf fishing, and
photography), natural resource
conservation, and open space.
Subunit NC–2B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Approximately 873 ac (353 ha) of this
subunit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001; and 73 FR 62816, October 21,
2008).
Threats identified within Subunit
NC–2B include: (1) Disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots by
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37449
humans and human activities (e.g., pets,
powered boats, ORVs); (2) depredation
by native and nonnative predators; (3)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion, and sea level rise; and (4)
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (i.e., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent saltmarsh
and upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), conducting habitat
management or restoration (e.g., living
shorelines, raising marsh elevations,
facilitated shoreline migration);
managing predator populations,
managing human activities that disturb
foraging rufa red knots, and managing
sediment sources both within the unit
and the adjacent Core Sound (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands within
this subunit are managed under the
2016 Cape Lookout National Seashore
ORV Management Plan/EIS (NPS 2016,
entire).
Unit NC–3: Shackleford Island
Unit NC–3 consists of 4,972 ac (2,012
ha) including all of Shackleford Island
in Carteret County, North Carolina. The
north boundary is MLLW along Back
Sound, Bald Hill, Johnson and
Lighthouse Bays south to dense
vegetation where the physical or
biological features do not occur. The
east boundary is the Shackleford Island
side of Barden Inlet channel, the south
boundary is MLLW on the Atlantic
Ocean, and the west boundary is the
Shackleford Island side of Beaufort Inlet
Channel. This unit includes emergent
sand shoals within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
Shackleford Island side of the Barden
Inlet channel, and the emergent sand
shoals within the flood-tidal and ebbtidal deltas associated with the west
side of the Beaufort Inlet channel (i.e.,
the highly dynamic beach and emergent
sand shoals that are covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide). All lands
within this unit are in Federal
ownership (Cape Lookout National
Seashore). General land use within this
unit includes camping, recreational day
uses (e.g., walking, bird watching,
swimming, surfing, surf fishing, and
photography), natural resource
conservation, and open space.
Unit NC–3 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37450
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Approximately 2,120 ac (858 ha) of this
unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001).
Threats identified within Unit NC–3
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., pets, powered
boats, ORVs); (2) depredation by native
and nonnative predators; (3)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion, and sea level rise; and (4)
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (i.e., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent saltmarsh
and upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), conducting habitat
management or restoration (e.g., living
shorelines, raising marsh elevations,
facilitated shoreline migration),
managing predator populations,
managing human activities that disturb
foraging rufa red knots, and managing
sediment sources both within the unit
and the adjacent Back Sound (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands within
this unit are managed under the 2016
Cape Lookout National Seashore ORV
Management Plan/EIS (NPS 2016,
entire).
Unit NC–4: Emerald Isle-Atlantic Beach
Unit NC–4 consists of 2,030 ac (822
ha) of barrier island in Carteret County,
North Carolina, stretching about 23 mi
(37 km) from the Beaufort Inlet channel
and Fort Macon State Park west to the
eastern side of the Bogue Inlet channel.
Unit NC–4 includes from MLLW to the
toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat, not used by the rufa
red knot, begins and where the physical
or biological features no longer occur.
This unit also includes the emergent
sand shoals within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the west
side of the Beaufort Inlet channel, not
including the jetty, as well as the
emergent sand shoals within the floodtidal and ebb-tidal deltas on the east
side of the Bogue Inlet channel. Lands
within this unit include approximately
1,908 ac (772 ha; 94 percent) in State
ownership and 122 ac (50 ha; 6 percent)
in private/other ownership (which
includes 1 ac (0.5 ha) in local
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
government ownership and 121 ac (49
ha) in private ownership). General land
use within this unit includes beach
access for seasonal rental and
residential communities, recreational
day uses (e.g., sunbathing, walking, bird
watching, swimming, surfing, surf
fishing, and photography), commercial
fishing, and natural resource
conservation and open space.
Unit NC–4 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this unit contains a high
concentration of rufa red knots during
the winter period, providing important
wintering habitat on the Southeastern
U.S. portion of the subspecies range for
foraging and roosting during a time of
the year when rufa red knots are seeking
to build energy sources for migration.
Approximately 258 ac (104 ha) of the
unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001), and 1,220 ac (494 ha) overlap
with designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit NC–4
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., pets, powered
boats, ORVs); (2) depredation by native
and nonnative predators; (3)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion, and sea level rise; and (4)
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (i.e., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent saltmarsh
and upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), conducting habitat
management or restoration (e.g., living
shorelines, raising marsh elevations,
facilitated shoreline migration),
managing predator populations,
managing human activities that disturb
foraging rufa red knots, and managing
sediment sources both within the unit
and the adjacent Bogue Sound (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands within
this unit are managed under the 2015
North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan
(NCWRC 2015, entire).
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Unit NC–5: New Topsail Inlet-Topsail
Beach
Unit NC–5 consists of 1,612 ac (652
ha) of barrier island in Onslow and
Pender Counties, North Carolina,
stretching about 23 mi (37 km) from the
west side of the New River Inlet channel
west to the east side of the New Topsail
Inlet channel. This unit includes from
MLLW to the toe of the dunes or where
densely vegetated habitat, not used by
the rufa red knot, begins and where the
physical or biological features no longer
occur. This unit also includes the
emergent sand shoals within the floodtidal and ebb-tidal deltas associated
with the west side of the New River
Inlet channel, as well as the emergent
sand shoals within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas on the east side of the
New Topsail Inlet channel. All lands
within this unit are in private/other
ownership. General land use within this
unit includes beach access for seasonal
rental and residential communities,
recreational day uses (e.g., sunbathing,
walking, bird watching, swimming,
surfing, surf fishing, and photography),
commercial fishing, and natural
resource conservation and open space.
Unit NC–5 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this unit contains a high
concentration of rufa red knots during
the winter period, providing important
wintering habitat on the Southeastern
U.S. portion of the subspecies range for
foraging and roosting during a time of
the year when rufa red knots are seeking
to build energy sources for migration.
Approximately 121 ac (49 ha) of this
unit overlap designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened piping
plover (66 FR 36038, July 10, 2001), and
approximately 972 ac (393 ha) overlap
with designated habitat for the federally
threatened loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR
39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit NC–5
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., pets, powered
boats, ORVs); (2) depredation by native
and nonnative predators; (3)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion, and sea level rise; (4)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to residential and commercial
development; and (5) response to
natural and human-caused disasters
(i.e., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent saltmarsh
and upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), conducting habitat
management or restoration (e.g., living
shorelines, raising marsh elevations,
facilitated shoreline migration),
managing predator populations,
managing human activities that disturb
foraging rufa red knots, and managing
sediment sources both within the unit
and the adjacent Topsail Sound (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
Unit NC–6: Cape Fear-Fort Fisher
Unit NC–6 consists of 1,986 ac (804
ha) of coastal barrier island from
Carolina Beach Inlet in New Hanover
County, North Carolina to the mouth of
the Cape Fear River in Brunswick
County, North Carolina. The north
boundary of this unit is the northeast tip
of Pleasure Island south of Carolina
Beach Inlet and the south boundary
extends from the tip of Cape Fear west
approximately 3.4 mi (5 km) to the
mouth of the Cape Fear River. The west
boundary is the toe of the primary dune
or where densely vegetated habitat, not
used by the rufa red knot, begins and
where the physical or biological features
no longer occur. The east boundary is
MLLW on the Atlantic Ocean excluding
groins and jetties. This unit also
includes all emergent sand shoals
associated with the tip of Cape Fear, the
Cape Fear River south of Military Ocean
Terminal Sunny Point, and the
emergent sand shoals within the floodtidal and ebb-tidal deltas associated
with southwest side of Carolina Beach
Inlet channel and the southwest tip of
Bald Head Island. Lands within this
unit include approximately 1,713 ac
(693 ha; 86 percent) in State ownership
and 274 ac (111 ha; 14 percent) in
private/other ownership. State lands in
this unit contain parts of Fort Fisher
State Recreation Area and Zeke’s Island
Estuarine Reserve. General land use
within this unit includes beach access
for seasonal rental and residential
communities, recreational day uses (e.g.,
sunbathing, walking, bird watching,
swimming, surfing, surf fishing, and
photography), commercial fishing, and
natural resource conservation and open
space.
Unit NC–6 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Approximately 480 ac (194 ha) of the
unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001), and approximately 1,009 ac (408
ha) overlap with designated habitat for
the federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit NC–6
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., pets, powered
boats, ORVs); (2) depredation by native
and nonnative predators; (3)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion, and sea level rise; and (4)
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (i.e., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent saltmarsh
and upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), conducting habitat
management or restoration (e.g., living
shorelines, raising marsh elevations,
facilitated shoreline migration),
managing predator populations,
managing human activities that disturb
foraging rufa red knots, and managing
sediment sources both within the unit
and the adjacent Myrtle Sound/Cape
Fear River (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
State lands within this unit are managed
under the 2015 North Carolina Wildlife
Action Plan (NCWRC 2015, entire).
Unit NC–7: Ocean Isle Beach
Unit NC–7 consists of 298 ac (120 ha)
of barrier island in Brunswick County,
North Carolina, stretching about 6 mi
(10 km) from the west side of Shallotte
Inlet to the east side of Tubbs Inlet. The
east boundary of this unit is the west
side of Shallotte Inlet. The south
boundary is the MLLW on the Atlantic
Ocean, the west boundary is the east
side of Tubbs Inlet and the north
boundary is the toe of the primary dune
or where densely vegetated habitat, not
used by the rufa red knot, begins and
where the physical or biological features
no longer occur. This unit also includes
the emergent sand shoals within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with the west side of the
Shallotte Inlet channel, as well as the
emergent sand shoals within the floodtidal and ebb-tidal deltas on the east
side of the Tubbs Inlet channel. Lands
within this unit include approximately
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37451
182 ac (73 ha; 61 percent) in State
ownership and 116 ac (47 ha; 39
percent) in private/other (municipal)
ownership. General land use within this
unit includes beach access for seasonal
rental and residential communities,
recreational day uses (e.g., sunbathing,
walking, bird watching, swimming,
surfing, surf fishing, and photography),
commercial fishing, and natural
resource conservation and open space.
Unit NC–7 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Approximately 29 ac (12 ha) of this unit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened piping
plover (66 FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit NC–7
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., pets, powered
boats, ORVs); (2) depredation by native
and nonnative predators; (3)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion, and sea level rise; and (4)
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (i.e., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent saltmarsh
and upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), conducting habitat
management or restoration (e.g., living
shorelines, raising marsh elevations,
facilitated shoreline migration),
managing predator populations,
managing human activities that disturb
foraging rufa red knots, and managing
sediment sources within the unit (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands within
this unit are managed under the 2015
North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan
(NCWRC 2015, entire).
Unit NC–8: Sunset Beach-Bird Island
Unit NC–8 consists of 384 ac (155 ha)
of barrier island in Brunswick County,
North Carolina, stretching about 4.1 mi
(6.6 km) from the west side of Tubbs
Inlet to the east side of Little River Inlet.
The east boundary of this unit is the
west side of Tubbs Inlet. The south
boundary is the MLLW on the Atlantic
Ocean, the west boundary is the east
side of Little River Inlet and the north
boundary is the toe of the primary dune
or where densely vegetated habitat, not
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37452
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
used by the rufa red knot, begins and
where the physical or biological features
no longer occur. This unit also includes
the emergent sand shoals within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with the west side of the
Tubbs Inlet channel, as well as the
emergent sand shoals within the floodtidal and ebb-tidal deltas on the east
side of the Little River Inlet channel,
excluding the jetty. Lands within this
unit include approximately 345 ac (139
ha; 90 percent) in State ownership and
39 ac (16 ha; 10 percent) in private/
other ownership. General land use
within this unit includes beach access
for seasonal rental and residential
communities, recreational day uses (e.g.,
sunbathing, walking, bird watching,
swimming, surfing, surf fishing, and
photography), commercial fishing, and
natural resource conservation and open
space.
Unit NC–8 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Approximately 61 ac (25 ha) of this unit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened piping
plover (66 FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit NC–8
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., pets, powered
boats, ORVs); (2) depredation by native
and nonnative predators; (3)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion, and sea level rise; and (4)
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (i.e., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent saltmarsh
and upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), conducting habitat
management or restoration (e.g., living
shorelines, raising marsh elevations,
facilitated shoreline migration),
managing predator populations,
managing human activities that disturb
foraging rufa red knots, and managing
sediment sources within the unit (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands within
this unit are managed under the
Management Plan for the Bird Island
Component of the North Carolina
Coastal Reserve (North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Resources Division of Coastal
Management 2003, entire) and the 2015
North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan
(NCWRC 2015, entire).
Unit SC–1: Garden City Beach
Unit SC–1 consists of 616 ac (249 ha)
of Garden City Beach in Georgetown
and Horry Counties, South Carolina.
The northern boundary of the unit
begins at the Garden City pier in Horry
County and extends southwest to the
northern side of Murrells Inlet in
Georgetown County. The unit includes
all emergent land from MLLW (which
includes the highly dynamic shoreline
and sandy intertidal zone that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide) to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat, not
used by the red knot, begins. This unit
also includes the ephemeral, emergent
shoals (sand bars) within the flood-tidal
and ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
northeastern side of Murrells Inlet’s
navigable channel. Lands within this
unit include approximately 267 ac (108
ha; 43 percent) in State ownership and
349 ac (141 ha; 57 percent) in private/
other ownership. General land use
within this unit includes residential
development, tourism, and outdoor
recreational use (e.g., beachgoing,
boating).
Unit SC–1 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots in South Carolina and on
the Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range during the winter
period, providing important wintering
habitat for foraging and roosting during
a time of the year when rufa red knots
are seeking to build energy sources for
migration. Approximately 57 ac (23 ha)
of this unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover (66 FR 36038,
July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit SC–1
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
running/walking/biking through or too
close to flocks of red knots, powered
boats); (2) depredation by native and
nonnative predators; (3) modification or
loss of habitat or both due to
uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion, and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with the
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing recreational access to key rufa
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration (through restrictions
on timing, locations, and types of
activities) and limiting shoreline
stabilization project construction
windows (e.g., outside of red knot
migration windows) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
Unit SC–2: Huntington Beach State
Park/Litchfield Beach
Unit SC–2 consists of 1,634 ac (661
ha) of Huntington Beach State Park and
Litchfield Beach in Georgetown County,
South Carolina. The unit boundary
begins on the southern side of Murrells
Inlet southwest and extends southwest
to the northern side of Midway Inlet.
The unit includes all emergent land
from MLLW (which includes the highly
dynamic shoreline and sandy intertidal
zone that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide) to the toe of the
dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat, not used by the red knot, begins.
This unit also includes the ephemeral,
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with the southwestern side of
Murrells Inlet’s navigable channel and
the northeastern side of Midway Inlet’s
navigable channel. Lands within this
unit include approximately 80 ac (32 ha;
5 percent) in State ownership, which
includes Huntington Beach State Park,
and 1,554 ac (629 ha; 95 percent) in
private/other ownership. General land
use within this unit includes residential
development, tourism, and outdoor
recreational use (e.g., beachgoing,
boating, fishing, birdwatching, and
hiking).
Unit SC–2 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots in South Carolina and on
the Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range during the winter
period, providing important wintering
habitat for foraging and roosting during
a time of the year when rufa red knots
are seeking to build energy sources for
migration. Approximately 371 ac (150
ha) of this unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover (66 FR 36038,
July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit SC–2
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
powered boats, running/walking/biking
through or too close to flocks of rufa red
knots); (2) depredation by native and
nonnative predators; (3) modification or
loss of habitat or both due to
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion, and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with the
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration (through restrictions
on timing, locations, and types of
activities) and limiting shoreline
stabilization project construction
windows (e.g., outside of red knot
migration windows) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands and
waters within this unit are managed
under the South Carolina Department of
Parks, Recreation, and Tourism’s
(SCDPRT) 2019 South Carolina State
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan (SCDPRT 2019, entire).
Unit SC–3: Sand and South Island
Beaches
Unit SC–3 consists of 8,256 ac (3,341
ha) of Sand and South Islands, barrier
islands off the coast in Georgetown
County, South Carolina. The unit
boundary begins on the northeastern
edge of South Island in North Inlet
behind North Island following the
shoreline to include Sand Island and
continuing southwest to the southern
tip of South Island. The unit includes
all emergent land from MLLW (which
includes the highly dynamic shoreline
and sandy intertidal zone that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide) to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat, not
used by the red knot, begins. This unit
also includes the ephemeral, emergent
shoals (sand bars) within the flood-tidal
and ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
unnamed inlet between Sand and South
Islands and the northeastern side of
North Santee River Inlet’s navigable
channel. Lands within this unit include
approximately 7,843 ac (3,174 ha; 95
percent) in State ownership, 129 ac (52
ha; 2 percent) in private/other
ownership, and 283 ac (115 ha; 3
percent) that are uncategorized. General
land use within this unit includes
wildlife management as part of South
Carolina Department of Natural
Resources’ (SCDNR) Tom Yawkey
Wildlife Center Heritage Preserve and
outdoor recreational use (e.g., boating,
fishing, birdwatching, wildlife viewing).
Unit SC–3 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
migration period, serving as an
important northbound migration
stopover site in South Carolina and on
the Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range. This unit also has
remote boat-only access and an
undeveloped character that provides
protection from intensive human uses.
Approximately 664 ac (269 ha) of this
unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001), and 475 ac (192 ha) of the unit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened loggerhead
sea turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit SC–3
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
running/walking through or too close to
flocks of red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to erosion, and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with the response to natural and
human-caused disasters (e.g.,
hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
access to red knot foraging and roosting
habitat during migration, such as
through restrictions on timing,
locations, and types of activities) (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands and
waters within this unit are managed
under the SCDNR’s State Wildlife
Action Plan (SCDNR 2015, entire).
Unit SC–4: Murphy Island Beach
Unit SC–4 consists of 8,312 ac (3,364
ha) and includes all of Murphy Island,
a barrier island off the coast in
Charleston County, South Carolina. The
unit boundary begins on the South
Santee River shoreline of Murphy’s
Island and extends to the Alligator
Creek shoreline. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW (which
includes the highly dynamic shoreline
and sandy intertidal zone that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide) to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat, not
used by the red knot, begins. This unit
also includes the ephemeral, emergent
shoals (sand bars) within the flood-tidal
and ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
unnamed inlets along the shoreline of
Murphy Island. Lands within this unit
are entirely in State ownership and
SCDNR manages Murphy Island as part
of the Santee Coastal Reserve Wildlife
Management Area. General land use
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37453
within this unit includes wildlife
management and outdoor recreational
use (e.g., boating, hunting, fishing,
birdwatching).
Unit SC–4 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site in South Carolina and on
the Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period,
providing important wintering habitat
for foraging and roosting during a time
of the year when rufa red knots are
seeking to build energy sources for
migration. This unit also has remote
boat-only access and an undeveloped
character that provides protection from
intensive human uses. Approximately
253 ac (102 ha) of this unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit SC–4
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running through or too close to
flocks of red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
State lands and waters within this unit
are managed under the SCDNR’s State
Wildlife Action Plan (SCDNR 2015,
entire).
Unit SC–5: North Cape Island Beach
Unit SC–5 consists of 1,270 ac (514
ha) of the entire northern portion of
Cape Island, a barrier island off the
coast in Charleston County, South
Carolina. The unit boundary begins on
the Cape Romain Harbor shoreline of
Cape Island and extends south to the
shoreline along the unnamed inlet
between North Cape and South Cape
Islands. The unit includes all emergent
land from MLLW to the toe of the dunes
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37454
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
or where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the northern side
of the navigable channel of the
unnamed inlet between North Cape
Island and South Cape Island. Lands
within this unit include approximately
775 ac (313 ha; 61 percent) in Federal
ownership and 495 ac (200 ha; 39
percent) in State ownership. General
land use within this unit includes
wildlife management as part of the
Service’s Cape Romain NWR and
outdoor recreational use (e.g.,
beachgoing, boating, fishing, hiking, and
birdwatching). North Cape Island is also
classified as a Class I Wilderness Area.
Unit SC–5 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site in
South Carolina and on the Southeastern
U.S. portion of the subspecies range.
This unit also has remote boat-only
access and an undeveloped character
that provides protection from intensive
human uses. Approximately 49 ac (20
ha) of this unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR
39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit SC–5
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running through or too close to
flocks of red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to uncontrolled
recreational access, erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands in this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
unit are managed under the 2010 Cape
Romain NWR Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (Service 2010a,
entire).
Unit SC–6: South Cape and Lighthouse
Island Beaches
Unit SC–6 consists of 2,037 ac (824
ha) of the entire southern portion Cape
Island and all of Lighthouse Island,
barrier islands off the coast in
Charleston County, South Carolina. The
unit boundary begins at the northern tip
of South Cape Island in the unnamed
inlet between North Cape and South
Cape Islands and extends to the western
tip of Lighthouse Island in Key Inlet.
The unit includes all emergent land
from MLLW to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the southern side
of the navigable channel of the
unnamed inlet between North Cape
Island and South Cape Island and the
emergent sand shoals associated with
Key Inlet. Lands within this unit
include approximately 1,552 ac (628 ha;
76 percent) in Federal ownership and
485 ac (196 ha; 24 percent) in State
ownership. General land use within this
unit includes wildlife management as
part of the Service’s Cape Romain NWR
and outdoor recreational use (e.g.,
beachgoing, boating, fishing, and
birdwatching). South Cape Island is also
classified as a Class I Wilderness Area.
Unit SC–6 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site in
South Carolina and on the Southeastern
U.S. portion of the subspecies range.
This unit also has remote boat-only
access and an undeveloped character
that provides protection from intensive
human uses. Approximately 745 ac (302
ha) of this unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover (66 FR 36038,
July 10, 2001), and 324 ac (131 ha) of
this unit overlap with the federally
threatened loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR
39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit SC–6
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running through or too close to
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
flocks of red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to uncontrolled
recreational access, erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands in this
unit are managed under the 2010 Cape
Romain NWR Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (Service 2010a,
entire).
Unit SC–7: Raccoon Key Complex and
White Banks Beaches
Unit SC–7 consists of 5,324 ac (2,154
ha) of the entire Raccoon Key complex
and White Banks, islands off the coast
in Charleston County, South Carolina.
The unit boundary begins at the
intersection of the Romain River and
Key Inlet side of Raccoon Key and
extends to the western edge of White
Banks in Bulls Bay. The unit includes
all emergent land from MLLW to the toe
of the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
unnamed inlets in the Raccoon Key
complex. Lands within this unit are all
in Federal ownership. General land use
within this unit includes wildlife
management as part of the Service’s
Cape Romain NWR and outdoor
recreational use (e.g., beachgoing,
boating, fishing, and birdwatching).
Unit SC–7 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site on the Southeastern U.S.
portion of the subspecies range.
Additionally, this unit contains a high
concentration of rufa red knots during
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
the winter period, providing important
wintering habitat on the northern Gulf
coast for foraging and roosting during a
time of the year when rufa red knots are
seeking to build energy sources for
migration. This unit is one of three units
in South Carolina that supports rufa red
knots throughout the entire nonbreeding
season (fall, winter, and spring). The
area also has remote boat-only access
and an undeveloped character that
provides protection from intensive
human uses. Approximately 119 ac (48
ha) of this unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover (66 FR 36038,
July 10, 2001), and 41 ac (17 ha) of this
unit overlap with the federally
threatened loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR
39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit SC–7
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running through or too close to
flocks of red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to uncontrolled
recreational access, erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands in this
unit are managed under the 2010 Cape
Romain NWR Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (Service 2010a,
entire).
Unit SC–8: Marsh Island
Unit SC–8 consists of 415 ac (168 ha)
of all of Marsh Island, an island in Bulls
Bay in Charleston County, South
Carolina. The unit includes all emergent
land from MLLW to the toe of the dunes
or where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with Marsh Island.
Lands within this unit include are all in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Federal ownership. General land use
within this unit includes wildlife
management as part of the Service’s
Cape Romain NWR and seasonal
outdoor recreational use (e.g., boating,
fishing, and birdwatching).
Unit SC–8 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
red knots during the spring migration
period, particularly in the spring when
horseshoe crabs are spawning, as well as
a high concentration of rufa red knots
during the fall migration period (i.e.,
one of six units in South Carolina that
supports high concentrations of rufa red
knots during fall migration). The habitat
in this unit serves as an important
northbound and southbound stopover
site, in addition to the area having
remote boat-only access and an
undeveloped character that provides
protection from intensive human uses.
Threats identified within Unit SC–8
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities despite the island
being seasonally closed (e.g., off leash
dogs, walking/running through or too
close to flocks of red knots, powered
boats); (2) depredation by native and
nonnative predators; (3) modification or
loss of habitat or both due to
uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with response to
natural and human-caused disasters
(e.g., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
recreational access to key rufa red knot
foraging and roosting habitat during
migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands in this
unit are managed under the 2010 Cape
Romain NWR Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (Service 2010a,
entire).
Unit SC–9: Bulls Island Beach
Unit SC–9 consists of 6,141 ac (2,485
ha) of all of Bulls Island, a barrier island
of the coast in Charleston County, South
Carolina. The unit boundary begins on
the Bulls Bay shoreline of Bulls Island
and extends southwest to the Price Inlet
shoreline. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37455
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
northeastern side of Price Inlet’s
navigable channel. Lands within this
unit include approximately 5,200 ac
(2,104 ha; 85 percent) in Federal
ownership and 941 ac (381 ha; 15
percent) in State ownership. General
land use within this unit includes
wildlife management as part of the
Service’s Cape Romain NWR and
outdoor recreational use (e.g.,
beachgoing, boating, hunting, fishing,
hiking, and birdwatching).
Unit SC–9 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site in
South Carolina and on the Southeastern
U.S. portion of the subspecies range.
This unit also contains a high
concentration of rufa red knots during
the winter period, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Additionally, this unit has remote boatonly access and an undeveloped
character that provides protection from
intensive human uses. Approximately
206 ac (83 ha) of this unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit SC–9
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running through or too close to
flocks of red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to uncontrolled
recreational access, erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37456
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands in this
unit are managed under the 2010 Cape
Romain NWR Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (Service 2010a,
entire).
Unit SC–10: Capers Island Beach
Unit SC–10 consists of 2,534 ac (1,026
ha) of all of Capers Island, a barrier
island off the coast in Charleston
County, South Carolina. The unit
boundary begins on the Price Inlet
shoreline of Capers Island and extends
southwest to the Capers Inlet shoreline.
The unit includes all emergent land
from MLLW to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the southwestern
side of Price’s Inlet’s navigable channel
and the northeastern side of Capers
Inlet’s navigable channel. Lands within
this unit are entirely in State ownership.
General land use within this unit
includes resource management as part
of SCDNR’s Capers Island Natural
Heritage Preserve and outdoor
recreational use (e.g., beachgoing,
boating, hunting, fishing, camping, and
birdwatching).
Unit SC–10 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site in
South Carolina and on the Southeastern
U.S. portion of the subspecies range.
This unit also contains a high
concentration of rufa red knots during
the winter period, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Additionally, this unit has remote boatonly access and an undeveloped
character that provides protection from
intensive human uses. Approximately
160 ac (65 ha) of this unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit SC–10
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
walking/running through or too close to
flocks of red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to uncontrolled
recreational access, erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands and
waters within this unit are managed
under the SCDNR’s State Wildlife
Action Plan (SCDNR 2015, entire).
Unit SC–11: Dewees Island Beach
Unit SC–11 consists of 1,812 ac (733
ha) of all of Dewees Island, a barrier
island off the coast in Charleston
County, South Carolina. The unit
boundary begins on the Capers Inlet
shoreline of Dewees Island and extends
to the Dewees Inlet shoreline. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with the southwestern side of
Caper’s Inlet’s navigable channel and
the northeastern side of Dewees Inlet’s
navigable channel. Lands within this
unit include approximately 265 ac (107
ha; 15 percent) in State ownership and
1,547 ac (626 ha; 85 percent) in private/
other ownership. General land use
within this unit includes low-level
residential development and outdoor
recreational use (e.g., beachgoing,
boating, and fishing).
Unit SC–11 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots in South Carolina and the
Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range during the winter
period, providing important wintering
habitat for foraging and roosting during
a time of the year when rufa red knots
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
are seeking to build energy sources for
migration.
Threats identified within Unit SC–11
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running/biking through or too
close to flocks of red knots, powered
boats); (2) depredation by native and
nonnative predators; (3) modification or
loss of habitat or both due to
uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with response to
natural and human-caused disasters
(e.g., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
recreational access to key rufa red knot
foraging and roosting habitat during
migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Private/other lands
within this unit are managed under the
2015 Local Comprehensive Beach
Management Plan for Unincorporated
Charleston County (Charleston County
2015, entire).
Unit SC–12: Isle of Palms Beach
Unit SC–12 consists of 4,117 ac (1,666
ha) of all of the Isle of Palms, a barrier
island off the coast in Charleston
County, South Carolina. The unit
boundary begins at the Dewees Inlet
shoreline of the Isle of Palms and
extends southwest to the Breach Inlet
shoreline. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
southwestern side of Dewees Inlet’s
navigable channel and the northeastern
side of Breach Inlet’s navigable channel.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 754 ac (305 ha; 18
percent) in State ownership and 3,363
ac (1,361 ha; 82 percent) in private/
other ownership. General land use
within this unit includes beach access
for seasonal rental and residential
communities, and recreational day uses
(e.g., beachgoing, boating, fishing,
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
birdwatching) within the municipality
of the City of Isle of Palms.
Unit SC–12 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Threats identified within Unit SC–12
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running/biking through or too
close to flocks of red knots, powered
boats); (2) depredation by native and
nonnative predators; (3) modification or
loss of habitat or both due to
uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with response to
natural and human-caused disasters
(e.g., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
recreational access to key rufa red knot
foraging and roosting habitat during
migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Private/other lands
within this unit are managed under the
2017 Isle of Palms Local Comprehensive
Beach Management Plan (City of Isle of
Palms 2017, entire).
Unit SC–13: Sullivan’s Island Beach
Unit SC–13 consists of 1,782 ac (721
ha) of all of Sullivan’s Island, a barrier
island off the coast in Charleston
County, South Carolina. The unit
boundary begins on the Breach Inlet
shoreline of Sullivan’s Island and
extends southwest to the Charleston
Harbor shoreline. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
southwestern side of Breach Inlet’s
navigable channel. Lands within this
unit include approximately 83 ac (34 ha;
5 percent) in Federal ownership as part
of the NPS’s Ft. Moultrie (which is part
of the Ft. Sumter National Monument),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
694 ac (281 ha; 39 percent) in State
ownership, and 1,005 ac (407 ha; 56
percent) in private/other ownership.
General land use within this unit
includes beach access for seasonal
rental and residential communities, and
recreational day uses (e.g., beachgoing,
boating, fishing, birdwatching) within
the municipality of the Town of
Sullivan’s Island.
Unit SC–13 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site on
the Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period,
providing important wintering habitat
for foraging and roosting during a time
of the year when rufa red knots are
seeking to build energy sources for
migration.
Threats identified within Unit SC–13
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running/biking through or too
close to flocks of red knots, powered
boats); (2) depredation by native and
nonnative predators; (3) modification or
loss of habitat or both due to
uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with response to
natural and human-caused disasters
(e.g., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
recreational access to key rufa red knot
foraging and roosting habitat during
migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands are
managed under the Ft. Sumter National
Monument General Management Plan
(NPS 2003, entire). Private/other lands
within this unit are managed under the
2019 Sullivan’s Island Comprehensive
Plan (Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester
Council of Governments 2019, entire).
Unit SC–14: Folly Beach
Unit SC–14 consists of 1,989 ac (805
ha) of the entire island of Folly Beach,
a barrier island off the coast in
Charleston County, South Carolina. The
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37457
unit boundary begins on the Lighthouse
Inlet shoreline of Folly Beach and
extends southwest to the Folly River
shoreline. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
southwestern side of Lighthouse Inlet’s
navigable channel and the Folly Beach
side of the Folly River Inlet’s navigable
channel between Folly Beach and Bird
Key. Lands within this unit are entirely
in private/other land ownership within
the city limits of municipality of the
City of Folly Beach. General land use
within this unit includes residential/
commercial development, county parks,
tourism, and outdoor recreational use
(e.g., beachgoing, surfing, fishing, and
boating).
Unit SC–14 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site in South Carolina and on
the Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period,
providing important wintering habitat
for foraging and roosting during a time
of the year when rufa red knots are
seeking to build energy sources for
migration. Approximately 254 ac (103
ha) of this unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR
39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit SC–14
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running/biking through or too
close to flocks of red knots, powered
boats); (2) depredation by native and
nonnative predators; (3) modification or
loss of habitat or both due to
uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with response to
natural and human-caused disasters
(e.g., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
recreational access to key rufa red knot
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37458
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
foraging and roosting habitat during
migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Private/other lands
within this unit are managed under the
2015 City of Folly Beach Local
Comprehensive Beach Management
Plan (City of Folly Beach 2015, entire).
Unit SC–15: Bird Key-Stono
Unit SC–15 consists of 294 ac (119 ha)
of all of Bird Key-Stono, an island in the
mouth of the Stono Inlet in Charleston
County, South Carolina. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with the southwestern side of
the Folly River Inlet. Lands within this
unit are entirely in State ownership.
SCDNR manages Bird Key-Stono as a
State Seabird Sanctuary. General land
use within this unit includes wildlife
management and outdoor recreational
use (e.g., boating, fishing).
Unit SC–15 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site,
particularly when horseshoe crabs are
spawning. This unit also has remote
boat-only access, seasonal closure, and
an undeveloped character that provides
protection from intensive human uses.
Approximately 70 ac (28 ha) of this unit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened piping
plover (66 FR 36038, July 10, 2001), and
1.4 ac (0.6 ha) of this unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit SC–15
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running through or too close to
flocks of red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to uncontrolled
recreational access, erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands and
waters within this unit are managed
under the SCDNR’s State Wildlife
Action Plan (SCDNR 2015, entire).
Unit SC–16: Kiawah and Seabrook
Island Beaches
Unit SC–16 consists of 11,250 ac
(4,553 ha) of all of Kiawah Island and
a portion of Seabrook Island, barrier
islands off the coast in Charleston
County, South Carolina. The unit
boundary begins on the Stono Inlet
shoreline of Kiawah Island and extends
southwest to the tip of the Seabrook
Island shoreline in the North Edisto
River. The unit includes all emergent
land from MLLW to the toe of the dunes
or where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the western side
of the Stono Inlet and all of Captain
Sam’s Inlet. Lands within this unit
include approximately 1,399 ac (566 ha;
5 percent) in State ownership and 9,850
ac (3,986 ha; 95 percent) in private/
other ownership within the Town limits
of the Town of Kiawah Island and the
Town of Seabrook Island. General land
use within this unit includes residential
development, tourism, golf resorts, and
outdoor recreational use (e.g.,
beachgoing, boating, kayaking, fishing,
wildlife viewing).
Unit SC–16 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site in
South Carolina and on the Southeastern
U.S. portion of the subspecies range
(i.e., the most important known spring
migration staging area in the Southeast).
Additionally, this unit contains a high
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
concentration of rufa red knots during
the winter period, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 1,591 ac (644 ha) of this
unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001), and 2,067 ac (836 ha) of this unit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened loggerhead
sea turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit SC–16
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running through or too close to
flocks of red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to uncontrolled
recreational access, erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Private/other lands
within this unit are managed under the
2020 Town of Kiawah Island Local
Comprehensive Beach Management
Plan (Town of Kiawah Island 2020,
entire) and 2019 Town of Seabrook
Island Beach Management Plan (Town
of Seabrook Island 2019, entire).
Unit SC–17: Deveaux Bank
Unit SC–17 consists of 1,328 ac (538
ha) of all of Deveaux Bank, an island in
the mouth of the North Edisto River in
Charleston County, South Carolina. The
unit includes all emergent land from
MLLW to the toe of the dunes or where
densely vegetated habitat (not used by
the rufa red knot) begins (i.e., the highly
dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the mouth of the
North Edisto River. Lands within this
unit are entirely in State ownership.
General land use within this unit
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
includes wildlife management as a
SCDNR Seabird Sanctuary and outdoor
recreational use (e.g., beachgoing,
boating, and fishing).
Unit SC–17 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site,
particularly when horseshoe crabs are
spawning. This unit also has remote
boat-only access, partial seasonal
closure, and an undeveloped character
that provides protection from intensive
human uses. Approximately 459 ac (186
ha) of this unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover (66 FR 36038,
July 10, 2001), and 664 ac (269 ha) of
this unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR
39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit SC–17
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running through or too close to
flocks of red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to uncontrolled
recreational access, erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands and
waters within this unit are managed
under the SCDNR’s State Wildlife
Action Plan (SCDNR 2015, entire).
Unit SC–18: Edisto Island Beaches
Unit SC–18 consists of 1,743 ac (705
ha) of the beaches of Edisto Island, a
barrier island off the coast, including all
of Botany Bay Island, all of Botany Bay
Plantation, all of Interlude Beach, all of
Edingsville Beach, and a portion of
Edisto Beach State Park in Charleston
and Colleton Counties, South Carolina.
The unit boundary begins on the North
Edisto River shoreline of Botany Bay
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Island and extends southwest to the
undeveloped eastern half of the
beachfront portion of Edisto Beach State
Park southwest of Jeremy Inlet. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with Frampton and Jeremy
Inlets and the unnamed inlet separating
Interlude Beach and Botany Bay
Plantation. Lands within this unit
include approximately 650 ac (263 ha;
37 percent) in State ownership and
1,093 ac (442 ha; 63 percent) in private/
other ownership. General land use
within this unit includes residential
development, tourism, Edisto Beach
State Park, and wildlife management as
part of SCDNR’s Botany Bay Heritage
Preserve/Wildlife Management Area,
and outdoor recreational use (e.g.,
beachgoing, boating, and fishing).
Unit SC–18 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site in South Carolina and on
the Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period,
providing important wintering habitat
for foraging and roosting during a time
of the year when rufa red knots are
seeking to build energy sources for
migration. This unit is one of three units
in South Carolina that supports high
concentrations of rufa red knots
throughout the entire nonbreeding
season (fall, winter, and spring).
Approximately 201 ac (81 ha) of this
unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR 39756, July
10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit SC–18
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running/biking through or too
close to flocks of red knots, powered
boats); (2) depredation by native and
nonnative predators; (3) modification or
loss of habitat or both due to
uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with response to
natural and human-caused disasters
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37459
(e.g., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
recreational access to key rufa red knot
foraging and roosting habitat during
migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Private/other lands
within this unit are managed under the
2015 Local Comprehensive Beach
Management Plan for Unincorporated
Charleston County (Charleston County
2015, entire). State lands and waters
within this unit are managed under the
SCDNR’s State Wildlife Action Plan
(SCDNR 2015, entire).
Unit SC–19: Pine and Otter Island
Beaches
Unit SC–19 consists of 6,302 ac (2,550
ha) of all of Pine and Otter Islands, sea
islands in St. Helena Sound in Colleton
County, South Carolina. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with Fish Creek Inlet. Lands
within this unit include approximately
6,296 ac (2,548 ha; 99 percent) in State
ownership and 6 ac (2 ha; less than 1
percent) in private/other ownership.
General land use within this unit
includes natural areas and wildlife
management as part of the AshepooCombahee-Edisto Basin NERR and
SCDNR’s St. Helena Sound Heritage
Preserve/Wildlife Management Area,
and outdoor recreational use (e.g.,
beachgoing, boating, and fishing).
Unit SC–19 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site in South Carolina and on
the Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range, particularly when
horseshoe crabs are spawning in the
spring. This unit is one of six units in
South Carolina that supports high
concentrations of the subspecies during
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37460
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
the fall migration period. The location
also has remote boat-only access and an
undeveloped character that provides
protection from intensive human uses.
Approximately 247 ac (100 ha) of this
unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001), and 324 ac (131 ha) of this unit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened loggerhead
sea turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit SC–19
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running through or too close to
flocks of red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to uncontrolled
recreational access, erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands and
waters within this unit are managed
under the SCDNR’s State Wildlife
Action Plan (SCDNR 2015, entire) and
the Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto Basin
NERR Management Plan (SCDNR 2011,
entire).
Unit SC–20: Harbor and Hunting Island
Beaches
Unit SC–20 consists of 4,066 ac (1,645
ha) of Harbor and Hunting Islands,
barrier islands off the coast in Beaufort
County, South Carolina. The unit
boundary begins on the Harbor River
shoreline of Harbor Island and extends
southwest to the Fripp Inlet shoreline of
Hunting Island. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with Johnson
Creek Inlet. Lands within this unit
include approximately 3,246 ac (1,313
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
ha; 80 percent) in State ownership and
820 ac (331 ha; 20 percent) in private/
other ownership. General land use
within this unit includes residential
development (Harbor Island), tourism
(Hunting Island State Park), and outdoor
recreational use (e.g., beachgoing,
boating, fishing, birdwatching,
camping).
Unit SC–20 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site on the Southeastern U.S.
portion of the subspecies range,
particularly in the spring when
horseshoe crabs are spawning.
Additionally, this unit is one of only six
units in South Carolina that supports
high concentrations of rufa red knots
during the fall migration period.
Approximately 194 ac (78 ha) of this
unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001), and 662 ac (268 ha) of this unit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened loggerhead
sea turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit SC–20
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running/biking through or too
close to flocks of red knots, powered
boats); (2) depredation by native and
nonnative predators; (3) modification or
loss of habitat or both due to
uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with response to
natural and human-caused disasters
(e.g., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
recreational access to key rufa red knot
foraging and roosting habitat during
migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands and
waters within this unit are managed
under SCDPRT’s 2019 South Carolina
State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan (SCDPRT 2019, entire).
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Unit SC–21: Fripp Island Beach
Unit SC–21 consists of 734 ac (297 ha)
of Fripp Island, a barrier island off the
coast in Beaufort County, South
Carolina. The unit boundary begins on
the Fripp Inlet shoreline of Fripp Inlet
and extends southwest to the Skull
Creek Inlet shoreline. The unit includes
all emergent land from MLLW to the toe
of the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with Fripp
Inlet. Lands within this unit include
approximately 305 ac (124 ha; 42
percent) in State ownership and 429 ac
(174 ha; 58 percent) in private/other
ownership. General land use within this
unit includes residential development,
tourism, and outdoor recreational use
(e.g., beachgoing, boating, and fishing).
Unit SC–21 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Threats identified within Unit SC–21
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running/biking through or too
close to flocks of red knots, powered
boats); (2) depredation by native and
nonnative predators; (3) modification or
loss of habitat or both due to
uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with response to
natural and human-caused disasters
(e.g., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
recreational access to key rufa red knot
foraging and roosting habitat during
migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Private/other lands
within this unit are managed under the
2020 Fripp Island Beach Management
Plan (Beaufort County 2020, entire).
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Unit SC–22: Hilton Head Island Beach
Unit SC–22 consists of 1,682 ac (681
ha) of the heel of Hilton Head Island, a
barrier island off the coast in Beaufort
County, South Carolina. The unit
boundary begins on the Port Royal
Sound shoreline beginning at Oyster
Shell Lane, continues southeast then
turns southwest along the Atlantic
Ocean shoreline, and continues to the
undeveloped portion of Singleton Beach
southwest of Folly Beach. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the rufa
red knot) begins (i.e., the highly
dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with Fish Haul Creek
and unnamed inlets within the unit
boundary. Lands within this unit
include approximately 1,015 ac (411 ha;
60 percent) in State ownership and 667
ac (270 ha; 40 percent) in private/other
ownership. General land use within this
unit includes beach access for seasonal
rental and residential communities, and
recreational day uses (e.g., beachgoing,
boating, fishing, birdwatching) within
the municipality of the Town of Hilton
Head.
Unit SC–22 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site in South Carolina and on
the Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period,
providing important wintering habitat
for foraging and roosting during a time
of the year when rufa red knots are
seeking to build energy sources for
migration. This unit is one of three units
in South Carolina that supports high
concentrations of rufa red knots
throughout the entire nonbreeding
season (fall, winter, and spring).
Approximately 73 ac (29 ha) of this unit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened piping
plover (66 FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit SC–22
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running/biking through or too
close to flocks of red knots, powered
boats); (2) depredation by native and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
nonnative predators; (3) modification or
loss of habitat or both due to
uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with response to
natural and human-caused disasters
(e.g., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
recreational access to key rufa red knot
foraging and roosting habitat during
migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Private/other lands
within this unit are managed under the
2017 Town of Hilton Head Island Local
Comprehensive Beach Management
Plan (Town of Hilton Head 2017,
entire).
Unit SC–23: Daufuskie Island Beach
Unit SC–23 consists of 6,370 ac (2,578
ha) of all of Daufuskie Island, a sea
island in Calibogue Sound in Beaufort
County, South Carolina. The unit
boundary begins on the Calibogue
Sound shoreline of Daufuskie Island
and extends southwest to the Mungen
Creek shoreline. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the unit boundary.
All lands within this unit are in private/
other ownership. General land use
within this unit includes residential
development, tourism, and outdoor
recreational use (e.g., beachgoing,
boating, and fishing).
Unit SC–23 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
This unit also includes remote boat-only
access and has a low-level of
development, preventing the subspecies
from experiencing intensive human
uses.
Threats identified within Unit SC–23
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37461
walking/running/biking through or too
close to flocks of red knots, powered
boats); (2) depredation by native and
nonnative predators; (3) modification or
loss of habitat or both due to
uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with response to
natural and human-caused disasters
(e.g., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
recreational access to key rufa red knot
foraging and roosting habitat during
migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
Unit SC–24: Turtle Island Beach
Unit SC–24 consists of 1,798 ac (728
ha) of all of Turtle Island, a sea island
in Calibogue Sound in Jasper County,
South Carolina. The unit boundary
begins on the New River shoreline of
Turtle Island and extends southwest to
the Wright River shoreline. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with the unnamed inlet in
the center of the island shoreline. Lands
within this unit are entirely in State
ownership as SCDNR’s Turtle Island
Wildlife Management Area. General
land use within this unit includes
wildlife management and outdoor
recreational use (e.g., beachgoing,
boating, and fishing).
Unit SC–24 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site,
particularly when horseshoe crabs are
spawning. This unit also has remote
boat-only access and an undeveloped
character that provides protection from
intensive human uses.
Threats identified within Unit SC–24
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37462
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running through or too close to
flocks of red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to uncontrolled
recreational access, erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands and
waters within this unit are managed
under the SCDNR’s State Wildlife
Action Plan (SCDNR 2015, entire).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Unit SC–25: Jones Island Beach
Unit SC–25 consists of 3,025 ac (1,224
ha) of all of Jones Island, a sea island
along the Savannah River and Calibogue
Sound in Jasper County, South Carolina.
The unit boundary begins on the Wright
River shoreline of Jones Island to the
Savannah River shoreline. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with Wright River Inlet.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 785 ac (318 ha; 26
percent) in Federal ownership, which
includes the Service’s Tybee Island
NWR, and 2,240 ac (907 ha; 74 percent)
in State ownership. General land use
within this unit includes wildlife
management and outdoor recreational
use (e.g., boating, fishing).
Unit SC–25 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site,
particularly when horseshoe crabs are
spawning. This location also includes
restrictions on public access and has an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
undeveloped character that provides
protection from intensive human uses.
Threats identified within Unit SC–25
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running through or too close to
flocks of red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to uncontrolled
recreational access, erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and managing the collection of
spawning horseshoe crabs for
biomedical use (e.g., limiting location
and timing of collection) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands in this
unit are managed under the 2011
Savannah Coastal NWR Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(Service 2011, entire).
Unit GA–1: Tybee Island Beach
Unit GA–1 consists of 2,046 ac (828
ha) of Tybee Island (including north,
mid, and south beaches), a barrier island
off the coast in Chatham County,
Georgia. The northern boundary of the
unit begins at the Savannah River
shoreline of Tybee Island and extends
south to Tybee Creek Inlet, which
separates Tybee Island from Little Tybee
Island, and includes all emergent land
from MLLW to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and sandy
intertidal zone that is covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the eastern side
of Tybee Inlet’s navigable channel.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 6 ac (2 ha; less than 1
percent) in State ownership, 1,721 ac
(697 ha; 84 percent) in private/other
ownership, and 319 ac (129 ha; 15
percent) that are uncategorized. General
land use within this unit includes beach
access for seasonal rental and
residential communities, and
recreational day uses (e.g., beachgoing,
boating, fishing, birdwatching) within
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the municipality of the City of Tybee
Island.
Unit GA–1 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this unit contains a high
concentration of rufa red knots during
the winter period, providing important
wintering habitat on the Southeastern
U.S. portion of the subspecies range for
foraging and roosting during a time of
the year when rufa red knots are seeking
to build energy sources for migration.
Approximately 179 ac (73 ha) of this
unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001).
Threats identified within Unit GA–1
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
running/walking/biking through or too
close to flocks of red knots, powered
boats); (2) depredation by native and
nonnative predators; (3) modification or
loss of habitat or both due to
uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion, and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with the
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration (through restrictions
on timing, locations, and types of
activities) and limiting shoreline
stabilization project construction
windows (e.g., outside of red knot
migration windows) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Private/other lands
are managed by the City of Tybee
Island’s Best Management Practices
(City of Tybee Island 2014, entire).
Unit GA–2: Little Tybee Island Complex
Unit GA–2 consists of 8,265 ac (3,345
ha) of the entire Little Tybee Island
complex, a series of barrier islands off
the coast in Chatham County, Georgia.
The unit boundary begins on the
western side of Tybee Creek Inlet and
extends southwest to Wassaw Sound
and includes Little Tybee Island,
Williamson Island, and all emergent
land from MLLW to the toe of the dunes
or where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the western side
of Tybee Inlet’s navigable channel, Little
Tybee Slough, and Little Tybee Creek.
All lands within this unit are in State
ownership and comprise the Little
Tybee Island State Heritage Preserve.
General land use within this unit
includes outdoor recreational use (e.g.,
beachgoing, boating, kayaking, camping,
birdwatching, fishing, and shelling) and
wildlife management (e.g., biological
monitoring/surveys).
Unit GA–2 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this unit contains a high
concentration of rufa red knots during
the winter period, providing important
wintering habitat on the Southeastern
U.S. portion of the subspecies range for
foraging and roosting during a time of
the year when rufa red knots are seeking
to build energy sources for migration.
This unit also has remote boat-only
access and an undeveloped character
that provides protection from intensive
human uses. Approximately 2,138 ac
(865 ha) of this unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001), and 1,178 ac
(479 ha) of this unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit GA–2
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running through or too close to
flocks of red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
State lands in this unit are managed as
a preserve by the TNC, which holds a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
permanent conservation easement, in
cooperation with the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources
(GDNR) State Wildlife Action Plan
(GDNR 2015, entire; TNC 2020, entire).
Unit GA–3: Wassaw Island Beach
Unit GA–3 consists of 4,296 ac (1,738
ha) of Wassaw Island, a barrier island
off the coast in Chatham County,
Georgia. The unit boundary begins on
the southwestern side of Wassaw Sound
off the northern tip of Wassaw Island
and extends southwest to Ossabaw
Sound shoreline. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW (which
includes the highly dynamic shoreline
and sandy intertidal zone that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide) to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat, not
used by the red knot, begins. This unit
also includes the ephemeral, emergent
shoals (sand bars) within the flood-tidal
and ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
southwestern side of Wassaw Sound off
the northern tip of Wassaw Island.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 3,001 ac (1,215 ha; 70
percent) in Federal ownership, 274 ac
(111 ha; 6 percent) in private/other
ownership, and 1,020 ac (412 ha; 24
percent) that are uncategorized. General
land use within this unit includes
wildlife management as part of the
Service’s Wassaw Island NWR and
outdoor recreational use (e.g.,
beachgoing, fishing, boating, and
birdwatching).
Unit GA–3 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
This unit also has remote boat-only
access and an undeveloped character
that provides protection from intensive
human uses. Approximately 627 ac (254
ha) of this unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover (66 FR 36038,
July 10, 2001), and 667 ac (270 ha) of
this unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR
39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit GA–3
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., running/walking
through or too close to flocks of red
knots, powered boats); (2) depredation
by native and nonnative predators; (3)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to erosion, and sea level rise; and
(4) disturbance associated with the
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37463
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
access to red knot foraging and roosting
habitat during migration, such as
through restrictions on timing,
locations, and types of activities) (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands in this
unit are managed under the 2011
Savannah Coastal NWR Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(Service 2011, entire).
Unit GA–4: Raccoon Key
Unit GA–4 consists of 1,599 ac (647
ha) of all of Raccoon Key, an island in
Ossabaw Sound in Chatham County,
Georgia. The unit includes all emergent
land from MLLW to the toe of the dunes
or where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within Ossabaw Sound associated with
Raccoon Key. All lands within this unit
are in State ownership. General land use
within this unit includes outdoor
recreational use (e.g., boating, fishing).
Unit GA–4 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
This unit also has remote boat-only
access and an undeveloped character
that provides protection from intensive
human uses.
Threats identified within Unit GA–4
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., running/walking
through or too close to flocks of red
knots, powered boats); (2) depredation
by native and nonnative predators; (3)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion, and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with the
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
access to red knot foraging and roosting
habitat during migration, such as
through restrictions on timing,
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37464
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
locations, and types of activities) (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands within
this unit are managed under the GDNR
State Wildlife Action Plan (GDNR 2015,
entire).
Unit GA–5: Ossabaw Island Beach
Unit GA–5 consists of 32,357 ac
(13,095 ha) of Ossabaw Island, a barrier
island off the coast in Chatham County,
Georgia. The unit boundary begins at
the Ogeechee River shoreline of
Ossabaw Island and extends southwest
to the St. Catherine’s Sound shoreline.
The unit includes all emergent land
from MLLW to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with Ossabaw Sound
off the northeastern tip of the island and
St. Catherine’s Sound off the
southwestern tip of the island. Lands
within this unit include approximately
28,621 ac (11,591 ha; 88 percent) in
State ownership and 3,736 ac (1,503 ha;
12 percent) that are uncategorized.
General land use within this unit
includes wildlife management as part of
the Ossabaw Island Wildlife
Management Area and outdoor
recreational use (e.g., boating, hunting,
fishing, and wildlife viewing).
Unit GA–5 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
This unit also has remote boat-only
access and an undeveloped character
that provides protection from intensive
human uses. Approximately 1,571 ac
(636 ha) of this unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001), and 2,224 ac
(900 ha) overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR 39756, July
10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit GA–5
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., walking/running
through or too close to flocks of red
knots, powered boats); (2) depredation
by native and nonnative predators; (3)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to erosion and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with response to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
natural and human-caused disasters
(e.g., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
recreational access to key rufa red knot
foraging and roosting habitat during
migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
State lands within this unit are managed
under the GDNR State Wildlife Action
Plan (GDNR 2015, entire).
Unit GA–6: St. Catherine’s Island Beach
Unit GA–6 consists of 15,962 ac
(6,460 ha) of St. Catherine’s Island, a
barrier island off the coast in Liberty
County, Georgia. The unit boundary
begins at the St. Catherine’s Sound
shoreline of St. Catherine’s Island and
extends southwest to the Sapelo Sound
shoreline. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with St.
Catherine’s Sound entrance off the
northern tip of the island, McQueen
Inlet, and Sapelo Sound entrance off the
southern tip of the island. Lands within
this unit include approximately 2,106 ac
(853 ha; 13 percent) in State ownership,
11,810 ac (4,783 ha; 74 percent) in
private/other ownership, and 2,046 ac
(824 ha; 13 percent) that are
uncategorized. General land use within
this unit includes private research and
outdoor recreational use (e.g.,
beachgoing, boating, and fishing).
Unit GA–6 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period,
providing important wintering habitat
on the Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. This
location serves as one of five units in
Georgia that supports high
concentrations of rufa red knots
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
throughout the entire nonbreeding
season. Additionally, the location
includes remote boat-only access and
has an undeveloped character that
provides protection from intensive
human uses. Approximately 1,321 ac
(535 ha) of this unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001), and 3,148 ac
(1,274 ha) of this unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit GA–6
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running through or too close to
flocks of red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Unit GA–7: Blackbeard Island Beach
Unit GA–7 consists of 6,321 ac (2,558
ha) of Blackbeard Island, a barrier island
off the coast in McIntosh County,
Georgia. The unit boundary begins at
the Sapelo Sound shoreline of
Blackbeard Island and extends
southwest to the Cabretta Inlet
shoreline. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
Sapelo Sound entrance off the northern
tip of the island and the northeastern
side of Cabretta Inlet’s navigable
channel. Lands within this unit include
approximately 4,954 ac (2,006 ha; 78
percent) in Federal ownership, 80 ac (32
ha; 2 percent) in State ownership, and
1,287 ac (519 ha; 20 percent) that are
uncategorized. General land use within
this unit includes wildlife management
as part of the Service’s Blackbeard
Island NWR and outdoor recreational
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
use (e.g., beachgoing, boating, fishing,
and birdwatching).
Unit GA–7 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
This unit also includes remote boat-only
access and has an undeveloped
character that provides protection from
intensive human uses. Approximately
517 ac (209 ha) of this unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001), and 1,400 ac
(567 ha) overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR 39756, July
10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit GA–7
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., walking/running
through or too close to flocks of red
knots, powered boats); (2) depredation
by native and nonnative predators; (3)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with response to
natural and human-caused disasters
(e.g., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
recreational access to key rufa red knot
foraging and roosting habitat during
migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Federal lands in this unit are managed
under the 2011 Savannah Coastal NWR
Complex Comprehensive Conservation
Plan (Service 2011, entire).
Unit GA–8: Sapelo Island Beach
Unit GA–8 consists of 2,482 ac (845
ha) of Sapelo Island, a barrier island off
the coast in McIntosh County, Georgia.
The unit boundary begins at the
Cabretta Inlet shoreline of Sapelo Island
and extends southwest to the Doboy
Sound shoreline. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
southwestern side of Cabretta Inlet’s
navigable channel. The lands within
this unit are State-owned and comprise
the Sapelo Island WMA and Sapelo
Island NERR. General land use within
this unit includes wildlife and coastal
resource management and outdoor
recreational use (e.g., beachgoing,
boating, and fishing).
Unit GA–8 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period,
providing important wintering habitat
on the Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. This
location serves as one of five units in
Georgia that supports high
concentrations of rufa red knots
throughout the entire nonbreeding
season, and is also important due to its
low-level development, remote boatonly access, and protection from
intensive human uses. Approximately
167 ac (68 ha) of this unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001), and 282 ac
(114 ha) overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR 39756, July
10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit GA–8
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., dogs, walking/
running/biking through or too close to
flocks of red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
State lands in this unit are managed
under the GDNR State Wildlife Action
Plan and Sapelo Island NERR
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37465
Management Plan (GDNR 2015, entire;
Sapelo Island NERR 2008, entire).
Unit GA–9: Wolf Island, Egg Island,
Little Egg Island, and Little Egg Island
Bar
Unit GA–9 consists of 5,308 ac (2,148
ha) of Wolf, Egg, and Little Egg Islands
and Little Egg Island Bar, islands at the
mouth of the Altamaha River in
McIntosh County, Georgia. The unit
boundary begins at the South River
shoreline of Wolf Island and extends
south to the southern side of Altamaha
Sound. The unit includes all emergent
land from MLLW to the toe of the dunes
or where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the entrance to
Altamaha Sound and Beacon Creek.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 2,975 ac (1,204 ha; 56
percent) in Federal ownership, 240 ac
(97 ha; 5 percent) in State ownership,
and 2,093 ac (847 ha; 39 percent) that
are uncategorized. General land use
within this unit includes wildlife
management and outdoor recreational
use (e.g., beachgoing, boating, fishing,
and birdwatching). Federal land use
includes management of both Wolf and
Egg Islands as part of Wolf Island NWR.
Additionally, Wolf Island is a Class I
designated wilderness area.
Unit GA–9 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period,
providing important wintering habitat
on the Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. This
location serves as one of five units in
Georgia that supports high
concentrations of rufa red knots
throughout the entire nonbreeding
season, and is also important due to its
low-level development, remote boatonly access, and protection from
intensive human uses. Approximately
893 ac (361 ha) of this unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37466
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Threats identified within Unit GA–9
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., walking/running
through or too close to flocks of red
knots, powered boats); (2) depredation
by native and nonnative predators; (3)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to erosion and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with response to
natural and human-caused disasters
(e.g., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
recreational access to key rufa red knot
foraging and roosting habitat during
migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Federal lands in this unit are managed
under the 2011 Savannah Coastal NWR
Complex Comprehensive Conservation
Plan (Service 2011, entire), and State
lands are managed under the GDNR
State Wildlife Action Plan (GDNR 2015,
entire).
Unit GA–10: Little St. Simon’s Island
Beach
Unit GA–10 consists of 9,053 ac
(3,664 ha) of Little St. Simon’s Island, a
barrier island off the coast in Glynn
County, Georgia. The unit boundary
begins at the Altamaha Sound shoreline
of Little St. Simon’s Island and extends
south to the Hampton River shoreline.
The unit includes all emergent land
from MLLW to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the Altamaha
Sound off the northeastern tip of the
island, Mosquito Creek, and the
northern side of Hampton River Inlet’s
navigable channel. Lands within this
unit include approximately 113 ac (46
ha; 1 percent) in State ownership, 7,462
ac (3,022 ha; 83 percent) in private/
other ownership, and 1,479 ac (596 ha;
16 percent) that are uncategorized.
General land use within this unit
includes ecotourism and outdoor
recreational use (e.g., beachgoing,
boating, fishing, birdwatching).
Unit GA–10 is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
rufa red knots during the winter period,
providing important wintering habitat
on the Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. This
location serves as one of five units in
Georgia that supports high
concentrations of rufa red knots
throughout the entire nonbreeding
season (spring, fall, and winter), and is
also important due to its low-level
development, remote boat-only access,
and protection from intensive human
uses. Approximately 2,422 ac (980 ha)
of this unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover (66 FR 36038,
July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit GA–10
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., walking/running/
biking through or too close to flocks of
red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to uncontrolled
recreational access, erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
State lands in this unit are managed
under the GDNR State Wildlife Action
Plan (GDNR 2015, entire). Private lands
in this unit are managed under the Little
St. Simon’s Island Ecological
Management Program and TNC (Sterling
2020, pers. comm.).
Unit GA–11: Sea and St. Simon’s Island
Beaches
Unit GA–11 consists of 4,033 ac
(1,632 ha) of all of Sea Island and a
portion of St. Simon’s Island, barrier
islands off the coast in Glynn County,
Georgia. The unit boundary begins at
the Hampton River shoreline of Sea
Island and extends southwest to the St.
Simon’s Sound shoreline of St. Simon’s
Island. The unit includes all emergent
land from MLLW to the toe of the dunes
or where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with Gould’s Inlet.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 4 ac (2 ha; less than 1
percent) in State ownership, 3,448 ac
(1,395 ha; 85 percent) in private/other
ownership, and 581 ac (235 ha; 14
percent) that are uncategorized. General
land use within this unit includes
residential development, tourism, and
outdoor recreational use (e.g.,
beachgoing, boating, and fishing).
Unit GA–11 is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the winter period,
providing important wintering habitat
on the Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 627 ac (254 ha) unit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened piping
plover (66 FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit GA–11
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running/biking through or too
close to flocks of red knots, powered
boats); (2) depredation by native and
nonnative predators; (3) modification or
loss of habitat or both due to
uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion and sea level rise; and (4)
disturbance associated with response to
natural and human-caused disasters
(e.g., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
recreational access to key rufa red knot
foraging and roosting habitat during
migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and limiting shoreline stabilization
project construction windows (e.g.,
outside of rufa red knot migration
windows) (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Unit GA–12: Jekyll Island Beach
Unit GA–12 consists of 6,287 ac
(2,544 ha) of Jekyll Island, a barrier
island off the coast in Glynn County,
Georgia. The unit boundary begins at
the St. Simon’s Sound shoreline of
Jekyll Island and extends south to St.
Andrew Sound shoreline. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with the southern side of St.
Simon’s Sound off the northern tip of
the island. Lands within this unit
include approximately 5,944 ac (2,406
ha; 94 percent) in State ownership,
which includes Jekyll Island State Park,
and 343 ac (139 ha; 6 percent) that are
uncategorized. General land use within
this unit includes tourism and outdoor
recreational use (e.g., beachgoing,
fishing, wildlife viewing).
Unit GA–12 is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the winter period,
providing important wintering habitat
in Georgia and the Southeastern U.S.
portion of the subspecies range for
foraging and roosting during a time of
the year when rufa red knots are seeking
to build energy sources for migration.
Approximately 144 ac (58 ha) of this
unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001).
Threats identified within Unit GA–12
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., off leash dogs,
walking/running/biking through or too
close to flocks of red knots, powered
boats); (2) depredation by native and
nonnative predators; (3) modification or
loss of habitat or both due to
uncontrolled recreational access,
erosion and sea level rise; and
(4) disturbance associated with response
to natural and human-caused disasters
(e.g., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating red knots (e.g., managing
recreational access to key rufa red knot
foraging and roosting habitat during
migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and limiting shoreline stabilization
project construction windows (e.g.,
outside of rufa red knot migration
windows) (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
State lands within this unit are managed
under the 2011 Jekyll Island
Conservation Plan and GDNR State
Wildlife Action Plan (Jekyll Island
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Authority 2011, entire; GDNR 2015,
entire).
Unit GA–13: Little Cumberland and
Cumberland Island Beaches
Unit GA–13 consists of 28,136 ac
(11,386 ha) of Little Cumberland Island
and Cumberland Island, a barrier island
complex off the coast in Camden
County, Georgia. The unit boundary
begins at the St. Andrew Sound
shoreline of Little Cumberland Island
and extends west across the
Cumberland River and marsh to the East
River and continues south to the St.
Mary’s River shoreline of Cumberland
Island. The unit includes all emergent
land from MLLW to the toe of the dunes
or where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with St. Andrew
Sound off the northern tip of Little
Cumberland Island and Christmas Creek
Inlet between Little Cumberland and
Cumberland Islands. Lands within this
unit include approximately 23,367 ac
(9,464 ha; 83 percent) in Federal
ownership, 1,685 ac (682 ha; 6 percent)
in State ownership, and 3,085 ac (1,241
ha; 11 percent) that are uncategorized.
General land use within this unit
includes tourism and outdoor
recreational use (e.g., beachgoing,
boating, fishing, birdwatching). Federal
land use includes management of the
majority of Cumberland Island as the
Cumberland Island National Seashore.
Additionally, portions of Cumberland
Island are designated wilderness area.
Unit GA–13 is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the winter period,
providing important wintering habitat
on the Southeastern U.S. portion of the
subspecies range for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. This
location serves as one of five units in
Georgia that supports high
concentrations of rufa red knots
throughout the entire nonbreeding
season, and is also important due to its
low-level development, remote boatonly access, and protection from
intensive human uses. Approximately
4,761 ac (1,927 ha) of this unit overlap
with designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001), and 2,004 ac
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37467
(811 ha) of this unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit GA–13
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., walking/running/
biking through or too close to flocks of
red knots, powered boats); (2)
depredation by native and nonnative
predators; (3) modification or loss of
habitat or both due to erosion and sea
level rise; and (4) disturbance associated
with response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to
wintering and migrating red knots (e.g.,
managing recreational access to key rufa
red knot foraging and roosting habitat
during migration through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Federal lands in this unit are managed
under the NPS’s Cumberland Island
National Seashore Foundation
Document (NPS 2014b, entire).
Unit FL–1: Nassau Sound-Fort George
Sound-Fort George Inlet Complex
Unit FL–1 consists of 4,324 ac (6,742
ha) of beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats in Nassau and Duval Counties,
Florida, from the north shore of Nassau
Sound in Nassau County south to the
north shore of the St. Johns River at
Huguenot Memorial Park in Duval
County. The landward boundary is the
line indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation or hardened structures,
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. The majority
of this unit is within the Talbot Islands
State Parks Complex and Huguenot
Memorial Park, which is a Federal and
State-owned parcel leased to the City of
Jacksonville. Lands within this unit
include approximately 996 ac (404 ha;
23 percent) in Federal ownership, 522
ac (211 ha; 12 percent) in State
ownership, 27 ac (11 ha; less than 1
percent) in private/other ownership,
and 2,779 ac (6,116 ha; 64 percent) that
are uncategorized. General land use
within this unit includes recreational
use (e.g., walking/running, fishing, and
surfing).
Unit FL–1 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the winter and
spring migration periods, serving as an
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37468
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Approximately 2,381 ac
(963 ha) of the unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001), and 0.9 ac
(0.4 ha) of the unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened West Indian
manatee (42 FR 47840, September 22,
1977).
Threats identified within Unit FL–1
include loss of habitat due to sea level
rise, human-caused or natural disasters
(e.g., oil spills, hurricanes), and
disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa
red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, hiking, and wildlife viewing.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating rufa red knots, such as
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent upland
roosting habitat during migration
(through restrictions on timing,
locations, and types of activities) (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). The City of
Jacksonville at Huguenot Memorial Park
has a shorebird management plan that
includes mandatory and volunteer
conservation measures intended to
minimize impacts to wintering and
migrating aggregations of rufa red knots
and their habitat (England-Thims and
Miller, Inc. 2008, pp. 44–45). The Talbot
Islands State Parks complex implements
conservation measures intended to
minimize impacts to wintering and
migrating aggregations of shorebirds and
their habitat, including rufa red knots
(Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) 2008a, pp. 48–56 and
64–66).
Unit FL–2: Ponce Inlet Complex
Unit FL–2 consists of 19,683 ac (7,965
ha) of beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats in Volusia and Brevard
Counties, Florida, from approximately
Ocean Edge Drive in Ormond Beach
south to the south end of Merritt Island
NWR along the Atlantic Ocean. This
unit includes Smyrna Dunes State Park
and Merritt Island NWR. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation or
hardened structures, including
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. Lands within this
unit include approximately 16,660 ac
(6,742 ha; 85 percent) in Federal
ownership, 3,005 ac (1,216 ha; 15
percent) in State ownership, and 18 ac
(7 ha; less than 1 percent) that are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
uncategorized. General land use within
this unit includes recreational use (e.g.,
walking/running, fishing, and surfing).
Unit FL–2 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this unit contains a high
concentration of rufa red knots during
the winter period on the Southeastern
U.S. portion of the subspecies range,
providing important wintering habitat
for foraging and roosting during a time
of the year when rufa red knots are
seeking to build energy sources for
migration. Approximately 298 ac (120
ha) of the unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover (66 FR 36038,
July 10, 2001), 1,626 ac (658 ha) of the
unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR 39756, July
10, 2014), and 210 ac (85 ha) of the unit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened West Indian
manatee (42 FR 47840, September 22,
1977).
Threats identified within Unit FL–2
include loss of habitat due to sea level
rise, human-caused or natural disasters
(e.g., oil spills, hurricanes), and
disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa
red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, hiking, and wildlife viewing.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to wintering
and migrating rufa red knots, such as
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent upland
roosting habitat during migration
(through restrictions on timing,
locations, and types of activities) and
using best management practices during
beach restoration activities to limit
disturbance and impacts to rufa red
knots and their food resources (i.e.,
beach invertebrates) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Merritt Island NWR
lands in this unit are managed under the
2008 Merritt Island NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(Service 2008a, entire). Volusia County
has an HCP for nesting sea turtles and
wintering piping plovers, and
implementation of this plan provides
some protection to wintering and
migrating rufa red knots and to beach
habitat (Volusia County Environmental
Management 2008, pp. 23, 109–110,
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
122, 125, 141, 156–157, 160–161, 163,
174–180).
Unit FL–3: Merritt Island National
Wildlife Refuge Impoundments
Unit FL–3 consists of 6,947 ac (2,811
ha) of managed impoundment and
intertidal mudflats in Brevard County,
Florida, entirely within Merritt Island
NWR (Federal ownership). The
landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation or hardened structures,
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. General land
use within this unit includes
recreational use including fishing,
hunting, and wildlife viewing.
Unit FL–3 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this unit contains a high
concentration of rufa red knots during
the winter period on the Southeastern
U.S. portion of the subspecies range,
providing important wintering habitat
for foraging and roosting during a time
of the year when rufa red knots are
seeking to build energy sources for
migration. Approximately 646 ac (261
ha) of the unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened West Indian manatee (42 FR
47840, September 22, 1977).
Threats identified within Unit FL–3
include loss of habitat due to sea level
rise, human-caused or natural disasters
(e.g., oil spills, hurricanes), and
disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa
red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, hiking, and wildlife viewing.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
maximizing rufa red knot habitat with
impoundment management particularly
during critical migratory periods (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). All lands within this
unit are managed under the 2008 Merritt
Island NWR Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (Service 2008a,
entire).
Unit FL–4: Cape Romano and Marco
Island
Unit FL–4 consists of two subunits
comprising 26,629 ac (10,776 ha) in
Collier County, Florida. This unit
consists of Federal (Ten Thousand
Islands NWR), State, and private
landowners. This unit partially overlaps
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
with occupied habitat and designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover, loggerhead sea
turtle, and West Indian manatee.
Subunit FL–4A: Cape Romano Complex
Subunit FL–4A consists of 26,213 ac
(10,608 ha) of beach and intertidal
sandflats in Collier County, Florida, in
the wetland complex south of Marco
Island and the community of Goodland.
The landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands within this subunit
include approximately 13,138 ac (5,321
ha; 50 percent) in Federal ownership,
12,605 ac (5,105 ha; 48 percent) in State
ownership, and 470 ac (182 ha; 2
percent) that are uncategorized. Federal
ownership includes Ten Thousand
Islands NWR, and State ownership
includes Rookery Bay NERR. General
land use within this subunit includes
recreational use (e.g., fishing, crabbing,
and boating).
Subunit FL–4A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast U.S. portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. The
subspecies also resides at this location
year round, which indicates use by
juveniles. Approximately 2,673 ac
(1,082 ha) of the subunit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014), and
14,668 ac (5,936 ha) of the subunit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened West Indian
manatee (42 FR 47840, September 22,
1977).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
4A include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, disturbance from humancaused or natural disasters (e.g., oil
spills, hurricanes), harmful algal blooms
including red tide, and disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots by
humans and human activities, including
but not limited to fishing, walking, and
other beach-related activities. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to rufa red
knots such as managing access to rufa
red knot foraging habitat and adjacent
upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and identifying restoration measures to
minimize beach loss (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands within
this subunit are managed under Ten
Thousand Islands NWR (Service 2000,
entire). State lands include Rookery Bay
NERR, which has shorebirds including
rufa red knots as a target for their
research, monitoring, and management
activities (Rookery Bay NERR 2014,
entire).
Subunit FL–4B: Marco Island
Subunit FL–4B consists of 416 ac (168
ha) of beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats in Collier County, Florida,
from the south side of the inlet north of
Marco Island south along the Gulf of
Mexico approximately 4 mi (6.5 km).
The landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation or hardened structures,
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. Lands within
this subunit include approximately 408
ac (165 ha; 98 percent) in State
ownership and 8 ac (3 ha; 2 percent) in
private/other ownership. The majority
of lands within this subunit are the
Rookery Bay NERR. General land use
within this subunit includes
recreational use (e.g., walking/running,
fishing, and surfing).
Subunit FL–4B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the fall migration
period, serving as an important
southbound stopover site. Additionally,
this subunit contains a high
concentration of rufa red knots during
the winter period on the northern Gulf
coast portion of the subspecies range,
providing important wintering habitat
for foraging and roosting during a time
of the year when rufa red knots are
seeking to build energy sources for
migration. Approximately 384 ac (155
ha) of the subunit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2021), and 372 ac
(151 ha) of the subunit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened West Indian
manatee (42 FR 47840, September 22,
1977).
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37469
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
4B include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, disturbance from humancaused or natural disasters (e.g., oil
spills, hurricanes), harmful algal blooms
including red tide, and disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots by
humans and human activities, including
but not limited to fishing, walking, and
other beach-related activities. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to rufa red
knots such as managing access to rufa
red knot foraging habitat and adjacent
upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and by identifying restoration measures
to minimize beach loss (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands within
this subunit are managed under the
Rookery Bay NERR, which has
shorebirds including rufa red knots as a
target for their research, monitoring, and
management activities (Rookery Bay
NERR 2014, entire).
Unit FL–5: Marco Bay Complex
Unit FL–5 consists of 3,589 ac (1,453
ha) of beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats in Collier County, Florida,
from the north side of the inlet north of
Marco Island north along the Gulf of
Mexico approximately 3.7 mi (6 km)
and inclusive of the wetland complex
inland to the east side of Rookery Bay.
The landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands within this unit include
approximately 3,531 ac (1,429 ha; 98
percent) in State ownership and 58 ac
(24 ha; 2 percent) in private/other
ownership. The majority of lands within
this unit are within the Rookery Bay
NERR. General land use within this unit
includes recreational use (e.g., walking/
running, fishing, and surfing).
Unit FL–5 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37470
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 77 ac (31 ha) of the unit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened loggerhead
sea turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014),
and 1,956 ac (791 ha) of the unit overlap
with designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened West Indian
manatee (42 FR 47840, September 22,
1977).
Threats identified within Unit FL–5
include loss of habitat due to sea level
rise, disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots from humancaused or natural disasters (e.g., oil
spills, hurricanes), harmful algal blooms
including red tide, and disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots by
humans and human activities, including
but not limited to fishing, walking, and
other beach-related activities. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to rufa red
knots such as managing access to rufa
red knot foraging habitat and adjacent
upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and by identifying restoration and
protection measures to minimize beach
loss (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
State lands within this unit are managed
under the Rookery Bay NERR, which
has shorebirds including rufa red knots
as a target for their research, monitoring,
and management activities (Rookery Bay
NERR 2014, entire).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Unit FL–6: Cocohatchee Inlet Complex
and Barefoot Beach
Unit FL–6 consists of two subunits
comprising 48 ac (20 ha) in Collier
County, Florida. This unit consists of
Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park and
private landowners. This unit partially
overlaps with occupied habitat and
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle.
Subunit FL–6A: Cocohatchee Inlet
Complex
Subunit FL–6A consists of 9 ac (4 ha)
of beach, inlet, and intertidal sandflats
in Collier County, Florida, from the
south side of the Cocohatchee Inlet
south along the Gulf of Mexico
approximately 3,281 ft (1 km). The
landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands within this subunit are
entirely under State ownership under
Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park. General
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
land use within this subunit includes
recreational use (e.g., walking/running,
fishing, and surfing).
Subunit FL–6A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 4 ac (1 ha) of the subunit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened loggerhead
sea turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
6A include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots from humancaused or natural disasters (e.g., oil
spills, hurricanes), harmful algal blooms
including red tide, and disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots by
humans and human activities, including
but not limited to fishing, walking, and
other beach-related activities. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to rufa red
knots such as managing access to rufa
red knot foraging habitat and adjacent
upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and by identifying restoration measures
to minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
replenishment/restoration to limit
disturbance and impacts to rufa red
knots and their food resources (i.e.,
beach invertebrates) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands within
this subunit are managed under the
Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park Unit
Management Plan (FDEP 2009, entire).
Subunit FL–6B: Barefoot Beach
Subunit FL–6B consists of 39 ac (16
ha) of beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats in Collier County, Florida,
from the north side of the Cocohatchee
Inlet north along the Gulf of Mexico
approximately 3.1 mi (5 km). The
landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation or hardened structures,
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and uncovered at low tide. Lands within
this subunit include approximately 18
ac (7 ha; 46 percent) in State ownership
and 21 ac (9 ha; 54 percent) in private/
other ownership. General land use
within this subunit includes
recreational use (e.g., walking/running,
fishing, and surfing).
Subunit FL–6B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 20 ac (8 ha) of the
subunit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR 39756, July
10, 2014).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
6B include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, disturbance to foraging and
roosting rufa red knots from humancaused or natural disasters (e.g., oil
spills, hurricanes), harmful algal blooms
including red tide, and disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots by
humans and human activities, including
but not limited to fishing, walking, and
other beach-related activities. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to rufa red
knots such as managing access to rufa
red knot foraging habitat and adjacent
upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and by identifying restoration measures
to minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
replenishment/restoration to limit
disturbance and impacts to rufa red
knots and their food resources (i.e.,
beach invertebrates) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
Unit FL–7: Lovers Key and Estero Island
Unit FL–7 consists of two subunits
comprising 175 ac (70 ha) in Lee
County, Florida. This unit consists of
portions of Lovers Key State Park and
Estero Island. This unit partially
overlaps with occupied habitat and
designated critical habitat for the
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
federally threatened piping plover and
West Indian manatee.
Subunit FL–7A: Lovers Key
Subunit FL–7A consist of 4 ac (1 ha)
of beach, inlet, and intertidal sandflats
in Lee County, Florida, at the north
point of Lovers Key. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation or
hardened structures, including
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. Land within this
subunit is entirely in State ownership
under management of Lovers Key State
Park. General land use within this
subunit includes recreational use (e.g.,
walking/running, fishing, and surfing).
Subunit FL–7A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 2.5 ac (1 ha) of the
subunit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened West
Indian manatee (42 FR 47840,
September 22, 1977).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
7A include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots from humancaused or natural disasters (e.g., oil
spills, hurricanes), shoreline hardening,
harmful algal blooms including red tide,
and disturbance of foraging and roosting
rufa red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and by identifying restoration measures
to minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
replenishment/restoration to limit
disturbance and impacts to rufa red
knots and their food resources (i.e.,
beach invertebrates) (see Special
Management Considerations or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Protection, above). State lands within
this subunit are managed under the
Lovers Key State Park Unit Management
Plan (FDEP 2005, entire).
Subunit FL–7B: Estero Island
Subunit FL–7B consist of 171 ac (69
ha) of beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats in Lee County, Florida, from
Key West Court on Fort Myers Beach
south along the Gulf of Mexico to the
southern point of the island. The
landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation or hardened structures,
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. Lands within
this subunit are entirely in State
ownership. General land use within this
subunit includes recreational use (e.g.,
walking/running, fishing, and surfing).
Subunit FL–7B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 72 ac (29 ha) of the
subunit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001), and 140 ac (57 ha) of the subunit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened West Indian
manatee (42 FR 47840, September 22,
1977).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
7B include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots from humancaused or natural disasters (e.g., oil
spills, hurricanes), shoreline hardening,
harmful algal blooms including red tide,
and disturbance of foraging and roosting
rufa red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and by identifying restoration measures
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37471
to minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
replenishment/restoration to limit
disturbance and impacts to rufa red
knots and their food resources (i.e.,
beach invertebrates) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
Unit FL–8: Bunche Beach
Unit FL–8 consists of 334 ac (135 ha)
of beach, inlet, and intertidal sandflats
in Lee County, Florida, in San Carlos
Bay south of the Sanibel Causeway in
Fort Myers. The landward boundary is
the line indicating the beginning of
dense vegetation or hardened structures,
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. Lands within
this unit include approximately 23 ac (9
ha; 7 percent) in Federal ownership, 264
ac (107 ha; 79 percent) in State
ownership, and 47 ac (19 ha; 14 percent)
in private/other ownership. Federal
ownership includes Matlacha Pass NWR
and State ownership includes Bunche
Beach Preserve. General land use within
this unit includes recreational use (e.g.,
walking/running, fishing, and surfing).
Unit FL–8 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 328 ac (133 ha) of the
unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001), and 278 ac (112 ha) of the unit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened West Indian
manatee (42 FR 27840, September 22,
1977).
Threats identified within Unit FL–8
include loss of habitat due to sea level
rise, disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots from humancaused or natural disasters (e.g., oil
spills, hurricanes), shoreline hardening,
harmful algal blooms including red tide,
and disturbance of foraging and roosting
rufa red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37472
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and by identifying restoration measures
to minimize beach loss (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal and State
lands within this unit are managed
under the Pine Island, Matlacha Pass,
Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee NWR’s
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(Service 2010b, entire). County lands are
managed under the Lee County San
Carlos Bay Bunche Beach Preserve Land
Management Plan (Lee County 2013,
entire).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Unit FL–9: Sanibel Island Complex
Unit FL–9 consists of two subunits
comprising 3,759 ac (1,521 ha) in Lee
County, Florida. This unit consists of
Federal lands that are part of the J.N.
‘‘Ding’’ Darling NWR and State lands of
Sanibel Island. This unit partially
overlaps with occupied habitat and
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle and West Indian manatee, and the
federally endangered aboriginal pricklyapple.
Subunit FL–9A: J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling
National Wildlife Refuge
Subunit FL–9A consists of 3,451 ac
(1,397 ha) of beach, inlet, intertidal
sandflats, and managed impoundments
in Lee County, on Sanibel Island,
Florida. The landward boundary is the
line indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation or hardened structures,
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. Lands within
this subunit are entirely in Federal
ownership under J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling
NWR. General land use within this
subunit includes recreational use (e.g.,
walking/running, fishing, and wildlife
viewing).
Subunit FL–9A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 11 ac (4 ha) of the
subunit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally endangered
aboriginal prickly-apple (81 FR 3866,
January 22, 2016), and 2,182 ac (883 ha)
of the subunit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened West Indian manatee (42 FR
27840, September 22, 1977).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
9A include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots from humancaused or natural disasters (e.g., oil
spills, hurricanes), harmful algal blooms
including red tide, and disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots by
humans and human activities, including
but not limited to fishing and wildlife
viewing. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and by maximizing rufa red knot habitat
with impoundment management
particularly during winter and
migratory periods (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands within
this subunit are managed under the J.N.
‘‘Ding’’ Darling NWR Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (Service 2010c,
entire).
Subunit FL–9B: Sanibel Island
Subunit FL–9B consists of 307 ac (124
ha) of beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats in Lee County, Florida, on the
Gulf of Mexico shoreline on Sanibel
Island. The landward boundary is the
line indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation or hardened structures,
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. Lands within
this subunit are entirely in State
ownership. General land use within this
subunit includes recreational use (e.g.,
walking/running, fishing, and surfing).
Subunit FL–9B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 90 ac (37 ha) of the
subunit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR 39756; July
10, 2014), 265 ac (107 ha) of the subunit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened West Indian
manatee (42 FR 47840, September 22,
1977, and 49 ac (20 ha) of the subunit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally endangered aboriginal
prickly-apple (81 FR 3866, January 22,
2016).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
9B include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, human-caused or natural
disasters (e.g., oil spills, hurricanes),
shoreline hardening, harmful algal
blooms including red tide, and
disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa
red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and by identifying restoration and
protection measures to minimize beach
loss using best management practices
during beach replenishment/restoration
to limit disturbance and impacts to rufa
red knots and their food resources (i.e.,
beach invertebrates) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
Unit FL–10: Don Pedro Complex
Unit FL–10 consists of two subunits
comprising 158 ac (64 ha) in Charlotte
County, Florida. This unit consists of
State lands, a portion of which are part
of the Don Pedro Island State Park and
Stump Pass Beach State Park. This unit
partially overlaps with occupied habitat
and designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle and the federally endangered
aboriginal prickly-apple.
Subunit FL–10A: Don Pedro
Subunit FL–10A consists of 147 ac (60
ha) of beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats in Charlotte County, Florida,
on the Gulf of Mexico shoreline on Don
Pedro Island. The landward boundary is
the line indicating the beginning of
dense vegetation or hardened structures,
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. Lands within
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
this subunit are entirely in State
ownership, a portion of which includes
Don Pedro Island State Park. General
land use within this subunit includes
recreational use (e.g., walking/running,
fishing, and surfing).
Subunit FL–10A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 89 ac (36 ha) of the
subunit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR 39756, July
10, 2014).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
10A include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, human-caused or natural
disasters (e.g., oil spills, hurricanes),
shoreline hardening, harmful algal
blooms including red tide, and
disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa
red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
migration (through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of activities)
and by identifying restoration and
protection measures to minimize beach
loss using best management practices
during beach replenishment/restoration
to limit disturbance and impacts to rufa
red knots and their food resources (i.e.,
beach invertebrates) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands within
this subunit are managed under the Don
Pedro Island State Park Unit
Management Plan (FDEP 2013a, entire).
Subunit FL–10B: Stump Pass Beach
State Park
Subunit FL–10B consists of 11 ac (4
ha) of beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats in Charlotte County, Florida,
on the Gulf of Mexico at the southern
point of Manasota Key. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation, including
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. Lands within this
subunit are entirely in State ownership
under Stump Pass Beach State Park.
General land use within this subunit
includes recreational use (e.g., walking/
running, fishing, and surfing).
Subunit FL–10B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 6 ac (2 ha) of the subunit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened loggerhead
sea turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014),
and 5 ac (2 ha) of the subunit overlap
with designated critical habitat for the
federally endangered aboriginal pricklyapple (81 FR 3866, January 22, 2016).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
10B include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, human-caused or natural
disasters (e.g., oil spills, hurricanes),
shoreline hardening, harmful algal
blooms including red tide, and
disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa
red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
winter and migratory periods (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities) and by identifying
restoration and protection measures to
minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
restoration to limit disturbance and
impacts to rufa red knots and their food
resources (i.e., beach invertebrates) (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands within
this subunit are managed under the
Stump Pass Beach State Park Unit
Management Plan (FDEP 2013b, entire).
Unit FL–11: Siesta Key
Unit FL–11 consists of 53 ac (21 ha)
of beach, inlet, and intertidal sandflats
in Sarasota County, Florida, on the Gulf
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37473
of Mexico shoreline on Siesta Key,
Florida, from Avenida Messina (road)
south to Avenida del Mare. The
landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands within this unit are
entirely in State ownership. General
land use within this unit includes
recreational use (e.g., walking/running,
fishing, and surfing).
Unit FL–11 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 24 ac (10 ha) of the unit
overlap with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened loggerhead
sea turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014).
Threats identified within Unit FL–11
include loss of habitat due to sea level
rise, human-caused or natural disasters
(e.g., oil spills, hurricanes), shoreline
hardening, harmful algal blooms
including red tide, and disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots by
humans and human activities, including
but not limited to fishing, walking, and
other beach-related activities. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to rufa red
knots such as managing access to rufa
red knot foraging habitat and adjacent
upland roosting habitat during winter
and migratory periods (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities) and by identifying
restoration and protection measures to
minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
replenishment/restoration to limit
disturbance and impacts to rufa red
knots and their food resources (i.e.,
beach invertebrates) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
Unit FL–12: Lido-Longboat Keys
Complex
Unit FL–12 consists of two subunits
comprising 450 ac (182 ha) in Sarasota
County, Florida. This unit consists of
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37474
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
State lands. This unit partially overlaps
with occupied habitat and designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened loggerhead sea turtle and the
federally endangered aboriginal pricklyapple.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Subunit FL–12A: Lido Key
Subunit FL–12A consists of 81 ac (33
ha) of beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats in Sarasota County, Florida, on
the Gulf of Mexico shoreline on Lido
Key, Florida. The landward boundary is
the line indicating the beginning of
dense vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands within this subunit are
entirely in State ownership. General
land use within this subunit includes
recreational use (e.g., walking/running,
fishing, and surfing).
Subunit FL–12A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
12A include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, human-caused or natural
disasters (e.g., oil spills, hurricanes),
shoreline hardening, harmful algal
blooms including red tide, and
disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa
red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
winter and migratory periods (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities) and by identifying
restoration and protection measures to
minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
replenishment/restoration to limit
disturbance and impacts to rufa red
knots and their food resources (i.e.,
beach invertebrates) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Subunit FL–12B: Longboat Key
Subunit FL–12B consists of 369 ac
(149 ha) of beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats in Sarasota County, Florida, on
the Gulf of Mexico shoreline on
Longboat Key, Florida. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation or
hardened structures, including
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. Lands within this
subunit are entirely in State ownership.
General land use within this subunit
includes recreational use (e.g., walking/
running, fishing, and surfing).
Subunit FL–12B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this subunit contains a
high concentration of rufa red knots
during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 233 ac (94 ha) of the
subunit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR 39756, July
10, 2014), and 12 ac (5 ha) of the
subunit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally endangered
aboriginal prickly-apple.
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
12B include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, human-caused or natural
disasters (e.g., oil spills, hurricanes),
shoreline hardening, harmful algal
blooms including red tide, and
disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa
red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
winter and migratory periods (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities) and by identifying
restoration and protection measures to
minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
replenishment/restoration to limit
disturbance and impacts to rufa red
knots and their food resources (i.e.,
beach invertebrates) (see Special
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
Unit FL–13: North Anna Maria Island
Unit FL–13 consists of 945 ac (383 ha)
of beach, inlet, and intertidal sandflats
in Manatee County, Florida, on the Gulf
of Mexico shoreline from the north
point of Anna Maria Island, Florida,
south to Cortez Road West. The
landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands within this unit include
approximately 56 ac (23 ha; 6 percent)
in Federal ownership and 889 ac (360
ha; 94 percent) in State ownership.
Federal ownership consists of Passage
Key NWR. General land use within this
unit includes recreational use (e.g.,
walking/running, fishing, and surfing).
Unit FL–13 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Threats identified within Unit FL–13
include loss of habitat due to sea level
rise, human-caused or natural disasters
(e.g., oil spills, hurricanes), shoreline
hardening, harmful algal blooms
including red tide, and disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots by
humans and human activities, including
but not limited to fishing, walking, and
other beach-related activities. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing disturbance to rufa red
knots such as managing access to rufa
red knot foraging habitat and adjacent
upland roosting habitat during winter
and migratory periods (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities) and by identifying
restoration and protection measures to
minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
replenishment/restoration to limit
disturbance and impacts to rufa red
knots and their food resources (i.e.,
beach invertebrates) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands within
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
this unit are managed by Passage Key
NWR, which is part of the Tampa Bay
Refuges Comprehensive Conservation
Plan (Service 2010d, entire).
Key NWR, which is part of the Tampa
Bay Refuges Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (Service 2010d,
entire).
Unit FL–14: Egmont Key
Unit FL–14 consists of 15 ac (6 ha) of
beach and intertidal sandflats in
Manatee County, Florida, on the south
end of Egmont Key at the mouth of
Tampa Bay, Florida. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation, including
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. Lands within this
unit are entirely under Federal
ownership under management of
Egmont Key NWR. General land use
within this unit is classified as a
wildlife sanctuary (and no pedestrian
use).
Unit FL–14 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. The
subspecies also resides at this location
year round, which indicates use by
juveniles. Approximately 14 ac (5.5 ha)
of the unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover (66 FR 36038,
July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit FL–14
include loss of habitat due to sea level
rise, human-caused or natural disasters
(e.g., oil spills, hurricanes), shoreline
hardening, harmful algal blooms
including red tide, and disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots by
humans and human activities, including
but not limited to unauthorized access
to closed areas. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include supporting and maximizing
enforcement of closed areas and by
identifying restoration and protection
measures to minimize beach loss using
best management practices during beach
restoration to limit disturbance and
impacts to rufa red knots and their food
resources (i.e., beach invertebrates) (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands within
this unit are managed by the Egmont
Unit FL–15: Fort De Soto Complex
Unit FL–15 consists of three subunits
comprising 856 ac (346 ha) in Pinellas
County, Florida. This unit consists of
State lands and private/other
ownership. This unit partially overlaps
with occupied habitat and designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Subunit FL–15A: Fort De Soto County
Park
Subunit FL–15A consists of 427 ac
(173 ha) of beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats in Pinellas County, Florida, in
Fort De Soto County Park from North
Beach south along the Gulf of Mexico to
the Fort De Soto Fishing Pier at the
mouth of Tampa Bay. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation or
hardened structures, including
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. Lands within this
subunit are entirely in county
ownership (which is captured under the
private/other ownership category).
General land use within this subunit
includes recreational use (e.g., walking/
running, fishing, and surfing).
Subunit FL–15A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. Finally,
this is also an important location that
supports juveniles year round.
Approximately 244 ac (99 ha) of the
subunit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
15A include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, human-caused or natural
disasters (e.g., oil spills, hurricanes),
shoreline hardening, harmful algal
blooms including red tide, and
disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa
red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37475
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
winter and migratory periods (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities) and by identifying
restoration and protection measures to
minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
replenishment/restoration to limit
disturbance and impacts to rufa red
knots and their food resources (i.e.,
beach invertebrates) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
Subunit FL–15B: Shell Key Preserve
Subunit FL–15B consists of 322 ac
(130 ha) of beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats in Pinellas County, Florida, on
Shell Key Preserve. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation, including
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. Lands within this
subunit are entirely in State/county
ownership and management. General
land use within this subunit includes
recreational use (e.g., walking/running,
fishing, and surfing).
Subunit FL–15B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. Finally,
this is also an important location that
supports juveniles year round.
Approximately 252 ac (102 ha) of the
subunit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
15B include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, human-caused or natural
disasters (e.g., oil spills, hurricanes),
harmful algal blooms including red tide,
and disturbance of foraging and roosting
rufa red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beach-
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37476
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
related activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
winter and migratory periods (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities) and by identifying
restoration and protection measures to
minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
restoration to limit disturbance and
impacts to rufa red knots and their food
resources (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Subunit FL–15C: Saint Petersburg Beach
Subunit FL–15C consists of 107 ac (43
ha) of beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats in Pinellas County, Florida, on
Saint Petersburg Beach from 46th
Avenue south to 1st Avenue inclusive of
the inlet. The landward boundary is the
line indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands within this subunit are
entirely in State ownership. General
land use within this subunit includes
recreational use (e.g., walking/running,
fishing, and surfing).
Subunit FL–15C is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site.
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
15C include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, human-caused or natural
disasters (e.g., oil spills, hurricanes),
harmful algal blooms including red tide,
and disturbance of foraging and roosting
rufa red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
winter and migratory periods (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities) and by identifying
restoration and protection measures to
minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
replenishment or restoration to limit
disturbance and impacts to rufa red
knots and their food resources (i.e.,
beach invertebrates) (see Special
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
Unit FL–16: Indian Shores/Redington
Beach
Unit FL–16 consists of 196 ac (79 ha)
of beach, inlet, and intertidal sandflats
in Pinellas County, Florida, from the
Indian Shores Florida Coastal Range
Monument R–086 at the north end of
the unit to the Redington Beach Long
Pier at the south end of the unit. The
landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands within this unit are
entirely in State ownership. General
land use within this unit includes
recreational use (e.g., walking/running,
fishing, and surfing).
Unit FL–16 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Threats identified within Unit FL–16
include loss of habitat due to sea level
rise, human-caused or natural disasters
(e.g., oil spills, hurricanes), harmful
algal blooms including red tide, and
disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa
red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
winter and migratory periods (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities) and by identifying
restoration and protection measures to
minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
replenishment to limit disturbance and
impacts to rufa red knots and their food
resources (i.e., beach invertebrates) (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Unit FL–17: Belleair Beach
Unit FL–17 consists of 123 ac (50 ha)
of beach, inlet, and intertidal sandflats
in Pinellas County, Florida, on Belleair
Beach from the north point (Sand Key)
south to 19th Street. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation, including
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. Lands within this
unit are entirely in State ownership.
General land use within this unit
includes recreational use (e.g., walking/
running, fishing, and surfing).
Unit FL–17 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the fall migration
period, serving as an important
southbound stopover site. Additionally,
this unit contains a high concentration
of rufa red knots during the winter
period on the northern Gulf coast
portion of the subspecies range,
providing important wintering habitat
for foraging and roosting during a time
of the year when rufa red knots are
seeking to build energy sources for
migration.
Threats identified within Unit FL–17
include loss of habitat due to sea level
rise, human-caused or natural disasters
(e.g., oil spills, hurricanes), harmful
algal blooms including red tide, and
disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa
red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
winter and migratory periods (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities) and by identifying
restoration and protection measures to
minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
replenishment to limit disturbance and
impacts to rufa red knots and their food
resources (i.e., beach invertebrates) (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
Unit FL–18: Saint Joseph Sound
Complex
Unit FL–18 consists of three subunits
comprising 888 ac (360 ha) in Pinellas
County, Florida. This unit consists of
State lands. This unit partially overlaps
with occupied habitat and designated
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover.
the Caladesi Island State Park Unit
Management Plan (FDEP 2007a, entire).
Subunit FL–18A: Caladesi Island
Subunit FL–18A consists of a total of
259 ac (105 ha) of beach and intertidal
sandflats in Pinellas County, Florida.
This subunit includes shoreline from
the southern boundary of Caladesi
Island State Park to Dunedin Pass. The
landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands in this subunit are
entirely State ownership. General land
use within this subunit includes
recreational use (e.g., walking/running,
fishing, and surfing).
Subunit FL–18A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. The entire
subunit overlaps with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover (66 FR 36038,
July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
18A include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, human-caused or natural
disasters (e.g., oil spills, hurricanes),
harmful algal blooms including red tide,
and disturbance of foraging and roosting
rufa red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
winter and migratory periods (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities) and by identifying
restoration and protection measures to
minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
replenishment or restoration to limit
disturbance and impacts to rufa red
knots and their food resources) (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). The State lands
within this subunit are managed under
Subunit FL–18B: Honeymoon Island
Subunit FL–18B consists of a total of
294 ac (119 ha) of beach and intertidal
sandflats in Pinellas County, Florida.
This subunit includes the Gulf of
Mexico shoreline in Honeymoon Island
State Park from Dunedin Pass to
Hurricane Pass. The landward boundary
is the line indicating the beginning of
dense vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands in this subunit are
entirely State ownership. General land
use within this subunit includes
recreational use (e.g., walking/running,
fishing, and surfing).
Subunit FL–18B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 127 ac (51 ha) of this
subunit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
18B include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, human-caused or natural
disasters (e.g., oil spills, hurricanes),
harmful algal blooms including red tide,
and disturbance of foraging and roosting
rufa red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
winter and migratory periods (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities) and by identifying
restoration and protection measures to
minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
replenishment or restoration to limit
disturbance and impacts to rufa red
knots and their food resources) (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). The State lands
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37477
within this subunit are managed under
the Honeymoon Island State Park Unit
Management Plan (FDEP 2007b, entire).
Subunit FL–18C: Three Rooker Bar
Subunit FL–18C consists of a total of
335 ac (136 ha) of beach and intertidal
sandflats in Pinellas County, Florida, on
Three Rooker Island. Three Rooker
Island includes shoreline from
Hurricane Pass to the northern tip of
Three Rooker Island and is part of the
Three Rooker Bar Wildlife Management
Area. The landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands in this subunit are
entirely State ownership. General land
use within this subunit includes
recreational use (e.g., walking/running,
fishing, and surfing).
Subunit FL–18C is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration.
Approximately 94 ac (38 ha) of this
subunit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
18C include loss of habitat due to sea
level rise, human-caused or natural
disasters (e.g., oil spills, hurricanes),
harmful algal blooms including red tide,
and disturbance of foraging and roosting
rufa red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
winter and migratory periods (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities) and by identifying
restoration and protection measures to
minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
replenishment or restoration to limit
disturbance and impacts to rufa red
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37478
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
knots and their food resources (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). The State lands
within this subunit are managed under
the Anclote Key Preserve State Park
Unit Management Plan (FDEP 2014,
entire).
Unit FL–19: Anclote Key
Unit FL–19 consists of 1,547 ac (626
ha) of beach and intertidal sandflats in
Pasco County, Florida, on Anclote Key.
The landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands within this unit are
entirely in State ownership under
Anclote Key Preserve State Park.
General land use within this unit
includes recreational use (e.g., walking/
running, fishing, and surfing).
Unit FL–19 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. Finally,
this is also an important location that
supports juveniles year round.
Approximately 351 ac (142 ha) of the
unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001).
Threats identified within Unit FL–19
include loss of habitat due to sea level
rise, human-caused or natural disasters
(e.g., oil spills, hurricanes), harmful
algal blooms including red tide, and
disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa
red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
winter and migratory periods (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities) and by identifying
restoration and protection measures to
minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
restoration to limit disturbance and
impacts to rufa red knots and their food
resources (i.e., beach invertebrates) (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). The State lands
within this unit are managed under the
Anclote Key Preserve State Park Unit
Management Plan (FDEP 2014, entire).
Unit FL–20: Cedar Keys Complex
Unit FL–20 consists of 35,626 ac
(14,417 ha) of beach and intertidal
sandflats in Levy County, Florida, on
Cedar Key and the complex of sandbars
and flats seaward. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation or
hardened structures, including
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. Lands within this
unit include approximately 2,498 ac
(1,012 ha; 7 percent) in Federal
ownership, 7,792 ac (3,153 ha; 22
percent) in State ownership, 5,928 ac
(2,293 ha; 17 percent) in private/other
ownership, and 19,407 ac (7,959 ha; 54
percent) that are uncategorized. Federal
ownership consists of Cedar Keys NWR,
and State ownership includes
Waccasassa Preserve State Park. General
land use within this unit includes
recreational use (e.g., walking/running,
fishing, and surfing).
Unit FL–20 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. Finally,
this is also an important location that
supports juveniles year round.
Approximately 5,658 ac (2,290 ha) of
thus unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened Gulf sturgeon (68 FR 13370,
March 19, 2003).
Threats identified within Unit FL–20
include loss of habitat due to sea level
rise, human-caused or natural disasters
(e.g., oil spills, hurricanes), harmful
algal blooms including red tide, and
disturbance of foraging and roosting rufa
red knots by humans and human
activities, including but not limited to
fishing, walking, and other beachrelated activities. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing disturbance to rufa
red knots such as managing access to
rufa red knot foraging habitat and
adjacent upland roosting habitat during
winter and migratory periods (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities) and by identifying
restoration and protection measures to
minimize beach loss using best
management practices during beach
replenishment or restoration to limit
disturbance and impacts to rufa red
knots and their food resources (i.e.,
beach invertebrates) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands within
this unit are managed under the Lower
Suwannee and Cedar Keys NWR’s
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(Service 2001, entire), and State lands
are managed under the Waccasassa Bay
Preserve State Park Unit Management
Plan (FDEP 2019, entire).
Unit FL–21: St. Marks National Wildlife
Refuge
Unit FL–21 consists of 2,074 ac (839
ha) of beach, inlets, shoals, intertidal
sand and mud flats and impoundments
within the St. Marks NWR, Wakulla
County, Florida. The unit extends from
the eastern boundary of Big Cove inlet
west to the inlet west of Lighthouse Pool
and includes areas to the north up to
1.25 mi (2 km) into East River Pool. This
unit includes from the base of the berm
road to the lowest water level and areas
up to 4 in (10 cm) of water depth within
Lighthouse Pool, Picnic Pond, Tower
Pond, Headquarters Pond, Mounds
Pools 1 and 2, Stoney Bayou Pool 1, and
within the open water and emergent
marsh portion of East River Pool and all
shoals and shoreline habitats within
Sand Cove and Minnie Cove. Areas to
the east of Lighthouse Road between
Lighthouse Pool and Picnic Pond, and
areas to the east of Picnic and Tower
Ponds that have the physical or
biological features, are also included.
This unit includes lands from MLLW to
the landward limit of the physical or
biological features and any ephemeral
pools, or natural brackish ponds and
any emergent sand shoals in Apalachee
Bay appearing near shore within 3 mi
(4.8 km) of the critical habitat boundary
found along the southernmost portion of
Lighthouse Road and Lighthouse Levee
Trail that parallels Apalachee Bay.
Lands within this unit are entirely in
Federal ownership. General land use
within this unit includes management
of impoundments for waterfowl and
shorebirds and passive recreational uses
(e.g., birdwatching).
Unit FL–21 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site
(although the subspecies also resides at
this location year round, which
indicates use by juveniles). This unit is
located adjacent (within 1,000 ft (305
m)) to critical habitat units for the
federally threatened frosted flatwoods
salamander (74 FR 6700, February 10,
2009), noting that projects within the
area should consider impacts for both
rufa red knot and flatwoods salamander
due to close proximity. There is no
overlap with designated critical habitat
for any listed species.
Threats identified within Unit FL–21
include: (1) Loss of bay habitat due to
sea level rise, (2) disturbances of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots by
humans and human activities (e.g.,
vehicle movements along the
impoundment roads, beach goers along
the bay shorelines), and (3) mammalian
and avian predation. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include water
level management within
impoundments to find a multi-species
balance to maximize seasonal use by
rufa red knots, reduction of human
disturbances on a seasonal basis, and
predator control and management such
as removing perches used by avian
predators in proximity to
impoundments and the shoreline (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). Federal lands are
managed under St. Marks NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(Service 2006b, entire).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Unit FL–22: Eastern Franklin County
Complex
Unit FL–22 consists of three subunits
comprising 1,429 ac (578 ha) in Wakulla
and Franklin Counties, Florida. This
unit consists of beaches within the areas
of Apalachee Bay, Dickson Bay,
Ochlockonee Bay, and Alligator Point.
This unit partially overlaps with
occupied habitat and designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover. This unit consists of State
lands and private/other ownership.
Subunit FL–22A: Mashes Sands
Subunit FL–22A consists of 262 ac
(106 ha) of beach, inlet, shoals, and
intertidal sandflats at Mashes Sands
Park beach and the inlet and shoals of
Apalachee Bay, Dickson Bay, and
Ochlockonee Bay in Wakulla County,
Florida, from near Ochlockonee Point in
Ochlockonee Bay north towards
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Dickson Bay. This subunit includes
lands from MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic
beach and intertidal seashore that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide) to the landward boundary
indicated by the beginning of dense
vegetation or hardened structures. This
area includes any ephemeral pools,
lagoons, or natural brackish ponds and
any adjacent or near-shore emergent
sand shoals. Lands within this subunit
are all in State ownership but leased
and managed by Wakulla County.
General land use within this subunit
includes recreational activities (e.g.,
walking, dog walking, and kayaking).
Subunit FL–22A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Rufa red knots also reside at this
location at lower concentrations during
the fall migration period and winter
period.
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
22A include: (1) Loss of habitat and
prey resources associated with sea level
rise and shoreline hardening, (2) avian
and mammalian predation, and (3)
disturbance of rufa red knots from both
humans and pets (dogs). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing or restricting human use
(keeping dogs leashed, including those
walking dogs especially during spring
migration), and managing placement of
kayak, canoe, and boat launches as
needed (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
The County is currently drafting a
management plan for this unit (which is
expected to include shorebird protective
recommendations (e.g., keeping dogs on
leashes)).
Subunit FL–22B: Bald Point State Park
Subunit FL–22B consists of 445 ac
(180 ha) of Bald Point beaches and
shoals in Franklin County, Florida, from
a dirt road 0.35 mi (0.56 km) north of
Marlin Street to the north near Bald
Point, and including shoals within
Ochlockonee Bay approximately 0.9 mi
(1.4 km) north of Bald Point. This
subunit includes lands from MLLW (i.e.,
highly dynamic beach and intertidal
seashore that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide) to the landward
boundary indicated by the beginning of
dense vegetation or hardened structures.
It includes any ephemeral pools,
lagoons, or natural brackish ponds and
any adjacent or near-shore emergent
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37479
sand shoals. Lands within this subunit
include approximately 439 ac (178 ha;
99 percent) in State ownership and 6 ac
(2 ha; 1 percent) in private/other
ownership. General land use within this
subunit includes recreational activities
(e.g., walking, dog walking, and
kayaking).
Subunit FL–22B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
This location also supports rufa red
knots year round, which indicates it is
important for juvenile survival.
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
22B include: (1) Loss of habitat and prey
resources associated with sea level rise,
(2) avian and mammalian predation,
and (3) disturbance of roosting and
foraging rufa red knots from human
activities (e.g., walking, kayak/canoe
launch, boaters, and pets (dogs)).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing or restricting human use
(e.g., keeping dogs leashed, especially
during spring migration) (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State land in this
subunit is managed under FDEP’s
Division of Recreation and Parks, Unit
Management Plan (FDEP 2006, entire).
Subunit FL–22C: Alligator Point
Subunit FL–22C consists of 722 ac
(292 ha) of Alligator Point beaches and
John S. Phipps Preserve beaches and
shoals in Franklin County, Florida, from
0.07 mi (0.11 km) east of Florida Coastal
Range Monument 210 west to the shoals
associated with the northwestern end of
the point. This subunit includes lands
from MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic beach
and intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide) to
the landward boundary indicated by the
beginning of dense vegetation or
hardened structures. It includes any
ephemeral pools, lagoons, or natural
brackish ponds and any adjacent or
near-shore emergent sand shoals. Lands
within this subunit are entirely in
private/other ownership (TNC). General
land use within this subunit includes
recreational activities (e.g., walking, dog
walking, kayaking, canoeing, and
fishing).
Subunit FL–22C is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37480
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
This location also contains habitat that
supports rufa red knots year round,
indicating it is important for juvenile
survival. Approximately 361 ac (146 ha)
of the subunit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover (66 FR 36038,
July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
22C include: (1) Loss of habitat and prey
resources associated with sea level rise,
(2) shoreline hardening, (3) avian and
mammalian predation, and (4)
disturbance of roosting and foraging rufa
red knots from human activities (e.g.,
walking, kayak/canoe launch, boaters,
and dogs). The Preserve portion of this
subunit is closed to the public, but
trespassing is persistent via the
intertidal zone, waters access, and fence
jumping. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include minimizing or restricting
human use (e.g., keeping dogs on
leashes, including those walking dogs
especially during spring migration), and
potential enforcement of the no trespass
rule within the Preserve (violators
access via boats, walking via intertidal
around a jetty structure, and crossing a
fence (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
The Preserve lands are managed under
the John S. Phipps Preserve
Management Plan (Seamon 2013a,
entire).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Unit FL–23: Central Franklin County
Complex
Unit FL–23 consists of seven subunits
comprising 4,175 ac (1,689 ha) in
Franklin County, Florida. This unit
consists of beaches and barrier island
areas of St. George Sound shoreline, the
Carrabelle River outlet, Boggy Jordan
Bayou outlet, Dog Island, and St. George
Island. Lands within each subunit are
either completely State-owned (five
subunits) or private/other owned (two
subunits). This unit partially overlaps
with occupied habitat and designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover and loggerhead
sea turtle, and the federally endangered
Gulf sturgeon.
Subunit FL–23A: Turkey Point Shoal
Subunit FL–23A consists of
approximately 531 ac (215 ha) of an
emergent, isolated shoal within the Gulf
of Mexico and St. George Sound,
Franklin County, Florida. This subunit
includes emergent shoals approximately
1 mi (1.5 km) south of Turkey Point.
This subunit includes lands from
MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic beach and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide) to
the landward limit of the physical or
biological features, including any
ephemeral pools, lagoons, and emergent
sand shoals adjacent to the island or
reef. All lands within this subunit are in
State ownership. General land use
within this subunit includes occasional
recreational fishing.
Subunit FL–23A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this subunit contains a
high concentration of rufa red knots
during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. Habitat at
this location also supports rufa red
knots year round, indicating it is
important for juvenile survival.
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
23A include: (1) Loss of shoals and
foraging habitat, including prey
resources, from sea level rise; (2)
disturbance to roosting and foraging rufa
red knots from human activities (i.e.,
recreational fishing, including with
boats); and (3) avian predation. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing or restricting human use,
especially during spring migration and
winter months (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Subunit FL–23B: Lanark Reef
Subunit FL–23B consists of
approximately 865 ac (350 ha) of Lanark
Reef in the Gulf and St. George Sound,
Franklin County, Florida. This subunit
includes lands from MLLW (i.e., highly
dynamic beach and intertidal seashore
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide) to the landward
limit of the physical or biological
features, including any ephemeral
pools, lagoons, and emergent sand
shoals within 3 mi (4.8 km) of the island
or reef. Lands within this subunit
include 805 ac (326 ha) in State
ownership and 61 ac (25 ha) in private/
other ownership. General land use
activity in this subunit should be
minimal given the area was purchased
strictly for bird protection and is closed
to the public; however, there are
unauthorized recreational activities
occurring (i.e., fishing, kayaking/
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
canoeing, boating, walkers, dog
walkers).
Subunit FL–23B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site
(although the habitat also supports rufa
red knots during the fall migration
period at lower numbers). Additionally,
this subunit contains a high
concentration of rufa red knots during
the winter period on the northern Gulf
coast portion of the subspecies range,
providing important wintering habitat
for foraging and roosting during a time
of the year when rufa red knots are
seeking to build energy sources for
migration. The entire subunit overlaps
with designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001), and
approximately 364 ac (147 ha) of the
western half of the island overlap
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened Gulf sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) (68 FR
13370, March 19, 2003).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
23B include: (1) Loss of the entire island
reef, habitat, and prey resources
associated with sea level rise; (2)
disturbance to roosting and foraging rufa
red knots from human activities (e.g.,
boaters, walkers, dogs); and (3) avian
predation. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include enforcement to minimize
human disturbance especially during
spring migration and winter months,
and predator management (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). No specific resources
management plan exists for Lanark Reef,
although the Audubon does conduct
predator management and debris
cleanup when staffing and funding
allow (Vandeventer 2020, pers. comm.;
Korosy and Samuelsen 2020, pers.
comm.).
Subunit FL–23C: East Dog Island
Subunit FL–23C consists of
approximately 771 ac (312 ha) of East
Dog Island in Franklin County, Florida,
from midway between Florida Coastal
Range Monuments 168 and 169 east to
the tip of the island and extending
around the tip to include St. George
Sound shoreline and shoals
approximately horizontal to Florida
Coastal Range Monument 190. This
subunit includes lands from MLLW (i.e.,
highly dynamic beach and intertidal
seashore that is covered at high tide and
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
uncovered at low tide) to the landward
boundary indicated by the beginning of
dense vegetation or hardened structures,
and also includes ephemeral pools,
lagoons, natural brackish ponds, and
any adjacent or near-shore emergent
sand shoals. Lands within this subunit
are entirely private/other ownership,
which includes the Jeff Lewis
Wilderness Preserve (owned by TNC).
General land use within this subunit
includes recreational use by local
landowners and vacationers for beach
use (e.g., walking, dog walking, and
shell collecting). The Preserve is closed
to public access, although there is
regular unauthorized use.
Subunit FL–23C is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this subunit contains a
high concentration of rufa red knots
during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. This
location also contains habitat that
supports rufa red knots year round,
indicating it is important for juvenile
survival. The Gulf of Mexico side of the
subunit overlaps 140 ac (57 ha) of
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014), and
270 ac (109 ha) of the subunit overlap
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened Gulf sturgeon (68
FR 13370, March 19, 2003).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
23C include: (1) Loss of habitat and prey
resources associated with sea level rise,
(2) avian predation, and (3) disturbance
to roosting and foraging rufa red knots
from human disturbance (e.g., boaters,
walkers, and dogs). Most of the subunit
is closed to the public, although
unauthorized use still occurs. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
enforcement efforts to minimize rufa red
knot disturbance from human activities,
especially during spring migration and
winter months (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above). A
management plan is being implemented
on the Jeff Lewis Wilderness Preserve
(Seamon 2013b, entire), a subset of the
subunit.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Subunit FL–23D: West Dog Island
Subunit FL–23D consists of
approximately 751 ac (304 ha) of West
Dog Island in Franklin County, Florida.
This subunit includes the entirety of
West Dog Island from the eastern
boundary at the Gulf of Mexico
shoreline midway between Florida
Coastal Range Monuments 168 and 169
and west 3.1 mi (5 km) to East Pass.
This subunit includes lands from
MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic beach and
intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide) to
the landward boundary indicated by the
beginning of dense vegetation or
hardened structures, as well as
ephemeral and emergent sand shoals
appearing in the near shore. Lands
within this subunit are entirely in
private/other ownership, which
includes the Jeff Lewis Wilderness
Preserve, owned by the TNC. General
land use within this subunit includes
recreational uses by local landowners
and vacationers for beach use (e.g.,
walking, dog walking, and shell
collecting). The Preserve is closed to
public access although unauthorized
use regularly occurs.
Subunit FL–23D is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this subunit contains a
high concentration of rufa red knots
during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. This
location also contains habitat that
supports rufa red knots year round,
indicating it is important for juvenile
survival. The Gulf of Mexico side of the
subunit overlaps 141 ac (57 ha) of
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle (79 FR 39756, July 10, 2014), and
347 ac (140 ha) of the subunit overlap
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened Gulf sturgeon (68
FR 13370, March 19, 2003).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
23D include: (1) Loss of habitat and prey
resources associated with sea level rise,
(2) disturbance of roosting and foraging
rufa red knots as a result of
unauthorized human activities (e.g.,
boaters, walkers, dogs), and (3) avian
predation. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37481
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include enforcement efforts to minimize
rufa red knot disturbance from human
activities, especially during spring
migration and winter months (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). A management plan
is being implemented on the Jeff Lewis
Wilderness Preserve (Seamon 2013b,
entire).
Subunit FL–23E: McKissack Beach,
Carrabelle
Subunit FL–23E consists of
approximately 117 ac (47 ha) of
McKissack Beach in Carrabelle and
associated shoals in Franklin County,
Florida, from 0.18 mi (0.30 km) east of
the intersection of U.S. Highway 98 and
Cape Street east to the cove that forms
the outlet of Boggy Jordan Bayou. This
subunit includes lands from MLLW (i.e.,
highly dynamic beach and intertidal
seashore that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide) to the landward
boundary indicated by the beginning of
dense vegetation or hardened structures,
as well as any ephemeral and emergent
sand shoals appearing in the near shore.
Lands within this subunit include 114
ac (46 ha) in State ownership via the
Florida Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Fund (although the City of
Carrabelle retains a lease on McKissack
Beach and Marsh), and 3 ac (1 ha) in
private/other ownership. General land
use within this subunit includes passive
recreation (e.g., beach walking, leashed
dogs).
Subunit FL–23E is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this subunit contains a
high concentration of rufa red knots
during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. This
location also contains habitat that
supports rufa red knots year round,
indicating it is important for juvenile
survival. The subunit overlaps 104 ac
(42 ha) of designated critical habitat for
the federally threatened piping plover
(66 FR 36038, July 10, 2001), and 107
ac (43 ha) of the subunit overlap
designated critical habitat for the
threatened Gulf sturgeon within
Apalachicola Bay (68 FR 13370, March
19, 2003).
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37482
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
23E include: (1) Loss of habitat and prey
resources associated with sea level rise,
(2) disturbance to roosting and foraging
rufa red knots from human activities
(e.g., walking, dogs), and (3) mammalian
and avian predation. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
enforcement efforts to minimize human
disturbance and enforce unleashed
dogs, especially during spring migration
and winter months, and efforts to
control trash that may attract predators
in the area (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Management is conducted in
accordance with the Florida Resilient
Coastline Program’s land management
plan for McKissack Beach and Marsh
(Apalachee Regional Planning Council
2021, entire), which includes a
vulnerability assessment and an
adaptation plan.
Subunit FL–23F: East St. George Island
State Park
Subunit FL–23F consists of 978 ac
(396 ha) of Dr. Julian G. Bruce St.
George Island State Park Beach in
Franklin County, Florida, from Florida
Coastal Range Monument 105 to the
eastern tip of the island at East Pass.
This subunit includes lands from
MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic beach and
intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide) to
the landward boundary indicated by the
beginning of dense vegetation or
hardened structures. All lands within
this subunit are in State ownership.
General land use within this subunit
includes passive recreational activities
(e.g., beach walking, shell collecting,
sunbathing, and fishing from the
shoreline).
Subunit FL–23F is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this subunit contains a
high concentration of rufa red knots
during the winter period on the north
Gulf coast portion of the subspecies
range, providing important wintering
habitat for foraging and roosting during
a time of the year when rufa red knots
are seeking to build energy sources for
migration. This location also contains
habitat that supports rufa red knots year
round, indicating it is important for
juvenile survival. The entire subunit
overlaps designated critical habitat for
the federally threatened piping plover
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(66 FR 36038, July 10, 2001), the Gulf
of Mexico side of the subunit overlaps
approximately 485 ac (196 ha) of
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle (79 FR 39856, July 10, 2014), and
426 ac (172 ha) of the subunit overlap
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened Gulf sturgeon (68
FR 13370, March 19, 2003).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
23F include: (1) Loss of habitat and prey
resources associated with sea level rise,
(2) disturbance of roosting and foraging
rufa red knots from human activities
(e.g., fishing, walkers, dogs), and (3)
avian and mammalian predation.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include posting
concentrated areas used by the birds,
conducting enforcement efforts to
minimize human disturbance
(especially during spring migration and
winter months), and controlling trash
that may attract predators (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands are
managed under the St. George Island
State Park’s 2016 Management Plan
(FDEP 2016, entire).
Subunit FL–23G: St. George Island State
Park and Bayshore Shoals
Subunit FL–23G consists of 162 ac (65
ha) of Goose Island and associated
shoals within St. George Island State
Park in Franklin County, Florida. This
subunit includes lands from MLLW (i.e.,
highly dynamic beach and intertidal
seashore that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide) to the landward
limit of the physical and biological
features, including ephemeral pools,
lagoons, and any emergent sand shoals
adjacent to the island. All lands within
this subunit are in State ownership.
General land use within this subunit
includes recreational activities (e.g.,
fishermen, oystermen, and kayakers/
canoers).
Subunit FL–23G is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site.
Additionally, this subunit contains a
high concentration of rufa red knots
during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. This
location also contains habitat that
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
supports rufa red knots year round,
indicating it is important for juvenile
survival. This subunit overlaps 162 ac
(65 ha) of designated critical habitat for
the federally threatened piping plover
(66 FR 36038, July 10, 2001), and 119
ac (48 ha) of designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened Gulf
sturgeon (68 FR 13370, March 19, 2003).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
23G include: (1) Loss of entire shoal,
habitat, and prey resources associated
with sea level rise; (2) disturbance to
roosting and foraging rufa red knots as
a result of human activities (e.g.,
boaters); and (3) avian predation.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing or restricting human use,
especially during spring migration and
winter months (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
State park lands are managed under the
St. George Island State Park
Management Plan (FDEP 2016, entire).
Unit FL–24: St. Vincent National
Wildlife Refuge Complex
Unit FL–24 consists of three subunits
comprising 2,212 ac (895 ha) in Franklin
and Gulf Counties, Florida. This unit
consists of beaches of Apalachicola Bay,
St. Vincent Sound, Indian Pass, St.
Vincent Island, and Flagg Island. Lands
within this unit are Federal (one
subunit) and State (two subunits). This
unit partially overlaps with occupied
habitat and designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened piping
plover and loggerhead sea turtle, and
the federally endangered Gulf sturgeon.
Subunit FL–24A: Little St. George Island
State Park-West
Subunit FL–24A consists of 953 ac
(386 ha) of Little St. George Island beach
and shoals in Franklin County, Florida,
from West Pass east to Florida Coastal
Range Monument 25 and including
bayside beach from West Pass east to the
point at the Marshall Dock. This subunit
includes lands from MLLW (i.e., highly
dynamic beach and intertidal seashore
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide) to the landward
boundary indicated by the beginning of
dense vegetation or hardened structures,
and includes ephemeral pools, natural
brackish ponds, and emergent sand
shoals appearing in the near shore of the
Gulf or Apalachicola Bay. All lands
within this subunit are in State
ownership. General land use within this
subunit includes recreational activities
(e.g., fishermen, oystermen, and
kayakers/canoers).
Subunit FL–24A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the winter period
on the northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. This
location also contains habitat that
supports rufa red knots year round,
indicating it is important for juvenile
survival. The western tip of the subunit
overlaps 82 ac (33 ha) of designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover (66 FR 36038,
July 10, 2001), the Gulf of Mexico side
overlaps 279 ac (113 ha) of designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR
39856, July 10, 2014), and
approximately 502 ac (203 ha) of the
subunit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened Gulf
sturgeon (68 FR 13370, March 19, 2003).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
24A include: (1) Loss of entire inlet spit,
habitat, and prey resources associated
with sea level rise, (2) disturbance of
roosting and foraging rufa red knots
resulting from human activities (e.g.,
boaters), and (3) avian predation.
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
minimizing or restricting boat mooring
on the inlet spit, especially during
winter months, and removing any
unnatural perches to reduce avian
predation (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
State lands (Little St. George State Park)
in this subunit are managed under the
Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve
Management Plan (FDEP and
Apalachicola NERR 2013, entire).
Subunit FL–24B: St. Vincent National
Wildlife Refuge
Subunit FL–24B consists of 742 ac
(300 ha) of St. Vincent NWR beach and
shoals in Franklin and Gulf Counties,
Florida, from the Refuge boat house at
the confluence of St. Vincent Sound and
Indian Pass east to 0.60 mi (0.96 km)
north of Shell Road. This subunit
includes lands from MLLW (i.e., highly
dynamic beach and intertidal seashore
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide) to the landward
boundary indicated by the beginning of
dense vegetation or hardened structures,
including ephemeral pools, natural
brackish ponds, and emergent sand
shoals appearing in the near shore of the
Gulf. Lands within this subunit are all
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
in Federal ownership. General land use
within this subunit includes
recreational activities (e.g., nearby use
by fishermen, beach walkers, and
kayakers/canoers).
Subunit FL–24B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the winter period
on the northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. This
location also contains habitat that
supports rufa red knots year round,
indicating it is important to juvenile
survival. Both the eastern and western
tip of the subunit overlap a total of 206
ac (83 ha) of designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened piping
plover (66 FR 36038, July 10, 2001), the
Gulf of Mexico side of the subunit
overlaps 394 ac (159 ha) of designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR
39856, July 10, 2014), and
approximately 374 ac (152 ha) of the
subunit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened Gulf
sturgeon (68 FR 13370, March 19, 2003).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
24B include: (1) Loss of habitat and prey
resources associated with sea level rise,
(2) disturbance to roosting and foraging
rufa red knots from human activities
(e.g., fishermen, walkers), and (3) avian
and mammalian predation. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include posting
concentrated areas used by the birds
and enforcement efforts to minimize
human disturbance, especially during
winter months (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Federal lands in this subunit are
managed under the St. Vincent NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(Service 2006c, entire).
Subunit FL–24C: Flagg Island Shoals
Subunit FL–24C consists of 517 ac
(209 ha) of the entire ebb-tidal delta
referred to as Flagg Island off the
southernmost tip of St. Vincent Island
(near Oyster Pond outfall) in Franklin
County, Florida. This subunit includes
lands from MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic
beach and intertidal seashore that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide) to the landward limit of the
physical or biological features,
including ephemeral pools, natural
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37483
brackish ponds, and emergent sand
shoals. All lands within this subunit
(which constantly change in size and
shape due to the dynamic nature of the
area) are in State ownership. General
land use within this subunit includes
passive recreational activities (e.g., boat
mooring, tour guide boats, beach
walking, shell collecting, and fishing
from the shoreline).
Subunit FL–24C is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the winter period
on the northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. This
location also contains habitat that
supports rufa red knots year round,
indicating it is important for juvenile
survival. The majority of the subunit
(487 ac (197 ha)) overlaps designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR
39856, July 10, 2014), and
approximately 476 ac (193 ha) of the
subunit overlap designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened Gulf
sturgeon (68 FR 13370, March 19, 2003).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
24C include: (1) Loss of the shoals
habitat and prey resources associated
with sea level rise, (2) disturbance to
roosting and foraging rufa red knots as
a result of human activities (e.g.,
fishermen, walkers), and (3) avian
predation. Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include posting concentrated areas used
by the birds and enforcement efforts to
minimize human disturbance,
especially during winter months (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
Unit FL–25: Gulf County Complex
Unit FL–25 consists of two subunits
comprising 1,520 ac (616 ha) in Gulf
County, Florida. This unit consists of
beaches of Cape San Blas, Money, and
Indian Pass beaches, and the
southeastern portion of St. Joseph Bay.
Lands within this unit are State owned
(one subunit) and private/other
ownership (one subunit). This unit
partially overlaps with occupied habitat
and designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover and
federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37484
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Subunit FL–25A: Cape San Blas to
Indian Pass
Subunit FL–25A consists of 620 ac
(251 ha) of Cape San Blas, Money
Bayou, and Indian Pass beaches in Gulf
County, Florida, from the southwestern
point of Cape San Blas to 0.11 mi (0.18
km) northeast of the Indian Pass Beach
Boat Ramp. This subunit includes lands
from MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic beach
and intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide) to
the landward limit of the physical or
biological features, including ephemeral
pools, natural brackish ponds, and
emergent sand shoals in the near shore.
Lands within this subunit include 133
ac (54 ha) in State ownership and 486
ac (197 ha) in private/other ownership.
Adjacent Federal lands under Eglin Air
Force base jurisdiction were considered
and are exempt under section 4(a)(3) of
the Act, but the shoal and any emergent
shoal formations that appear are
considered part of this subunit, starting
from the MLLW south and up 0.5 mi
(0.81 km) from Eglin Air Force Base
lands on the southern-most side of Cape
San Blas. General land use within this
subunit includes recreational activities
(e.g., a boat ramp near Indian Pass, tour
guide boats, beach walking, shell
collecting, and fishing from the
shoreline). Beach driving permits are
also issued by Gulf County. Dogs are
allowed on the beach, but enforcement
of the leash law is a persistent need.
Subunit FL–25A is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. This
location also contains habitat that
supports rufa red knots year round,
indicating it is important for juvenile
survival. The western-most tip of the
island (Cape San Blas) overlaps with
130 ac (53 ha) of designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001), the Gulf of Mexico side of the
subunit overlaps with 345 ac (140 ha) of
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened loggerhead sea
turtle (79 FR 39856, July 10, 2014), and
approximately 326 ac (132 ha) of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
subunit overlap designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened Gulf
sturgeon (68 FR 13370, March 19, 2003).
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
25A include: (1) Loss of the habitat and
prey resources associated with sea level
rise, (2) disturbance of roosting and
foraging rufa red knots resulting from
human activities (e.g., golf carts,
vehicles, fishermen, walkers, and dogs
on and off leash), and (3) avian
predation. Additionally, sand placement
efforts are to occur soon via berms
placement, but beach nourishment is
possible in the future. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include posting
concentrated areas used by rufa red
knots, reducing the number of beach
driving permits issued, and continuing
to enforce dog leash laws (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
Subunit FL–25B: St. Joseph Bay-Eastern
Shore
Subunit FL–25B consists of 827 ac
(335 ha) of beaches and shoals within
the southeastern portion of St. Joseph
Bay in Gulf County, Florida, from 0.09
mi (0.14 km) east of the intersection of
County Road 30A and Cape San Blas
Road to the west 0.66 mi (1.1 km) and
to the north 2.4 mi (3.8 km). This
subunit includes lands from MLLW (i.e.,
highly dynamic beach and intertidal
seashore that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide) to the landward
limit of the physical or biological
features, including ephemeral pools,
natural brackish ponds, lagoons, and
emergent sand shoals in the near shore.
Lands within this subunit include 761
ac (308 ha) in State ownership and 66
ac (27 ha) in private/other ownership.
General land use within this subunit
includes recreational activities (e.g.,
nearby boat ramps, a canoe/kayak
launch). Additionally, scalloping and
fishing in St. Joseph Bay is popular
during the fall season.
Subunit FL–25B is occupied by the
species and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
subunit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this subunit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period on the
northern Gulf coast portion of the
subspecies range, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. This
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
location also contains habitat that
supports rufa red knots year round,
indicating it is important for juvenile
survival.
Threats identified within Subunit FL–
25B include: (1) Loss of the habitat and
prey resources associated with sea level
rise; (2) disturbance of roosting and
foraging rufa red knots as a result of
human activities during low tides,
which is likely the time this area is most
used by the rufa red knots; (3)
disturbance of foraging rufa red knots
from boating and canoeing/kayaking;
and (4) avian predation. Special
management considerations or
protection measures may include
reducing human disturbance via
educational materials (e.g., post at boat
ramps to request that boaters avoid
coming near large flocks of birds) (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above). State lands are
managed under the FDEP’s oversight of
St. Joseph Bay and some adjacent sand
shoals and uplands area via the St.
Joseph Bay State Buffer Preserve’s
management plan (FDEP 2008b, entire).
Unit AL–1: Dauphin Island
Unit AL–1 consists of 5,164 ac (2,091
ha) in Mobile County, Alabama, which
is one of the Mississippi-Alabama
barrier islands with the Gulf of Mexico
to the south and Mobile Bay to the
north. The unit includes all of Dauphin
Island from the historic 19th Century
Fort Gaines site on the eastern side of
the island, continuing approximately 16
mi (26 km) west to the MLLW on the
westernmost tip, and all of Little
Dauphin Island (which is uninhabited)
to MLLW. Lands within this unit
include approximately 484 ac (196 ha;
9 percent) in Federal ownership, 848 ac
(343 ha; 16 percent) in State ownership,
and 3,834 ac (1,552 ha; 74 percent) in
private/other ownership. General land
use within this unit includes
recreational activities (e.g., off-shore and
surf fishing, sunbathing, swimming, and
walking), the incorporated community
of Dauphin Island, the Audubon Bird
Sanctuary (164 ac (66 ha)) of woodland,
swamp, and beach), the State’s recently
acquired coastal habitat conservation
area on the western end of Dauphin
Island, and the Little Dauphin Island
unit of Bon Secour NWR.
Unit AL–1 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods. This location serves
as an important northbound and
southbound stopover site, providing
multiple foraging and roosting habitats
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
for energy-depleted rufa red knots
seeking to replenish their resources
during their migration to and from
breeding grounds. Approximately 2,381
ac (963 ha) of the unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit AL–1
include: (1) Human disturbance of
foraging and roosting rufa red knots
from recreational activities (e.g., pets
and domestic animals, ORVs, golf carts,
powered boats and kayaks, and surf
fishing), (2) predation (especially by
raptors, red fox, and feral cats), (3)
modification or loss of habitat or both
due to residential and commercial
development, (4) hard and soft beach
stabilization efforts (e.g., beach
nourishment, fences, dredged material
disposal), (5) erosion, including from
sea level rise; and (6) human-caused or
natural disasters (e.g., oil spills,
hurricanes). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats may
include managing access to rufa red
knot foraging habitat and adjacent
upland roosting habitat during
migration (through law enforcement
presence and through restrictions on
timing, locations, and types of
activities), sediment management
through periodic beach nourishment,
and addressing the impacts of potential
oil spills through facility placement, as
well as spill response plans and training
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Federal lands are currently managed by
Bon Secour NWR via the Refuge’s
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(Service 2005, entire). State-owned
lands known as Shell Mound Park or
Indian Mound Park are managed by
Marine Resources Division of the
Alabama Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources. The recently
acquired habitat conservation area by
the State on the west end of Dauphin
Island will be managed by Mobile
County and the Town of Dauphin
Island.
Unit MS–1: Ship Island
Unit MS–1 consists of 2,452 ac (993
ha) in Harrison County, Mississippi,
consisting of emergent lands and
intertidal area to MLLW on Ship Island
and its adjacent sand shoals (i.e., highly
dynamic beaches and intertidal seashore
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This unit is
owned entirely by the Federal
Government as part of the NPS’s Gulf
Islands National Seashore. Ship Island
was breached by hurricane Camille in
1969, and the breach was significantly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
widened by hurricane Katrina in 2005;
however, the unit is once again one
island as a result of restoration work
that occurred in 2019 and 2020. General
land use within this unit includes
limited recreation (e.g., fishing, birding),
management for nesting and wintering
sea birds in addition to other wildlife
species, and tourism associated with the
historic Fort Massachusetts, which is
frequently visited by people via a
commercial ferry service. Portions of the
island are closed by NPS to the public
during various times of the year to
prevent impacts to bird nesting. This
island is also remotely located
approximately 8 mi (13 km) off shore.
Unit MS–1 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the fall migration
period, serving as an important
southbound stopover site. Additionally,
this unit contains a high concentration
of rufa red knots during the winter
period, providing important wintering
habitat on the northern Gulf coast for
foraging and roosting during a time of
the year when rufa red knots are seeking
to build energy sources for migration.
The entire 2,452-ac (993-ha) unit
overlaps with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened piping
plover (66 FR 36038, July 10, 2001), and
1,666 ac (674 ha) of the unit overlap
with designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened Gulf sturgeon (68
FR 13370, March 19, 2003).
Threats identified within Unit MS–1
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by humans and
human activities, such as regional
modification of the natural sediment
transport processes via navigation
channel dredging and disturbance by
powered boats; (2) predation (native
predators); (3) modification or loss of
habitat due to erosion and sea level rise;
and (4) human-caused disasters and
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
conducting public outreach and
education, managing access to rufa red
knot foraging habitat and adjacent
island roosting habitat during migration
(through restrictions on timing,
locations, and types of activities), and
managing sediment sources both within
the unit and the adjacent Mississippi
Sound to offset erosion and sea level
rise (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
These Federal lands are currently
managed under the Gulf Islands
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37485
National Seashore Management Plan
(NPS 2014c, entire).
Unit MS–2: Cat Island
Unit MS–2 consists of 2,121 ac (858
ha) in Harrison County, Mississippi,
consisting of emergent lands and
intertidal area to MLLW on Cat Island
and its adjacent sand shoals (i.e., highly
dynamic beaches and intertidal seashore
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). Lands within
this unit include approximately 686 ac
(278 ha; 32 percent) in Federal
ownership (Gulf Islands National
Seashore), 1,305 ac (528 ha; 62 percent)
in State ownership (managed by the
Mississippi Department of Marine
Resources), and 129 ac (52 ha; 6
percent) in private/other ownership.
General land use within this unit
includes recreational use (e.g., fishing,
birding, and rare visitation by humans
via boats) by locals and island residents.
This island is also remotely located
approximately 8 mi (13 km) off shore.
Unit MS–2 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species for
wintering and migration. This unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site on the northern Gulf coast.
Additionally, this unit contains a high
concentration of rufa red knots during
the winter period, providing important
wintering habitat on the northern Gulf
coast for foraging and roosting during a
time of the year when rufa red knots are
seeking to build energy sources for
migration. Approximately 2,087 ac (845
ha) of the unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover (66 FR 36038,
July 10, 2001), and 200 ac (81 ha) of the
unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened Gulf
sturgeon (68 FR 13370, March 19, 2003).
Threats identified within Unit MS–2
include disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by humans and
human activities such as regional
modification of the natural sediment
transport processes via navigation
channel dredging and disturbance by
powered boats; modification or loss of
habitat due to erosion and sea level rise;
and human-caused disasters and
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats may include
conducting public outreach and
education, managing access to rufa red
knot foraging habitat and adjacent
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37486
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
island roosting habitat during migration
(through restrictions on timing,
locations, and types of activities), and
managing sediment sources both within
the unit and the adjacent Mississippi
Sound to offset erosion and sea level
rise (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Federal lands in this unit are currently
managed under Gulf Islands National
Seashore Management Plan (NPS 2014c,
entire), and State lands in this unit are
currently managed according to Rules
and Regulations For The Use of StateOwned Coastal Preserve Areas
(Mississippi Department of Marine
Resources (DMR) 2009, entire) and the
Coastal Preserves Bureau Management
Plan (Mississippi DMR 2020, entire).
These are not area-specific for lands in
this unit, but the Mississippi DMR does
implement these goals at this time
(Davis 2020, pers. comm.).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Unit LA–1: Chandeleur Islands
Unit LA–1 consists of 7,632 ac (3,088
ha) in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. The
unit includes all emergent lands to
MLLW on the Chandeleur Islands and
their adjacent sand shoals (i.e., highly
dynamic beaches and intertidal seashore
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). All lands in this
unit are federally owned as part of the
Breton NWR and Wilderness Area,
which was created as a refuge and
breeding ground for resident and
migratory birds. General land use within
this unit includes recreational activities
(e.g., bird watching, fishing, and hiking)
and occasionally biological research
activities (which require a Special Use
Permit).
Unit LA–1 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring
migration period, serving as an
important northbound stopover site on
the northern Gulf coast. Additionally,
this unit contains a high concentration
of rufa red knots during the winter
period (i.e., the vast majority of the
species’ wintering population in
Louisiana), providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. This unit
also has an undeveloped character that
provides protection from intensive
human uses. Approximately 4,734 ac
(1,916 ha) of the unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Threats identified within Unit LA–1
include human disturbance of foraging
and roosting rufa red knots (e.g.,
powered boats), natural predators, and
loss of habitat, including from erosion,
sea level rise, and response actions
resulting from natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate threats may include
habitat management or restoration (e.g.,
living shorelines, raising marsh
elevations, and facilitated shoreline
migration), management of predator
populations, oil spill response planning,
and management of human activities
that disturb foraging and roosting rufa
red knots (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Management within this unit occurs via
the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
for Breton NWR, which guides refuge
management and resource conservation
pertaining to managing such activities,
and any restoration actions would be
aimed at restoring habitat quality and
quantity without permanently affecting
the natural coastal processes that
maintain the physical or biological
features of critical habitat (Service
2008b, entire). The Refuge’s
management objectives are to provide
sanctuary for nesting and wintering
seabirds, protect and preserve the
wilderness character of the islands, and
provide sandy barrier beach habitat for
a variety of wildlife species (Service
2008b, pp. 12, 25).
Unit LA–2: Barataria Barrier Islands and
Headlands
Unit LA–2 consists of 7,795 ac (3,155
ha) within Plaquemines, Jefferson, and
Lafourche Parishes, Louisiana,
including emergent lands and/or sand
shoals to MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic
beaches and intertidal seashore that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This unit includes: (1)
Emergent lands of Lanaux and Shell
Islands to MLLW in Plaquemines
Parish; (2) emergent sand shoals of
Grand Bayou Pass in Plaquemines
Parish; (3) the Gulf of Mexico shoreline
to MLLW between Grand Bayou Pass
and Quatre Bayou Pass (known as the
Chaland Headland and Chenier
Ronquille); (4) emergent sand shoals of
Bastian Bay, Bay Joe Wise, Chaland
Pass, and Bayou Cheniere Ronquille in
Plaquemines Parish; (5) all emergent
lands of the Grand Terre Islands and
adjacent unnamed island to MLLW
between Quatre Bayou Pass and
Barataria Pass in Plaquemines and
Jefferson Parishes; (6) the Gulf of
Mexico shoreline of Grand Isle from the
toe of the Gulf-side hurricane protection
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
levee to MLLW in Jefferson Parish; (7)
the west side of the Caminada Pass
shoreline and the Gulf of Mexico
shoreline to MLLW beginning just north
of Louisiana Highway 1 in Caminada
Pass extending approximately 15 mi (24
km) westward to the east side of Belle
Pass (known as the Caminada Headland,
which includes the Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries’
(LDWF) Elmer’s Island Wildlife Refuge)
in Jefferson and Lafourche Parishes; and
(8) all emergent lands of the West Belle
Pass peninsula to the MLLW. Lands
within this unit include approximately
126 ac (51 ha; 2 percent) in State
ownership, and 7,669 ac (3,104 ha; 98
percent) in private/other ownership.
General land use within this unit
includes oil and gas activities (e.g.,
pipelines, wellheads, supply boats),
public beaches (i.e., Grand Isle, portions
of the Caminada Headland), public boat
launches, residential development on
Grand Isle just north of the unit
boundary line, Grand Isle State Park,
Elmer’s Island Wildlife Refuge, and
barrier island/headland habitats.
Unit LA–2 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site on the northern Gulf coast.
Additionally, this unit contains a high
concentration of rufa red knots during
the winter period on these barrier
islands and headlands, providing
important wintering habitat for foraging
and roosting during a time of the year
when rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. The State’s
attention to restoring the barrier islands
and headlands in this unit, which adds
much-needed sediment to the system, in
coordination with episodic storm
events, have also contributed to habitat
creation (e.g., sand spits), and in turn,
optimal rufa red knot habitat conditions.
Approximately 2,946 ac (1,192 ha) of
the unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001).
Threats identified within Unit LA–2
include disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., pets, ORVs/allterrain vehicles, powered boats, and jet
skis (specifically for public beaches on
Grand Isle and the Caminada
Headland)); natural predators;
nonnative predators (specifically for
public beaches on Grand Isle and the
Caminada Headland); modification or
loss of habitat, or both, due to
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
uncontrolled recreational access, beach
cleaning, and/or beach stabilization
(specifically for public beaches on
Grand Isle and the Caminada Headland);
loss of habitat due to erosion and sea
level rise; and response to natural and
human-caused disasters. Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate threats may include public
outreach and education, educational
signage, permits for ORV use on public
beaches; habitat management or
restoration (e.g., living shorelines,
raising marsh elevations, facilitated
shoreline migration); management of
predator populations; oil spill response
planning; and management of human
activities that disturb foraging and
roosting rufa red knots (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
Unit LA–3: Terrebonne Barrier Islands
Unit LA–3 consists of 5,072 ac (2,052
ha) in Lafourche and Terrebonne
Parishes, Louisiana, including emergent
lands and/or sand shoals to MLLW (i.e.,
highly dynamic beaches and intertidal
seashore that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This unit
includes: (1) Emergent lands on East
Timbalier Island in Lafourche Parish; (2)
emergent sand shoals at Little Pass
Timbalier in Jefferson Parish; (3)
emergent lands of Timbalier Island (also
known as Big or West Timbalier Island)
in Terrebonne Parish; and (4) emergent
lands and associated sand shoals on
East, Trinity, Whiskey, and Raccoon
Islands (known as the LDWF Isles
Dernieres Barrier Islands Refuge) in
Terrebonne Parish. Lands within this
unit include approximately 2,890 ac
(1,173 ha; 57 percent) in State
ownership and 2,172 ac (879 ha; 43
percent) in private/other ownership.
General land use in this unit includes
recreational activities (e.g., bird
watching, fishing), biological research
activities (which require a permit), and
oil and gas activities (i.e., East Timbalier
Island).
Unit LA–3 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site on the northern Gulf coast.
Additionally, this unit contains a high
concentration of rufa red knot during
the winter period, providing important
wintering habitat for foraging and
roosting on the northern Gulf coast
during a time of the year when rufa red
knots are seeking to build energy
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
sources for migration. This unit also has
an undeveloped character that provides
protection from intensive human uses.
The State’s attention to restoring the
barrier islands in this unit, which adds
much-needed sediment to the system, in
coordination with episodic storm events
have also contributed to habitat creation
(e.g., sand spits), and in turn, optimal
rufa red knot habitat conditions.
Approximately 4,077 ac (1,650 ha) of
the unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001).
Threats identified within Unit LA–3
include disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by humans and
human activities (e.g., oil and gas
activities (for East Timbalier Island
only), powered boats); native predators;
and modification of habitat, such as due
to erosion, sea level rise, and response
to natural and human-caused disasters
(e.g., hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate threats may include habitat
management or restoration (e.g., living
shorelines, raising marsh elevations,
and facilitated shoreline migration),
management of predator populations,
oil spill response planning, and
management of human activities that
disturb foraging and roosting rufa red
knots (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
The State lands of this unit are managed
by the LDWF Isles Dernieres Barrier
Islands Refuge. The State’s management
of the majority of this unit requires
special permission and/or permits to
access the State-owned islands (State of
Louisiana 2021, website).
Unit LA–4: Southwest Louisiana
Beaches
Unit LA–4 consists of 6,130 ac (2,481
ha) in Cameron and Vermillion
Parishes, Louisiana. The unit includes
land along the Gulf of Mexico shoreline
to the MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic
intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide)
from the eastern Vermilion Parish line
starting at the eastern boundary of the
Audubon Society’s Paul J. Rainey
Wildlife Sanctuary, extending
approximately 128 mi (206 km)
westward and terminating at Louisiana
Point, and also including its associated
sand/mud shoals on the east side of
Sabine Pass in Cameron Parish. Along
its entire length, the unit includes the
shoreline beach from the MLLW line
landward to the edge of where dense
vegetation begins. Lands within this
unit include approximately 1,497 ac
(606 ha; 24 percent) in State ownership
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37487
and 4,633 ac (1,875 ha; 76 percent) in
private/other ownership. General land
use within this unit includes
recreational activities (e.g., bird
watching, fishing), public beaches (i.e.,
Rutherford Beach, Holly Beach),
biological research activities (which
require a permit on State-owned lands),
cattle grazing (i.e., on some private
lands), and oil and gas activities (e.g.,
pipelines).
Unit LA–4 is occupied by the species
and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This
unit contains a high concentration of
rufa red knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site on the northern Gulf coast.
Additionally, this unit contains a high
concentration of rufa red knot during
the winter period, providing an
important wintering habitat location on
the northern Gulf coast within the
subspecies’ northern wintering range.
Approximately 2,499 ac (1,011 ha) of
the unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened
piping plover (66 FR 36038, July 10,
2001).
Threats identified within Unit LA–4
unit include disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots by humans or
human activities (e.g., pets, vehicles on
the beach, powerboats, and
uncontrolled recreational access on
public beaches (e.g., Rutherford Beach,
Holly Beach)); disturbance from cattle
grazing; disturbance from oil and gas
activities (e.g., pipelines, pipeline
repairs); native predators as well as
nonnative predators (e.g., associated
with public beaches); and modification
or loss of habitat, or both, due to
installation of hard structures, jetty
maintenance, erosion, sea level rise, and
responses to natural and human-caused
disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate threats may include public
outreach/education, educational
signage, restricting vehicle access on
public beaches; habitat management or
restoration (e.g., living shorelines,
facilitated shoreline migration);
management of predator populations;
oil spill response planning; and
management of human activities that
disturb foraging and roosting rufa red
knots (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
The State portion is managed by the
LDWF Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge
(Coastal Nongame Resources Division)
in Vermilion Parish. The LDWF allows
trapping, fishing, boating, birding,
wildlife viewing, education, and
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37488
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
research activities on the Refuge
(Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge 2021,
website).
Unit TX–1: Rollover Pass to Bolivar
Flats
Unit TX–1 consists of 1,264 ac (511
ha) in Galveston County, Texas. This
unit begins at the west side of Rollover
Pass and extends southwest ending at
the north jetty on the Bolivar Peninsula.
It includes 17 mi (27 km) of Gulf
shoreline. The landward boundary is
the line indicating the beginning of
dense vegetation, and the gulf-side
boundary is the MLLW, including
emergent lands and intertidal area
characterized as highly dynamic beach/
seashore that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. The west end of
the unit includes lands known as wind
tidal flats that are infrequently
inundated. Specific habitat types within
this unit include: Estuarine (bayside)
seagrass mud or sand flats that are
subtidal, seagrass flats that are nearly
flat areas with rooted vascular plants
(seagrass) growing below the water
surface in subtidal mud or sand
substrate; estuarine (bayside) sandy
shore (beach/sandbar) rarely exposed
due to tidal fluctuation; estuarine
(bayside) sandy shore (beach/sandbar)
that is irregularly or regularly,
depending upon the location, inundated
by tides; and marine sandy coastline
(beach) irregularly or regularly
inundated by tides, depending upon the
location (Federal Geographic Data
Committee (FGDC) 2013, pp. 11–13, 37).
Lands within this unit include
approximately 268 ac (108 ha; 21
percent) in State ownership and 996 ac
(403 ha; 79 percent) in private/other
ownership. General land use within this
unit includes multiple human uses for
recreation including both pedestrian
and vehicle activity, and ongoing beach
maintenance/nourishment activities.
The west end of the unit is a wellknown birding site (Bolivar Flats) that is
protected by the Houston Audubon
Society.
Unit TX–1 is occupied by the species
and contains one of more of the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. This unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period,
providing an important wintering
habitat location on the northern Gulf
coast U.S. portion of the rufa red knot
northern wintering range, especially for
an area that also experiences a low level
of disturbance during this time period.
The intertidal zone and relatively
undisturbed beach habitat provide
multiple foraging and roosting habitat
areas during the time of year when rufa
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
red knots are seeking to build energy
resources for migration. The west end
portion of the unit overlaps with 801 ac
(324 ha) of designated critical habitat for
the federally threatened piping plover
(66 FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit TX–1
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots and their habitat
modification as a result of humans,
including recreational activities,
domestic animals, and vehicle
disturbance (i.e., golf carts, cars, sportutility vehicles (SUVs), motorcycles,
etc.); (2) modification or loss of habitat
due to residential and commercial
development, beach maintenance and
nourishment activities, and sea level
rise; (3) predation (residential and
migratory raptors); and (4) humancaused disasters and response to natural
and human-caused disasters (e.g.,
hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats include conducting
public outreach and education,
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent roosting
habitat during migration (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities), managing sediment
sources to offset erosion and sea level
rise, and addressing the impacts of
potential oil spills or gas drilling
activities through facility placement, as
well as spill response plans and training
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
The Texas General Land Office State
lands are managed under The Open
Beaches Act, Texas Natural Resource
Code Chapter 61 and The Dune
Protection Act, Texas Natural Resource
Code Chapter 63. The Audubon lands
are managed under the Bolivar Flats
Bird Sanctuary Management Plan
(Houston Audubon 2017, entire).
Unit TX–2: West Galveston Island
Unit TX–2 consists of 590 ac (238 ha)
in Galveston County, Texas. The unit is
along the gulf with boundaries from the
MLLW up to the vegetation line,
including emergent lands and intertidal
area characterized as highly dynamic
beach/seashore that is covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide. The
northeastern boundary is the end of the
Seawall Boulevard (end of the seawall),
and the southwestern boundary is San
Luis Pass. Specific habitat types within
this unit include marine sandy coastline
beach that is irregularly or regularly
inundated by tides, depending upon the
location (FGDC 2013, pp. 11–12, 37).
Lands within this unit include
approximately 307 ac (124 ha; 52
percent) in State ownership and 283 ac
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(114 ha; 48 percent) in private/other
ownership. General land use within this
unit includes multiple human uses for
recreation including both pedestrian
and vehicle disturbance, and ongoing
beach maintenance/nourishment
activities.
Unit TX–2 is occupied by the species
and contains one of more of the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. This unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the spring migration
period, serving as an important
southbound stopover site. The west end
portion of the unit overlaps with 106 ac
(43 ha) of designated critical habitat for
the federally threatened piping plover
(66 FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit TX–2
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots and their habitat
modification as a result of humans,
including recreational activities,
domestic animals, and vehicle
disturbance (i.e., golf carts, cars, SUVs,
motorcycles, etc.); (2) modification or
loss of habitat due to residential and
commercial development, beach
maintenance and nourishment
activities, and sea level rise; (3)
predation (residential and migratory
raptors); and (4) human-caused disasters
and response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats include
conducting public outreach and
education, managing access to rufa red
knot foraging habitat and adjacent
roosting habitat during migration
(through restrictions on timing,
locations, and types of activities),
managing sediment sources to offset
erosion and sea level rise, and
addressing the impacts of potential oil
spills or gas drilling activities through
facility placement, as well as spill
response plans and training (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). The Texas General
Land Office State lands are managed
under The Open Beaches Act, Texas
Natural Resource Code Chapter 61 and
The Dune Protection Act, Texas Natural
Resource Code Chapter 63.
Unit TX–3: Cedar Lake to Colorado
River
Unit TX–3 consists of 1,203 ac (487
ha) in Matagorda County, Texas. The
unit is along the gulf with boundaries
from the MLLW up to the vegetation
line, including emergent lands and
intertidal area characterized as highly
dynamic beach/seashore that is covered
at high tide and uncovered at low tide.
The northeastern boundary is the south
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
side of Cedar Lake Cut, and the
southwestern boundary is near the
Colorado River. Specific habitat types
within this unit include marine sandy
coastline beach that is irregularly or
regularly inundated by tides, depending
upon the location (FGDC 2013, pp. 11–
12, 37). Lands within this unit include
1,075 ac (432 ha; 89 percent) in State
ownership and 128 ac (52 ha; 11
percent) in private/other ownership.
General land use within this unit
includes multiple human uses for
recreation including both pedestrian
and vehicle disturbance, and ongoing
beach maintenance/nourishment
activities.
Unit TX–3 is occupied by the species
and contains one of more of the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. This unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the fall migration period,
serving as an important southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period,
providing an important wintering
habitat location on the northern Gulf
coast U.S. portion of the rufa red knot
northern wintering range. During the
winter period, this area provides
foraging and roosting habitat during a
time of the year when rufa red knots are
seeking to build energy sources for
migration. Portions of the unit overlap
with 843 ac (341 ha) of five designated
critical habitat units for the federally
threatened piping plover (66 FR 36038,
July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit TX–3
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots and their habitat
modification as a result of humans,
including recreational activities,
domestic animals, and vehicle
disturbance (i.e., golf carts, cars, SUVs,
motorcycles, etc.); (2) modification or
loss of habitat due to residential and
commercial development, beach
maintenance and nourishment
activities, and sea level rise; (3)
predation (residential and migratory
raptors); and (4) human-caused disasters
and response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats include
conducting public outreach and
education, managing access to rufa red
knot foraging habitat and adjacent
roosting habitat during migration
(through restrictions on timing,
locations, and types of activities),
managing sediment sources to offset
erosion and sea level rise, and
addressing the impacts of potential oil
spills or gas drilling activities through
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
facility placement, as well as spill
response plans and training (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). The Texas General
Land Office State lands are managed
under The Open Beaches Act, Texas
Natural Resource Code Chapter 61 and
The Dune Protection Act, Texas Natural
Resource Code Chapter 63.
Unit TX–4: Mustang Island
Unit TX–4 consists of 648 ac (262 ha)
in Nueces County, Texas. The unit is
along the gulf with boundaries from the
MLLW up to the vegetation line,
including emergent lands and intertidal
area characterized as highly dynamic
beach/seashore that is covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide. The
northern boundary is the south jetty at
Port Aransas and the southern boundary
is the north jetty of Packery Channel.
Specific habitat types within this unit
include marine sandy coastline beach
that is irregularly or regularly inundated
by tides, depending upon the location
(FGDC 2013, pp. 11–12, 37). Lands
within this unit include approximately
395 ac (160 ha; 61 percent) in State
ownership and 253 ac (102 ha; 39
percent) in private/other ownership.
General land use within this unit
includes multiple human uses for
recreation including both pedestrian
and vehicle disturbance, and ongoing
beach maintenance/nourishment
activities.
Unit TX–4 is occupied by the species
and contains one of more of the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. This unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the fall migration period,
serving as an important southbound
stopover site. Portions of the unit
overlap with 589 ac (238 ha) of two
designated critical habitat units for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit TX–4
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots and their habitat
modification as a result of humans,
including recreational activities,
domestic animals, and vehicle
disturbance (i.e., golf carts, cars, SUVs,
motorcycles, etc.); (2) modification or
loss of habitat due to residential and
commercial development, beach
maintenance and nourishment
activities, and sea level rise; (3)
predation (residential and migratory
raptors); and (4) human-caused disasters
and response to natural and humancaused disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil
spills). Special management
considerations or protection measures to
reduce or alleviate the threats include
conducting public outreach and
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37489
education, managing access to rufa red
knot foraging habitat and adjacent
roosting habitat during migration
(through restrictions on timing,
locations, and types of activities),
managing sediment sources to offset
erosion and sea level rise, and
addressing the impacts of potential oil
spills or gas drilling activities through
facility placement, as well as spill
response plans and training (see Special
Management Considerations or
Protection, above). The Texas General
Land Office State lands are managed
under The Open Beaches Act, Texas
Natural Resource Code Chapter 61 and
The Dune Protection Act, Texas Natural
Resource Code Chapter 63.
Unit TX–5: Mollie Beattie Coastal
Habitat
Unit TX–5 consists of a total of 723
ac (293 ha) in Nueces County, Texas.
This unit is located north of Packery
Channel and extends along the bayside
west of Sylvan Beach Park west of Texas
State Highway 361. The northern
boundary is the Corpus Christi Pass
with the southern boundary
approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) south of
Corpus Christi Pass. The eastern
boundary is where the dense vegetation
begins, and the western boundary is the
MLLW (i.e., the highly dynamic beach
and intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide).
This unit includes two hurricane
washover passes known as Newport and
Corpus Christi Passes in areas where
wind tidal flats are infrequently
inundated, and bayside flats that are
exposed during low tide regimes and
wind tidal flats that are infrequently
inundated. The unit does not include
densely vegetated habitat within these
boundaries, but it includes all seagrass
beds exposed at low tides. Specific
habitat types within this unit include:
Estuarine (bayside) sandy shore/beach/
sandbar that is irregularly or regularly,
depending upon the location, inundated
by tides; and estuarine (bayside) sandy
shore (beach/sandbar) and spoils
irregularly inundated by tides (FGDC
2013 pp. 11–13, 37). Lands within this
unit include approximately 505 ac (205
ha; 70 percent) in State ownership and
218 ac (88 ha; 30 percent) in private/
other ownership. General land use
within this unit includes multiple
human uses for recreation (e.g., fishing,
boating).
Unit TX–5 is occupied by the species
and contains one of more of the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. This unit
contains high concentrations of rufa red
knots during the fall migration period,
serving as an important southbound
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37490
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
stopover site. This entire unit (723 ac
(293 ha)) overlaps with designated
critical habitat for the federally
threatened piping plover (66 FR 36038,
July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit TX–5
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots and their habitat
modification as a result of humans,
including recreational activities (e.g.,
fishing, boating), domestic animals, and
ORV activities; (2) modification or loss
of habitat due to residential and
commercial development, and sea level
rise; (3) predation (residential and
migratory raptors); and (4) humancaused disasters and response to natural
and human-caused disasters (e.g.,
hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats include conducting
public outreach and education,
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent roosting
habitat during migration (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities), managing sediment
sources to offset erosion and sea level
rise, and addressing the impacts of
potential oil spills or gas drilling
activities through facility placement, as
well as spill response plans and training
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Unit TX–6: North Padre Island
Unit TX–6 consists of 2,817 ac (1,140
ha) in Nueces, Kleberg, Kenedy, and
Willacy Counties, Texas. The unit is
along the gulf with boundaries from the
MLLW up to the vegetation line, to
include emergent lands and intertidal
area characterized as highly dynamic
beach/seashore that is covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide. The
northern boundary is the south side of
Packery Channel extending along the
Gulf shoreline to Port Mansfield East
Cut. Specific habitat types within this
unit include marine sandy coastline
beach that is irregularly or regularly
inundated by tides, depending upon the
location (FGDC 2013, pp. 11–12, 37).
Lands within this unit include
approximately 2,487 ac (1,007 ha; 88
percent) in Federal ownership, 68 ac (27
ha; 3 percent) in State ownership, and
262 ac (106 ha; 9 percent) in private/
other ownership. General land use
within this unit includes multiple
human uses for recreation, including
both pedestrian and vehicle activities.
In addition, the Padre Island National
Seashore protects the majority of the
area.
Unit TX–6 is occupied by the species
and contains one of more of the physical
or biological features essential to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
conservation of the species. This unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site. Additionally, this unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period,
providing an important wintering
habitat location on the northern Gulf
coast U.S. portion of the rufa red knot
northern wintering range. This location
provides foraging and roosting habitat
areas during a time of the year when
rufa red knots are seeking to build
energy sources for migration. This
specific location harbors approximately
17 percent of the Texas fall migration
population. A portion of the unit
overlaps with 210 ac (86 ha) of
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit TX–6
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots and their habitat
modification as a result of humans,
including recreational activities,
domestic animals, and vehicle
disturbance (i.e., golf carts, cars, SUVs,
motorcycles, etc.); (2) modification or
loss of habitat due to residential and
commercial development, beach
maintenance, nourishment activities,
and sea level rise; (3) predation
(residential and migratory raptors); and
(4) human-caused disasters and
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats include conducting
public outreach and education,
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent roosting
habitat during migration (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities), managing sediment
sources to offset erosion and sea level
rise, and addressing the impacts of
potential oil spills or gas drilling
activities through facility placement, as
well as spill response plans and training
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Management of Federal lands occurs
under the Padre Island National
Seashore Resources Management Plan
(NPS 1996, entire). Texas General Land
Office State lands are managed in
accordance with The Open Beaches Act,
Texas Natural Resource Code Chapter
61 and The Dune Protection Act, Texas
Natural Resource Code Chapter 63.
Unit TX–7: Upper Laguna Madre/
Nighthawk Bay
Unit TX–7 consists of a total of 1,157
ac (469 ha) in Kleberg County, Texas.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The unit is along the bayside of Texas
Park Road 22. The northeastern
boundary is the northern edge of the
Kleberg County line in Nighthawk Bay,
and the southwestern boundary ends
bayside of Bird Island Basin Road. This
unit includes a series of small flats
along the bayside of Padre Island in the
Upper Laguna Madre. The unit includes
bayside flats and seagrass beds that are
exposed during low tide regimes and
wind tidal flats that are infrequently
inundated. Specific habitat types within
this unit include: Estuarine (bayside)
seagrass mud or sand flats that are
subtidal, seagrass flats that are nearly
flat areas with rooted vascular plants
(seagrass) growing below the water
surface in subtidal mud or sand
substrate; estuarine (bayside) sandy
shore (beach/sandbar) rarely exposed
due to tidal fluctuation; and estuarine
(bayside) sandy shore (beach/sandbar)
that is irregularly or regularly inundated
by tide, depending upon the location
(FGDC 2013, pp. 11–13, 37). Lands
within this unit include approximately
273 ac (111 ha; 24 percent) in Federal
ownership, 816 ac (330 ha; 70 percent)
in State ownership, and 68 ac (28 ha; 6
percent) in private/other ownership.
General land use within this unit
includes multiple human uses for
recreation activities (e.g., fishing,
boating). The Padre Island National
Seashore protects the southwestern half
of the unit.
Unit TX–7 is occupied by the species
and contains one of more of the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. This unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the winter period,
providing important wintering habitat
for foraging and roosting during a time
of the year when rufa red knots are
seeking to build energy sources for
migration. The northern half of the unit
overlaps with 560 ac (227 ha) of
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit TX–7
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots and their habitat
modification as a result of humans,
including recreational activities (e.g.,
fishing, boating); (2) habitat
modification or erosion resulting from
sea level rise; (3) predation (residential
and migratory raptors); and (4) humancaused disasters and response to natural
and human-caused disasters (e.g.,
hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats include conducting
public outreach and education,
managing access to rufa red knot
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
foraging habitat and adjacent roosting
habitat during migration (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities), managing sediment
sources to offset erosion and sea level
rise, and addressing the impacts of
potential oil spills or gas drilling
activities through facility placement, as
well as spill response plans and training
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Management of Federal lands occurs
under the Padre Island National
Seashore Resources Management Plan
(NPS 1996, entire). There is no State
resources management plan available
for State lands in this area.
Unit TX–8: Dagger Hill/Yarborough
Pass/Nine Mile Hole
Unit TX–8 consists of 32,773 ac
(13,270 ha) in Kleberg and Kenedy
Counties, Texas. The unit is located
bayside along and within the Laguna
Madre adjacent to the west side of the
Padre Island National Seashore. The
northern boundary of the unit is Dagger
Hill, and the southern boundary is
approximately 6 mi (9.7 km) south of
the land cut at Nine Mile Hole. The
eastern boundary of this unit is the
dense vegetation line on the bayside of
the Padre Island National Seashore. The
western boundary extends toward the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the
MLLW (i.e., the highly dynamic beach
and emergent sand shoals that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). The southern portion of this
unit extends across the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway dredge spoil islands. The unit
includes bayside flats and all seagrass
beds that are exposed during low tide
regimes and wind tidal flats that are
infrequently inundated. Specific habitat
types within this unit include: Estuarine
(bayside) seagrass mud or sand flats that
are subtidal and are nearly flat areas
with rooted vascular plants (seagrass)
growing below the water surface in
subtidal mud or sand substrate;
estuarine (bayside) sandy shore (beach/
sandbar) that is irregularly or regularly
inundated by tides, depending upon the
location; and estuarine (bayside) sandy
shore (beach/sandbar) and spoils
irregularly inundated by tides (FGDC
2013, pp. 11–13, 37). Lands within this
unit include approximately 9,731 ac
(3,938 ha; 30 percent) in Federal
ownership and 23,042 ac (9,332 ha; 70
percent) in State ownership. General
land use within this unit includes
multiple human uses for recreational
activities (e.g., fishing, boating). The
Padre Island National Seashore protects
the eastern half of the unit.
Unit TX–8 is occupied by the species
and contains one of more of the physical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. This unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the spring migration
period, serving as an important
northbound stopover site. Additionally,
large sections of the area are remote and
difficult to access by foot or vehicles,
which has likely contributed to this area
harboring a significant proportion of the
Texas spring migration population. The
southwest section near Nine Mile Hole
overlaps with 4,827 ac (1,953 ha) of
designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit TX–8
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots and their habitat
modification as a result of humans,
including recreational activities (e.g.,
fishing, waterfowl hunting, and
boating); (2) wind energy development;
(3) habitat modification or erosion from
sea level rise; (4) predation (residential
and migratory raptors); and (5) humancaused disasters and response to natural
and human-caused disasters (e.g.,
hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats include conducting
public outreach and education,
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent roosting
habitat during migration (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities), managing sediment
sources to offset erosion and sea level
rise, and addressing the impacts of
potential oil spills or gas drilling
activities through facility placement, as
well as spill response plans and training
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Management of Federal lands occurs
under the Padre Island National
Seashore Resources Management Plan
(NPS 1996, entire).
Unit TX–9: Pintail Lake/Padre Island/La
Punta Larga
Unit TX–9 consists of 94,171 ac
(38,110 ha) in Kenedy, Willacy, and
Cameron Counties, Texas. The northern
boundary is Pintail Cut, extending south
along the bay side of North Padre and
South Padre Islands, with the southern
boundary being Andy Bowie County
Park. The center of the unit is
approximately at Port Mansfield East
Cut. North of the East Cut the western
boundary is the MLLW (i.e., the highly
dynamic beach and emergent sand
shoals that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide), and the eastern
boundary is where dense vegetation
begins. South of East Cut the western
boundary is the MLLW, and the eastern
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37491
boundary includes the beach side Gulf
of Mexico out to the MLLW. The unit
includes bayside flats and seagrass beds
that are exposed during low tide
regimes, and wind tidal flats that are
infrequently inundated. Specific habitat
types within this unit include: Estuarine
(bayside) algal mud or sand flats
irregularly inundated by tides; estuarine
(bayside) sandy shore (beach/sandbar)
regularly inundated by tides; and
estuarine (bayside) sandy shore (beach/
sandbar); and marine sandy coastline
beach (irregularly or regularly
inundated by tides, depending upon the
location) (FGDC 2013, pp. 11–13, 37).
Lands within this unit include
approximately 25,881 ac (10,482 ha; 27
percent) in Federal ownership, 34,165
ac (13,826 ha; 36 percent) in State
ownership, and 34,125 ac (13,802 ha; 36
percent) in private/other ownership.
General land use within this unit
includes multiple human uses for
recreational activities, including both
pedestrian and ORV activities along the
gulf beach front and recreational fishing
and boating on the bayside. Large
portions of the unit are managed for
wildlife habitat by the Laguna Atascosa
NWR.
Unit TX–9 is occupied by the species
and contains one of more of the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. This unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the spring migration
period, serving as an important
northbound stopover site. This entire
unit (94,171 ac (38,110 ha)) overlaps
with designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened piping plover (66
FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit TX–9
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots and their habitat
modification as a result of humans,
including recreational activities, vehicle
disturbance, fishing, waterfowl hunting,
and boating; (2) wind energy
development; (3) habitat modification or
erosion from sea level rise; (4) predation
(residential and migratory raptors); and
(5) human-caused disasters and
response to natural and human-caused
disasters (e.g., hurricanes, oil spills).
Special management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats include conducting
public outreach and education,
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent roosting
habitat during migration (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities), managing sediment
sources to offset erosion and sea level
rise, and addressing the impacts of
potential oil spills or gas drilling
activities through facility placement, as
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37492
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
well as spill response plans and training
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Federal lands in this unit are managed
according to the Laguna Atascosa NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(Service 2010e, entire). Texas General
Land Office State lands in this unit are
managed according to The Open
Beaches Act, Texas Natural Resource
Code Chapter 61 and The Dune
Protection Act, Texas Natural Resource
Code Chapter.
Unit TX–10: Peyton’s Bay/Arroyo
Colorado/Three Islands/Gabrielson
Island
Unit TX–10 consists of 35,651 ac
(14,427 ha) in Willacy and Cameron
Counties, Texas. The northern boundary
of this unit is approximately 11 mi (18
km) north of the Arroyo Colorado Cutoff
and encompasses Peyton’s Bay (north
being Chubby Island), and the southern
boundary is approximately 9 mi (14 km)
south of the Arroyo Colorado Cutoff
encompassing Rattlesnake Bay (south
edge near Gabrielson Island). The
eastern boundary is the western side of
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway dredge
spoil islands, and the western boundary
is where dense vegetation begins. The
unit includes bayside flats and seagrass
beds that are exposed during low tide
regimes and wind tidal flats that are
infrequently inundated, and does not
include densely vegetated habitat
within these boundaries. Specific
habitat types within this unit include:
estuarine (bayside) seagrass mud or
sand flats that are subtidal and are
nearly flat areas with rooted vascular
plants (seagrass) growing below the
water surface in subtidal mud or sand
substrate; estuarine (bayside) algal mud
or sand flats regularly inundated by
tides and are nearly flat areas with a
layer of algae growing on a moist mud
or sand substrate and are otherwise
devoid of vegetation; estuarine (bayside)
algal mud or sand flats irregularly
inundated by tides; estuarine (bayside)
sandy shore (beach/sandbar) rarely
exposed due to tidal fluctuation;
estuarine (bayside) sandy shore (beach/
sandbar) that is irregularly or regularly
inundated by tides, depending upon the
location; and estuarine (bayside) sandy
shore (beach/sandbar), to include spoils
irregularly inundated by tides (FGDC
2013, pp. 11–13, 37). Lands within this
unit include approximately 8,145 ac
(3,296 ha; 23 percent) in Federal
ownership, 25,316 ac (10,245 ha; 71
percent) in State ownership, and 2,190
ac (886 ha; 6 percent) in private/other
ownership. General land use within this
unit includes multiple human uses for
recreational activities (e.g., fishing,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
boating). The Federal portion of the unit
is managed for wildlife habitat by the
Laguna Atascosa NWR.
Unit TX–10 is occupied by the species
and contains one of more of the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. This unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site on the northern Gulf coast.
This entire unit (35,651 ac (14,427 ha))
overlaps with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened piping
plover (66 FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit TX–10
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots and their habitat
modification as a result of humans,
including recreational activities (e.g.,
fishing, waterfowl hunting, and
boating); (2) disturbance and habitat
modification/erosion resulting from
wind energy development and sea level
rise; (3) predation (residential and
migratory raptors); and (4) humancaused disasters and response to natural
and human-caused disasters (e.g.,
hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats include conducting
public outreach and education,
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent roosting
habitat during migration (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities), managing sediment
sources to offset erosion and sea level
rise, and addressing the impacts of
potential oil spills or gas drilling
activities through facility placement, as
well as spill response plans and training
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Management of Federal lands occurs
under the Laguna Atascosa NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(Service 2010e, entire).
Unit TX–11: South Bay/Boca Chica
Unit TX–11 consists of 15,243 ac
(6,173 ha) in Cameron County, Texas.
The Boca Chica gulf shoreline portion of
this unit begins south of the Brownsville
Ship Channel and extends
approximately 6.5 mi (10 km) to the
south. Within the South Bay, the
northern boundary is south of
Brownsville Ship Channel dredge spoil
placement areas, and the southern
boundary is north of the Rio Grande
River. The eastern boundary is the
bayside of the Boca Chica Beach (Gulf
of Mexico) up to where dense vegetation
begins, and the western boundary is
west of the Loma islands up to where
dense vegetation begins along the wind
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
tidal flats. The unit includes wind tidal
flats and all seagrass beds that are
infrequently inundated and/or exposed
as low tides, and the tidal flats within
the area known as South Bay. Specific
habitat types within this unit include:
Estuarine (bayside) seagrass mud or
sand flats that are subtidal and are
nearly flat areas with rooted vascular
plants (seagrass) growing below the
water surface in subtidal mud or sand
substrate; estuarine (bayside) algal mud
or sand flats regularly inundated by
tides and are nearly flat areas with a
layer of algae growing on a moist mud
or sand substrate and are otherwise
devoid of vegetation; estuarine (bayside)
algal mud or sand flats irregularly
inundated by tides; estuarine (bayside)
sandy shore (beach/sandbar) rarely
exposed due to tidal fluctuation;
estuarine (bayside) sandy shore (beach/
sandbar) irregularly or regularly
inundated by tides, depending upon the
location; estuarine (bayside) sandy
shore (beach/sandbar), spoils irregularly
inundated by tides; and marine sandy
coastline (beach) irregularly or regularly
inundated by tides, depending upon the
location (FGDC 2013, pp. 11–13, 37).
Lands within this unit include
approximately 5,536 ac (2,242 ha; 36
percent) in Federal ownership, 3,923 ac
(1,589 ha; 26 percent) in State
ownership, and 5,784 ac (2,342 ha; 38
percent) in private/other ownership.
General land use within this unit
includes rocket and drone launches and
associated Space X space exploration
development, and multiple recreational/
beachside activities by humans, to
include both pedestrian and vehicle
activities. This unit is also managed for
migratory bird use by the Lower Rio
Grande Valley NWR.
Unit TX–11 is occupied by the species
and contains one of more of the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. This unit
contains a high concentration of rufa red
knots during the spring and fall
migration periods, serving as an
important northbound and southbound
stopover site on the northern Gulf coast.
This entire unit (15,243 ac (6,169 ha))
overlaps with designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened piping
plover (66 FR 36038, July 10, 2001).
Threats identified within Unit TX–11
include: (1) Disturbance of foraging and
roosting rufa red knots and their habitat
modification as a result of humans,
including recreational activities, vehicle
disturbance (i.e., golf carts, cars, SUVs,
motorcycles, etc.), fishing, waterfowl
hunting, and boating; (2) disturbance
and habitat modification/erosion
resulting from wind energy
development and sea level rise; (3)
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
predation (residential and migratory
raptors); (4) habitat modification
resulting from space exploration
development; (5) and human-caused
disasters and response to natural and
human-caused disasters (e.g.,
hurricanes, oil spills). Special
management considerations or
protection measures to reduce or
alleviate the threats include conducting
public outreach and education,
managing access to rufa red knot
foraging habitat and adjacent roosting
habitat during migration (through
restrictions on timing, locations, and
types of activities), managing sediment
sources to offset erosion and sea level
rise, and addressing the impacts of
potential oil spills or gas drilling
activities through facility placement, as
well as spill response plans and training
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Federal lands are managed in
accordance with the 1999 (reprinted)
Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR land
protection plan (Service 1993, entire).
The Texas General Land Office State
lands are managed under The Open
Beaches Act, Texas Natural Resource
Code Chapter 61 and The Dune
Protection Act, Texas Natural Resource
Code Chapter 63.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that any action they fund,
authorize, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to confer with
the Service on any agency action which
is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any species proposed to be
listed under the Act or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final regulation with
a revised definition of destruction or
adverse modification on August 27,
2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or
adverse modification means a direct or
indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of critical habitat
as a whole for the conservation of a
listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency (action
agency) must enter into consultation
with us. Examples of actions that are
subject to the section 7 consultation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
process are actions on State, Tribal,
local, or private lands that require a
Federal permit (such as a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the
Service under section 10 of the Act) or
that involve some other Federal action
(such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat—and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded, authorized
or carried out by a Federal agency—do
not require section 7 consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of
section 7(a)(2) is documented through
our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, and are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species and/or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, we
provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable, that would avoid the
likelihood of jeopardy and/or
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable
and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR
402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and
technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director’s
opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of
the listed species and/or avoid the
likelihood of destroying or adversely
modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a
reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth
requirements for Federal agencies to
reinitiate formal consultation on
previously reviewed actions. These
requirements apply when the Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37493
agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action
(or the agency’s discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by
law) and, subsequent to the previous
consultation, we have listed a new
species or designated critical habitat
that may be affected by the Federal
action, or the action has been modified
in a manner that affects the species or
critical habitat in a way not considered
in the previous consultation. In such
situations, Federal agencies sometimes
may need to request reinitiation of
consultation with us, but the regulations
also specify some exceptions to the
requirement to reinitiate consultation on
specific land management plans after
subsequently listing a new species or
designating new critical habitat. See the
regulations for a description of those
exceptions.
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard
The key factor related to the
destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether
implementation of the proposed Federal
action directly or indirectly alters the
designated critical habitat in a way that
appreciably diminishes the value of the
critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of the listed species. As
discussed above, the role of critical
habitat is to support physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of a listed species and
provide for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, activities
involving a Federal action that may
violate section 7(a)(2) of the Act by
destroying or adversely modifying such
habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that the Service may,
during a consultation under section
7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to
destroy or adversely modify rufa red
knot critical habitat include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly
alter the configuration, topography, or
substrate of roosting (i.e., sheltering) or
foraging habitats. Such activities could
include, but are not limited to,
construction of developments and
associated infrastructure, including
roadways, commercial and residential
development, hard stabilization
structures, electrical transmission lines
from offshore wind turbines, and oil and
gas well pads; removal, placement, or
redistribution of sediments such as
beach nourishment, backpassing (i.e.,
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37494
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
mechanical reversal of natural sediment
migration usually by trucks or hydraulic
pipelines), dredging of shoals or sand
bars, and dredged material disposition;
planting or promoting dense, woody, or
nonnative vegetation; and mechanical
beach raking. These activities may
destroy or degrade beach and intertidal
habitats.
(2) Actions that would significantly
alter the availability of prey items. Such
activities could include, but are not
limited to, deposition of sediment in
intertidal areas; substantial levels of
ORV traffic or use of heavy equipment
in intertidal areas; commercial or illegal
harvest of prey species; harvest of other
marine or intertidal species that may
impact prey species; covering of
foraging habitats with permanent or
temporary structures (e.g., aquaculture
gear); introductions of nonnative marine
species; and removal, crushing, or burial
of Sargassum or other types of wrack
(e.g., mechanical beach raking) at times
when rufa red knots are present.
Deposition of dredged material buries
invertebrate prey species, altering their
abundance, distribution, or
composition. Off-road vehicles have
been shown to decrease densities of
invertebrates on intertidal flats. Harvest
activities directly remove prey, or can
indirectly impact prey populations by
altering community composition.
Sargassum and other wrack contain
mussel spat and other invertebrates
consumed by rufa red knots; thus, beach
raking that removes wrack eliminates an
important microhabitat for foraging.
Foraging flats covered by structures are
inaccessible to rufa red knots.
(3) Actions that would inhibit the
natural ability of beaches and intertidal
flats to adapt to sea level rise. Such
activities could include, but are not
limited to, construction of seawalls,
bulkheads, revetments, jetties, groins,
and artificial dunes with rock or clay
cores or stabilized with sand/snow
fencing or densely planted vegetation.
Such structures prevent the natural
migration of barrier beach and intertidal
habitats, increasing the rate and aerial
extent of inundation and corresponding
loss of rufa red knot habitats.
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act,
project timing often plays an important
role in the Service’s jeopardy analysis,
but typically plays little to no role in the
Service’s analysis of adverse
modification of critical habitat. As part
of the jeopardy analysis, the Service
must consider likely effects both to the
habitat and to the species directly (e.g.,
risk of accidental death or injury of
individuals, or incidental disturbance or
displacement of individuals, from
project activities). To avoid or minimize
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
adverse effects to individuals, the
Service often makes project timing
recommendations in advance of the
jeopardy analysis (e.g., to avoid those
times of year when the species is
typically present in the action area). In
contrast, direct effects to individuals
(e.g., death, injury, displacement,
disturbance) are not part of the adverse
modification analysis, which is focused
on whether implementation of the
proposed Federal action directly or
indirectly alters the designated critical
habitat in a way that appreciably
diminishes the value of the critical
habitat as a whole for the conservation
of the listed species. As such, project
timing is rarely an important
consideration in the adverse
modification analysis. In very general
terms, we expect proposed Federal
activities to fall into three broad
categories with regard to considerations
around project timing:
(a) Permanent or long-lived habitat
modifications (such as the categories of
actions listed in (1) through (3), above,
and depending on type, extent, and
severity) are likely to result in
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat, regardless of what time
of year they are carried out (i.e.,
regardless of whether rufa red knots are
present during implementation). An
example might be a series of new sea
walls.
(b) Activities that may disturb,
displace, or risk injuring rufa red knots,
but that do not involve habitat
modification, would not result in
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat, regardless of what time
of year they are carried out. However, in
advance of our jeopardy analysis, the
Service would likely offer timing or
other recommendations to reduce
adverse effects to the species and the
risk of incidental take of individuals. An
example might be use of low-flying
aircraft.
(c) A short-lived habitat modification
may (depending on type, extent, and
severity) be able to avoid adverse
modification by being terminated and
fully reversed/restored well before the
expected arrival date of migrant or
wintering rufa red knots. These are the
only circumstances in which we expect
project timing to be an important
consideration in the adverse
modification analysis. In such cases,
any Service-recommended timing
restrictions offered to protect the
conservation value of the critical habitat
would also be expected to reduce
adverse effects and the risk of incidental
take from disturbance or displacement,
which are important considerations in
our jeopardy analysis. An example
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
might be large-scale deployment of
moveable aquaculture gear that
precludes use of rufa red knot foraging
habitat, but only while the gear is
present (i.e., foraging habitat is fully
restored upon removal of the gear).
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of
1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that
includes land and water suitable for the
conservation and management of
natural resources to complete an
integrated natural resources
management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP
integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with
stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP
includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological
needs on the installation, including the
need to provide for the conservation of
listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of
management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs;
and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive
management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP
must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife
management; fish and wildlife habitat
enhancement or modification; wetland
protection, enhancement, and
restoration where necessary to support
fish and wildlife; and enforcement of
applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–
136) amended the Act to limit areas
eligible for designation as critical
habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that: ‘‘The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or
other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the Department of
Defense, or designated for its use, that
are subject to an integrated natural
resources management plan prepared
under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines
in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation.’’
We consult with the military on the
development and implementation of
INRMPs for installations with listed
species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations
located within the range of the proposed
critical habitat designation for the rufa
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
red knot to determine if they meet the
criteria for exemption from critical
habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
The following areas are Department of
Defense (DoD) lands with completed,
Service-approved INRMPs within the
proposed critical habitat designation.
Approved INRMPs
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Eglin Air Force Base (Cape San Blas),
Gulf County, FL, 79 ac (32 ha)
Eglin Air Force Base is the largest
forested military reservation in the
United States. It supports a multitude of
military testing and training operations,
as well as many diverse species and
habitats. Eglin’s missions include the
7th Special Forces Group (Airborne),
Amphibious Ready Group/Marine
Expeditionary Unit, Stand-off Precision
Guided Missile, and Massive Ordnance
Air Blast.
Eglin Air Force Base, also known as
the Eglin Military Complex, is located in
Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, and Gulf
Counties in Northwest Florida and the
Gulf, and occupies 464,000 ac (261,428
ha). The Eglin Military Complex
includes the mainland Reservation
located in Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and
Walton Counties, as well as a small
parcel (962 ac (389 ha)) on Cape San
Blas in Gulf County, Florida. This parcel
consists of approximately 3 mi (5 km) of
spit shoreline along the Gulf of Mexico.
The spit is separated from the mainland
by St. Joseph Bay. The boundaries of
Eglin’s Cape San Blas parcel are from
29.67680 N 85.36351 W to 29.67608 N
85.33394 W. Eglin’s Cape San Blas
parcel also contains U.S. Federal
Reserve property, but the entire parcel
is under Eglin’s management. The Cape
San Blas parcel has 79 ac (32 ha) of Gulf
beach; ephemeral pools, natural
brackish ponds, or lagoons; and
emergent sand shoals in the near shore
used by wintering red knots.
The 2017–22 Eglin Air Force Base
INRMP guides the management and
conservation of natural resources under
the installation’s control. It provides
interdisciplinary strategic guidance for
the management of natural resources in
support of the military mission within
the land and water ranges of the Eglin
Military Complex. The Eglin Air Force
Base INRMP integrates and prioritizes
wildlife, fire, and forest management
activities to protect and effectively
manage the Complex’s aquatic and
terrestrial environments and ensure ‘‘no
net loss’’ in the operational capability of
these resources to support Eglin test and
training missions.
The 2017–22 INRMP and the more
detailed Threatened and Endangered
Species Component Plan Update (DoD
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
2017) explains natural resources
program management, including a
specific section that details management
for threatened and endangered species,
including conservation actions for the
rufa red knot and its habitat, which are
similar to those for piping plover that is
also present during similar time periods
(Eglin Air Force Base 2017, Section 7.4).
The INRMP identifies the need to
develop and implement programs to
protect and conserve federally listed
endangered and threatened plants and
wildlife and candidate species,
including the red knot. The Update
(DoD 2017, Section 8.1) identifies the
following management and protective
measures to achieve this goal:
(1) Maintain suitable habitat for the
species via posting;
(2) Annually survey and maintain
public access control measures on Cape
San Blas to protect red knots and ensure
the long-term sustainability of Eglin’s
barrier island ecosystem for mission
use;
(3) Conduct predator control as
necessary;
(4) Install daytime visual markers on
guy wires associated with new towers
being built at Cape San Blas to reduce
collisions by birds;
(5) Minimize construction activities
during the federally threatened piping
plover season, which also overlaps the
majority of rufa red knot seasons;
(6) In partnership with Gulf County,
continue to address concerns associated
with beach driving associated with
recreational beach use at Cape San Blas;
(7) Conduct weekly shorebird surveys
to track presence of shorebird species as
well as population trends;
(8) Ensure that all beach and dune
habitats impaired by mission activities
are appropriately restored and
maintained with concurrence from the
Service;
(9) Ensure that Eglin personnel drive
seaward of the wrack and debris line or
just above it during high tide
conditions; and
(10) Prohibit beach raking on Eglin
property, so the wrack line remains
intact as a foraging substrate.
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that the identified lands are
subject to the Eglin Air Force Base
INRMP and that conservation efforts
identified in the INRMP will provide a
benefit to the rufa red knot. Therefore,
lands within this installation are exempt
from critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not
including 79 ac (32 ha) of habitat in this
proposed critical habitat designation
because of this exemption.
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37495
Tyndall Air Force Base (Shell Island,
Crooked Island West, Crooked Island
East), Bay County, FL, 3,258 ac (1,318
ha)
Tyndall Air Force Base is located on
30,000 ac (12,141 ha) in southeastern
Bay County, approximately 13 mi (20
km) east of Panama City, Florida. The
installation includes forested areas and
beaches that provide a sea-to-land
transition area that is vital for military
operations to include ground-training
and airspace activities that are also
shared with other Air Force bases and
DoD branches. Tyndall’s missions
include the 325th Fighter Wing, 325th
Operations Group, 325th Maintenance
Group, 325th Mission Support Group,
and other Major Associate Tenants to
include the 53rd Weapons Evaluation
Group, Air Force Civil Engineer Center,
Airbase Technologies Division, and
Detachment 1, 823rd Rapid Engineer
Deployable Heavy Operational Repair
Squadron Engineers.
Similar to the Eglin Air Force Base
INRMP, the 2020 Tyndall Air Force
Base INRMP guides the management
and conservation of natural resources
under the installation’s control. It
provides interdisciplinary strategic
guidance for the management of natural
resources in support of the military
mission within the land and water
ranges of the Installation. The Tyndall
Air Force Base INRMP integrates and
prioritizes wildlife, wildland fire, forest
management, and coastal zone and
marine resources management activities
to protect and effectively manage the
Air Force Base’s aquatic and terrestrial
environments and ensure ‘‘no net loss’’
in the operational capability of these
resources to support the Air Force’s
training missions.
The 2020 INRMP has a chapter for
natural resources program management,
including a specific section (Threatened
and Endangered Species Component
Plan) that details management for
threatened and endangered species and
conservation actions for the rufa red
knot and its habitat (DoD 2020, Section
15, Tab 3). The INRMP identifies the
need to develop and implement
programs to protect and conserve
federally listed endangered and
threatened plants and wildlife and
candidate species, including the red
knot.
Tyndall Air Force Base is a base
combined of developed and natural
areas located on a peninsula that is
bisected by U.S. Highway 98. The base
is approximately 18 mi (29 km) long and
3 mi (4.8 km) wide, and is surrounded
by East Bay, St. Andrew Bay, and the
Gulf of Mexico to the north, west, and
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
37496
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
south, respectively. Crooked Island
West, Crooked Island East, and a portion
of Shell Island, which form St. Andrew
Sound, are barrier spits on the Gulf and
are occupied almost year around by rufa
red knots. These barrier island spits
include various stages of coastal dune
formations, forests, overwash areas,
ephemeral pools, natural brackish
ponds, or lagoons; emergent sand shoals
in the near shore are used by rufa red
knots almost year round, but mostly
during spring migrations.
We identified two areas on Tyndall
Air Force Base that meet the criteria
identified as essential to the
conservation of the species:
(1) Crooked Island East is
approximately 1,001 ac (405 ha) and
includes approximately 6 mi (9.7 km) of
shoreline beach.
(2) Crooked Island West and Shell
Island include approximately 2,257 ac
(913 ha) of shoreline beaches that are
approximately 12 mi (19.3 km) in length
on the base (from the western boundary
with St. Andrews State Park east to the
eastern end of the island).
The draft ‘‘Threatened and
Endangered Species Component Plan’’
portion of the INRMP (a.k.a. T&E Plan)
(Tyndall Air Force Base 2020, Section
15, Tab 3) identifies the following
management and protective measures to
achieve conservation goals for rufa red
knot:
(1) Maintain suitable habitat for
foraging, sheltering, and roosting;
(2) Support predator control efforts;
(3) Enforce beach driving restrictions;
(4) Construct and maintain
boardwalks to guide recreation
locations;
(5) Support the State of Florida
designation of these three island
locations as Critical Wildlife Areas.
Areas within the Critical Wildlife Areas
may be posted and closed to access for
the protection of birds either seasonally
or year around;
(6) Continue prohibiting pets on
Tyndall Air Force Base beaches at all
times; and
(7) Continue to support Audubon and
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission’ efforts to collect regular
survey data on the species.
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that the identified lands are
subject to the Tyndall Air Force Base
INRMP and that conservation efforts
identified in the INRMP will provide a
benefit to the rufa red knot. Therefore,
lands within this installation are exempt
from critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not
including 3,258 ac (1,318 ha) of habitat
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
in this proposed critical habitat
designation because of this exemption.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary shall designate and make
revisions to critical habitat on the basis
of the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and
any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if she determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless she
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making the determination to
exclude a particular area, the statute on
its face, as well as the legislative history,
are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to
use and how much weight to give to any
factor.
The first sentence in section 4(b)(2) of
the Act requires that we take into
consideration the economic, national
security, or other relevant impacts of
designating any particular area as
critical habitat. We describe below the
process that we undertook for taking
into consideration each category of
impacts and our analyses of the relevant
impacts.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its
implementing regulations require that
we consider the economic impact that
may result from a designation of critical
habitat. To assess the probable
economic impacts of a designation, we
must first evaluate specific land uses or
activities and projects that may occur in
the area of the critical habitat. We then
must evaluate the impacts that a specific
critical habitat designation may have on
restricting or modifying specific land
uses or activities for the benefit of the
species and its habitat within the areas
proposed. We then identify which
conservation efforts may be the result of
the species being listed under the Act
versus those attributed solely to the
designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable
economic impact of a proposed critical
habitat designation is analyzed by
comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical
habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’
The ‘‘without critical habitat’’
scenario represents the baseline for the
analysis, which includes the existing
regulatory and socio-economic burden
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
imposed on landowners, managers, or
other resource users potentially affected
by the designation of critical habitat
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as
other Federal, State, and local
regulations). The baseline, therefore,
represents the costs of all efforts
attributable to the listing of the species
under the Act (i.e., conservation of the
species and its habitat incurred
regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’
scenario describes the incremental
impacts associated specifically with the
designation of critical habitat for the
species. The incremental conservation
efforts and associated impacts would
not be expected without the designation
of critical habitat for the species. In
other words, the incremental costs are
those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat, above and
beyond the baseline costs. These are the
costs we use when evaluating the
benefits of inclusion and exclusion of
particular areas from the final
designation of critical habitat should we
choose to conduct a discretionary
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we
developed an incremental effects
memorandum (IEM) considering the
probable incremental economic impacts
that may result from this proposed
designation of critical habitat. The
information contained in our IEM was
then used to develop a screening
analysis of the probable effects of the
designation of critical habitat for the
rufa red knot (Industrial Economics,
Incorporated (IEc) 2021). We began by
conducting a screening analysis of the
proposed designation of critical habitat
in order to focus our analysis on the key
factors that are likely to result in
incremental economic impacts. The
purpose of the screening analysis is to
filter out particular geographic areas of
critical habitat that are already subject
to such protections and are, therefore,
unlikely to incur incremental economic
impacts. In particular, the screening
analysis considers baseline costs (i.e.,
absent critical habitat designation) and
includes probable economic impacts
where land and water use may be
subject to conservation plans, land
management plans, best management
practices, or regulations that protect the
habitat area as a result of the Federal
listing status of the species. Ultimately,
the screening analysis allows us to focus
our analysis on evaluating the specific
areas or sectors that may incur probable
incremental economic impacts as a
result of the designation. The screening
analysis also assesses whether units are
unoccupied by the species and thus may
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
require additional management or
conservation efforts as a result of the
critical habitat designation for the
species; these additional efforts may
incur incremental economic impacts.
This screening analysis combined with
the information contained in our IEM
are what we consider our draft
economic analysis (DEA) of the
proposed critical habitat designation for
the rufa red knot; our DEA is
summarized in the narrative below.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and
13563 direct Federal agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives in quantitative
(to the extent feasible) and qualitative
terms. Consistent with the E.O.
regulatory analysis requirements, our
effects analysis under the Act may take
into consideration impacts to both
directly and indirectly affected entities,
where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess
to the extent practicable the probable
impacts to both directly and indirectly
affected entities. As part of our
screening analysis, we considered the
types of economic activities that are
likely to occur within the areas likely
affected by the critical habitat
designation. In our evaluation of the
probable incremental economic impacts
that may result from the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
rufa red knot, first we identified, in the
IEM dated December 11, 2020, probable
incremental economic impacts
associated with the following categories
of activities (i.e., Federal agencies and
projects that would likely go through
the section 7 consultation process
whether or not critical habitat is
designated):
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service: Control and management of
invasive, harmful, or overabundant
species; predator control to benefit
target ecosystems or species.
• Department of Defense: Operation,
maintenance, and upgrades of military
property and infrastructure, including
training and testing.
• Federal Emergency Management
Agency: Alternations to both habitats
and developments to increase coastal
resiliency and/or to facilitate recovery of
human communities following disasters
or emergencies (such as coastal storms).
Emergency consultation may also be
conducted during or shortly after a
disaster, for example to stage emergency
response equipment in rufa red knot
habitat, to transit through habitat as part
of the emergency response, or retrieve
orphaned vessels, containers, or other
items from habitat.
• Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission: Non-Federal activities that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
require Federal authorization, such as
liquefied natural gas facilities and
associated pipeline infrastructure.
• Federal Highway Administration:
Transportation infrastructure
maintenance and upgrades.
• Federal Aviation Administration:
Operation, management, and upgrades
of airports and air traffic control
systems.
• National Aeronautics and Space
Administration: Rocket and drone
launches, drone and aircraft flights,
recreational beach uses (e.g., swimming,
sunbathing, ORVs), beach
renourishment and seawall repair,
protected species management, facility
maintenance and construction, and
educational use.
• National Park Service:
Infrastructure maintenance or upgrades,
habitat or species management,
research, and changes to visitor use
policies or regulations.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Federally funded coastal engineering,
such as beach nourishment, dredging,
shoreline stabilization, and habitat
restoration; non-Federal activities that
require Federal permits, such as coastal
engineering, coastal development (e.g.,
residential, commercial, recreational
infrastructure), transportation
infrastructure (e.g., docks, piers, ports,
roads, rail lines), utility and energy
infrastructure, habitat restoration,
habitat and species management (e.g.,
mosquito control), and aquaculture.
• U.S. Coast Guard: Response actions
associated with cleanup of hazardous
substances in the coastal and marine
environments, and authorization of
fireworks displays.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Wildlife Refuges: Land
acquisition, infrastructure maintenance
or upgrades, habitat or species
management, research, and changes to
visitor use policies or regulations.
We considered each industry or
category individually. Additionally, we
considered whether their activities have
any Federal involvement. Critical
habitat designation generally will not
affect activities that do not have any
Federal involvement; under the Act,
designation of critical habitat only
affects activities conducted, funded,
permitted, or authorized by Federal
agencies. If we list the species, in areas
where the rufa red knot is present,
Federal agencies would be required to
consult with the Service under section
7 of the Act on activities they fund,
permit, or implement that may affect the
species. If, when we list the species, we
also finalize this proposed critical
habitat designation, consultations to
avoid the destruction or adverse
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37497
modification of critical habitat would be
incorporated into the existing
consultation process.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify
the distinction between the effects that
will result from the species being listed
and those attributable to the critical
habitat designation (i.e., difference
between the jeopardy and adverse
modification standards) for the rufa red
knot’s critical habitat. The following
specific circumstances help to inform
our evaluation: (1) The essential
physical or biological features identified
for critical habitat are the same features
essential for the life requisites of the
species, and (2) any actions that would
result in sufficient harm or harassment
to constitute jeopardy to the rufa red
knot would also likely adversely affect
the essential physical or biological
features of critical habitat. The IEM
outlines our rationale concerning this
limited distinction between baseline
conservation efforts and incremental
impacts of the designation of critical
habitat for this species. This evaluation
of the incremental effects has been used
as the basis to evaluate the probable
incremental economic impacts of this
proposed designation of critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat
designation for the rufa red knot
includes 120 proposed critical habitat
units (18 of which are further
subdivided into 46 subunits), totaling
approximately 649,066 ac (262,667 ha),
all of which were occupied by the rufa
red knot at the time of listing, and are
currently occupied. The incremental
costs of designating critical habitat for
the rufa red knot are likely to be limited
to additional administrative effort to
consider adverse modification in
consultations for the species, which is
based on factors such as the same types
of project modifications for avoiding
adverse modification compared to
avoiding jeopardy in occupied habitat,
or the presence of additional listed
species with similar habitat needs or
designated critical habitat. The
incremental administrative burden
resulting from the designation of critical
habitat for the rufa red knot is not
anticipated to reach $100 million in any
given year based on the anticipated
annual number of consultations and
associated consultation costs, which are
not expected to exceed $480,000 per
year (2021 dollars). Because the
designation is not expected to result in
additional project modifications
recommendations for the species,
ancillary economic benefits are not
expected.
We are soliciting data and comments
from the public on the DEA discussed
above, as well as all aspects of this
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37498
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
proposed rule and our required
determinations. During the development
of a final designation, we will consider
the information presented in the DEA
and any additional information on
economic impacts received during the
public comment period to determine
whether any specific areas should be
excluded from the final critical habitat
designation under authority of section
4(b)(2) and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. In
particular, we may exclude an area from
critical habitat if we determine that the
benefits of excluding the area outweigh
the benefits of including the area,
provided the exclusion will not result in
the extinction of this species.
Consideration of National Security
Impacts or Homeland Security Impacts
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may
not cover all DoD lands or areas that
pose potential national-security
concerns (e.g., a DoD installation that is
in the process of revising its INRMP for
a newly listed species or a species
previously not covered). If a particular
area is not covered under section
4(a)(3)(B)(i), national-security or
homeland-security concerns are not a
factor in the process of determining
what areas meet the definition of
‘‘critical habitat.’’ Nevertheless, when
designating critical habitat under
section 4(b)(2), the Service must
consider impacts on national security,
including homeland security, on lands
or areas not covered by section
4(a)(3)(B)(i). Accordingly, we will
always consider for exclusion from the
designation areas for which DoD,
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), or another Federal agency has
requested exclusion based on an
assertion of national-security or
homeland-security concerns.
We cannot, however, automatically
exclude requested areas. When DoD,
DHS, or another Federal agency requests
exclusion from critical habitat on the
basis of national-security or homelandsecurity impacts, it must provide a
reasonably specific justification of an
incremental impact on national security
that would result from the designation
of that specific area as critical habitat.
That justification could include
demonstration of probable impacts,
such as impacts to ongoing bordersecurity patrols and surveillance
activities, or a delay in training or
facility construction, as a result of
compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the
Act. If the agency requesting the
exclusion does not provide us with a
reasonably specific justification, we will
contact the agency to recommend that it
provide a specific justification or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
clarification of its concerns relative to
the probable incremental impact that
could result from the designation. If the
agency provides a reasonably specific
justification, we will defer to the expert
judgment of DoD, DHS, or another
Federal agency as to: (1) Whether
activities on its lands or waters, or its
activities on other lands or waters, have
national-security or homeland-security
implications; (2) the importance of those
implications; and (3) the degree to
which the cited implications would be
adversely affected in the absence of an
exclusion. In that circumstance, in
conducting a discretionary section
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give
great weight to national-security and
homeland-security concerns in
analyzing the benefits of exclusion.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider whether there are lands where
a national security impact might exist.
In preparing this proposal, we have
determined that some lands within the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for the rufa red knot are owned or
managed by the DoD. We already
discussed two areas (Eglin Air Force
Base and Tyndall Air Force Base) with
approved INRMPs under Application of
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, above. In
addition, NASA has expressed concern
that the designation of critical habitat on
the Wallops Flight Facility would have
implications for national security, as
summarized below.
Goddard Space Flight Center’s Wallops
Flight Facility (Wallops Island),
Accomack County, Virginia (571 ac (231
ha))
NASA owns and operates the
Goddard Space Flight Center’s Wallops
Flight Facility, located on Wallops
Island in Accomack County, Virginia.
This area on Wallops Island includes
both Subunits VA–2A and VA–2B (i.e.,
540 ac (218 ha) within Subunit VA–2A
and 31 ac (13 ha) within Subunit VA–
2B), totaling 571 ac (231 ha).
The Wallops Flight Facility is the
oldest active launch range in the
continental United States, and its
mission currently includes support of
scientific research and emerging
technologies, and employing measures
(consistent with the inherent right of
self-defense) to deter others from
interference and attack, defend our
space systems, and contribute to the
defense of allied space systems . . .’’
(NASA 2020a, p. 2). Additionally the
facility shares its government-owned
infrastructure with other Federal
agencies, mostly from DoD, to facilitate
critical activities including target,
missile, test article, and spacecraft
launches; manned and unmanned
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
aircraft development and pilot training;
launch systems testing (e.g.,
communications, telemetry, guidance);
rocket launches ranging from small
sounding and suborbital rockets to
small- and medium-classed expendable
launch vehicles; launching resupply
missions to the International Space
Station; and science payloads that could
support disaster readiness or
surveillance (NASA 2020a, pp. 2–3). A
significant partner with facilities in
Wallops Island is the U.S. Navy Surface
Combat Systems Center, whose core
mission is developing and certifying the
Ship Self Defense System and Aegis
Combat System. Additionally, the
facility supports national security
interests by providing essential launch
services to the Virginia Commercial
Space Flight Authority’s launch facility,
enabling NASA to achieve the national
security requirements and the findings
of Congress specified in Public Law
111–314 (NASA 2020a, pp. 2–4).
Wallops Island provides varied
habitat types that support multiple
protected species, including the
federally threatened rufa red knot.
Monitoring and management of
protected areas during sensitive
seasonal periods (e.g., implementing
predator control, ensuring sensitives
species are not disturbed by pedestrians
and vehicles) is an ongoing action by
staff/employees (NASA 2020a, pp. 21–
22). NASA also intends to abide by all
Terms and Conditions, as well as
Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements, stipulated in the
Service’s June 7, 2019, Wallops Flight
Facility Update and Consolidation of
Existing Biological Opinions (Project #
2015–F–3317; Service 2019, entire).
NASA has requested exclusion from
the rufa red knot final critical habitat
designation based on national security
impacts that would hamper the nation’s
ability to foster ongoing partnerships
with other nations through International
Space Station resupply, reduce the
success of ensuring orbital launch
successes, and potentially adversely
impact Fleet deployment. Therefore, we
are considering to exclude 571 ac (231
ha) of NASA-owned lands at Wallops
Flight Facility from this critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
During the development of the final
designation, we will consider any
information currently available or
received during the public comment
period regarding the national security
impacts of the proposed designation,
and will determine whether any specific
areas, including the Wallops Flight
Facility, should be excluded from the
final critical habitat designation under
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
authority of section 4(b)(2) and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.19.
Consideration of Other Relevant
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider any other relevant impacts, in
addition to economic impacts and
impacts on national security discussed
above. We consider a number of factors
including whether there are permitted
conservation plans covering the species
in the area such as HCPs, safe harbor
agreements, or candidate conservation
agreements with assurances, or whether
there are non-permitted conservation
agreements and partnerships that would
be encouraged by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at the existence of
Tribal conservation plans and
partnerships and consider the
government-to-government relationship
of the United States with Tribal entities.
We also consider any social impacts that
might occur because of the designation.
In preparing this proposal, we have
determined that there are currently no
HCPs or other management plans
specifically for the rufa red knot or its
habitat that would be encouraged by the
exclusion from a critical habitat
designation, and the proposed
designation does not include any Tribal
lands or trust resources. We anticipate
no impact on Tribal lands, partnerships,
or HCPs from this proposed critical
habitat designation.
During the development of a final
designation, we will consider any
information currently available or
received during the public comment
period regarding the economic, national
security, or other relevant impacts of the
proposed designation and will
determine whether any specific areas
should be excluded from the final
critical habitat designation under
authority of section 4(b)(2) and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.19.
Required Determinations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(5) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To
better help us revise the rule, your
comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell
us the numbers of the sections or
paragraphs that are unclearly written,
which sections or sentences are too
long, the sections where you feel lists or
tables would be useful, etc.
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget will review all
significant rules. OIRA has determined
that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of E.O. 12866 while calling
for improvements in the nation’s
regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based
on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
this proposed rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA
to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37499
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business
Administration, small entities include
small organizations such as
independent nonprofit organizations;
small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and
town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses
(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining
concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities
with fewer than 100 employees, retail
and service businesses with less than $5
million in annual sales, general and
heavy construction businesses with less
than $27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
whether potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we
considered the types of activities that
might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of
project modifications that may result. In
general, the term ‘‘significant economic
impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm’s business
operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as
understood in the light of recent court
decisions, Federal agencies are required
to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities
directly regulated by the rulemaking
itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the
potential impacts to indirectly regulated
entities. The regulatory mechanism
through which critical habitat
protections are realized is section 7 of
the Act, which requires Federal
agencies, in consultation with the
Service, to ensure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out by the
agency is not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat.
Therefore, under section 7, only Federal
action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Consequently, it is
our position that only Federal action
agencies would be directly regulated if
we adopt the proposed critical habitat
designation. There is no requirement
under the RFA to evaluate the potential
impacts to entities not directly
regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies
are not small entities. Therefore,
because no small entities would be
directly regulated by this rulemaking,
the Service certifies that, if made final
as proposed, the proposed critical
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37500
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
habitat designation will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered
whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. For the above reasons and
based on currently available
information, we certify that, if made
final, the proposed critical habitat
designation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small business entities.
Therefore, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use—
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use) requires agencies
to prepare Statements of Energy Effects
when undertaking certain actions. In
our draft economic analysis, we did not
find that the designation of this
proposed critical habitat would
significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. Oil/gas
development and renewable energy/
power generation activities have been
known to occur within the range of the
rufa red knot and its proposed critical
habitat units/subunits (IEc 2021, Exhibit
5; Service 2020b, pp. 42–45); oil/gas
development activities have primarily
occurred in Georgia and Louisiana and
to a lesser extent South Carolina and
Texas, and renewable energy/power
generation activities have occurred
primarily in South Carolina, and to a
lesser extent New Jersey, Louisiana, and
Texas. These are activities that the
Service consults on with Federal
agencies or the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers under section 7 of the Act. As
discussed in the DEA, the costs
associated with consultations related to
occupied critical habitat would be
largely administrative in nature and are
not anticipated to reach $100 million in
any given year based on the anticipated
annual number of consultations and
associated consultation costs, which are
not expected to exceed $480,000 per
year (2021 dollars) (IEc, pp. 10, 18–19).
Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This proposed rule would not
produce a Federal mandate. In general,
a Federal mandate is a provision in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
legislation, statute, or regulation that
would impose an enforceable duty upon
State, local, or Tribal governments, or
the private sector, and includes both
‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandates’’
and ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C.
658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon State, local, or Tribal
governments’’ with two exceptions. It
excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal
assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty
arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,’’ unless the regulation
‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or
more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under
entitlement authority,’’ if the provision
would ‘‘increase the stringency of
conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps
upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government’s responsibility to provide
funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment,
these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; Aid to Families with
Dependent Children work programs;
Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social
Services Block Grants; Vocational
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care,
Adoption Assistance, and Independent
Living; Family Support Welfare
Services; and Child Support
Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector, except (i) a
condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.’’
The designation of critical habitat
does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal Government entities or
private parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are
indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate
in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
not apply, nor would critical habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State
governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule
would significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because it is not
anticipated to reach a Federal mandate
of $100 million in any given year; that
is, it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act. The designation of critical
habitat imposes no obligations on State
or local governments. By definition,
Federal agencies are not considered
small entities, although the activities
they fund or permit may be proposed or
carried out by small entities.
Consequently, we do not believe that
the proposed critical habitat designation
would significantly or uniquely affect
small government entities. As such, a
Small Government Agency Plan is not
required.
Takings—Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630
(Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights), we have analyzed the
potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for the rufa
red knot in a takings implications
assessment. The Act does not authorize
the Service to regulate private actions
on private lands or confiscate private
property as a result of critical habitat
designation. Designation of critical
habitat does not affect land ownership,
or establish any closures, or restrictions
on use of or access to the designated
areas. Furthermore, the designation of
critical habitat does not affect
landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it
preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of
incidental take permits to permit actions
that do require Federal funding or
permits to go forward. However, Federal
agencies are prohibited from carrying
out, funding, or authorizing actions that
would destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. A takings implications
assessment has been completed for the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for the rufa red knot, and it concludes
that, if adopted, this designation of
critical habitat does not pose significant
takings implications for lands within or
affected by the designation.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132
(Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant federalism effects.
A federalism summary impact statement
is not required. In keeping with
Department of the Interior and
Department of Commerce policy, we
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37501
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
requested information from, and
coordinated development of this
proposed critical habitat designation
with, appropriate State resource
agencies. From a federalism perspective,
the designation of critical habitat
directly affects only the responsibilities
of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no
other duties with respect to critical
habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a
result, the proposed rule does not have
substantial direct effects either on the
States, or on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of powers and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The proposed
designation may have some benefit to
these governments because the areas
that contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species are more
clearly defined, and the physical or
biological features of the habitat
necessary for the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may
occur. However, it may assist State and
local governments in long-range
planning because they no longer have to
wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would
be required. While non-Federal entities
that receive Federal funding, assistance,
or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal
agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to
avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests
squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order
12988
In accordance with Executive Order
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office
of the Solicitor has determined that the
rule would not unduly burden the
judicial system and that it meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We have proposed
designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the
Act. To assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
species, this proposed rule identifies the
elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. The proposed areas of
designated critical habitat are presented
on maps, and the proposed rule
provides several options for the
interested public to obtain more
detailed location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain
information collection requirements,
and a submission to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required.
We may not conduct or sponsor and you
are not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This position was upheld by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied
516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 have determined that no Tribal
lands fall within the boundaries of the
proposed critical habitat for the rufa red
knot (although we note that the
Shinnecock Indian Nation likely has
Tribal interests in natural and cultural
resources within the Mississippi
proposed units; we have and will
continue to coordinate with them), so
no Tribal lands would be affected by the
proposed designation.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this proposed rule is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the New Jersey
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed
rule are the staff members of the Fish
and Wildlife Service’s Species
Assessment Team and the New Jersey
Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
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), revise the entry for
‘‘Knot, rufa red’’ in the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
under BIRDS to read as set forth below:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
*
*
37502
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Common name
Scientific name
*
*
Where listed
*
Status
*
Listing citations and applicable rules
*
*
*
BIRDS
*
Knot, rufa red .....................
*
*
*
Calidris canutus rufa .........
*
*
3. Amend § 17.95(b) by adding an
entry for ‘‘Rufa Red Knot (Calidris
canutus rufa)’’ in the same alphabetical
order as the species appears in the table
in § 17.11(h), to read as set forth below:
■
§ 17.95
Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.
*
*
*
(b) Birds.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Rufa Red Knot (Calidris Canutus Rufa)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for Barnstable County, Massachusetts;
Suffolk, Nassau, and Queens Counties,
New York; Ocean, Atlantic, Cape May,
and Cumberland Counties, New Jersey;
Kent and Sussex Counties, Delaware;
Accomack and Northampton Counties,
Virginia; Dare, Hyde, Carteret, Onslow,
Pender, New Hanover, and Brunswick
Counties, North Carolina; Georgetown,
Horry, Charleston, Colleton, Beaufort,
and Jasper Counties, South Carolina;
Chatham, Liberty, McIntosh, Glynn, and
Camden Counties, Georgia; Nassau,
Duval, Volusia, Brevard, Collier, Lee,
Charlotte, Sarasota, Manatee, Pinellas,
Pasco, Levy, Wakulla, Franklin, and
Gulf Counties, Florida; Mobile County,
Alabama; Harrison County, Mississippi;
St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson,
Lafourche, Terrebonne, Cameron, and
Vermillion Parishes, Louisiana; and
Galveston, Matagorda, Nueces, Kleberg,
Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron
Counties, Texas, on the maps in this
entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of rufa red knot consist of
the following components:
(i) Beaches and tidal flats used for
foraging. This feature includes highenergy ocean- or bay-front barrier island
or mainland beaches, as well as
shorelines and tidal flats in more
sheltered estuaries (e.g., bays, sounds,
lagoons). Foraging substrates can
include sand, mud, peat, and sand
embedded with shell, gravel, or cobble.
Foraging areas are between mean lower
low water (MLLW) and mean higher
high water. Suitable foraging habitats
provide abundant quantities of
accessible and appropriately sized prey
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
*
Wherever found .................
Jkt 253001
*
*
*
items (e.g., mussels and mussel spat,
clams, other mollusks, horseshoe crab
eggs, crustaceans, polychaete worms),
timed to occur in high densities during
those seasons when rufa red knots are
present. ‘‘Superabundant’’ prey
densities, typically bivalves or
horseshoe crab eggs, are needed in
migration staging areas to support rapid
weight gain following long-distance
flights. Large areas capable of
supporting concentrations of shorebirds
are especially important.
(ii) Upper beach areas used for
roosting, preening, resting, or sheltering.
This feature includes unvegetated or
sparsely vegetated sand between the
high water line and the primary dune
line. Generally these sites are open, with
a large viewscape for predator
avoidance. Many sites have microtopographic relief offering refuge from
high winds. Large areas capable of
supporting concentrations of
shorebirds—close to foraging areas, with
limited predation pressure and
protected from human disturbance—are
especially important.
(iii) Ephemeral and/or dynamic
coastal features used for foraging or
roosting. This includes dynamic and
ephemeral features such as sand spits,
islets, shoals, and sandbars, features
often associated with inlets. Other
ephemeral features used by rufa red
knots include tidal pools; wind-exposed
bay bottoms or oyster reefs; and
unvegetated overwash areas (e.g., among
or behind dunes, as formed by storms or
extreme wave action).
(iv) Ocean vegetation deposits or surfcast wrack used for foraging and
roosting. This feature includes
Sargassum (a species of macroalgae in
oceans that inhabits shallow water and
coral reefs), seagrass, or seaweed
deposits with mussel spat attached, or
surf-cast wrack that accumulates along
beaches and supports or captures food
items, such as horseshoe crab eggs. In
some areas, rufa red knots may also
roost atop wrack mounds.
(v) Intertidal peat banks used for
foraging and roosting. In some areas,
exposed intertidal peat banks (e.g.,
along bay-front beaches and fronting
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
*
*
79 FR 73705, 12/11/2014; 50 CFR
17.95(b) CH.
T
Sfmt 4702
*
*
tidal marshes) provide important
foraging and roosting habitat.
(vi) Features landward of the beach
that support foraging or roosting. In
some areas, rufa red knots use sparsely
vegetated habitats landward of the
beach berm, such as unstabilized dunes,
mangrove edges, brackish ponds, and
patches of mostly bare ground (e.g.,
blowouts, depressions, pannes) within
salt marshes.
(vii) Artificial habitat mimicking
natural conditions or maintaining the
physical or biological features set forth
in paragraphs (2)(i) through (vi) of this
entry. Coastal engineering that interferes
with natural coastal processes is
generally considered a threat to the rufa
red knot. However, in some cases,
artificial habitats mimic the natural
conditions described in the other
physical or biological features described
above. Such artificial habitats can
include nourished beaches, dredged
spoil deposition sites, elevated road
causeways, jetties, or impoundments.
Additionally, some anthropogenic
structures may promote or maintain the
natural physical or biological features.
For example, in parts of Delaware Bay,
rufa red knot habitat features are
enhanced by living shorelines (e.g.,
shell bag reefs), and in one case by a
rock breakwater.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
paved areas) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal
boundaries on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
RULE].
(4) Data layers defining map units
were created using rufa red knot
distribution data provided by eBird data
and multiple local and regional sources
as available (e.g., reports, databases, and
geolocator/resighting data maintained
by State Fish and Wildlife Departments,
universities, local governments, and
nonprofit organizations across the range
of the species). Landforms were
primarily delineated based on the most
current available aerial maps, but in
some cases older maps dating as far
back as 2010 were consulted to gauge
patterns of coastal change over time.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
The maps in this entry, as modified by
any accompanying regulatory text,
establish the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. The coordinates or
plot points or both on which each map
is based are available to the public at the
Service’s internet site at https://fws.gov/
northeast/red-knot/, at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R5–ES–2021–0032, and at the
field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office
37503
location information by contacting one
of the Service regional offices, the
addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
Figure 1 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph ( 5)
Qriti¢ialH~t)~ffp(~~·~•qfl
Uriit Qvep,ii!W .
Jiie ba~rOJ11diey~Hs\fol'drspltsy .
Plif~0!i~diil)';.~tfla9n~~•~IV ..
reQrt$enl fflEl .•di'n111i:nie snar,eitne ·....
. .
~liitoilm~il ·
0: 2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
marsh pannes in Little Pleasant Bay and
Pleasant Bay, and ephemeral tidal pools,
primary sand dunes, and beaches
associated with Nauset Beach South
(Orleans), North Beach (Chatham), and
North Beach Island (Chatham). Lands
within this unit include approximately
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
126 ac (51 ha) in Federal ownership
(including Cape Code National
Seashore), 1,596 ac (646 ha) in private/
other ownership, and 2,634 ac (1,066
ha) that are uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit MA–1 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.000
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(6) Unit MA–1: Pleasant Bay,
Massachusetts.
(i) Unit MA–1 consists of
approximately 4,357 ac (1,763 ha) of
occupied habitat in Barnstable County
consisting of exposed intertidal flats,
shoals, mud flats, and intertidal salt
37504
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 2 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (6)(ii)
•.
CriticalH~bftatfot:Rufa Red Knot
·MA-1.P1easant8ayahdMA---2Monomor:and·soutnaeath1s1and$}
· Barnstable Ct>unty, Massachusetts
•··-=-::i.
t.1aiij R~act. ·
• . · . 8 ~Ckgtoond laYet' 1.
represent .tt)l; dynamic $
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
envlroornetit, ·. .
cmteal Habifat
o. . J i i~
••••
·----
OltSt
(7) Unit MA–2: Monomoy and South
Beach Islands, Massachusetts.
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
•
purposesoorv: 1tmayt1ot
WatijtBO((y
VerDate Sep<11>2014
.
4• .
2
:s.· ... Jt .
3
(i) Unit MA–2 consists of
approximately 5,093 ac (2,061 ha) of
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
occupied habitat in Barnstable County
consisting of exposed intertidal sand
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.001
.
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
and mud flats and shoals, ephemeral
tidal pools, salt marsh, primary sand
dunes, and beaches associated with
North and South Monomoy Islands,
Minomoy Island, and the South Beach
Island complex. Lands within this unit
include approximately 4,047 ac (1,638
ha) in Federal ownership (including
Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR)) and 1,045 ac (423) in private/
other ownership.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(ii) Map of Unit MA–2 is presented at
paragraph (6)(ii) of this entry.
(8) Unit NY–1: Moriches Inlet, New
York.
(i) Unit NY–1 consists of
approximately 1,001 ac (405 ha) of
occupied habitat in Suffolk County
consisting of highly dynamic beach,
sand flats, bay islands, back bay
shoreline, intertidal areas, and surface
water within the towns of Brookhaven
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37505
and Southampton. Lands within this
unit include approximately 78 ac (32
ha) in Federal ownership, 63 ac (25 ha)
in State ownership, 163 ac (66 ha) in
private/other (including the towns of
Brookhaven and Southampton)
ownership, and 697 ac (282 ha) that are
uncategorized. This area includes the
South Shore Estuary Reserve.
(ii) Map of Unit NY–1 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37506
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 3 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (8)(ii)
·.critfoalHab1taf.for·Rufa Red Knot .
NV:~1 MorlcneslntetSussexOount.y, New:York
The ~cl(grtXJn ct iayefiSfofdlsf)lay
.··~··.•.Milor R~ij
·pu.rpooes onty; rt miv not accurately
·rep,eseottheavnamicslioteline · ·
0 !f;:fStU
... ...: .
f '-~-]. s~te B~2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
. 0;9
t35·
(i) Unit NY–2 consists of
approximately 1,821 ac (737 ha) of
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
occupied habitat in Nassau County
consisting of ocean beach habitat, sand
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.002
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
·WaterBQ(lj
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
flats, bay islands, and small
embayments. It is irregularly shaped
and is bounded to the south by the
Atlantic Ocean, to the west by Point
Lookout, to the north by a line running
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
in Hempstead Bay, and to the east at the
eastern extent of Zachs Bay. Lands
within this unit include approximately
710 ac (287 ha) in State ownership and
1,111 ac (450 ha) that are under private/
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37507
other ownership. This area includes the
South Shore Estuary Reserve.
(ii) Map of Unit NY–2 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37508
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 4 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (9)(ii)
Criticat:HabitatforRutaRed.Knot
. •NY....2Joneslnlet;iNassau CoUhijrNeW¥6tk
a.
Cr:itlealHabttat
[~~=--rS;tate 89U,tj~~ry
(10) Unit NY–3: Jamaica Bay, New
York.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
N •
O:i .ltZ751J.55
. Ml~s.
1,1
_ 1:55
2:.2.
(i) Unit NY–3 consists of
approximately 5,458 ac (2,209 ha) of
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
occupied habitat in Queens County
consisting of ocean beach habitat that is
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.003
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
.· ate( Boay:
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
primarily within the National Park
Service’s Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge,
Gateway National Recreation Area, and
all under Federal ownership.
37509
(ii) Map of Unit NY–3 follows:
Figure 5 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (lO)(i)
.
,.
..,
•._
:_Cr_i_ti_talHabitatfotRUlaRedKnot-
-
.
.
. . .
.
.
..
..
.
..
.
. .
.
.
.
.
..
.
....
.. ·.·
ThebatkQroo~d layer1sJor.display
pur-poses on:(y: itmay -riot accurately
··· ...
etBody-·· -
- - representttiedynal'riicshQreline ·-
- -_-.,. ____ _cal Habitat
o: q,45:051
._ --==_] $~ ijq~aar.y
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
•
-ooWronment _
ta 2.1 3.f
•
•••
·Mlleg
11' -. 0;3 OJf
PO 00000
Frm 00101
________ _
li::il(i~ts
2.4.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.004
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
-·•NY:....a:Jamaica Bay; ooe-ens Cotfnty~ New York·--
37510
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(11) Unit NJ–1: Brigantine and Little
Egg Inlets, New Jersey.
(i) Unit NJ–1 consists of
approximately 9,719 ac (3,933 ha) of
occupied habitat in Ocean and Atlantic
Counties consisting of beach, dune,
shoals, open water, and tidal marsh
associated with two inlets extending
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
from the northern boundary of the
Holgate Unit of Edwin B. Forsythe
NWR, west to the ‘‘Seven Islands’’
portion of Great Bay Boulevard Wildlife
Management Area, and south nearly to
15th Street North in Brigantine City.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 1,560 ac (632 ha) in
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Federal ownership (Forsythe NWR),
3,187 ac (1,291 ha) in State ownership
(including the North Brigantine Natural
Area), 10 ac (4 ha) in private/other
ownership, and 4,961 ac (2,006 ha) that
are uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit NJ–1 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37511
Figure 6 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (11 )(ii)
.
.
Critical Habitaffor Rufa Red·Knot
.
NJ--t Btigahtine and.Little Egg lnl~ts;Oceah anti
. Atlantic countles;. New J$rsey
..--'---"--"-,.....,..=.....__,;........,....,_........,........,_........____
or· .oa.
· lfmacnlcaltta~t~t
·:_J'"---"':--~.::·, .· . :._:·
··. . .•.
i . .·•.. J county Bolll'loary
00~51•
w.·w
l .
3.
f~"'-"'-]·.•·. State 8ouridary.··
·.·.•· •·•
~""":".'::""'-~
(12) Unit NJ–2: Seven Mile Beach,
New Jersey.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(i) Unit NJ–2 consists of
approximately 536 ac (217 ha) of
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
occupied habitat in Cape May County
consisting of sandy ocean-front beach in
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.005
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
tef8()dy
37512
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Avalon and Stone Harbor Boroughs,
from the jetty at 8th Street in Avalon
near Townsends Inlet and extending
south to 102nd Street in Stone Harbor.
All lands within this unit are in private/
other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit NJ–2 follows:
Figure 7 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (12)(ii)
The background layer is for display
purposes onfy; it may notatct.irately
· represent the dynamic shoreline
MajorRoad
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Water Body
envirorunent.
~ Critical Habitat
r--:·
..
~ State Boundary
(13) Unit NJ–3: Hereford Inlet, New
Jersey.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(i) Unit NJ–3 consists of
approximately 1,631 ac (660 ha) of
occupied habitat in Cape May County
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
consisting of sandy oceanfront beaches,
unstabilized barrier peninsula,
undeveloped marsh islands, and several
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.006
~
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
areas of tidal flats and shoals extending
along the ocean from 111th Street in
Stone Harbor Borough south to 22nd
Avenue in North Wildwood City. The
unit also includes areas behind the
barrier island in Middle Township,
Stone Harbor, and North Wildwood
extending from Stone Harbor Boulevard
south along Great Channel to Nummy
Island and the southern shoreline of
Grassy Sound Channel. Lands within
this unit include approximately 175 ac
37513
(71 ha) in State ownership (including
the Cape May Coastal Wetlands Wildlife
Management Area), 735 ac (297 ha) in
private/other ownership, and 721 ac
(292 ha) that are uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit NJ–3 follows:
~
Major Road
WaterBody
. ~ • Critical Habitat
~--------
!
VerDate Sep<11>2014
. 1State Boundary
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.007
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Figure 8 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (13)(ii)
37514
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
(14) Unit NJ–4: Two Mile Beach, New
Jersey.
(i) Unit NJ–4 consists of
approximately 128 ac (52 ha) of
occupied habitat in Cape May County
consisting of sandy oceanfront beach
from the northeastern boundary of the
Two Mile Beach Unit of Cape May NWR
extending southwest to include all
beach portions of the U.S. Coast Guard
Loran Support Unit, ending at the
eastern jetty of the Cape May Inlet.
Lands within this unit are all under
Federal ownership (Cape May NWR and
U.S. Coast Guard).
(ii) Map of Unit NJ–4 follows:
Figure 9 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (14)(ii)
.
Critical Habitat for Ruta Red Knot
NJ-4 Two Mile Beach; Cape May County, New Jers~y
New Jersey
Cape May
National
Wlldll,e.Reftlge
-
The bockgrOJnd layer is for display
purposes only; ~ may not aiXur etely
rei:rHent the d",'n~ic shoreline
enYirooment
Major Road
water Body
f::@. Critical Habitat
State Boundary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
0 0.1 lt2
• W
!.Ui
ll4
!<.ilomlltets
MdH
MM
l!O ll5(U
PO 00000
!Ul
0.2
Frm 00106
0.3
Fmt 4701
il 4
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.008
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Cape May
County
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
(15) Unit NJ–5: Cape May Bayshore,
New Jersey.
(i) Unit NJ–5 consists of
approximately 1,202 ac (487 ha) of
occupied habitat in Cape May County
consisting of Delaware Bay beaches,
flats, and shoals from approximately
Cloverdale Avenue in Lower Township
to the jetty on the south shore of the
mouth of Bidwell Creek in Middle
Township. Lands within this unit
include approximately 133 ac (54 ha) in
37515
Federal ownership (Cape May NWR), 44
ac (18 ha) in State ownership, 167 ac (67
ha) in private/other ownership, and 858
ac (347 ha) that are uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit NJ–5 follows:
Figure 10 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (15)(ii)
··~•t•,
:•=-~tJMttJor~
.D·.~fi•Hd1tc•
. . . ··~~rqn.
>t jj,~.t
Z
··1
B•~~•·•80~t:ld~'Y
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.009
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
....·.. . Critical Habitat for Ruta Red Knot
NJ-5Cape M.ayBayshore: Cape.May couuty, . New Jersey
37516
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
(16) Unit NJ–6: Dennis Creek, New
Jersey.
(i) Unit NJ–6 consists of
approximately 279 ac (113 ha) of
occupied habitat in Cape May County
consisting of Delaware Bay beaches,
flats, and shoals from the northern shore
of Bidwell Creek north to about 0.5 mi
(0.8 km) north of Dennis Creek. Lands
within this unit are all in State
ownership (Dennis Creek Wildlife
Management Area).
(ii) Map of Unit NJ–6 follows:
Figure 11 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (16)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
NJ-6 Dennis Creek; Cape May County, New Jersey
Dennis Creek
W!dlife M 8flegement
J\fea
New Jersey
Cape May
County
The backgroond layer is for display
purposes only; it may not .accurately
· represent. the dynamc !itlOteline
Water Body
VerDate Sep<11>2014
environment.
· ~ Critical Habitat
OIU1S.U5
·[ ··-··1 State Boundary
0 IU2S0.2S
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
•
PO 00000
•
Frm 00108
U
Ul6
ll5
Fmt 4701
1s4
Kllomtttrs
Miles
1l 7S
1
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.010
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
=--=- Ma,jor Road
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(17) Unit NJ–7: Heislerville, New
Jersey.
(i) Unit NJ–7 consists of
approximately 1,110 ac (449 ha) of
occupied habitat in Cape May and
Cumberland Counties consisting of
Delaware Bay beaches, flats, shoals,
tidal marsh, and open waters from
approximately 2,000 ft (0.6 km) east of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
West Creek in Dennis Township, Cape
May County, and extending west to the
eastern end of Bay Avenue in Maurice
River Township, Cumberland County.
The developed area along Bay Avenue
is excluded from the unit. West of Bay
Avenue, Unit NJ–7 continues north to
the mouth of Andrews Ditch in Maurice
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37517
River Township. Lands within this unit
include approximately 524 ac (211 ha)
in State ownership (including the
Heislerville Wildlife Management Area),
459 ac (186 ha) in private/other
ownership, and 127 ac (52 ha) that are
uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit NJ–7 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37518
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 12 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (14)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
NJ-7 Heislerville; Cape May and Cumberland Counties, New Jersey
New Jersey
Cumberland
County
Cape May
County
Heis!e1vme Wildlife
Management Area
The backi;iround layer is for display
purposes on~; l may not accuralely
rei:-esent lt1e dynamic shoreline
""':::"'"""" Major Road
. Water Body
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
c=:]
State Boundai,;
(18) Unit NJ–8: Egg Island, New
Jersey.
(i) Unit NJ–8 consists of
approximately 1,955 ac (791 ha) of
occupied habitat in Cumberland County
consisting of Delaware Bay beaches,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
ewironment.
0 0.4. OJI.
w -
U
2:4
3.2
Kilo meters
-=::a:=---r:::::::=::.--Miles
0
0,3\ 0.6.
1.2
1.8
2.4
flats, shoals, tidal marsh, and open
waters from the mouth of Oranoaken
Creek extending south to Egg Island
point, and then northwest to about 850
ft (259 m) past Budney Avenue in the
community of Fortescue. Lands within
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
this unit include approximately 1,908 ac
(773 ha) in State ownership, 32 ac (13
ha) in private/other ownership, and 14
ac (5 ha) that are uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit NJ–8 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.011
~ c;nuca1 Habitat
r---~-1
L. _. _J County aoondary
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37519
Figure 13 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (18)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
NJ-8 Egg Island; Cumberland County, New Jersey
New Jersey
Cumberland
County
Egg Island
WIidiife
The l:nckgroond layer is for display
purposes only; rt may not accurately
represent !he dynamic shoreline
enviroome111.
Major Road
Water Body
~ Crlttcal· Habitat·
State Boundary
0 0.225!.45
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
U5
w w
0 O, 15 0,3
(19) Unit NJ–9: Newport Neck, New
Jersey.
(i) Unit NJ–9 consists of
approximately 472 ac (191 ha) of
occupied habitat in Cumberland County
consisting of Delaware Bay beaches,
flats, shoals, and tidal marsh from the
0.9
0,6
it9
U
'Kilomet•r•
·Miles
1.2
north bank of the mouth of Fortescue
Creek extending northwest to include
both sides of the mouth of Nantuxent
Creek. Beaches adjacent to the
developed community of Gandys Beach
are not included in this unit. Lands
within this unit include approximately
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
202 ac (82 ha) in State ownership
(including the Fortescue Wildlife
Management Area), 176 ac (71 ha) in
private/other ownership, and 93 ac (38
ha) that are uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit NJ–9 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.012
~
37520
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 14 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (19)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
NJ-9 Newport Neck; Cumberland County, New Jersey
New Jersey
Cumberland
County
Fortetcu4t
Wlld.ie
Management Area
MljorRoad
The bactq;irwnd llyer IS for display
purposes only; ~ may not accurately
WattrBody
represent the dynamic sflOrll!llne
environment
· ~ ·cr1tlc:a1 Habitat
[~-] State.Boundary
o 0.260.i
M M
-
-
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
0 0.1151U5
(20) Unit DE–1: St. Jones River,
Delaware.
(i) Unit DE–1 consists of two subunits
comprising 46 ac (19 ha) of occupied
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
1
Ui
2
.
Killlmelllf$
0.7
10!i
MIH
t4
habitat in the St. Jones River area in
Kent County. This unit consists of lands
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
owned by the State of Delaware and
private landowners.
(ii) Map of Unit DE–1 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.013
-
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37521
Figure 15 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (20)(ii)
Critical Habitatfor Rufa R.ed Knot
DE-1 St.Jone.s River; Kent County, Delaware
Delaware
Kent
County
Ted Harvey
WlldllfeArtia
-
A
Major Road
Water Body
--
The backgroond layer is for disi,ay ,...-·
purposes only; I may not accurately
represent the dynarnc stioreline
enviromnent
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
00.12(1.25
State Boundary
0
(iii) Subunit DE–1A (St. Jones North)
consists of approximately 43 ac (18 ha)
of occupied habitat in Kent County
consisting of beach shoreline at the
north end from South Bay Drive in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(U 0.2
0.5
035
t
l
N
--Rlver
37522
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
approximately 37 ac (15 ha) in State
ownership (including the Ted Harvey
Wildlife Area), 3 ac (1 ha) of
undeveloped beach privately owned by
Delaware Wildlands, a conservation
organization, and 3 ac (1 ha) that are
uncategorized.
(iv) Map of Subunit DE–1A is
presented at paragraph (20)(ii) of this
entry.
(iv) Subunit DE–1B (St. Jones South)
consists of approximately 3 ac (1 ha) of
occupied habitat in Kent County
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
consisting of beach shoreline at the
south side of the inlet to the St. Jones
River. The eastern boundary is the
MLLW of the Delaware Bay, and the
western boundary is where the sandy
beach turns to marshy habitat. Lands
within this subunit include
approximately 1 ac (0.5 ha) in State
ownership and approximately 2 ac (0.6
ha) in private/other ownership.
(v) Map of Subunit DE–1B is
presented at paragraph (20)(ii) of this
entry.
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(21) Unit DE–2: Brokonbridge Gut,
Delaware.
(i) Unit DE–2 consists of two subunits
comprising 163 ac (66 ha) of occupied
habitat in the area where Brokonbridge
Gut enters the Delaware Bay in Kent
County. This unit consists of lands
owned by the State of Delaware and
private landowners.
(ii) Map of Unit DE–2 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37523
Figure 16 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (2l)(ii)
.. •.· . . .·•· Cdtteal Habitatfor Rufa Red Knot
OE--2BrokonbridQ~•GU.t; Kent county;Detaware·
Kenf
Cgunfy
, ~ct2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
..
l[li;1io;3
-·•--•
it CJ;t Cf,Z
e,iyjf()l( . .
(J;(
Q:f
CiA
0.6
iJ
-~
I.I
the Delaware Bay, and the western
boundary is where the sandy beach
turns to marshy habitat. Lands within
this subunit are primarily in private/
other ownership (91 ac (37 ha) with a
small portion (2 ac; 1 ha) owned by the
State.
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(iv) Map of Subunit DE–2A is
presented at paragraph (21)(ii) of this
entry.
(v) Subunit DE–2B (South
Brokonbridge Gut) consists of
approximately 70 ac (29 ha) of occupied
habitat in Kent County consisting of
beach shoreline at the south side of the
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.015
·~·. MajofR~d·
37524
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
inlet to Brokonbridge Gut. The eastern
boundary is the MLLW of the Delaware
Bay, and the western boundary is where
the sandy beach turns to marshy habitat.
Lands within this subunit are all in
private/other ownership, primarily
owned and protected by a private
conservation organization (Delaware
Wildlands; 52 ac (21 ha)), with the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
remaining approximately 18 ac (7 ha) as
private, undeveloped land.
(vi) Map of Subunit DE–2B is
presented at paragraph (21)(ii) of this
entry.
(22) Unit DE–3: Mispillion Harbor,
Delaware.
(i) Unit DE–3 consists of three
subunits comprising 1,949 ac (789 ha) of
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
occupied habitat in the Mispillion
Harbor area where the Mispillion River
and Cedar Creek enter the Delaware Bay
in Kent and Sussex Counties. This unit
consists of lands owned primarily by
the State of Delaware, with minor
ownership by Federal and private/other.
(ii) Map of Unit DE–3 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37525
Figure 17 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (22)(i)
Critical Haatat for Rufa Red Knot
DE-3 Mispltlion Harbor; Kent and Sussex Co1Jnties, Delaware
Kent
County
Delaware
Sussex
.Cbunty
N
.Critica I Hab lat
r-, .. -•"'lj
-
_._.J County Boundary
1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
State Boundary
(iii) Subunit DE–3A (Main Harbor)
consists of approximately 61 ac (25 ha)
of occupied habitat in Kent and Sussex
Counties consisting of beach shoreline
at the south side of the inlet to
Brokonbridge Gut. The eastern
boundary is the MLLW of the Delaware
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
A
--
o o.22so.45 ·
os
Mlles
1.35
ta
Bay, and the western boundary is where
the sandy beach turns to marshy habitat.
Lands within this subunit include
approximately 32 ac (13 ha; 53 percent)
in State ownership and 29 ac (12 ha; 47
percent) that are uncategorized.
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(iv) Map of Subunit DE–3A is
presented at paragraph (22)(ii) of this
entry.
(v) Subunit DE–3B (Rawley Island
Roost) consists of approximately 1,298
ac (525 ha) of occupied habitat in Kent
County consisting of beach shoreline
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.016
.\Nater Body
Tile background layer is for di.splay
purposes only; ~ may not accurately
represent the dynamic shoreline.
environment.
0 0.35 Oi1
u . 2J 2.e·. f2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
from the eastern tip of the dike that
outlines the outer tip of the Mispillion
Harbor, south along the sandy beach of
Slaughter Beach to the southern end of
Isaacs Shore Drive. The western
boundary is where the lightly vegetated
beach becomes marsh in the northern
portions of this subunit, or where
property parcels end in the southern
portion of this subunit. The eastern
boundary is the MLLW of the Delaware
Bay. Lands within this subunit include
approximately 1 ac (0.25 ha) in Federal
ownership, 59 ac (24 ha) in State
ownership, 2 ac (1 ha) in private/other
ownership, and 528 ac (213 ha) that are
uncategorized.
(viii) Map of Subunit DE–3C is
presented at paragraph (22)(ii) of this
entry.
(23) Unit DE–4: Prime Hook,
Delaware.
(i) Unit DE–4 consists of
approximately 549 ac (222 ha) of
occupied habitat in Sussex County
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
consisting of beach shoreline and marsh
from about 1 mi (1.6 km) north of
Fowler Beach Road south to the end of
South Bayshore Drive. The eastern
boundary is the MLLW of the Delaware
Bay, and the western boundary in the
northern portion of the unit runs along
the dune line where the habitat changes
from lightly vegetated sandy beach to
densely vegetated dunes or marsh. The
western boundary of the central portion
of this unit includes marsh and shallow
open water areas where birds can roost
overnight and forage. The western edge
of the southern portion of the unit is
where property parcels end at the beach.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 480 ac (195 ha) in
Federal ownership (Prime Hook NWR),
6 ac (2 ha) in private/other ownership,
and 63 ac (25 ha) that are uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit DE–4 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37527
Figure 18 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (23)(ii)
Critical Habitat tor R.ufa Red Knot
DE-4 Prime Hook; Sussex County, Delaware
Delaware
Sussex
County
PrimeHoolt
National
WIidiife Refuge
The ba('.kground layer is for display
purposes onty; it may Mt accorately
• repre$erlt the dynami'C shorel.ille
· Ri\'$f
· Road
en\lironment. ·
a 11.'15'0:.l
Habitat
M. ill
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
'"- state'boondary
It 0, t IL2
(24) Unit VA–1: Assateague Island,
Virginia.
(i) Unit VA–1 consists of
approximately 2,817 ac (1,140 ha) of
occupied habitat in Accomack County
consisting of beach shoreline from the
Virginia–Maryland State line south to
the area known as ‘‘The Hook,’’ a wide
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
0'6
(tJ
0:4.
.
OJl
t.l ..•
Kilt>rl!et&fs
M'iliii
0.8
peninsula that curves northwest. The
western boundary is along the dune line
where the habitat changes from sandy
beach with little vegetation to densely
vegetated dunes or marshland, as well
as densely vegetated forested or
herbaceous vegetation landward of the
beach and primary dune. The eastern
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
boundary extends seaward past the
MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
as shoaling areas that are inundated
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water. All
lands within this unit are federally
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.017
P~Y
37528
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
owned (Assateague Island National
Seashore and Chincoteague NWR).
(ii) Map of Unit VA–1 follows:
Figure 19 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (24)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa R~d Knot
VA-1 Assateague lsland;Accomack County, Virginia
Maryland
Virginia
Accomack
County
Major Road
Water SQdy
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
. ~ Critical Hablta~
State eloundary
the backgro.ind layer .is for dlSplay
purpC>ses only; It may. not accurately
repres.entthe dynamic sl'itirelin.e ·
erivironme11L
o 0.751.5
l
U
i
a:::.a:::
,
•Kllomet11ts
•
•
OOJil
(25) Unit VA–2: Wallops Island,
Virginia.
(i) Unit VA–2 comprises two subunits
(totaling 571 ac (231 ha)) of occupied
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
a:;:
•
. Miles
2
3
4
habitat owned and managed by the
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) as part of the
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Wallops Flight Facility located in
Accomack County.
(ii) Map of Unit VA–2 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.018
:::::icw.:::li:
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37529
Figure 20 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (25)(ii)
Crit.ical Habitat for RUfa Red Knot
VA-2 Wallops Island; Accomack County, Virginia
Virginia
Accomack
County
The backgroond layer is for\display
purposes only; ~ may not ai::curately
represent the ctyn amic shoreline
en vl roo 111ent
Malor Road
Water.Body
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Critical Habitat
State Boundary
(iii) Subunit VA–2A (Wallops Island
North) consists of approximately 540 ac
(218 ha) of occupied habitat in
Accomack County consisting of beach
shoreline and dynamic intertidal areas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
----
0 0,37&1)'5
t5
ll lti!i O.!i
1
,U!5
J
l
~
37530
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
banks, or densely vegetated forested or
herbaceous vegetation landward of the
beach and primary dune. The southern
boundary tapers to a point ending at the
northern end of the facility’s sea wall
structure; it extends past the MLLW line
and includes the areas that are slightly
inundated with less than 3 in (7.5 cm)
of water. All lands within this subunit
are federally owned by NASA.
(iv) Map of Subunit VA–2A is
presented at paragraph (25)(ii) of this
entry.
(v) Subunit VA–2B (Wallops Island
South) consists of approximately 31 ac
(13 ha) of occupied habitat in Accomack
County consisting of beach shoreline
and dynamic intertidal areas. The
northern boundary is the end of the road
south of the old runway, the southern
boundary is Assawoman Creek, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
western boundary is along the marsh
line where the habitat changes from
lightly vegetated sandy beach and
exposed peat with little vegetation to
densely vegetated marshland, peat
banks, or densely forested or herbaceous
vegetation landward of the beach and
primary dune, and the eastern boundary
extends seaward past the MLLW line
including dynamic intertidal areas that
are covered at high tide and uncovered
at low tide, as well as shoaling areas that
are inundated with less than 3 in (7.6
cm) of water. All lands within this
subunit are federally owned by NASA.
(vi) Map of Subunit VA–2B is
presented at paragraph (25)(ii) of this
entry.
(26) Unit VA–3: Assawoman Island,
Virginia.
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(i) Unit VA–3 consists of
approximately 633 ac (256 ha) of
occupied habitat in Accomack County
consisting of beach shoreline and
dynamic intertidal areas. The unit is
from Assawoman Creek in the north to
Kegotank Creek and Gargathy Inlet in
the south, extending east past the
MLLW line including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
as shoaling areas that are inundated
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water).
The western boundary is formed by
Houseboat Creek, a section of Egg
Marsh, and Kegotank Bay. All lands
within this unit are federally owned by
Chincoteague NWR.
(ii) Map of Unit VA–3 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37531
Figure 21 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (26)(ii)
~ura
. ·..·....... Gritic~l ~at>.italfor
Rect.K110t . ·. .
VA-3A~sawom~rt l~laQct.;.Acµ,tn~cI<·GOur,ty,Vitgtnia.
AriCllQ\SCK
CQ.@ty
purposes only: It rnay n
represenf th~ dynarnit
envlrooment
(27) Unit VA–4: Metompkin Island,
Virginia.
(i) Unit VA–4 consists of
approximately 1,467 ac (594 ha) of
occupied habitat in Accomack County
consisting of beach shoreline and
dynamic intertidal areas. The unit
extends from Kegotank Creek and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
1);9:
"h3S
t
Gargathy Inlet south to the mouth of
Folly Creek. The western boundary is
formed by the Virginia Inside Passage of
the Intercoastal Waterway and
Metompkin Bay and includes extensive
areas of overwash and low marsh areas
along the western boundary. The eastern
boundary extends seaward past the
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
as shoaling areas that are inundated
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 64 ac (26 ha) in Federal
ownership (Chincoteague NWR), 56 ac
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.020
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
IJ o;a~;-45
37532
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(22 ha) in State ownership, and 1,239 ac
(502 ha) in private/other ownership
(TNC), and 110 ac (44 ha) that are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
uncategorized. This coastal area is part
of the Virginia Coast Reserve.
(ii) Map of Unit VA–4 follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37533
Figure 22 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (27)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
VA-4 Metompkin Island; Accomack County, Virginia
Virginia
Accomack
County
MaJClr Aoad
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Water 8ody
~ Critical Habitat
State Boundary
(28) Unit VA–5: Cedar Island,
Virginia.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
The. back,grqund.layer is for dl$play
purposes onlY: rt may not accurately
represent the dynamic sho.reline ·
environment
0 o4 OS
U
2.4
3?
• a·
• w
0 0.2750 55
...1-0h:m,etets
·
·t 1
1.65
Miles
.2.2
(i) Unit VA–5 consists of
approximately 2,274 ac (920 ha) of
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
occupied habitat in Accomack County
consisting of beach shoreline and
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.021
~
37534
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
dynamic intertidal areas. The unit
extends from an inlet between Cedar
Island and the southern end of
Metompkin Island south to
Wachapreague Inlet. The western
boundary is along the marsh line where
the habitat changes from lightly
vegetated sandy beach and exposed peat
with little vegetation to densely
vegetated marshland, peat banks, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
densely vegetated forested or
herbaceous vegetation landward of the
beach and primary dune, or open water
including Burtons Bay. The eastern
boundary extends seaward past the
MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
as shoaling areas that are inundated
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water.
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Lands within this unit include
approximately 203 ac (82 ha) in Federal
ownership, 77 ac (31 ha) in State
ownership, 920 ac (372 ha) in private/
other ownership, and 1,074 ac (434 ha)
that are uncategorized. This coastal area
is part of the Virginia Coast Reserve.
(ii) Map of Unit VA–5 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37535
Figure 23 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (28)(ii)
Critlcat Habitat for Ruta Red Knot
VA-5 Cedar lsland;Accomack County, Virginia
Virginia
Accomack
County
The background layer is for display
purposes.only; rt may not accurately
represent tile dynamic shoreline
Major Road
Water Body
erwlrooment
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Critical Habitat
State Boundary
0 (L47!1:t95
• w
w -
0 !l.:t!t.i(Ui5
(29) Unit VA–6: Parramore Island,
Virginia.
(i) Unit VA–6 consists of
approximately 6,802 ac (2,753 ha) of
occupied habitat in Accomack County
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
1-9
2.115
==::
t3
1.!15
3J:l
Kilo meteu,
M~*
2.6
consisting of beach shoreline and
dynamic intertidal areas. The unit
extends from Wachapreague Inlet south
to Quinby Inlet. The western boundary
is Horseshoe Lead, Drawing Channel,
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Swash Bay, and Revel Island Bay. The
eastern boundary extends seaward past
the MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.022
~
37536
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
as shoaling areas that are inundated
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 5,631 ac (2,280 ha) in
private/other ownership (TNC) and
1,171 ac (473 ha) that are uncategorized.
This coastal area is part of the Virginia
Coast Reserve.
(ii) Map of Unit VA–6 follows:
Figure 24 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (29)(ii)
The backgr:ound layer is for disJ:)lay
Mafor Road
PJrposes only: It may not accurately
Weter Body
· represent the dynamic shoreline
?@}j Critical Habitat
l . . I state Boundary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
---
0 0.5 1
0 0.35 0]
PO 00000
Frm 00128
·
1
environment.
2
j
4
Kilomlite,s
· wes
1.4
Fmt 4701
2.1
Sfmt 4725
2]1
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.023
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
:x:a::w:::1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(30) Unit VA–7: Chimney Pole Marsh,
Virginia.
(i) Unit VA–7 consists of
approximately 2,004 ac (811 ha) of
occupied habitat in Chimney Pole
Marsh and the southern portion of
Sandy Island in Accomack County
consisting of mud flats, low marsh,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
sandy beaches, overwash areas, and
tidal channels. The boundary of the
marsh on all sides extends seaward past
the MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
as shoaling areas that are inundated
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37537
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 1,224 ac (496 ha) in State
ownership, 285 ac (116 ha) in private/
other ownership (TNC), and 495 ac (200
ha) that are uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit VA–7 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37538
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 25 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (30)(ii)
Criticar Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
VA-7 Chimney Pole Marsh; Accomack County. Virginia
The background layer is ror display
purposes only; rt may not accurately
,,,nt,,,.::on the
shoreline
Major Road
Water Body
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Critical Habitat
State Boundary
12
U
24
•-=•-=-•1-=
::;:::,_
l'lilometers
•-=r::::.--=---=====i--Mles
0
(31) Unit VA–8: Hog Island, Virginia.
(i) Unit VA–8 consists of
approximately 3,235 ac (1,309 ha) of
occupied habitat in Northampton
County consisting of shoreline habitat.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
0.2 0.4
0.8
1-2
1.6
The unit is bounded by the Quinby Inlet
to the north and Great Machipongo Inlet
to the south. The western boundary is
along the marsh line where the habitat
changes from lightly vegetated sandy
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
beach and exposed peat with little
vegetation to densely vegetated
marshland, peat banks, or densely
vegetated forested or herbaceous
vegetation landward of the beach and
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.024
:::a::cllCI
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
primary dune, or open water including
Hog Island Bay. The eastern boundary
extends seaward past the MLLW line,
including dynamic intertidal areas that
are covered at high tide and uncovered
at low tide, as well as shoaling areas that
are inundated with less than 3 in (7.6
cm) of water. Lands within this unit
include approximately 16 ac (7 ha) in
State ownership, 2,966 ac (1,201 ha) in
37539
private/other ownership, and 253 ac
(101 ha) that is uncategorized. This
coastal area is part of the Virginia Coast
Reserve.
(ii) Map of Unit VA–8 follows:
Figure 26 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (3 l)(ii)
~
The background layer is. for d~play
purposes. only.; rt may not accurately
represenU11e dynamic shoreline
Mafor Road
water80dy
~ Critical Habitat
state. Boundary
--
OD.Si
-- -- -
0 0.375LU6
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00131
environment.
3
2.
4
l'Jlo meters
. M~es
t!i
Fmt 4701
2,25
Sfmt 4725
3
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.025
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
VA-.8 Hog Island; Northampton County, Virginia
37540
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(32) Unit VA–9: Cobb Island, Virginia.
(i) Unit VA–9 consists of
approximately 2,342 ac (948 ha) of
occupied habitat in Northampton
County consisting of shoreline habitat.
The unit is bounded by Great
Machipongo Inlet to the north and
Sandy Shoal Inlet to the south. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
western boundary is formed by Hog
Island Bay, Spidercrab Bay, and Cobb
Bay. The eastern boundary extends
seaward past the MLLW line, including
dynamic intertidal areas that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide, as well as shoaling areas that
are inundated with less than 3 in (7.6
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
cm) of water. Lands within this unit
include approximately 16 ac (7 ha) in
State ownership, 1,778 ac (720 ha) in
private/other ownership, and 547 ac
(221 ha) that are uncategorized. This
coastal area is part of the Virginia Coast
Reserve.
(ii) Map of Unit VA–9 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37541
Figure 27 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (32)(ii)
Critical Habitat far Ru.fa Red Knot
VA-9 Cobb Island; Northampton County, Virginia
The backgroo nd layer is for display
only; ft may not accurately
represent the dynamic shoreline
envir011me11t
Water.Body
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Critical Habitat
State Boundary
0 OA OJl
w w
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
2A
3:2
MM
0 0.275 0.55
(33) Unit VA–10: Little Cobb Island,
Virginia.
(i) Unit VA–10 consists of
approximately 82 ac (33 ha) of occupied
habitat in Northampton County
1.6
U
Ui!i
K,lorrl!l!trs
Miles
22
consisting of shoreline habitat lying just
west of the southern end of Cobb Island
and within the waters of Cobb Bay. The
boundary of this small island in all
directions is the waters of Cobb Bay and
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the extent of the boundary seaward past
the MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
as shoaling areas that are inundated
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.026
~ Major~oad
37542
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water. All
lands within this unit are in private/
other ownership (TNC) and are part of
the Virginia Coast Reserve.
(ii) Map of Unit VA–10 follows:
Figure 28 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (3)(ii)
.
. Critical. Habitat for Ruta Red Knot
VA-1.0 Little Gobb Island; Northampton county, Virginia
Ne rthampton
County
Cobb ISiand
The beckgroond layer is for
purposes on!y; rt may not
represent the. dynamic shoreline
environment.
Ma.Jor R01;1d
Water Body
Critical Habitat
State Boundary
w w
.,.
ll 0Jl50, 1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
0,4
G G:! 0.2
PO 00000
!Hi
OJI
-■ '-::ilometers
=-M~es
0,.2
Frm 00134
Ct3
Fmt 4701
11.4
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.027
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
~
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(34) Unit VA–11: Wreck Island,
Virginia.
(i) Unit VA–11 consists of
approximately 1,270 ac (514 ha) of
occupied habitat in Northampton
County consisting of shoreline habitat
bounded to the north by Sandy Shoal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Inlet and Red Drum Drain and New Inlet
to the south. The western boundary is
South Bay. The eastern boundary
extends seaward past the MLLW line,
including dynamic intertidal areas that
are covered at high tide and uncovered
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37543
at low tide, as well as shoaling areas that
are inundated with less than 3 in (7.6
cm) of water. All lands within this unit
are State owned and managed as Wreck
Island Natural Area Preserve.
(ii) Map of Unit VA–11 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37544
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 29 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (34)(ii)
pr1t1c,r Hijo.ft,tfo(: •RLJfa f{~ct ~flfJt
vA~1·1.·.• V#J~l(J$f~Jid; NPtifiarnpt,c>O·CQU}lty; \/itgilJi~
T~e tiackgramd ~yer IsJ~r display
···.~• . Mafor·.ttoac1
purposes ordy; lt may Mt accurately
represenUhe qynamicsh<>reline
environment.
Body
L_J~te·.Boundary
(35) Unit VA–12: Myrtle Island,
Virginia.
(i) Unit VA–12 consists of
approximately 1,416 ac (573 ha) of
occupied habitat in Northampton
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
0 {L17!i03!i
County consisting of extensive mud
flats, low marsh, sandy beaches,
overwash areas, and tidal channels. The
north boundary is Ship Shoal Inlet, the
south boundary is Little Inlet, the west
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
boundary is Main Ship Shoal Channel
and Big Creek Marsh, and the east
boundary is the Atlantic Ocean. The
boundary for the island and marsh
complex extends seaward past the
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.028
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
~ Cdtitj.11 Habitat
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
MLLW line, including dynamic
intertidal areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide, as well
as shoaling areas that are inundated
with less than 3 in (7.6 cm) of water.
Lands within this unit include 1,028 ac
(417 ha) that are in private/other
ownership and 388 ac (156 ha) that are
37545
uncategorized. The island is owned and
managed by TNC as part of the Virginia
Coast Reserve.
(ii) Map of Unit VA–12 follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.029
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Figure 30 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (35)(ii)
37546
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(36) Unit VA–13: Smith Island,
Virginia.
(i) Unit VA–13 consists of
approximately 2,529 ac (1,024 ha) of
occupied habitat in Northampton
County consisting of shoreline habitat
bounded to the north by Little Inlet, to
the south by Smith Island Inlet, and to
the west along the dune line where the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
habitat changes from sandy beach with
little vegetation to densely vegetated
dunes or marshland, as well as densely
vegetated forested or herbaceous
vegetation landward of the beach and
primary dune, or open water including
Magothy Bay. The eastern boundary
extends seaward past the MLLW line,
including dynamic intertidal areas that
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
are covered at high tide and uncovered
at low tide, as well as shoaling areas that
are inundated with less than 3 in (7.6
cm) of water. All lands within this unit
are in private/other ownership (TNC).
The island is owned and managed by
TNC as part of the Virginia Coast
Reserve.
(ii) Map of Unit VA–13 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37547
Figure 31 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (36)(ii)
Critica I Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
VA-13 Smith Island; Northampton County, Virginia
N
Major Road
Water Body
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
~ Critical Habitat
State Boundary
A
0 0.4 0.8
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
1..6
2.4
3,_2
•-~~~~===~~~~~~:=••Kf•lom•&ters
Mi!&s
0
(37) Unit NC–1: Outer Banks, North
Carolina.
(i) Unit NC–1 consists of two subunits
comprising 11,367 ac (4,600 ha) of
occupied habitat in Dare and Hyde
The background layer is for display
purposes only; it may not accurately
re.present the dynamic shoreline
environment.
0.3 0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
Counties. This unit consists of Federal
lands owned by the NPS and Service,
and lands owned by the State of North
Carolina.
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(ii) Subunit NC–1A (Hatteras Island
and Shoals) consists of approximately
5,754 ac (2,329 ha) of occupied habitat
in Dare County consisting of beach
shoreline from the southeast side of
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.030
=-=-=-:::i
37548
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Oregon Inlet, south along the oceanfacing side of the island (including Pea
Island NWR) to Cape Point in Cape
Hatteras National Seashore. From Cape
Point, the subunit stretches along the
ocean side of the island about 13.25 mi
(21 km) west to the east side of Hatteras
Inlet. This subunit includes from MLLW
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(i.e., the highly dynamic beach and
emergent sand shoals that are covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide,
that are associated with the northeast
side of Hatteras Inlet’s navigable
channel) to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat, not
used by the rufa red knot, begins. Lands
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
within this subunit include
approximately 4,940 ac (1,999 ha) in
Federal ownership (Cape Hatteras
National Seashore) and 814 ac (329 ha)
that are uncategorized.
(iii) Map of Subunit NC–1A follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37549
Figure 32 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (37)(iii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
NC;...1A0uter Banks-Hatteras Island and Shoals;
Dare County, North Carolina
r---------.;==
=~~~. .'J!:0[,77,'[0;.=====
North Carolina
Dare
County
Hyde
County
Major Rbad
The t:rackgroond layer is
display
purposes only; it may not accurately
·repre.sent the <.lyna.mic shoreline ,.,:.,,...,_,,,,,_,,_..
Wilter Body
erwfrooment.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Critical Habitat
o.~·--~
5
_ _
$ta.le aoundary
0 1.,75 3.5
(iv) Subunit NC–1B (Ocracoke Island)
consists of approximately 5,613 ac
(2,271 ha) of occupied habitat in Hyde
County consisting of beach shoreline
from the southwest side of Hatteras Inlet
VerDate Sep<11>2014
--
Co unt.," Boundar.v"
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
15
.10
1
2,0
.
· .KJlometei'li
HL!i
Maes
14 .
along the ocean-facing side of the island
to the northeast side of Ocracoke Inlet.
This subunit also encompasses shallow
areas and mudflats within Pamlico
Sound on the west side of Ocracoke
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Island near Ocracoke Village. This
subunit includes from MLLW (i.e., the
highly dynamic beach and emergent
sand shoals that are covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide) to the toe of
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.031
-
37550
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat, not used by the rufa red knot,
begins, including the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
southwest side of Hatteras Inlet and the
northeast side of Ocracoke Inlet, and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
sand and mud islands identified in
Pamlico Sound northeast of Ocracoke
Village. Lands within this subunit
include approximately 1,427 ac (577 ha)
in Federal ownership (i.e., the entire
ocean-facing side of the Ocracoke
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Island, which is part of Cape Hatteras
National Seashore), 3,612 ac (1,462 ha)
in State ownership, and 575 ac (233 ha)
that are uncategorized.
(v) Map of Subunit NC–1B follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37551
Figure 33 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (37)(v)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
NC-18 OuterBanks-Ocracoke Island; Hyde Countyi North Carolina
The background layer is for display
purposes only; ~ may not accurately
represent. the dynamic shoreline
Major Road
WahuBody
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
~ c.ritical Habitat
State Boundary
environment
o0.75U
-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
4.5
-=-::
0 0.5 1
(38) Unit NC–2: Core Banks, North
Carolina.
(i) Unit NC–2 consists of two subunits
comprising 11,281 ac (4,565 ha) of
occupied habitat in Carteret County.
l
•
2
3
:6
k110rl'itters
Mil11s
4
This unit consists of Federal lands
owned by the NPS (Cape Lookout
National Seashore).
(ii) Subunit NC–2A (North Core
Banks) consists of approximately 8,187
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ac (3,313 ha) of occupied habitat in
Carteret County consisting of beach
shoreline from the North Core Banks
side of the Ocracoke Inlet channel south
to the North Core Banks side of the New
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.032
~
37552
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Drum Inlet channel. The west boundary
is the toe of the primary dune or dense
vegetation line (where the physical or
biological features do not occur), and
the east boundary is MLLW on the
Atlantic Ocean (i.e., the highly dynamic
beach and emergent sand shoals that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This subunit also includes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
MLLW on Core Sound to the MLLW on
the Atlantic Ocean in washover areas
associated with Old Drum Inlet, all
emergent sand shoals within the floodtidal and ebb-tidal deltas associated
with the North Core Banks side of the
Ocracoke Inlet channel, and the
emergent sand shoals within the floodtidal and ebb-tidal deltas associated
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with the North Core Banks side of the
New Drum Inlet channel. Lands within
this subunit include 6,534 ac (2,644 ha)
that are Federal ownership (Cape
Lookout National Seashore) and 1,654
ac (669 ha) that are uncategorized.
(iii) Map of Subunit NC–2A follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37553
Figure 34 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (38)(iii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
NC-2A Core Banks-North Core Banks; Carteret County, North Carolina
The backgra.md layer is for display
Major Road
purposes ont,: it. may not accurately
represent the .dYnamic shoreline '"'·····•"'··--
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
water BOdy
envlrooment.
Critical Habitat
State Boundary
(iv) Subunit NC–2B (South Core
Banks) consists of approximately 3,094
ac (1,252 ha) of occupied habitat in
Carteret County consisting of beach
shoreline from the South Core Banks
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
s
1.s 10 .
•••~•.·•::::i=i.•••••-=-====;;==~::a••••••Kilcmettrt
Mi1e1
o us 2.s
-= •
0 o.751.5
.3
4,5
6
side of the New Drum Inlet Channel
south to the Power Squadron Spit
excluding the jetty. The west boundary
is at the toe of the primary dune or
dense vegetation line where the
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
physical or biological features do not
occur, and the east boundary is MLLW
on the Atlantic Ocean (i.e., the highly
dynamic beach and emergent sand
shoals that are covered at high tide and
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.033
::a:x::ci
37554
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
uncovered at low tide). This subunit
also includes MLLW on Core Sound to
the MLLW on the Atlantic Ocean in
emergent sand shoals within the flood-
tidal and ebb-tidal deltas associated
with the South Core Banks side of the
New Drum Inlet channel, and all
emergent sand shoals associated with
Cape Point. All of the lands within this
subunit are under Federal ownership
(Cape Lookout National Seashore).
(v) Map of Subunit NC–2B follows:
Figure 35 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (38)(v)
Critical Habitatfor Ruta R.ed Knot
NC--2B Core Banks-South Core Banks; Carteret County, North Carolina
North Carolina
=--:i
The backgroond layer is for display
purposes onfy;. ~ may not accurately
represent. tt,e dynamk shoreline .i.:;••,, ••,....- , .
Major Road
Water Body
environi:nent.
~ Critlcal Habitat
State Boundary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.034
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Carteret
County
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(39) Unit NC–3: Shackleford Island,
North Carolina.
(i) Unit NC–3 consists of
approximately 4,972 ac (2,012 ha) of
occupied habitat in Carteret County
consisting of shoreline habitat bounded
to the north by the MLLW along Back
Sound, Bald Hill, Johnson and
Lighthouse Bays south to dense
vegetation where the physical or
biological features do not occur. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
east boundary is the Shackleford Island
side of Barden Inlet channel, the south
boundary is MLLW on the Atlantic
Ocean, and the west boundary is the
Shackleford Island side of Beaufort Inlet
Channel. This unit includes emergent
sand shoals within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
Shackleford Island side of the Barden
Inlet channel, and the emergent sand
shoals within the flood-tidal and ebb-
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37555
tidal deltas associated with the west
side of the Beaufort Inlet channel (i.e.,
the highly dynamic beach and emergent
sand shoals that are covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide). All lands
within this unit are in Federal
ownership (Cape Lookout National
Seashore).
(ii) Map of Unit NC–3 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37556
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 36 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (39)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
NC-3 .Shackleford Island; CarteretCounty North Carolina
1
North
::::ll0ClllQ
The backgroond layer is for
Major ~oad
purposes
'. Water Body
it may not ;:1rr1,1r;:1,i,111
dynamic shoreline
environment,
State Boundary
0 0_35 0.7
(40) Unit NC–4: Emerald Isle-Atlantic
Beach, North Carolina.
(i) Unit NC–4 consists of
approximately 2,030 ac (822 ha) of
occupied habitat in Carteret County
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
i.4
consisting of shoreline habitat that
stretches about 23 mi (37 km) from the
Beaufort Inlet channel and Fort Macon
State Park west to the eastern side of the
Bogue Inlet channel. Unit NC–4
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
includes from MLLW to the toe of the
dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat, not used by the rufa red knot,
begins and where the physical or
biological features no longer occur. This
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.035
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Critical Habitat
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
unit also includes the emergent sand
shoals within the flood-tidal and ebbtidal deltas associated with the west
side of the Beaufort Inlet channel, not
including the jetty, as well as the
emergent sand shoals within the floodtidal and ebb-tidal deltas on the east
side of the Bogue Inlet channel. Lands
within this unit include approximately
1,908 ac (772 ha) in State ownership
37557
and 122 ac (50 ha) in private/other
ownership (which includes 1 ac (0.5 ha)
in local government ownership and 121
ac (49 ha) in private ownership).
(ii) Map of Unit NC–4 follows:
Figure 37 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (40)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Ruta Red Knot
NC;...4 Emerald Isle-Atlantic Beach; Carteret County, North Carolina
North Carolina
~
Major Road
Water Body
VerDate Sep<11>2014
~
Crltlcal Habl.tat
[ __ ._I
State Boundary
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.036
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Carteret
County
37558
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(41) Unit NC–5: New Topsail InletTopsail Beach, North Carolina.
(i) Unit NC–5 consists of
approximately 1,612 ac (652 ha) of
occupied habitat in Onslow and Pender
Counties consisting of shoreline habitat
that stretches about 23 mi (37 km) from
the west side of the New River Inlet
channel west to the east side of the New
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Topsail Inlet channel. This unit
includes from MLLW to the toe of the
dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat, not used by the rufa red knot,
begins and where the physical or
biological features no longer occur. This
unit also includes the emergent sand
shoals within the flood-tidal and ebb-
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
tidal deltas associated with the west
side of the New River Inlet channel, as
well as the emergent sand shoals within
the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas on
the east side of the New Topsail Inlet
channel. All lands within this unit are
in private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit NC–5 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37559
Figure 38 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (41)(ii)
.~.t~reat··.Ha~itaf.fot••.R~f'a.·.•f"{ed~~~l
rsro• 5 New!9~~ifl.~l~t+l"~ps~II ~fl~~~;••e~slow and
(42) Unit NC–6: Cape Fear-Fort
Fisher, North Carolina.
(i) Unit NC–6 consists of
approximately 1,986 ac (804 ha) of
occupied coastal barrier island Carolina
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Beach Inlet in New Hanover County,
North Carolina, to the mouth of the
Cape Fear River in Brunswick County,
North Carolina. The north boundary of
this unit is the northeast tip of Pleasure
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Island south of Carolina Beach Inlet and
the south boundary extends from the tip
of Cape Fear west approximately 3.4 mi
(5 km) to the mouth of the Cape Fear
River. The west boundary is the toe of
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.037
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Pent1ereountle$t·•·•··NQttti catQli11c:1•.
37560
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
the primary dune or where densely
vegetated habitat, not used by the rufa
red knot, begins and where the physical
or biological features no longer occur.
The east boundary is MLLW on the
Atlantic Ocean excluding groins and
jetties. This unit also includes all
emergent sand shoals associated with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
the tip of Cape Fear, the Cape Fear River
south of Military Ocean Terminal Sunny
Point, and the emergent sand shoals
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the southwest
side of Carolina Beach Inlet channel and
the southwest tip of Bald Head Island.
Lands within this unit include
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
approximately 1,713 ac (693 ha) in State
ownership and 274 ac (111 ha) in
private/other ownership. State lands in
this unit contain parts of Fort Fisher
State Recreation Area and Zeke’s Island
Estuarine Reserve.
(ii) Map of Unit NC–6 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37561
Figure 39 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (42)(ii)
···••··•nttcarfiabttat·ror··Rufa• Red· t·_ ::··:- . '.., ·:... ·.··~··;:-- ::·:,· ··••·:··'.\:.:\: ..
·--.,.·• Mafjjf'•ffo•t1
purp:,ses ontJ; rt may notaci:urateiy ,t'"
Jkt 253001
Beach Inlet in Brunswick County,
stretching about 6 mi (10 km) from the
west side of Shallotte Inlet to the east
side of Tubbs Inlet. The east boundary
of this unit is the west side of Shallotte
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
r
Inlet. The south boundary is the MLLW
on the Atlantic Ocean, the west
boundary is the east side of Tubbs Inlet,
and the north boundary is the toe of the
primary dune or where densely
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.038
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
represent the dynamic shoreline
environment.
(43) Unit NC–7: Ocean Isle Beach,
North Carolina.
(i) Unit NC–7 consists of
approximately 298 ac (120 ha) of
occupied coastal barrier island Carolina
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
·>
•1ite:hacltgroona.·1ayeris·for••tfisf)tay
V\eterBody
VerDate Sep<11>2014
\C.':._':··· ':···,.:::··
37562
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
vegetated habitat, not used by the rufa
red knot, begins and where the physical
or biological features no longer occur.
This unit also includes the emergent
sand shoals within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the west
side of the Shallotte Inlet channel, as
well as the emergent sand shoals within
the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas on
the east side of the Tubbs Inlet channel.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 182 ac (73 ha) in State
ownership and 116 ac (47 ha) in private/
other (municipal) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit NC–7 follows:
Figure 40 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (43)(ii)
Crttica I Ha.bitat for Rufa Red Knot
NC-7 Ocea.n Isle Beach; Brunswick County,. North Carolina
North Carolina
~
Malor Road
Weter Body
~ Critical Habitat
The teckgrrun(I layer is for display
PtJrposes only; ~ may not accurately l
represent the ct,,nrrnic:moretine · r"
enVirooment
.r"
~,.,,/···-'"···~···¾
,.
...
'
l .,.....1State Boundary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.039
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Brunswick
County
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(44) Unit NC–8: Sunset Beach-Bird
Island, North Carolina.
(i) Unit NC–8 consists of
approximately 384 ac (155 ha) of
occupied coastal barrier island in
Brunswick County, stretching about 4.1
mi (6.6 km) from the west side of Tubbs
Inlet to the east side of Little River Inlet.
The east boundary of this unit is the
west side of Tubbs Inlet. The south
boundary is the MLLW on the Atlantic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Ocean, the west boundary is the east
side of Little River Inlet, and the north
boundary is the toe of the primary dune
or where densely vegetated habitat, not
used by the rufa red knot, begins and
where the physical or biological features
no longer occur. This unit also includes
the emergent sand shoals within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with the west side of the
Tubbs Inlet channel, as well as the
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37563
emergent sand shoals within the floodtidal and ebb-tidal deltas on the east
side of the Little River Inlet channel,
excluding the jetty. Lands within this
unit include approximately 345 ac (139
ha) in State ownership (part of the North
Carolina Coastal Reserve) and 39 ac (16
ha) in private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit NC–8 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37564
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 41 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (44)(ii)
Cri.tical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
NC-8 S.unset Beach-Bird Island; Brunswick CountyJ North C$rolina
Brunswick
County
The backgroond iayer is for dtsptay
purposes only: rt may not accurately
represent ttie dynamic shoreline
environment
Major Road
Weter Body
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Critical Habitat
State Boundary
G0.228.lAli
w •
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
t'.15
w w
0 0.1!.> O.J
(45) Unit SC–1: Garden City Beach,
South Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–1 consists of
approximately 616 ac (249 ha) of
occupied coastal shoreline habitat in
ll.!)
0.6
(l.!l
t8
l
~
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat, not used by the red
knot, begins. This unit also includes the
ephemeral, emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the northeastern
side of Murrells Inlet’s navigable
channel. Lands within this unit include
37565
approximately 267 ac (108 ha) in State
ownership and 349 ac (141 ha) in
private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–1 follows:
Figure 42 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (45)(ii)
··•.··titic~tHa~itatfor·RUfa Rf!~ l2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00157
. · )............
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
·•·
.. •.·.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.041
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
.· .. ·.. •.··•
37566
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(46) Unit SC–2: Huntington Beach
State Park/Litchfield Beach, South
Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–2 consists of
approximately 1,634 ac (661 ha) of
occupied coastal shoreline habitat in
Georgetown County. The unit boundary
begins on the southern side of Murrells
Inlet southwest and extends southwest
to the northern side of Midway Inlet.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
The unit includes all emergent land
from MLLW (which includes the highly
dynamic shoreline and sandy intertidal
zone that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide) to the toe of the
dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat, not used by the red knot, begins.
This unit also includes the ephemeral,
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
associated with the southwestern side of
Murrells Inlet’s navigable channel and
the northeastern side of Midway Inlet’s
navigable channel. Lands within this
unit include approximately 80 ac (32
ha) in State ownership, which includes
Huntington Beach State Park, and 1,554
ac (629 ha) in private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–2 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37567
Figure 43 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (46)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Ruta Red Knot
SC-2 Huntington Beach State Park/Litchfield Beach;
Georgetown County, South Carolina
South Carolina
Georgetown
County
-
Major Road
Water
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
State Boundary
(47) Unit SC–3: Sand and South
Island Beaches, South Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–3 consists of
approximately 8,256 ac (3,341 ha) of
occupied coastal shoreline habitat on
Sand and South Islands, barrier islands
off the coast of Georgetown County. The
unit boundary begins on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
.
~=•
0 l:t3260.65
36
'~1111111l(lf$
.
us
Miles
2.11
northeastern edge of South Island in
North Inlet behind North Island
following the shoreline to include Sand
Island and continuing southwest to the
southern tip of South Island. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
(which includes the highly dynamic
shoreline and sandy intertidal zone that
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
GA
is covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide) to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat, not
used by the red knot, begins. This unit
also includes the ephemeral, emergent
shoals (sand bars) within the flood-tidal
and ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
unnamed inlet between Sand and South
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.042
~ Crltlcal Habitat
37568
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Islands and the northeastern side of
North Santee River Inlet’s navigable
channel. Lands within this unit include
approximately 7,843 ac (3,174 ha) in
State ownership (including the Tom
Yawkey Wildlife Center Heritage
Preserve), 129 ac (52 ha) in private/other
ownership, and 283 ac (115 ha) that are
uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–3 follows:
Figure 44 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (47)(ii)
· · · · · ·.
i
i•·•••··•·· ·. ·
I na \
··•··>~\~t·
SofflttCarof
.·.· . . ·•.···•··.ii.
./••···
···.· • :S~tilsi·
(48) Unit SC–4: Sand and South
Island Beaches, South Carolina.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(i) Unit SC–4 consists of
approximately 8,312 ac (3,364 ha) of
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
occupied coastal shoreline habitat on all
of Murphy Island, a barrier island off
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.043
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
·• •q;~mt 1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
the coast of Charleston County. The unit
boundary begins on the South Santee
River shoreline of Murphy’s Island and
extends to the Alligator Creek shoreline.
The unit includes all emergent land
from MLLW (which includes the highly
dynamic shoreline and sandy intertidal
zone that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide) to the toe of the
dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat, not used by the red knot, begins.
This unit also includes the ephemeral,
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with the unnamed inlets
along the shoreline of Murphy Island.
37569
Lands within this unit are entirely in
State ownership and the South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources
manages Murphy Island as part of the
Santee Coastal Reserve Wildlife
Management Area.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–4 follows:
Figure 45 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (48)(ii)
.::.:_:··..... ··..... ··· ... ··._. ... ··-.. ··.-.· ... ·... ·-.:·:.::.·: ..:_.-.··· .. :..
___
.·······:·.:.:--:.·:.-.
______
·.:_ ..
·· ...·-·__ .
·•.· IIiea~um\i .·
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.044
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Murphy
:qq~ijtf
37570
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(49) Unit SC–5: North Cape Island
Beach, South Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–5 consists of
approximately 1,270 ac (514 ha) of
occupied coastal shoreline habitat on
the northern portion of Cape Island, a
barrier island off the coast of Charleston
County. The unit boundary begins on
the Cape Romain Harbor shoreline of
Cape Island and extends south to the
shoreline along the unnamed inlet
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
between North Cape and South Cape
Islands. The unit includes all emergent
land from MLLW to the toe of the dunes
or where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
deltas associated with the northern side
of the navigable channel of the
unnamed inlet between North Cape
Island and South Cape Island. Lands
within this unit include approximately
775 ac (313 ha) in Federal ownership
(Cape Romain NWR) and 495 ac (200
ha) in State ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–5 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37571
Figure 46 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (49)(ii)
Critical·. Ha~itat tor\RUfa Rect Krlqt
~~ Ngrth/C$Pfi•·.l$1an~ aeach·.•~nd·
gg-a ·~outhCL¼pe.·ar1d
·LighthouselslandBeaches; c harleston County, .South Carolina
>.e bile ~rp.m
purposes ()nly; itrriay
r ·. :esenfthe dynami
f:!l'.iyir(~ll'Tlfi!fl
.f.55
(50) Unit SC–6: South Cape and
Lighthouse Island Beaches, South
Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–6 consists of
approximately 2,037 ac (824 ha) of
occupied coastal shoreline habitat along
the entire southern portion of Cape
Island and all of Lighthouse Island,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
barrier islands off the coast, in
Charleston County. The unit boundary
begins at the northern tip of South Cape
Island in the unnamed inlet between
North Cape and South Cape Islands and
extends to the western tip of Lighthouse
Island in Key Inlet. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.045
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
t.2
37572
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
southern side of the navigable channel
of the unnamed inlet between North
Cape Island and South Cape Island and
the emergent sand shoals associated
with Key Inlet. Lands within this unit
include approximately 1,552 ac (628 ha)
in Federal ownership (Cape Romain
NWR) and 485 ac (196 ha) in State
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–6 is presented at
paragraph (49)(ii) of this entry.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(51) Unit SC–7: Raccoon Key Complex
and White Banks Beaches, South
Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–7 consists of
approximately 5,324 ac (2,154 ha) of
occupied coastal shoreline habitat along
the entire Raccoon Key complex and
White Banks, islands off the coast, in
Charleston County. The unit boundary
begins at the intersection of the Romain
River and Key Inlet side of Raccoon Key
and extends to the western edge of
White Banks in Bulls Bay. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with the unnamed inlets in
the Raccoon Key complex. Lands within
this unit are all in Federal ownership
(Cape Romain NWR).
(ii) Map of Unit SC–7 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37573
Figure 47 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (51)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
SC-7 Raccoon Key Complex and White Banks Beaches and
SC-8 Marsh Island; Charleston County. South Carolina
South Carolina
(52) Unit SC–8: Marsh Island, South
Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–8 consists of
approximately 415 ac (168 ha) of
occupied habitat across the entirety of
Marsh Island, which is an island in
Bulls Bay, Charleston County. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with Marsh Island. Lands
within this unit include are all in
Federal ownership (Cape Romain NWR).
(ii) Map of Unit SC–8 is presented at
paragraph (51)(ii) of this entry.
(53) Unit SC–9: Bulls Island Beach,
South Carolina.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.046
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Charleston
County
37574
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(i) Unit SC–9 consists of
approximately 6,141 ac (2,485 ha) of
occupied habitat across the entirety of
Bulls Island, which is a barrier island
along the coast of Charleston County.
The unit boundary begins on the Bulls
Bay shoreline of Bulls Island and
extends southwest to the Price Inlet
shoreline. The unit includes all
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
northeastern side of Price Inlet’s
navigable channel. Lands within this
unit include approximately 5,200 ac
(2,104 ha) in Federal ownership (Cape
Romain NWR) and 941 ac (381 ha) in
State ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–9 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37575
Figure 48 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (53)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
SC-9Buns Island Beachand SC-10 Capers Island Beach;
Charleston Comty, South Caronna
South Carolina
Charleston
County
~
The background Jaye
purposes only; rt may n
represenUh~ dynami
Major Road
{~~?!f~ft Water·eooy
enVirooment
t:{,#Jf ¢~al Hilbftllt
$.
·~.
(54) Unit SC–10: Capers Island Beach,
South Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–10 consists of
approximately 2,534 ac (1,026 ha) of
occupied habitat across the entirety of
Capers Island, which is a barrier island
off the coast of Charleston County. The
unit boundary begins on the Price Inlet
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
shoreline of Capers Island and extends
southwest to the Capers Inlet shoreline.
The unit includes all emergent land
from MLLW to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
PO 00000
Frm 00167
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the southwestern
side of Price’s Inlet’s navigable channel
and the northeastern side of Capers
Inlet’s navigable channel. Lands within
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.047
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
[---~}Statt·••.8()uf'l(f~
37576
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
this unit are entirely in State ownership
(Capers Island Natural Heritage
Preserve).
(ii) Map of Unit SC–10 is presented at
paragraph (53)(ii) of this entry.
(55) Unit SC–11: Dewees Island
Beach, South Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–11 consists of
approximately 1,812 ac (733 ha) of
occupied habitat across the entirety of
Dewees Island, which is a barrier island
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
off the coast of Charleston County. The
unit boundary begins on the Capers
Inlet shoreline of Dewees Island and
extends to the Dewees Inlet shoreline.
The unit includes all emergent land
from MLLW to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
PO 00000
Frm 00168
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the southwestern
side of Capers Inlet’s navigable channel
and the northeastern side of Dewees
Inlet’s navigable channel. Lands within
this unit include approximately 265 ac
(107 ha) in State ownership and 1,547
ac (626 ha) in private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–11 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37577
Figure 49 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (55)(ii)
..· . . . .. . . .... . . Critical Habi¥ttfor R4fa ~ed t2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Inlet shoreline of the Isle of Palms and
extends southwest to the Breach Inlet
shoreline. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
PO 00000
Frm 00169
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
southwestern side of Dewees Inlet’s
navigable channel and the northeastern
side of Breach Inlet’s navigable channel.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.048
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
County
37578
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Lands within this unit include
approximately 754 ac (305 ha) in State
ownership and 3,363 ac (1,361 ha) in
private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–12 is presented at
paragraph (55)(ii) of this entry.
(57) Unit SC–13: Sullivan’s Island
Beach, South Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–13 consists of
approximately 1,782 ac (721 ha) of
occupied habitat across the entirety of
Sullivan’s Island, which is a barrier
island off the coast of Charleston
County. The unit boundary begins on
the Breach Inlet shoreline of Sullivan’s
Island and extends southwest to the
Charleston Harbor shoreline. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
that are covered at high tide and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with the southwestern side of
Breach Inlet’s navigable channel. Lands
within this unit include approximately
83 ac (34 ha) in Federal ownership (Ft.
Moultrie, which is part of Ft. Sumter
National Monument), 694 ac (281 ha) in
State ownership, and 1,005 ac (407 ha)
in private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–13 is presented at
paragraph (55)(ii) of this entry.
(58) Unit SC–14: Folly Beach, South
Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–14 consists of
approximately 1,989 ac (805 ha) of
occupied habitat across the entirety of
Folly Beach, which is a barrier island off
the coast of Charleston County. The unit
boundary begins on the Lighthouse Inlet
shoreline of Folly Beach and extends
PO 00000
Frm 00170
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
southwest to the Folly River shoreline.
The unit includes all emergent land
from MLLW to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the southwestern
side of Lighthouse Inlet’s navigable
channel and the Folly Beach side of the
Folly River Inlet’s navigable channel
between Folly Beach and Bird Key.
Lands within this unit are entirely in
private/other land ownership within the
city limits of the municipality of the
City of Folly Beach.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–14 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37579
Figure 50 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (58)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
SC-14 Folly Beach and SC-15 Bird Key Stono;
Charleston County, South Carolina
South Carolina
Charleston
County
The backgroond layer is for
only:, it may not
- - Ma}orRoad
represent tne dynamic shoreline
Water Body
state Boundary
.envirooment
·0 0.32!'1>;65
•
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
1.96
•
w •
0 0.2250,45
(59) Unit SC–15: Bird Key-Stono,
South Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–15 consists of
approximately 294 ac (119 ha) of
occupied habitat across the entirety of
Bird Key-Stono, an island in the mouth
of the Stono Inlet in Charleston County.
The unit includes all emergent land
t3
2.ll·
Kitom$ters
Miles
0.9
1.35
1Jj
from MLLW to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
PO 00000
Frm 00171
Fmt 4701
GA
Sfmt 4702
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the southwestern
side of the Folly River Inlet. Lands
within this unit are entirely in State
ownership (managed as a State Seabird
Sanctuary).
(ii) Map of Unit SC–15 is presented at
paragraph (58)(ii) of this entry.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.049
[z::?zj
Critical
Habitat
. ,
.
37580
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(60) Unit SC–16: Kiawah and
Seabrook Island Beaches, South
Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–16 consists of
approximately 11,250 ac (4,553 ha) of
occupied habitat across the entirety of
Kiawah Island and a portion of
Seabrook Island, which are barrier
islands off the coast of Charleston
County. The unit boundary begins on
the Stono Inlet shoreline of Kiawah
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Island and extends southwest to the tip
of the Seabrook Island shoreline in the
North Edisto River. The unit includes
all emergent land from MLLW to the toe
of the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
PO 00000
Frm 00172
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
western side of the Stono Inlet and all
of Captain Sam’s Inlet. Lands within
this unit include approximately 1,399 ac
(566 ha) in State ownership and 9,850
ac (3,986 ha) in private/other ownership
within the Town limits of the Town of
Kiawah Island and the Town of
Seabrook Island.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–16 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37581
Figure 51 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (60)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
SC-16 Kiawah and Seabrook Island Beaches;
Charleston County, South Carolina
South Carolina
(61) Unit SC–17: Deveaux Bank,
South Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–17 consists of
approximately 1,328 ac (538 ha) of
occupied habitat across the entirety of
Deveaux Bank, an island in the mouth
of the North Edisto River in Charleston
County. The unit includes all emergent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
land from MLLW to the toe of the dunes
or where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
PO 00000
Frm 00173
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the mouth of the
North Edisto River. Lands within this
unit are entirely in State ownership
(managed as a Seabird Sanctuary).
(ii) Map of Unit SC–17 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.050
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Charleston
County
37582
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 52 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (61)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Ruta Red Knot
SC-17 Deveaux Bank and SC-18 E:disto Island Beaches;
Charleston and Colleton Counties, So.uth Carolina
South Carolina
Charle.ston
County
:::ica::a:
Majar Road
Water Body
~ Crilkal. Habitat.
.
.
L___ J County Boundary
·r·-·-··1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
State Boundary
(62) Unit SC–18: Edisto Island
Beaches, South Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–18 consists of
approximately 1,743 ac (705 ha) of
occupied beach habitat on Edisto Island,
a barrier island off the coast of
Charleston and Colleton Counties. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
ihe backgroond layer is fur display
purposes only; It may not accurately
represent tl1e dynalTlic shoreline
environment.
0 0.42!D.IIS
1.7
2.SS
::t4
•
•
.., N
0 0.3 0. 6
11:ilomtlers
1..2
U
-~.1iletl
2.4
unit includes all of Botany Bay Island,
Botany Bay Plantation, Interlude Beach,
and Edingsville Beach, and a portion of
Edisto Beach State Park. The unit
boundary begins on the North Edisto
River shoreline of Botany Bay Island
and extends southwest to the
PO 00000
Frm 00174
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
undeveloped eastern half of the
beachfront portion of Edisto Beach State
Park southwest of Jeremy Inlet. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.051
-River
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with Frampton and Jeremy
Inlets and the unnamed inlet separating
Interlude Beach and Botany Bay
Plantation. Lands within this unit
include approximately 650 ac (263 ha)
in State ownership (including Edisto
Beach State Park and Botany Bay
Heritage Preserve/Wildlife Management
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Area) and 1,093 ac (442 ha) in private/
other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–18 is presented at
paragraph (61)(ii) of this entry.
(63) Unit SC–19: Pine and Otter Island
Beaches, South Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–19 consists of
approximately 6,302 ac (2,550 ha) of
occupied habitat across the entirety of
Pine and Otter Islands, both of which
are sea islands in St. Helena Sound in
Colleton County. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
PO 00000
Frm 00175
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37583
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with Fish
Creek Inlet. Lands within this unit
include approximately 6,296 ac (2,548
ha) in State ownership (including the
Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto Basin
Preserve/Wildlife Management Area and
the St. Helena Sound Heritage Preserve/
Wildlife Management Area) and 6 ac (2
ha) in private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–19 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37584
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 53 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (63)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Ruta Red Knot
SC-19 Pine and Otter Island Beaches; Colleton County. South Carolina
South Carolina
Colleton
County
~~f*~
1
-.",::,.."·
.. ··. ...
.The backgro,md layer is for .display
purposes only; i! may not accurately '
repres:entthe dynamic shoreline
Major Road:
Water Body
·.·. / •· • i .· ·
..
.envirQilmeot,
.
1t1*aTfiat.iit~f
lJ
•
O.)t O;ll
·
t.i
i.il'
32
. I
M
~o~ftt
(64) Unit SC–20: Harbor and Hunting
Island Beaches, South Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–20 consists of
approximately 4,066 ac (1,645 ha) of
occupied habitat on Harbor and Hunting
Islands, both of which are barrier
islands off the coast of Beaufort County.
The unit boundary begins on the Harbor
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
River shoreline of Harbor Island and
extends southwest to the Fripp Inlet
shoreline of Hunting Island. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
PO 00000
Frm 00176
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with Johnson Creek Inlet.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 3,246 ac (1,313 ha) in
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.052
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
-=-=----===--·•Mifff
2'.2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
State ownership (including Hunting
Island State Park) and 820 ac (331 ha)
in private/other ownership.
37585
(ii) Map of Unit SC–20 follows:
(65) Unit SC–21: Fripp Island Beach,
South Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–21 consists of
approximately 734 ac (297 ha) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
occupied habitat on Fripp Island, a
barrier island off the coast of Beaufort
County. The unit boundary begins on
the Fripp Inlet shoreline of Fripp Inlet
PO 00000
Frm 00177
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and extends southwest to the Skull
Creek Inlet shoreline. The unit includes
all emergent land from MLLW to the toe
of the dunes or where densely vegetated
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.053
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Figure 54 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (64)(ii)
37586
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with Fripp
Inlet. Lands within this unit include
approximately 305 ac (124 ha) in State
ownership and 429 ac (174 ha) in
private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–21 is presented at
paragraph (64)(ii) of this entry.
(66) Unit SC–22: Hilton Head Island
Beach, South Carolina.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(i) Unit SC–22 consists of
approximately 1,682 ac (681 ha) of
occupied habitat on the heel of Hilton
Head Island, a barrier island off the
coast, in Beaufort County. The unit
boundary begins on the Port Royal
Sound shoreline beginning at Oyster
Shell Lane, continues southeast then
turns southwest along the Atlantic
Ocean shoreline, and continues to the
undeveloped portion of Singleton Beach
southwest of the Folly Beach. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the rufa
PO 00000
Frm 00178
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
red knot) begins (i.e., the highly
dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with Fish Haul Creek
and unnamed inlets within the unit
boundary. Lands within this unit
include approximately 1,015 ac (411 ha)
in State ownership and 667 ac (270 ha)
in private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–22 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37587
Figure 55 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (66)(ii)
·. · . . . . ·. ·......·. . .. . .·. . Critical HalJitattor Rufa ~ed ltnot
. sc--22 Hilton Heatf ts1anct Beach;. Beaufort CountYt South Caronna
Beaufort
(67) Unit SC–23: Daufuskie Island
Beach, South Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–23 consists of
approximately 6,370 ac (2,578 ha) of
occupied habitat across the entirety of
Daufuskie Island, a sea island in
Calibogue Sound, in Beaufort County.
The unit boundary begins on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Calibogue Sound shoreline of Daufuskie
Island and extends southwest to the
Mungen Creek shoreline. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
PO 00000
Frm 00179
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
unit boundary. All lands within this
unit are in private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–23 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.054
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
county
37588
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 56 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (67)(ii)
Critical ~abitatforRufa Red Knot ··.. .· ... ·.·... · .· . . ··· .·. ·.. ·
SC>-23.DaufuskielslandBeach,SC---24Turtle Jslattd•Beach,and SC-25
JonesJsland Beach}Beauf()rt and Jaspet-Coun~s.south Qc1roliha · ·
Beaufort
¢t,qijty
Jasper
(68) Unit SC–24: Turtle Island Beach,
South Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–24 consists of
approximately 1,798 ac (728 ha) of
occupied habitat across the entirety of
Turtle Island, a sea island in Calibogue
Sound, in Jasper County. The unit
boundary begins on the New River
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
shoreline of Turtle Island and extends
southwest to the Wright River shoreline.
The unit includes all emergent land
from MLLW to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
intertidal zone that are covered at high
PO 00000
Frm 00180
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the unnamed
inlet in the center of the island
shoreline. Lands within this unit are
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.055
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Couttty
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
entirely in State ownership (Turtle
Island Wildlife Management Area).
(ii) Map of Unit SC–24 is presented at
paragraph (67)(ii) of this entry.
(69) Unit SC–25: Jones Island Beach,
South Carolina.
(i) Unit SC–25 consists of
approximately 3,025 ac (1,224 ha) of
occupied habitat across the entirety of
Jones Island, a sea island along the
Savannah River and Calibogue Sound,
in Jasper County. The unit boundary
begins on the Wright River shoreline of
Jones Island to the Savannah River
shoreline. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with Wright
River Inlet. Lands within this unit
include approximately 785 ac (318 ha)
in Federal ownership (Tybee Island
NWR) and 2,240 ac (907 ha; 74 percent)
in State ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SC–24 is presented at
paragraph (67)(ii) of this entry.
(70) Unit GA–1: Tybee Island Beach,
Georgia.
(i) Unit GA–1 consists of
approximately 2,046 ac (828 ha) of
occupied habitat on Tybee Island (north,
mid and south beaches), a barrier island
off the coast in Chatham County. The
northern boundary of the unit begins at
the Savannah River shoreline of Tybee
Island and extends south to Tybee Creek
PO 00000
Frm 00181
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37589
Inlet, which separates Tybee Island from
Little Tybee Island, and includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
sandy intertidal zone that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide).
This dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the eastern side
of Tybee Inlet’s navigable channel.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 6 ac (2 ha) in State
ownership, 1,721 ac (697 ha) in private/
other ownership, and 319 ac (129 ha)
that are uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit GA–1 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37590
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 57 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (70)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
GA-1 Tybee Island Beach and GA-2 Little Tybee Island Complex;
Chatham County, Georgia
r-~--~~
Georgia
--River
The background layer is for di!play
J:l,Jrposes oni,,,; it may not accurately
represett the dynamic shaeline
~ . MaJor Road
.environment.
~ · <:::;ritical Habitat
0 0.47!i),9!l.
[. . .. J State Boundary
ll 0.3250.65
(71) Unit GA–2: Little Tybee Island
Complex, Georgia.
(i) Unit GA–2 consists of
approximately 8,265 ac (3,345 ha) of
occupied habitat across the entirety of
Little Tybee Island complex, a series of
barrier islands off the coast of Chatham
County. The unit boundary begins on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
1,9
2.85
3.8
-.i M
■11::C:.-.':II■-■-■-'C!r,:.======■-:::J■,:,:·.Ki•.lo.tl'ltittS
•■~-M
Miles
1.3
US
.2:6
the western side of Tybee Creek Inlet
and extends southwest to Wassaw
Sound and includes Little Tybee Island,
Williamson Island, and all emergent
land from MLLW to the toe of the dunes
or where densely vegetated habitat (not
used by the red knot) begins (i.e., the
highly dynamic shoreline and the sandy
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
intertidal zone that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide). This
dynamic habitat also includes the
ephemeral emergent shoals (sand bars)
within the flood-tidal and ebb-tidal
deltas associated with the western side
of Tybee Inlet’s navigable channel, Little
Tybee Slough, and Little Tybee Creek.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.056
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Water 8ocJy
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
All lands within this unit are in State
ownership (Little Tybee Island State
Heritage Preserve).
(ii) Map of Unit GA–2 is presented at
paragraph (70)(ii) of this entry.
(72) Unit GA–3: Wassaw Island
Beach, Georgia.
(i) Unit GA–3 consists of
approximately 4,296 ac (1,738 ha) of
occupied habitat on Wassaw Island, a
barrier island off the coast in Chatham
County. The unit boundary begins on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
the southwestern side of Wassaw Sound
off the northern tip of Wassaw Island
and extends southwest to Ossabaw
Sound shoreline. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW (which
includes the highly dynamic shoreline
and sandy intertidal zone that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide) to the toe of the dunes or
where densely vegetated habitat, not
used by the red knot, begins. This unit
also includes the ephemeral, emergent
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37591
shoals (sand bars) within the flood-tidal
and ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
southwestern side of Wassaw Sound off
the northern tip of Wassaw Island.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 3,001 ac (1,215 ha) in
Federal ownership (Wassaw Island
NWR), 274 ac (111 ha) in private/other
ownership, and 1,020 ac (412 ha) that
are uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit GA–3 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37592
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 58 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (72)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Ruta Red Knot
GA-3 Wassaw Island Beachand GA-4 Racoon Key;
Chatham County, Georgia
Georgia
Chatham
(73) Unit GA–4: Raccoon Key,
Georgia.
(i) Unit GA–4 consists of
approximately 1,599 ac (647 ha) of
occupied habitat across the entirety of
Raccoon Key, an island in Ossabaw
Sound in Chatham County. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Ossabaw Sound associated with
Raccoon Key. All lands within this unit
are in State ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit GA–4 is presented at
paragraph (72)(ii) of this entry.
(74) Unit GA–5: Ossabaw Island
Beach, Georgia.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.057
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
County
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(i) Unit GA–5 consists of
approximately 32,357 ac (13,095 ha) of
occupied habitat on Ossabaw Island, a
barrier island off the coast in Chatham
County. The unit boundary begins at the
Ogeechee River shoreline of Ossabaw
Island and extends southwest to the St.
Catherine’s Sound shoreline. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
PO 00000
Frm 00185
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37593
associated with Ossabaw Sound off the
northeastern tip of the island and St.
Catherine’s Sound off the southwestern
tip of the island. Lands within this unit
include approximately 28,621 ac
(11,591 ha) in State ownership and
3,736 ac (1,503 ha) that are
uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit GA–5 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37594
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 59 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (74)(ii)
Ctitica1.·Habitatfor·•RufaRed Khot
GA--5 0$S·~1:aaw·1s1ana· ~a~h; ChatnamJ)otaity, Georgia
e c gr:«m ay
~ · MaJorRoad
watetBodf
l)Urposes.onfy; itmay
(75) Unit GA–6: St. Catherine’s Island
Beach, Georgia.
(i) Unit GA–6 consists of
approximately 15,962 ac (6,460 ha) of
occupied habitat on St. Catherine’s
Island, a barrier island off the coast in
Liberty County. The unit boundary
begins at the St. Catherine’s Sound
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
••
shoreline of St. Catherine’s Island and
extends southwest to the Sapelo Sound
shoreline. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with St.
Catherine’s Sound entrance off the
northern tip of the island, McQueen
Inlet, and Sapelo Sound entrance off the
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.058
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
. ~ CrffltalHibffllt
. [-=]~~t, ~®o~
represent Uie ayn •
~yitOtlme
·.Cf.l,'t5.1;s..... 3' 4.~ · i
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
southern tip of the island. Lands within
this unit include approximately 2,106 ac
(853 ha) in State ownership, 11,810 ac
(4,783 ha) in private/other ownership,
and 2,046 ac (824 ha) that are
uncategorized.
37595
(ii) Map of Unit GA–6 follows:
Figure 60 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (75)(ii)
Critical Habitatfor Rufa Red Knot
GA~a St. Catherine's Istand.; Liberty County, Georgia
Georgia
Liber:ty
County
The background layer is for display
purposes only; It may not aca.irately
represent !he dyn.amic: $horeline
Major Road
Water Body
~ Cntlcal Habitat
state Boundary
environment
0 OJ'!i f5
•
•
■
M
0 (l,5. 1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00187
3
4.5
2
Fmt 4701
ti
3
.Kilematers
Miies
4
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.059
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
~
37596
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(76) Unit GA–7: Blackbeard Island
Beach, Georgia.
(i) Unit GA–7 consists of
approximately 6,321 ac (2,558 ha) of
occupied habitat on Blackbeard Island,
a barrier island off the coast in McIntosh
County. The unit boundary begins at the
Sapelo Sound shoreline of Blackbeard
Island and extends southwest to the
Cabretta Inlet shoreline. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with the Sapelo Sound
entrance off the northern tip of the
PO 00000
Frm 00188
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
island and the northeastern side of
Cabretta Inlet’s navigable channel.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 4,954 ac (2,006 ha) in
Federal ownership (Blackbeard Island
NWR), 80 ac (32 ha) in State ownership,
and 1,287 ac (519 ha) that are
uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit GA–7 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37597
Figure 61 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (76)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
GA-7 Blackbeard l$land Beach and GA-8 Sapelo ls.land Beach;
Mclnto.sh County, Georgia
---------------
.Georgi~
Sapelo I stand
Wildlife ~anagement
Area
~
The background layer is for display
Major Road
purposes only; rt may not accurately
ronrio.::on the dynamic shoreline
environment.
Water Body
0 0.151.5
J
4.5
State Boundary
0 0.5
(77) Unit GA–8: Sapelo Island Beach,
Georgia.
(i) Unit GA–8 consists of
approximately 2,482 ac (845 ha) of
occupied habitat on Sapelo Island, a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
1
2
J
barrier island off the coast in McIntosh
County. The unit boundary begins at the
Cabretta Inlet shoreline of Sapelo Island
and extends southwest to the Doboy
Sound shoreline. The unit includes all
PO 00000
Frm 00189
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.060
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Critical Habitat
37598
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
southwestern side of Cabretta Inlet’s
navigable channel. The lands within
this unit are State-owned and comprise
the Sapelo Island Wildlife Management
Area and Sapelo Island National
Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR).
(ii) Map of Unit GA–8 is presented at
paragraph (76)(ii) of this entry.
(78) Unit GA–9: Wolf Island, Egg
Island, Little Egg Island, and Little Egg
Island Bar, Georgia.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(i) Unit GA–9 consists of
approximately 5,308 ac (2,148 ha) of
occupied habitat on Wolf, Egg, and
Little Egg Islands, and Little Egg Island
Bar, which are islands at the mouth of
the Altamaha River in McIntosh County.
The unit boundary begins at the South
River shoreline of Wolf Island and
extends south to the southern side of
Altamaha Sound. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
PO 00000
Frm 00190
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
entrance to Altamaha Sound and
Beacon Creek. Lands within this unit
include approximately 2,975 ac (1,204
ha) in Federal ownership (Wolf Island
NWR, which is also a designated
wilderness area), 240 ac (97 ha) in State
ownership, and 2,093 ac (847 ha) that
are uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit GA–9 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37599
Figure 62 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (78)(ii)
:coJiqijJ·•HiptitJ·~f.•JR.gtj:f{lq•Jlf lijt,m, ·~ggJ!l~rictt··•~,m~•Eg~J~la~· ijfittUJttf.Sgj••·Jjl~n¢t··eijt;
.,......________~--------=-+-=
M~Jn~~n t::qqmJi~ ~~prg1;.: •.. .
··t1uifiadcgrQtind··layer•1sJ&r~y
p.irposes only; ft may nofaceuratety
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
~. cntieatAabttat
I . . ·. ·. !state eour1c:fliry
(79) Unit GA–10: Little St. Simon’s
Island Beach, Georgia.
(i) Unit GA–10 consists of
approximately 9,053 ac (3,664 ha) of
occupied habitat on Little St. Simon’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
--
ref)(esentttle•. dynamicsttoreline
·envlronment
2;8 ..
. •Klloffl$tei's.
Miles .
1
1.5
2
Island off the coast of Glynn County.
The unit boundary begins at the
Altamaha Sound shoreline of Little St.
Simon’s Island and extends south to the
Hampton River shoreline. The unit
PO 00000
Frm 00191
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
includes all emergent land from MLLW
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.061
waterSody
37600
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with the Altamaha Sound off
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
the northeastern tip of the island,
Mosquito Creek, and the northern side
of Hampton River Inlet’s navigable
channel. Lands within this unit include
approximately 113 ac (46 ha) in State
ownership, 7,462 ac (3,022 ha) in
PO 00000
Frm 00192
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
private/other ownership (TNC-owned
preserve lands), and 1,479 ac (596 ha)
that are uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit GA–10 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37601
Figure 63 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (79)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
GA-10 Little St. Simon•s Island Beach and GA-11 sea and St.
Simon's Island Beaches; Glynn County, Georgia
Georgia
Glynn
County
.River
The background layer is for display
purposes oo ly; it may not accurately •-~~··-- '
represent the dynamicshorelirie
environment.
:as::a:: Major Road.
Water Body
State Boundary
(80) Unit GA–11: Sea and St. Simon’s
Island Beaches, Georgia.
(i) Unit GA–11 consists of
approximately 4,033 ac (1,632 ha) of
occupied habitat across the entirety of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
0 0.76 1..5
3
4.5
G
--===--Kilometers
w:::w-:
Miles
•=-:::.•
0 0.5 1
2
3
4
Sea Island and a portion of St. Simon’s
Island, both of which are barrier islands
off the coast of Glynn County. The unit
boundary begins at the Hampton River
shoreline of Sea Island and extends
PO 00000
Frm 00193
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
southwest to the St. Simon’s Sound
shoreline of St. Simon’s Island. The unit
includes all emergent land from MLLW
to the toe of the dunes or where densely
vegetated habitat (not used by the red
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.062
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
~ Critical Habitat
37602
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
knot) begins (i.e., the highly dynamic
shoreline and the sandy intertidal zone
that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). This dynamic
habitat also includes the ephemeral
emergent shoals (sand bars) within the
flood-tidal and ebb-tidal deltas
associated with Gould’s Inlet. Lands
within this unit include approximately
4 ac (2 ha) in State ownership, 3,448 ac
(1,395 ha) in private/other ownership,
and 581 ac (235 ha) that are
uncategorized.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(ii) Map of Unit GA–11 is presented
at paragraph (79)(ii) of this entry.
(81) Unit GA–12: Jekyll Island Beach,
Georgia.
(i) Unit GA–12 consists of
approximately 6,287 ac (2,544 ha) of
occupied habitat on Jekyll Island, a
barrier island off the coast of Glynn
County. The unit boundary begins at the
St. Simon’s Sound shoreline of Jekyll
Island and extends south to St. Andrew
Sound shoreline. The unit includes all
emergent land from MLLW to the toe of
the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
PO 00000
Frm 00194
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with the
southern side of St. Simon’s Sound off
the northern tip of the island. Lands
within this unit include approximately
5,944 ac (2,406 ha) in State ownership
(including Jekyll Island State Park) and
343 ac (139 ha) that are uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit GA–12 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37603
Figure 64 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (8l)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
GA-12 Jekyll Island Beach; Glynn County, Georgia
Gtynn
County
Major Road
backgro:md layer is for display
purposes.only; tt may not accurately
Water Body
represent the dynamic shoreline
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
~ Critical Habitat·
[ :]
S1ate Boundary
e.nvlronment.
0 0.5 1
• w
w w
2
0 0.35 0.7
(82) Unit GA–13: Little Cumberland
and Cumberland Island Beaches,
Georgia.
(i) Unit GA–13 consists of
approximately 28,136 ac (11,386 ha) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
3
4
Kllomelers.
M
U.
2. . 1
Miles
2.8
occupied habitat on Little Cumberland
Island and Cumberland Island, a barrier
island complex off the coast in Camden
County. The unit boundary begins at the
St. Andrew Sound shoreline of Little
PO 00000
Frm 00195
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Cumberland Island and extends west
across the Cumberland River and marsh
to the East River and continues south to
the St. Mary’s River shoreline of
Cumberland Island. The unit includes
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.063
~
37604
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
all emergent land from MLLW to the toe
of the dunes or where densely vegetated
habitat (not used by the red knot) begins
(i.e., the highly dynamic shoreline and
the sandy intertidal zone that are
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This dynamic habitat also
includes the ephemeral emergent shoals
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(sand bars) within the flood-tidal and
ebb-tidal deltas associated with St.
Andrew Sound off the northern tip of
Little Cumberland Island and Christmas
Creek Inlet between Little Cumberland
and Cumberland Islands. Lands within
this unit include approximately 23,367
ac (9,464 ha) in Federal ownership
PO 00000
Frm 00196
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(Cumberland Island National Seashore,
which is also a designated wilderness
area), 1,685 ac (682 ha) in State
ownership, and 3,085 ac (1,241 ha) that
are uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit GA–13 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37605
Figure 65 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (82)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
GA-13 Little Cumberland Island and Cumberland Island Beaches;
Camden County, Georgia
Georgia
Camden
County
~
N
Major Road
Water Body
A
State Boundary
(83) Unit FL–1: Nassau Sound-Fort
George Sound-Fort George Inlet
Complex, Florida.
(i) Unit FL–1 consists of
approximately 4,324 ac (6,742 ha) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
occupied habitat consisting of beach,
inlet, and intertidal sandflats in Nassau
and Duval Counties. The unit extends
from the north shore of Nassau Sound
in Nassau County south to the north
PO 00000
Frm 00197
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
shore of the St. Johns River at Huguenot
Memorial Park in Duval County. The
landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation or hardened structures,
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.064
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Critical Habitat
The backgroond layer is for display
rt may not accurately
dynamic shoreline
environment.
purposes
37606
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. The majority
of this unit is within the Talbot Islands
State Parks Complex and Huguenot
Memorial Park, which is a Federal and
State-owned parcel leased to the City of
Jacksonville. Lands within this unit
include approximately 996 ac (404 ha)
in Federal ownership, 522 ac (211 ha) in
State ownership, 27 ac (11 ha) in
private/other ownership, and 2,779 ac
(6,116 ha) that are uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–1 follows:
Figure 66 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (83)(ii)
Critical Habitalfbr RUfa Reef Knot
.
· Tfiebacl(gr()Uot!layerisfQt~1'¥
· putp~es oow; if mayli9f21ec:urate1y
repres:eritthe dyn~lc stwrelirJe: •
· erwiromnent:
3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00198
Fmt 4701
4
·· Kiloi'rietm ..
Miles
.i,zs
:r
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.065
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
. .FL.;.;1 . .N~ssa·tr•·So1Jh(.}Fort ·<3eot~e•.·•·§o.und-Fo·~.··aeorge.·1n1et Qomplex:
Nass~U$Od CluvatCoul'ltles1 Florida
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(84) Unit FL–2: Ponce Inlet Complex,
Florida.
(i) Unit FL–2 consists of
approximately 19,683 ac (7,965 ha) of
occupied habitat consisting of beach,
inlet, and intertidal sandflats in Volusia
and Brevard Counties. The unit extends
from approximately Ocean Edge Drive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
in Ormond Beach south to the south end
of Merritt Island NWR along the
Atlantic Ocean. The landward boundary
is the line indicating the beginning of
dense vegetation or hardened structures,
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. Lands within
PO 00000
Frm 00199
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37607
this unit include approximately 16,660
ac (6,742 ha) in Federal ownership
(Merritt Island NWR), 3,005 ac (1,216
ha) in State ownership (Smyrna Dunes
State Park), and 18 ac (7 ha) that are
uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–2 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37608
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 67 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (84)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa. Red Knot
FL-,2 Ponce tnletComplex; Volusia and Brevard Counties, Florida
Volusia
County
.
.
Se.minote ·\·.
·..
County
..
N
\}{'):,:: WlW Body
l'W3 Critical Hab1tar
1·-•-•..-,
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
'--·-·J County Boundary
State Bouodl!I ry
(85) Unit FL–3: Merritt Island
National Wildlife Refuge
Impoundments, Florida.
(i) Unit FL–3 consists of
approximately 6,947 ac (2,811 ha) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
A
The be.c:kgi'aJrld !ayer is tr dl9'llay
p(lf>osn onty; it may not accurately
rt'lpreMnt tie dyriamlc $11~11Une
•l"Nlrorment
--
0 2. 15 !Ui
11
i!H1
22
0 lJS ,Ui
7
11t5
14
Kilcmeltr$
Mills
occupied and managed impoundment
and intertidal mudflats in Brevard
County. The landward boundary is the
line indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation or hardened structures,
PO 00000
Frm 00200
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. This unit
consists of Federal lands (Merritt Island
NWR).
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.066
.~ Major Road
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37609
(ii) Map of Unit FL–3 follows:
Figure 68 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (85)(ii)
. crttlcalHabitaftorRufaRetiKnot
..
FL~Merritt Island NatronaFVVildlife Refuge Impoundments;.·
Brevard County, Florida
·
Florida
Brevard
(86) Unit FL–4: Cape Romano and
Marco Island, Florida.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(i) Unit FL–4 consists of two subunits
comprising 26,629 ac (10,776 ha) of
PO 00000
Frm 00201
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
occupied habitat in Collier County. This
unit consists of Federal (Ten Thousand
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.067
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
county
37610
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Islands NWR), State, and private
landowners.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–4 follows:
Figure 69 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (86)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
FL-4 Cape Romano and Marco lsland 1 and FL-5 Marco Bay Complex;
·
Collier County, Florida
·
Florida
Collier
County
The background layef is. for display
Major Road
purposes only; ~ may not acairately
represent !he dynamic shorelin~
erwironment.
.Water Body
!¾1'.01 Critical Habitat
State Boundary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
o.
•
1 :z.
•
-0 0. 5 1
PO 00000
4.
s
:::··=--M~e.s
2
3
4
Frm 00202
Fmt 4701
e
l
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
:::a:x:c:11
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(iii) Subunit FL–4A (Cape Romano
Complex) consists of approximately
26,213 ac (10,608 ha) of occupied beach
and intertidal sandflats habitat in
Collier County, in the wetland complex
south of Marco Island and the
community of Goodland. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation, including
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. Lands within this
subunit include approximately 13,138
ac (5,321 ha) in Federal ownership (Ten
Thousand Islands NWR), 12,605 ac
(5,105 ha) in State ownership (Rookery
Bay NERR), and 470 ac (182 ha) that are
uncategorized.
(iv) Map of Subunit FL–4A is
presented at paragraph (86)(ii) of this
entry.
(v) Subunit FL–4B (Marco Island)
consists of approximately 416 ac (168
ha) of occupied habitat beach, inlet, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
intertidal sandflats in Collier County.
The subunit extends from the south side
of the inlet north of Marco Island south
along the Gulf of Mexico approximately
4 mi (6.5 km). The landward boundary
is the line indicating the beginning of
dense vegetation or hardened structures,
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. Lands within
this subunit include approximately 408
ac (165 ha) in State ownership (Rookery
Bay NERR) and 8 ac (3 ha) in private/
other ownership.
(vi) Map of Subunit FL–4B is
presented at paragraph (86)(ii) of this
entry.
(87) Unit FL–5: Marco Bay Complex,
Florida.
(i) Unit FL–5 consists of
approximately 3,589 ac (1,453 ha) of
occupied beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats habitat in Collier County, from
the north side of the inlet north of
PO 00000
Frm 00203
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37611
Marco Island north along the Gulf of
Mexico approximately 3.7 mi (6 km)
and inclusive of the wetland complex
inland to the east side of Rookery Bay.
The landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands within this unit include
approximately 3,531 ac (1,429 ha) in
State ownership (Rookery Bay NERR)
and 58 ac (24 ha) in private/other
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–5 is presented at
paragraph (86)(ii) of this entry.
(88) Unit FL–6: Cocohatchee Inlet
Complex and Barefoot Beach, Florida.
(i) Unit FL–6 consists of two subunits
comprising 48 ac (20 ha) of occupied
habitat in Collier County. This unit
consists of Delnor-Wiggins Pass State
Park and private landowners.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–6 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37612
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 70 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (88)(ii)
·~i~~JH~t,l~~fgr ~ttff:1 R~':#l(m~
· .. · ·
•···
·• ·
e.•
..·...••..••
trttet.~on1pte.xaJ1d. .· •· ·· ··
.:::::._:;;:.:·,'./\:c\.:-'.:···:•.'·:·.··.:,.:>:: .:· ·~···.:•.:::,·.::•··:··\
~
wa
uaJotRoad
Water Body
Critical Habitat
._ L__j State Boundary
(iii) Subunit FL–6A (Cocohatchee
Inlet Complex) consists of
approximately 9 ac (4 ha) of occupied
beach, inlet, and intertidal sandflats
habitat in Collier County, from the south
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
side of the Cocohatchee Inlet south
along the Gulf of Mexico approximately
3,281 ft (1 km). The landward boundary
is the line indicating the beginning of
dense vegetation, including emergent,
PO 00000
Frm 00204
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands within this subunit are
entirely under State ownership (DelnorWiggins Pass State Park).
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.069
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
~
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(iv) Map of Subunit FL–6A is
presented at paragraph (88)(ii) of this
entry.
(v) Subunit FL–6B (Barefoot Beach)
consists of approximately 39 ac (16 ha)
of occupied beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats habitat in Collier County, from
the north side of the Cocohatchee Inlet
north along the Gulf of Mexico
approximately 3.1 mi (5 km). The
landward boundary is the line
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation or hardened structures,
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. Lands within
this subunit include approximately 18
ac (7 ha) in State ownership and 21 ac
(9 ha) in private/other ownership.
(vi) Map of Subunit FL–6B is
presented at paragraph (88)(ii) of this
entry.
PO 00000
Frm 00205
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37613
(89) Unit FL–7: Lovers Key and Estero
Island, Florida.
(i) Unit FL–7 consists of two subunits
comprising 175 ac (70 ha) of occupied
habitat in Lee County. This unit consists
of portions of Lovers Key State Park and
Estero Island.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–7 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37614
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 71 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (89)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Ruta Red Knot
FL-7 Lovers Key and Estero Island; Lee County, Florida
Lee
County
Tile
Major Road
Water Body
~z;;zj Critical Habitat
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
state Boundary
(iii) Subunit FL–7A (Lovers Key)
consists of approximately 4 ac (1 ha) of
occupied beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats habitat in Lee County, at the
north point of Lovers Key. The
landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation or hardened structures,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
layer is for
purposes only. It may not ,.,..,..,1,,.,,,,1"
represent tt,e dynamic shoreline
env:lrooment
0 0.1750.35
•
•
M
M
OJ'
·
tOS
1.4
Kilomete,s
Miles
.
ii. 0..1250.25
0.5
0.15
1
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. Lands within
this subunit are entirely State owned
(Lovers Key State Park).
(iv) Map of Subunit FL–7A is
presented at paragraph (89)(ii) of this
entry.
PO 00000
Frm 00206
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(v) Subunit FL–7B (Estero Island)
consists of approximately 171 ac (69 ha)
of occupied beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats habitat in Lee County, from
Key West Court on Fort Myers Beach
south along the Gulf of Mexico to the
southern point of the island. The
landward boundary is the line
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.070
-
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation or hardened structures,
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. Lands within
this subunit are entirely in State
ownership.
(vi) Map of Subunit FL–7B is
presented at paragraph (89)(ii) of this
entry.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(90) Unit FL–8: Bunche Beach,
Florida.
(i) Unit FL–8 consists of
approximately 334 ac (135 ha) of
occupied beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats habitat in Lee County, in San
Carlos Bay south of the Sanibel
Causeway in Fort Myers. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation or
hardened structures, including
PO 00000
Frm 00207
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37615
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. Lands within this
unit include approximately 23 ac (9 ha)
in Federal ownership (Matlacha Pass
NWR), 264 ac (107 ha) in State
ownership (Bunche Beach Preserve),
and 47 ac (19 ha) in private/other
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–8 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37616
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 72 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (90)(ii)
Critica I Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
FL-8 Bunche Beach; Lee County, Florida
Florida
Lee
County
Matlac ha Pass
National
Wlldllle RelUge
I
The background layer is for display MS ·
purposes only; it may not accurately · ·
-··-·~······1... __~.•,,
represent the dynamic shoreline
.-.m Major Road
Water Body
State Boundary
(91) Unit FL–9: Sanibel Island
Complex, Florida.
(i) Unit FL–9 consists of two subunits
comprising 3,759 ac (1,521 ha) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
environment
•:a
0 0.22~.45.
..
0 0.15 0.3
0.9
1.35
0.6
0.9
1.8
Kilometers
Mies
1.2
occupied habitat in Lee County. This
unit consists of Federal lands that are
PO 00000
Frm 00208
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
part of the J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling NWR and
Sanibel Island.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–9 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.071
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
l?z:¼1 Critical Habitat
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37617
Figure 73 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (91)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
FL-9 Sanibel Island Complex; lee County, Florida
The oockgroonid layer !s fordisplay
purposes only:
not a.a:uratel
rt>m'""<:i"'rtt the dynamic shOreline
Water Body
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Critical Habitat
Stete Boundary
--
0 0.5 1
••
0 0.4250.1:15
(iii) Subunit FL–9A (J.N. ‘‘Ding’’
Darling National Wildlife Refuge)
consists of approximately 3,451 ac
(1,397 ha) of occupied beach, inlet, and
intertidal sandflats habitat, as well as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
2
environment:
4
J
1.1
Kilomtill!fS·
Miles
2.55
JA
managed impoundments in Lee County
on Sanibel Island. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation or
hardened structures, including
PO 00000
Frm 00209
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. Lands within this
subunit are entirely in Federal
ownership (J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling NWR).
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.072
~·Major Road
37618
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(iv) Map of Subunit FL–9A is
presented at paragraph (91)(ii) of this
entry.
(v) Subunit FL–9B (Sanibel Island)
consists of approximately 307 ac (124
ha) of occupied beach, inlet, and
intertidal sandflats habitat in Lee
County on Sanibel Island. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
hardened structures, including
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. Lands within this
subunit are entirely in State ownership.
(vi) Map of Subunit FL–9B is
presented at paragraph (91)(ii) of this
entry.
(92) Unit FL–10: Don Pedro Complex,
Florida.
PO 00000
Frm 00210
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(i) Unit FL–10 consists of two
subunits comprising 158 ac (64 ha) of
occupied habitat in Charlotte County.
This unit consists of State lands, a
portion of which are part of the Don
Pedro Island State Park and Stump Pass
Beach State Park.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–10 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37619
Figure 74 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (92)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Ruta Red Knot
FL-10 Don Pedro Complex; Charlotte County, Florida
Florida
Charlotte
County
The l:.lackgn::..md layer is fur display
only; it may not accurate
represent the dynamic shoreline
environment,
Major Road
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Watet6ody
Critical Habitat
0 0.32W,6S
State Boundary
_••~·•••-=r:::l
M:
•
0 ll.22!i0,4!i
(iii) Subunit FL–10A (Don Pedro)
consists of approximately 147 ac (60 ha)
of occupied beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats habitat in Charlotte County on
Don Pedro Island. The landward
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
t3
HIS
:vs
=-•••••••.======::ll:::i••••-:.1'..
3ll'.lml!lers
. Miles
0,9
1.35
1..8
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation or
hardened structures, including
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
PO 00000
Frm 00211
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
uncovered at low tide. Lands within this
subunit are entirely in State ownership,
a portion of which includes Don Pedro
Island State Park.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.073
~
37620
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(iv) Map of Subunit FL–10A is
presented at paragraph (92)(ii) of this
entry.
(v) Subunit FL–10B (Stump Pass
Beach State Park) consists of
approximately 11 ac (4 ha) of occupied
beach, inlet, and intertidal sandflats
habitat in Charlotte County at the
southern point of Manasota Key. The
landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands within this subunit are
entirely in State ownership (Stump Pass
Beach State Park).
(vi) Map of Subunit FL–10B is
presented at paragraph (92)(ii) of this
entry.
(93) Unit FL–11: Siesta Key, Florida.
(i) Unit FL–11 consists of
approximately 53 ac (21 ha) of occupied
PO 00000
Frm 00212
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
beach, inlet, and intertidal sandflats
habitat in Sarasota County on Siesta
Key, from Avenida Messina (road) south
to Avenida del Mare. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation, including
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. Lands within this
unit are entirely in State ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–11 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37621
Figure 75 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (93)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa .Red Knot
FL-11 Siesta Key; Sarasota County, Florida
Florida
S,tesla Key
The backgroond layer is for display MS·
purposes
It may not accurately -,
shoreline
Major Road
Water
environment
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Critical Habitat
State Boundary
oo.12!ll25
ww
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
0.76
w •
0 0.01il16
(94) Unit FL–12: Lido-Longboat Keys
Complex, Florida.
cu;,
1
Kilometers.
Mdes
0.3
0.46
0.6
(i) Unit FL–12 consists of two
subunits comprising 450 ac (182 ha) of
PO 00000
Frm 00213
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
occupied habitat in Sarasota County.
This unit consists of State lands.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–12 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.074
-
Sarasota
County
37622
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 76 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (94)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
FL-12 Lido-Longboat Keys Complex; Sarasota County, Florida
Florida
Sarasota
County
The backgroond layer is .for display
purposes only;~ may not accurately ·
represenftl1e dynamic shoreline
Major Road
Weter Body
environment
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Critical. Habitat
State. Boundary
--
0 OJ 1
••
0
(iii) Subunit FL–12A (Lido Key)
consists of approximately 81 ac (33 ha)
of occupied beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats habitat in Sarasota County on
Lido Key. The landward boundary is the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
0.4 0.8
2
3
4
ki111ma,eri
·-=-·
--Miles
1.6
2,4
3.2
line indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
PO 00000
Frm 00214
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
low tide. Lands within this subunit are
entirely in State ownership.
(iv) Map of Subunit FL–12A is
presented at paragraph (94)(ii) of this
entry.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.075
:::xx:s::i
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(v) Subunit FL–12B (Longboat Key)
consists of approximately 369 ac (149
ha) of occupied beach, inlet, and
intertidal sandflats habitat in Sarasota
County on Longboat Key. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation or
hardened structures, including
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
uncovered at low tide. Lands within this
subunit are entirely in State ownership.
(vi) Map of Subunit FL–12B is
presented at paragraph (94)(ii) of this
entry.
(95) Unit FL–13: North Anna Maria
Island, Florida.
(i) Unit FL–13 consists of
approximately 945 ac (383 ha) of
occupied beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats habitat in Manatee County,
from the north point of Anna Maria
PO 00000
Frm 00215
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37623
Island south to Cortez Road West. The
landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands within this unit include
approximately 56 ac (23 ha) in Federal
ownership (Passage Key NWR) and 889
ac (360 ha) in State ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–13 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37624
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 77 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (95)(ii)
Critical Hc1.bitat for RUfa Red Knot
FL-,13 NorthAnna Maria Island, and FL-14 Egmont Key;.
Manatee County, Florida
·The background layer Is: for dlspti;y
.Major Road
purposes oofy: Ii may nl:/l accU!tately
riepresentlhe ~ynllmic sho.rellne
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
water Body
·erw1ro111nent
~ Critical Habitat
_J ·State Boundary
L.
(96) Unit FL–14: Egmont Key, Florida.
(i) Unit FL–14 consists of
approximately 15 ac (6 ha) of occupied
beach and intertidal sandflats habitat in
Manatee County, on the south end of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
--
0 0.4751.95
••
0 03250,65
1.9
u
2.85
3.8
iqfometel'S
Mlles
1.95
2.6
Egmont Key at the mouth of Tampa Bay.
The landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
PO 00000
Frm 00216
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands within this unit are
entirely under Federal ownership
(Egmont Key NWR).
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.076
-
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
(ii) Map of Unit FL–14 is presented at
paragraph (95)(ii) of this entry.
(97) Unit FL–15: Fort De Soto
Complex, Florida.
(i) Unit FL–15 consists of three
subunits comprising 856 ac (346 ha) of
occupied habitat in Pinellas County.
37625
This unit consists of State lands and
private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–15 follows:
Figure 78 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (97)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
Ft-15 Fort De Soto Complex; Pinellas County" Florida
J().t Roacf
·••···••··•··~r~y
rfttc;,.,Jftl•~~t
··•·: ..... ·. ·.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
·............
·,,.. ··.. ·-···-·-
Jkt 253001
• . . ···r~!~
•. .•.~.· J)r;'111••>Y.t
oo{y.; ft may ~
!ifth~:~rra,;t19
MVir()nff1et1fc.
••
O·. ~.;f!(U
PO 00000
Frm 00217
'La
Fmt 4701
2:,7
:tl
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.077
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Floric{a
37626
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(iii) Subunit FL–15A (Fort De Soto
County Park) consists of approximately
427 ac (173 ha) of occupied beach, inlet,
and intertidal sandflats habitat in
Pinellas County, from North Beach
south along the Gulf of Mexico to the
Fort De Soto Fishing Pier at the mouth
of Tampa Bay. The landward boundary
is the line indicating the beginning of
dense vegetation or hardened structures,
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. Lands within
this subunit are entirely in county
ownership (which is captured under the
private/other category) within Fort De
Soto County Park.
(iv) Map of Subunit FL–15A is
presented at paragraph (97)(ii) of this
entry.
(v) Subunit FL–15B (Shell Key
Preserve) consists of approximately 322
ac (130 ha) of occupied beach, inlet, and
intertidal sandflats habitat in Pinellas
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
County on Shell Key. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation, including
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. Lands within this
subunit are entirely in State/county
ownership (Shell Key Preserve).
(vi) Map of Subunit FL–15B is
presented at paragraph (97)(ii) of this
entry.
(vii) Subunit FL–15C (Saint
Petersburg Beach) consists of
approximately 107 ac (43 ha) of
occupied beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats habitat in Pinellas County on
Saint Petersburg Beach from 46th
Avenue south to 1st Avenue inclusive of
the inlet. The landward boundary is the
line indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
PO 00000
Frm 00218
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
low tide. Lands within this subunit are
entirely in State ownership.
(viii) Map of Subunit FL–15C is
presented at paragraph (97)(ii) of this
entry.
(98) Unit FL–16: Indian Shores/
Redington Beach, Florida.
(i) Unit FL–16 consists of
approximately 196 ac (79 ha) of
occupied beach, inlet, and intertidal
sandflats habitat in Pinellas County,
from the Indian Shores Florida Coastal
Range Monument R–086 at the north
end of the unit to the Redington Beach
Long Pier at the south end of the unit.
The landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands within this unit are
entirely in State ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–16 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37627
Figure 79 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (98)(ii)
Crittcaf Habltattor Rufa R.ed knot
FL.,..16 Jndian Shores/Redngton Beacf\ and FL-17 BeUeair Beach:
Pinellas County~ Florida
------'----'-----.....
Florida
Pinellas
County
The ~c*grQll1
JqrR
j)utposei .... ~: ~ tniiy rtcl ~ccuratelt
atjr:a¢y
~afHJP~
(99) Unit FL–17: Belleair Beach,
Florida.
(i) Unit FL–17 consists of
approximately 123 ac (50 ha) of
occupied beach, inlet, and intertidal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
enytr
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
> ·.·
· representtH~~n~i~sltotf3Jine ·
37628
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
(ii) Map of Unit FL–17 is presented at
paragraph (98)(ii) of this entry.
(100) Unit FL–18: Saint Joseph Sound
Complex, Florida.
(i) Unit FL–18 consists of three
subunits comprising 888 ac (360 ha) of
occupied habitat in Pinellas County.
This unit consists of State-owned lands.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–18 follows:
~.
Ile ba .· . · ·.. · .. ·.· taYeris
purposescnly; ltniaynota·
MaJor Road
.·water.~
t%a c~~•ff~iti!t
rflPlesenMtle dynart1lt shQ
·
enVlrOQrneot.
!J 0,475>;$: . U
. 2.115
:LS
l(ila~fer
r. ·....... lState Boundary -=-==---==::::.--Miles.
o 11'3250.66tj
1<95
2.6
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
•
PO 00000
·M
Frm 00220
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.079
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Figure 80 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (lOO)(ii)
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(iii) Subunit FL–18A (Caladesi Island)
consists of approximately 259 ac (105
ha) of occupied beach and intertidal
sandflats habitat in Pinellas County.
This subunit includes shoreline from
the southern boundary of Caladesi
Island State Park to Dunedin Pass. The
landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands in this subunit are
entirely in State ownership (Caladesi
Island State Park).
(iv) Map of Subunit FL–18A is
presented at paragraph (100)(ii) of this
entry.
(v) Subunit FL–18B (Honeymoon
Island) consists of approximately 294 ac
(119 ha) of occupied beach and
intertidal sandflats habitat in Pinellas
County. This subunit includes the Gulf
of Mexico shoreline in Honeymoon
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Island State Park from Dunedin Pass to
Hurricane Pass. The landward boundary
is the line indicating the beginning of
dense vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands in this subunit are
entirely in State ownership
(Honeymoon Island State Park).
(vi) Map of Subunit FL–18B is
presented at paragraph (100)(ii) of this
entry.
(vii) Subunit FL–18C (Three Rooker
Bar) consists of approximately 335 ac
(136 ha) of occupied beach and
intertidal sandflats habitat on Three
Rooker Island in Pinellas County. Three
Rooker Island includes shoreline from
Hurricane Pass to the northern tip of
Three Rooker Island. The landward
boundary is the line indicating the
beginning of dense vegetation, including
emergent, dynamic shoreline to MLLW
that is covered at high tide and
PO 00000
Frm 00221
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37629
uncovered at low tide. Lands in this
subunit are entirely State ownership
(Three Rooker Bar Wildlife Management
Area).
(viii) Map of Subunit FL–18C is
presented at paragraph (100)(ii) of this
entry.
(101) Unit FL–19: Anclote Key,
Florida.
(i) Unit FL–19 consists of
approximately 1,547 ac (626 ha) of
occupied beach and intertidal sandflats
habitat in Pasco County on Anclote Key.
The landward boundary is the line
indicating the beginning of dense
vegetation, including emergent,
dynamic shoreline to MLLW that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. Lands within this unit are
entirely in State ownership (Anclote
Key Preserve State Park).
(ii) Map of Unit FL–19 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37630
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 81 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (IOI)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
Fl-19 Anclote Key: Pasco County, Florida
Florida
Pasc0
County
backgro1.md !,ayer is for display
State Boundary
(102) Unit FL–20: Cedar Keys
Complex, Florida.
(i) Unit FL–20 consists of
approximately 35,626 ac (14,417 ha) of
occupied beach and intertidal sandflats
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
0 0.42!Ul5
M •
••
O (1::3 ll.6
U
·
2,55
U!
ti
3. 4
kilometer,
.
Mites
2.4
habitat in Levy County on Cedar Key,
including the complex of sandbars and
flats seaward. The landward boundary
is the line indicating the beginning of
dense vegetation or hardened structures,
PO 00000
Frm 00222
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
including emergent, dynamic shoreline
to MLLW that is covered at high tide
and uncovered at low tide. Lands within
this unit include approximately 2,498 ac
(1,012 ha) in Federal ownership (Cedar
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.080
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
purposes only: ~ may not accurately··
represent lhl! dYnamlc Shoreline
environment
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Keys NWR), 7,792 ac (3,153 ha) in State
ownership (Waccasassa Preserve State
Park), 5,928 ac (2,293 ha) in private/
37631
other ownership, and 19,407 ac (7,959
ha) that are uncategorized.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–20 follows:
Figure 82 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (102)(ii)
Critica I Habitat for Rufa R.eQ Knot
FL~20 Cedar Keys Complex: Levy county, Florida
FfOrlda
Levy
County
The. background layerJs for display
purposes on.ly; It may not accurately
representure dynamic shoreline
environment,
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Body
B::~~ Critlc:al Habitat
State 80Uhdary
(103) Unit FL–21: St. Marks National
Wildlife Refuge, Florida.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
0 1 2.
• •
• ,.
Ii 0. 5 1
4
6
8
· •
· !lllomttlif$
=::. . . . M~H
2
3
4
(i) Unit FL–21 consists of
approximately 2,074 ac (839 ha) of
occupied beach, inlets, shoals, intertidal
PO 00000
Frm 00223
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
mud, mud flats, and impoundments
habitat in Wakulla County. The unit
extends from the eastern boundary of
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.081
• ~ Major Road
37632
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Big Cove inlet west to the inlet west of
Lighthouse Pool and includes areas to
the north up to 1.25 mi (2 km) into East
River Pool. This unit includes from the
base of the berm road to the lowest
water level and areas up to 4 in (10 cm)
of water depth within Lighthouse Pool,
Picnic Pond, Tower Pond, Headquarters
Pond, Mounds Pools 1 and 2, Stoney
Bayou Pool 1, and within the open
water and emergent marsh portion of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
East River Pool and all shoals and
shoreline habitats within Sand Cove and
Minnie Cove. Areas to the east of
Lighthouse Road between Lighthouse
Pool and Picnic Pond, and areas to the
east of Picnic and Tower Ponds that
have the physical or biological features,
are also included. This unit includes
lands from MLLW to the landward limit
of the physical or biological features and
any ephemeral pools, or natural
PO 00000
Frm 00224
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
brackish ponds and any emergent sand
shoals in Apalachee Bay appearing near
shore within 3 mi (4.8 km) of the critical
habitat boundary found along the
southernmost portion of Lighthouse
Road and Lighthouse Levee Trail that
parallels Apalachee Bay. Lands within
this unit are entirely in Federal
ownership (St. Marks NWR).
(ii) Map of Unit FL–21 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37633
Figure 83 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (103)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
FL--21.St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge; wakulla County, Florida
Florida
Wakulla
County
St. Marts.
National Wildlille
· · Reruge.
~
The background layer is fur display
purposes .only; ~ may not. accurately
· represent t11e dynamic strorellne
envirornmmt.
Major Road
watereoay
~ . Crltleal Habitat
(104) Unit FL–22: Eastern Franklin
County Complex, Florida.
(i) Unit FL–22 consists of three
subunits comprising 1,429 ac (578 ha) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
occupied habitat in Wakulla and
Franklin Counties. This unit consists of
beaches within the areas of Apalachee
PO 00000
Frm 00225
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Bay, Dickson Bay, Ochlockonee Bay,
and Alligator Point.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–22 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.082
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
state Boundary
37634
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 84 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (104)(ii)
Critical Habitatfo r Rufa Red Knot
FL-22 Eastern Franklin. County Cornplex;
Wakulla.and Franklin Counties, Florida
Florida
Wakulla
County
Franklin
County
Major Road
VVater Body
~ · Critical Ha lit at
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
,·-·-·""I
.
t_,_.J County Boundary
State Boundary
(iii) Subunit FL–22A (Mashes Sands)
consists of approximately 262 ac (106
ha) of occupied beach, inlet, shoals, and
intertidal sandflats at Mashes Sands
Park beach, and the inlet and shoals of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
--
The background layer Is foc display
purpoliM ont)i; ii may not aci::uratety
representthe dynamlc.ahorallne ·
env! ronmeMt.
0 .1:tS 1
0 (t:3750.15
2
4
3
1.5
K.ilomeie,11
Miles
2. 25
3
Apalachee Bay, Dickson Bay, and
Ochlockonee Bay in Wakulla County,
from near Ochlockonee Point in
Ochlockonee Bay north towards
Dickson Bay. This subunit includes
PO 00000
Frm 00226
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
lands from MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic
beach and intertidal seashore that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide) to the landward boundary
indicated by the beginning of dense
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.083
~
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
vegetation or hardened structures. This
area includes any ephemeral pools,
lagoons, or natural brackish ponds and
any adjacent or near-shore emergent
sand shoals. Lands within this subunit
are all in State ownership but leased
and managed by Wakulla County.
(iv) Map of Subunit FL–22A is
presented at paragraph (104)(ii) of this
entry.
(v) Subunit FL–22B (Bald Point State
Park) consists of approximately 445 ac
(180 ha) of occupied beaches and shoals
habitat in Franklin County, from a dirt
road 0.35 mi (0.56 km) north of Marlin
Street to the north near Bald Point, and
including shoals within Ochlockonee
Bay approximately 0.9 mi (1.4 km) north
of Bald Point. This subunit includes
lands from MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic
beach and intertidal seashore that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide) to the landward boundary
indicated by the beginning of dense
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
vegetation or hardened structures. It
includes any ephemeral pools, lagoons,
or natural brackish ponds and any
adjacent or near-shore emergent sand
shoals. Lands within this subunit
include approximately 439 ac (178 ha)
in State ownership (Bald Point State
Park) and 6 ac (2 ha) in private/other
ownership.
(vi) Map of Subunit FL–22B is
presented at paragraph (104)(ii) of this
entry.
(vii) Subunit FL–22C (Alligator Point)
consists of approximately 722 ac (292
ha) of occupied beaches at Alligator
Point and John S. Phipps Preserve, and
shoals in Franklin County, from 0.07 mi
(0.11 km) east of Florida Coastal Range
Monument 210 west to the shoals
associated with the northwestern end of
the point. This subunit includes lands
from MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic beach
and intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide) to
PO 00000
Frm 00227
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37635
the landward boundary indicated by the
beginning of dense vegetation or
hardened structures. It includes any
ephemeral pools, lagoons, or natural
brackish ponds and any adjacent or
near-shore emergent sand shoals. Lands
within this subunit are entirely in
private/other ownership (John S. Phipps
Preserve, managed by the TNC).
(viii) Map of Subunit FL–22C is
presented at paragraph (104)(ii) of this
entry.
(105) Unit FL–23: Central Franklin
County Complex, Florida.
(i) Unit FL–23 consists of seven
subunits comprising 4,175 ac (1,689 ha)
of occupied habitat in Franklin County.
This unit consists of beaches and barrier
island areas of St. George Sound
shoreline, the Carrabelle River outlet,
Boggy Jordan Bayou outlet, Dog Island,
and St. George Island.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–23 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37636
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 85 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (105)(ii)
Critical·Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
FL-23 Central Franklin County .Complex; Franklin Countyt Flo.rida
Florida
rranklin
County
The background iayer is fordisplay
purposes only; rt may not accurately
represent. the dynamic s:hO!llline
_...,.,. Major Road
Water Body
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
State Boundary
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C
(iii) Subunit FL–23A (Turkey Point
Shoal) consists of approximately 531 ac
(215 ha) of occupied habitat, including
emergent, isolated shoal habitat within
the Gulf of Mexico and St. George
Sound, Franklin County. This subunit
includes emergent shoals approximately
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
environment
o 1 2
•
s
a
■ ::IMICJI-C:::::::IMMI-Kilo Mele(S
-
-=:J-=::i-■-===--•Miie11.
0 (J.75 1.5
:,
4.5
6
1 mi (1.5 km) south of Turkey Point.
This subunit includes lands from
MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic beach and
intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide) to
the landward limit of the physical or
biological features, including any
PO 00000
Frm 00228
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ephemeral pools, lagoons, and emergent
sand shoals adjacent to the island or
reef. All lands within this subunit are in
State ownership.
(iv) Map of Subunit FL–23A is
presented at paragraph (105)(ii) of this
entry.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.084
fa:21 Critical Habitat
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(v) Subunit FL–23B (Lanark Reef)
consists of approximately 865 ac (350
ha) of occupied beach and intertidal
shoreline habitat of Lanark Reef in St.
George Island Sound off the coast of
Franklin County. This subunit includes
lands from MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic
beach and intertidal seashore that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide) to the landward limit of the
physical or biological features,
including any ephemeral pools, lagoons,
and emergent sand shoals within 3 mi
(4.8 km) of the island or reef. Lands
within this subunit include 805 ac (326
ha) in State ownership and 61 ac (25 ha)
in private/other ownership.
(vi) Map of Subunit FL–23B is
presented at paragraph (105)(ii) of this
entry.
(vii) Subunit FL–23C (East Dog Island)
consists of approximately 771 ac (312
ha) of occupied beach shoreline and
shoals on East Dog Island off the coast
of Franklin County. The subunit is from
midway between Florida Coastal Range
Monuments 168 and 169 east to the tip
of the island and extending around the
tip to include St. George Sound
shoreline and shoals approximately
horizontal to Florida Coastal Range
Monument 190. This subunit includes
lands from MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic
beach and intertidal seashore that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide) to the landward boundary
indicated by the beginning of dense
vegetation or hardened structures, and
also includes ephemeral pools, lagoons,
natural brackish ponds, and any
adjacent or near-shore emergent sand
shoals. Lands within this subunit are
entirely private/other ownership
(including the Jeff Lewis Wilderness
Preserve, which is owned/managed by
the TNC).
(viii) Map of Subunit FL–23C is
presented at paragraph (105)(ii) of this
entry.
(ix) Subunit FL–23D (West Dog
Island) consists of approximately 751 ac
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(304 ha) of occupied habitat on West
Dog Island in Franklin County. This
subunit includes the entirety of this
island from the eastern boundary at the
Gulf of Mexico shoreline midway
between Florida Coastal Range
Monuments 168 and 169 and west 3.1
mi (5 km) to East Pass. This subunit
includes lands from MLLW (i.e., highly
dynamic beach and intertidal seashore
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide) to the landward
boundary indicated by the beginning of
dense vegetation or hardened structures,
as well as ephemeral and emergent sand
shoals appearing in the near shore.
Lands within this subunit are entirely in
private/other ownership, including the
Jeff Lewis Wilderness Preserve that is
owned/managed by the TNC.
(x) Map of Subunit FL–23D is
presented at paragraph (105)(ii) of this
entry.
(xi) Subunit FL–23E (McKissack
Beach, Carrabelle) consists of
approximately 117 ac (47 ha) of
occupied habitat along McKissack
Beach and Marsh in Carrabelle and
associated shoals in Franklin County,
from 0.18 mi (0.30 km) east of the
intersection of U.S. Highway 98 and
Cape Street east to the cove that forms
the outlet of Boggy Jordan Bayou. This
subunit includes lands from MLLW (i.e.,
highly dynamic beach and intertidal
seashore that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide) to the landward
boundary indicated by the beginning of
dense vegetation or hardened structures,
as well as any ephemeral and emergent
sand shoals appearing in the near shore.
Lands within this subunit include 114
ac (46 ha) in State ownership (the
Florida Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Fund, although the City of
Carrabelle retains a lease on McKissack
Beach and Marsh), and 3 ac (1 ha) in
private/other ownership.
(xii) Map of Subunit FL–23E is
presented at paragraph (105)(ii) of this
entry.
PO 00000
Frm 00229
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37637
(xiii) Subunit FL–23F (East St. George
Island State Park) consists of
approximately 978 ac (396 ha) of
occupied habitat within Dr. Julian G.
Bruce St. George Island State Park Beach
in Franklin County, from Florida
Coastal Range Monument 105 to the
eastern tip of the island at East Pass.
This subunit includes lands from
MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic beach and
intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide) to
the landward boundary indicated by the
beginning of dense vegetation or
hardened structures. All lands within
this subunit are in State ownership (East
St. George Island State Park).
(xiv) Map of Subunit FL–23F is
presented at paragraph (105)(ii) of this
entry.
(xv) Subunit FL–23G (St. George
Island State Park and Bayshore Shoals)
consists of approximately 162 ac (65 ha)
of occupied habitat on Goose Island and
associated shoals in Franklin County.
This subunit includes lands from
MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic beach and
intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide) to
the landward limit of the physical and
biological features, including ephemeral
pools, lagoons, and any emergent sand
shoals adjacent to the island. All lands
within this subunit are in State
ownership (St. George Island State
Park).
(xvi) Map of Subunit FL–23G is
presented at paragraph (105)(ii) of this
entry.
(106) Unit FL–24: St. Vincent
National Wildlife Refuge Complex,
Florida.
(i) Unit FL–24 consists of three
subunits comprising 2,212 ac (895 ha) of
occupied habitat in Franklin and Gulf
Counties. This unit consists of beaches
of Apalachicola Bay, St. Vincent Sound,
Indian Pass, St. Vincent Island, and
Flagg Island.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–24 follows:
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37638
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 86 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (106)(ii)
Critical l-labitat for Rufa Red Knot
FL--24 St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge Complex;
Franklin and Gulf Counties, Florida
Franklin
Florida
County
Gulf
County
st. Vincent
National
1/Vih::llile Refuge
-Major Road
the background layer is for display
purposes only; it may.notact:urately
tepresellil ltie dynamic shoreline
envkonment.
\Nater.BOdy
CrttiealH abitat
1 - 2r::::::::a
3[~:] County Boundary O.::a:::J1
(iii) Subunit FL–24A (Little St. George
Island State Park-West) consists of
approximately 953 ac (386 ha) of
occupied habitat on Little St. George
Island beach and shoals in Franklin
County, from West Pass east to Florida
Coastal Range Monument 25 and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
including bayside beach from West Pass
east to the point at the Marshall Dock.
This subunit includes lands from
MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic beach and
intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide) to
the landward boundary indicated by the
PO 00000
Frm 00230
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
beginning of dense vegetation or
hardened structures, and includes
ephemeral pools, natural brackish
ponds, and emergent sand shoals
appearing in the near shore of the Gulf
or Apalachicola Bay. All lands within
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.085
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
State Boundary
4Kilom:tte,s
••c:il•c::a--==--Ml.les
o o.s 1
2
3
4
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
this subunit are in State ownership
(Little St. George Island State Park).
(iv) Map of Subunit FL–24A is
presented at paragraph (106)(ii) of this
entry.
(v) Subunit FL–24B (St. Vincent
National Wildlife Refuge) consists of
approximately 742 ac (300 ha) of
occupied beach and shoals habitat on
the St. Vincent NWR in Franklin and
Gulf Counties, from the Refuge boat
house at the confluence of St. Vincent
Sound and Indian Pass east to 0.60 mi
(0.96 km) north of Shell Road. This
subunit includes lands from MLLW (i.e.,
highly dynamic beach and intertidal
seashore that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide) to the landward
boundary indicated by the beginning of
dense vegetation or hardened structures,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
including ephemeral pools, natural
brackish ponds, and emergent sand
shoals appearing in the near shore of the
Gulf. Lands within this subunit are all
in Federal ownership (St. Vincent
NWR).
(vi) Map of Subunit FL–24B is
presented at paragraph (106)(ii) of this
entry.
(vii) Subunit FL–24C (Flagg Island
Shoals) consists of approximately 517 ac
(209 ha) of occupied habitat that
encompasses the entire ebb-tidal delta
referred to as Flagg Island off the
southernmost tip of St. Vincent Island
(near Oyster Pond outfall) in Franklin
County. This subunit includes lands
from MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic beach
and intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide) to
PO 00000
Frm 00231
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37639
the landward limit of the physical or
biological features, including ephemeral
pools, natural brackish ponds, and
emergent sand shoals. All lands within
this subunit (which constantly change
in size and shape due to the dynamic
nature of the area) are in State
ownership.
(viii) Map of Subunit FL–24C is
presented at paragraph (106)(ii) of this
entry.
(107) Unit FL–25: Gulf County
Complex, Florida.
(i) Unit FL–25 consists of two
subunits comprising 1,520 ac (616 ha) of
occupied habitat in Gulf County. This
unit consists of beaches of Cape San
Blas, Money, and Indian Pass, and the
southeastern portion of St. Joseph Bay.
(ii) Map of Unit FL–25 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37640
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 87 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (107)(ii)
Critical Habitat. tor Rufa Red Knot
FL-25. Gulf county complex; Gulf County. Florida
Florida
Gulf
County
The ~ekground 1,11yer is kif display
purp0$E!S i:lll!y; 11 may not acct.rately
~ . Major Road
representthe d)mamlt lihnlna
water Body
enll'lrOllment
@;,;;;?a Critical Habitat
(iii) Subunit FL–25A (Cape San Blas
to Indian Pass) consists of
approximately 620 ac (251 ha) of
occupied beach habitat at Cape San
Blas, Money Bayou, and Indian Pass
beaches in Gulf County, from the
southwestern point of Cape San Blas to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
.o 0:31511.15
0.11 mi (0.18 km) northeast of the
Indian Pass Beach Boat Ramp. This
subunit includes lands from MLLW (i.e.,
highly dynamic beach and intertidal
seashore that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide) to the landward
limit of the physical or biological
PO 00000
Frm 00232
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
features, including ephemeral pools,
natural brackish ponds, and emergent
sand shoals in the near shore. Lands
within this subunit include 133 ac (54
ha) in State ownership and 486 ac (197
ha) in private/other ownership.
Adjacent Federal lands under Eglin Air
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.086
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
State Boundary
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Force Base jurisdiction are exempt
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, but the
shoal and any emergent shoal
formations that appear along the
shoreline are considered part of this
unit, starting from the MLLW south and
up 0.5 mi (0.81 km) from Eglin Air
Force Base lands on the southern-most
side of Cape San Blas.
(iv) Map of Subunit FL–25A is
presented at paragraph (107)(ii) of this
entry.
(v) Subunit FL–25B (St. Joseph BayEastern Shore) consists of
approximately 827 ac (335 ha) of
occupied beaches and shoals within the
southeastern portion of St. Joseph Bay
in Gulf County, from 0.09 mi (0.14 km)
east of the intersection of County Road
30A and Cape San Blas Road to the west
0.66 mi (1.1 km) and to the north 2.4 mi
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(3.8 km). This subunit includes lands
from MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic beach
and intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide) to
the landward limit of the physical or
biological features, including ephemeral
pools, natural brackish ponds, lagoons,
and emergent sand shoals in the near
shore. Lands within this subunit
include 761 ac (308 ha) in State
ownership (St. Joseph Bay State Buffer
Preserve) and 66 ac (27 ha) in private/
other ownership.
(vi) Map of Subunit FL–25B is
presented at paragraph (107)(ii) of this
entry.
(108) Unit AL–1: Dauphin Island,
Alabama.
(i) Unit AL–1 consists of
approximately 5,164 ac (2,091 ha) of
occupied habitat on Dauphin Island, a
PO 00000
Frm 00233
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37641
barrier island south of Mobile Bay in
Mobile County. The unit includes all of
Dauphin Island from the historic 19th
Century Fort Gaines site on the eastern
side of the island, continuing
approximately 16 mi (26 km) west to the
MLLW on the western most tip, and all
of Little Dauphin Island (which is
uninhabited) to MLLW. Lands within
this unit include approximately 484 ac
(196 ha) in Federal ownership (Bon
Secour NWR), 848 ac (343 ha) in State
ownership (Shell Mound Park or Indian
Mound Park, and a newly acquired
habitat conservation area on the west
end of the island), and 3,834 ac (1,552
ha) in private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit AL–1 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37642
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 88 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (108)(ii)
--
·.··
.......... .
· rtticalHabitattor•·Rr
(109) Unit MS–1: Ship Island,
Mississippi.
(i) Unit MS–1 consists of
approximately 2,452 ac (993 ha) of
occupied habitat on Ship Island in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Harrison County. The unit consists of
emergent lands and intertidal area to
MLLW on the island and its adjacent
sand shoals (i.e., highly dynamic
beaches and intertidal seashore that is
PO 00000
Frm 00234
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This unit is all under Federal
ownership (Gulf Islands National
Seashore).
(ii) Map of Unit MS–1 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.087
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
i)·····i;_::.:,\::.:· /:· i<:·;;. >:.<- ·. :_·. ·:·> ;.:··\~:( ·-,-(·i·;. '."•·: : .''.' ·;
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37643
Figure 89 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (109)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
MS-f Ship 1sland and MS:-2 Cat lsla:nd; Harrison County, Mississippi
Mississippi
The bac:kgroul'ld layer is for display
purposes, onty: ~ may not :accurately
represent the dynamic stioreline
enVironment
Major Road
water Body
Critical Habitat
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
State Boundary
(110) Unit MS–2: Cat Island,
Mississippi.
(i) Unit MS–2 consists of
approximately 2,121 ac (858 ha) of
occupied habitat on Cat Island in
Harrison County. This unit consists of
emergent lands and intertidal area to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
0
1
w w
0 U 1
a
a
-1
2
el
:::li:a.:ia
37644
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
(i) Unit LA–1 consists of
approximately 7,632 ac (3,088 ha) of
occupied habitat in St. Bernard Parish.
The unit includes all emergent lands to
MLLW on the Chandeleur Islands and
their adjacent sand shoals (i.e., highly
dynamic beaches and intertidal seashore
that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide). All lands in this
unit are federally owned (Breton NWR,
and designated wilderness area created
as a refuge and breeding ground for
resident and migratory birds).
(ii) Map of Unit LA–1 follows:
Figure 90 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (11 l)(ii)
Critical Habi.tat for .Ruta Red Knot
LA-1 Chandeleur Islands; St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana
The beckgro.md layer is for display
purposes only; rt may not accurately
rel)fesent the dynamic shoreline
Water Body
~
environment
Critical Habitat
o
State Boundary
w w
•
1 2
•
0 0.75 1.5
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00236
s
4
==:
3
Fmt 4701
e
l
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
-Major Road
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(112) Unit LA–2: Barataria Barrier
Islands and Headlands, Louisiana.
(i) Unit LA–2 consists of
approximately 7,795 ac (3,155 ha) of
occupied habitat within Plaquemines,
Jefferson, and Lafourche Parishes,
including emergent lands and/or sand
shoals to MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic
beaches and intertidal seashore that is
covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide). This unit includes: Emergent
lands of Lanaux and Shell Islands to
MLLW in Plaquemines Parish; emergent
sand shoals of Grand Bayou Pass in
Plaquemines Parish; the Gulf of Mexico
shoreline to MLLW between Grand
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Bayou Pass and Quatre Bayou Pass
(known as the Chaland Headland and
Chenier Ronquille); emergent sand
shoals of Bastian Bay, Bay Joe Wise,
Chaland Pass, and Bayou Cheniere
Ronquille in Plaquemines Parish; all
emergent lands of the Grand Terre
Islands and adjacent unnamed island to
MLLW between Quatre Bayou Pass and
Barataria Pass in Plaquemines and
Jefferson Parishes; the Gulf of Mexico
shoreline of Grand Isle from the toe of
the Gulf-side hurricane protection levee
to MLLW in Jefferson Parish; the west
side of the Caminada Pass shoreline and
the Gulf of Mexico shoreline to MLLW
PO 00000
Frm 00237
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37645
beginning just north of Louisiana
Highway 1 in Caminada Pass extending
approximately 15 mi (24 km) westward
to the east side of Belle Pass (known as
the Caminada Headland, which
includes the LDWF’s Elmer’s Island
Wildlife Refuge) in Jefferson and
Lafourche Parishes; and all emergent
lands of the West Belle Pass peninsula
to the MLLW. Lands within this unit
include approximately 126 ac (51 ha) in
State ownership (Grand Isle State Park)
and 7,669 ac (3,104 ha) in private/other
ownership (including Elmer’s Island
Wildlife Refuge).
(ii) Map of Unit LA–2 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37646
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 91 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (l 12)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
LA-2 Barataria Barrier Islands and Headlands; Plaquemines, Jefferson
and Lafourche Parishes, Louisiana
Louisiana
Jefferson
~.Major Road
The backgroun(jla:ye:r lsf« displi!y
purposes onty; rt may not a:cci.ntely
represent the dynaml¢ sh«ellne ·
enVironment
~·Critical Habitat
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
County Boundary
state Boundary
(113) Unit LA–3: Terrebonne Barrier
Islands, Louisiana.
(i) Unit LA–3 consists of
approximately 5,072 ac (2,052 ha) of
occupied habitat within Lafourche and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
-- -
0 2.254.5
-=-
0
1.5 3
9
13c!i
1&
Kilometers
Mil'es
(i
9
12
Terrebonne Parishes, including
emergent lands and/or sand shoals to
MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic beaches
and intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide).
PO 00000
Frm 00238
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
This unit includes: Emergent lands on
East Timbalier Island in Lafourche
Parish; emergent sand shoals at Little
Pass Timbalier in Jefferson Parish;
emergent lands of Timbalier Island (also
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.090
Water Body
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
known as Big or West Timbalier Island)
in Terrebonne Parish; and emergent
lands and associated sand shoals on
East, Trinity, Whiskey, and Raccoon
Islands (known as the Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Isles Dernieres Barrier Islands Refuge) in
Terrebonne Parish. Lands within this
unit include approximately 2,890 ac
(1,173 ha) in State ownership (Isles
37647
Dernieres Barrier Islands Refuge) and
2,172 ac (879 ha) in private/other
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit LA–3 follows:
Figure 92 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (113)(ii)
Critica I Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
LA-3Terrebone Barrrer Islands; Lafourche and Terrebone Parishes,
Louisiana
Lafourche
Louisiana
Terrebone
Parish
The background layer is fa- di31)l8'/
purposes onl)t: it may not accl.l"attfy
represent the d:,1"1amic shore4ine
Ell1vironmerit
~ Critical Habitat
1·-·-·-:
,._, ___! County Boundary
State Boundary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
0 2 4
•
•
!l
12
16
::IMlllllll
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
water Body
37648
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(114) Unit LA–4: Southwest Louisiana
Beaches, Louisiana.
(i) Unit LA–4 consists of
approximately 6,130 ac (2,481 ha) of
occupied habitat within Cameron and
Vermillion Parishes. The unit includes
land along the Gulf of Mexico shoreline
to the MLLW (i.e., highly dynamic
intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
from the eastern Vermilion Parish line
starting at the eastern boundary of the
Audubon Society’s Paul J. Rainey
Wildlife Sanctuary, extending
approximately 128 mi (206 km)
westward and terminating at Louisiana
Point, and also including its associated
sand/mud shoals on the east side of
Sabine Pass in Cameron Parish. Along
its entire length, the unit includes the
PO 00000
Frm 00240
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
shoreline beach from the MLLW line
landward to the edge of where dense
vegetation begins. Lands within this
unit include approximately 1,497 ac
(606 ha) in State ownership (Rockefeller
Wildlife Refuge) and 4,633 ac (1,875 ha)
in private/other ownership (including
the Paul J. Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary,
managed by the Audubon Society).
(ii) Map of Unit LA–4 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37649
Figure 93 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (114)(ii)
Critical Habitat for RUfa Red Knot
LA-4 Southwest Louisiana Beaches; Cameron and
Vermillion Parishes, Louisiana
Cameron
Parish
\.
l
!I
Vermillion
Parish
l
I(
=-=-=-= Major Road
\Nater Body
The bad2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
0
5
10
20
30
40
••=-•-=--ic:::::.:::a-.wKilcm,1trs
w .M
c:::.=.
0 4.25 11.5
17
25:5
Miles
34
ending at the north jetty on the Bolivar
Peninsula. It includes 17 mi (27 km) of
Gulf shoreline. The landward boundary
is the line indicating the beginning of
dense vegetation, and the gulf-side
boundary is the MLLW, including
emergent lands and intertidal area
PO 00000
Frm 00241
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
characterized as highly dynamic beach/
seashore that is covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide. The west end of
the unit includes lands known as wind
tidal flats that are infrequently
inundated. Specific habitat types within
this unit include: Estuarine (bayside)
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.092
1·-""..:..."'-:.
37650
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
due to tidal fluctuation; estuarine
(bayside) sandy shore (beach/sandbar)
that is irregularly or regularly,
depending upon the location, inundated
by tides; and marine sandy coastline
(beach) irregularly or regularly
inundated by tides, depending upon the
seagrass mud or sand flats that are
subtidal, seagrass flats that are nearly
flat areas with rooted vascular plants
(seagrass) growing below the water
surface in subtidal mud or sand
substrate; estuarine (bayside) sandy
shore (beach/sandbar) rarely exposed
location. Lands within this unit include
approximately 268 ac (108 ha) in State
ownership and 996 ac (403 ha) in
private/other ownership (includes the
Bolivar Flats Bird Sanctuary).
(ii) Map of Unit TX–1 follows:
Figure 94 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (l 15)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
TX-1 Rollover Pass to Bolivar Flats; Galveston County, Texa.s
The background layer Is for dispt1y
purpOlff ooiy; 11 mry not acw~1$1y
represent the dyhamlc shoreline
anvlrooment
1.10,l!it!i
State Boundary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
■:•
••
0 ();5 1
PO 00000
Frm 00242
3
,ts
2
3
Fmt 4701
'
i
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Texas
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(116) Unit TX–2: West Galveston
Island, Texas.
(i) Unit TX–2 consists of
approximately 590 ac (238 ha) of
occupied habitat in Galveston County.
The unit is along the gulf with
boundaries from the MLLW up to the
vegetation line, including emergent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
lands and intertidal area characterized
as highly dynamic beach/seashore that
is covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. The northeastern boundary is
the end of the Seawall Boulevard (end
of the seawall), and the southwestern
boundary is San Luis Pass. Specific
habitat types within this unit include
PO 00000
Frm 00243
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37651
marine sandy coastline beach that is
irregularly or regularly inundated by
tides, depending upon the location.
Lands within this unit include
approximately 307 ac (124 ha) in State
ownership and 283 ac (114 ha) in
private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit TX–2 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37652
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 95 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (116)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
TX-2 \iVestGatveston Island; Galveston County,Texas
Texas
Galveston
County
The backgroond layer .Is tor display
purposes ooty; it may not accurately
representtne. dynamic stiorelln.e
. ~ Major Road
Water Body
environment,
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
state Boundary
(117) Unit TX–3: Cedar Lake to
Colorado River, Texas.
(i) Unit TX–3 consists of
approximately 1,203 ac (487 ha) of
occupied habitat in Matagorda County.
The unit is along the gulf with
boundaries from the MLLW up to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
0 CUHS
• •
I- LS
1
~
2
4,5
I
6
l'illomettrt
I IYtilt:$
vegetation line, including emergent
lands and intertidal area characterized
as highly dynamic beach/seashore that
is covered at high tide and uncovered at
low tide. The northeastern boundary is
the south side of Cedar Lake Cut, and
the southwestern boundary is near the
PO 00000
Frm 00244
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Colorado River. Specific habitat types
within this unit include marine sandy
coastline beach that is irregularly or
regularly inundated by tides, depending
upon the location. Lands within this
unit include 1,075 ac (432 ha) in State
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.094
Critical Habl.tat
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
ownership and 128 ac (52 ha) in private/
other ownership.
37653
(ii) Map of Unit TX–3 follows:
Figure 96 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (l l 7)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
TX-3 Cedar Lake to Colorado River; Matagorda County, Texas
Texas
San Bernard
Nationar
WHdllfe Refuge
Matagorda
County
N
Major Road
Water Body
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
~ Critical Habitat
State Boundary
A
•.~:~===~~~~~==-Kilometers
0 1.5 3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
6
9
12:
Miles
0
(118) Unit TX–4: Mustang Island,
Texas.
(i) Unit TX–4 consists of
approximately 648 ac (262 ha) of
The background layer is for display
purposes only; i.tmay not accurately
repfesent the dynamic shoreline
·
environment
1 2
4
6
8
occupied habitat in Nueces County. The
unit is along the gulf with boundaries
from the MLLW up to the vegetation
line, including emergent lands and
PO 00000
Frm 00245
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
intertidal area characterized as highly
dynamic beach/seashore that is covered
at high tide and uncovered at low tide.
The northern boundary is the south jetty
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.095
=-=-=-=i
37654
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
at Port Aransas, and the southern
boundary is the north jetty of Packery
Channel. Specific habitat types within
this unit include marine sandy coastline
beach that is irregularly or regularly
inundated by tides, depending upon the
location. Lands within this unit include
approximately 395 ac (160 ha) in State
ownership and 253 ac (102 ha) in
private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit TX–4 follows:
Figure 97 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (l 18)(ii)
Critica I Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
TX-4 Mustang Island; Nueces County, Texas
The backgroond layeris for display
purposes on.~; It may not accurately
represent the dynamic sMoreline
envirooment
~@c.ritlcal Hal:litat
state Boundary
0 0.751.5
•:a:
MM'.
3
0 O.!i 1
(119) Unit TX–5: Mollie Beattie
Coastal Habitat, Texas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
4.5
6
Killimeterli:
Mil@II
2
3
4
(i) Unit TX–5 consists of
approximately 723 ac (293 ha) of
PO 00000
Frm 00246
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
occupied habitat in Nueces County.
This unit is located north of Packery
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.096
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
- - MaJor Road
Water eody
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Channel and extends along the bayside
west of Sylvan Beach Park west of Texas
State Highway 361. The northern
boundary is the Corpus Christi Pass
with the southern boundary
approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) south of
Corpus Christi Pass. The eastern
boundary is where the dense vegetation
begins, and the western boundary is the
MLLW (i.e., the highly dynamic beach
and intertidal seashore that is covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
This unit includes two hurricane
washover passes known as Newport and
Corpus Christi Passes in areas where
wind tidal flats are infrequently
inundated, and bayside flats that are
exposed during low tide regimes and
wind tidal flats that are infrequently
inundated. The unit does not include
densely vegetated habitat within these
boundaries, but it includes all seagrass
beds exposed at low tides. Specific
habitat types within this unit include:
PO 00000
Frm 00247
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37655
Estuarine (bayside) sandy shore/beach/
sandbar that is irregularly or regularly,
depending upon the location, inundated
by tides; and estuarine (bayside) sandy
shore (beach/sandbar) and spoils
irregularly inundated by tides. Lands
within this unit include approximately
505 ac (205 ha) in State ownership and
218 ac (88 ha) in private/other
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit TX–5 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
37656
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Figure 98 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (119)(ii)
Critical Habitc\t forRufa Reel Knot
TX-5 Mollie Beattie Coastal Habitat, f\Jueces County, Texas
Water Body
f::2;~ Critical Habitat
s1ate Boundary
The background layer is for display
purposes. only: ~ may not accurately •
represent tl1 e dynamic sh Of'l!lline
environment
0 0.2 0.4
CUI
1.2
1.6
•
•
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
0 0.16 0:3
(120) Unit TX–6: North Padre Island,
Texas.
(i) Unit TX–6 consists of
approximately 2,817 ac (1,140 ha) of
occupied habitat in Nueces, Kleberg,
Kenedy, and Willacy Counties. The unit
is along the gulf with boundaries from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
K.iloll'leter&
-=:a:::=---====--•Miles
0.6
0.9
1.2
the MLLW up to the vegetation line, to
include emergent lands and intertidal
area characterized as highly dynamic
beach/seashore that is covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide. The
northern boundary is the south side of
Packery Channel extending along the
PO 00000
Frm 00248
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Gulf shoreline to Port Mansfield East
Cut. Specific habitat types within this
unit include marine sandy coastline
beach that is irregularly or regularly
inundated by tides, depending upon the
location. Lands within this unit include
approximately 2,487 ac (1,007 ha) in
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.097
::azx:a Major Road
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Federal ownership (Padre Island
National Seashore), 68 ac (27 ha) in
State ownership, and 262 ac (106 ha) in
private/other ownership.
37657
(ii) Map of Unit TX–6 follows:
Figure 99 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (120)(ii)
·. Criti~~rH~bitat f9t Rµf' R~ .Knot . . ·. . .
i:")(-43 P~n:tre.1~rtln<:t:· Nyece~, Kfetl~rg, K~neay an.c:t
·Willacy Counties. Texas
·
~·MajorRoad
The background layer is for display
purposes only; it may notaca.ntetf
water Sooy
represent the dynamic shoreline
county 8ooildaiy
State Bounoaiy
(121) Unit TX–7: Upper Laguna
Madre/Nighthawk Bay, Texas.
(i) Unit TX–7 consists of
approximately 1,157 ac (469 ha) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
-·-
tI 4.i5 !Hi
0
:t25 6.5
.environment
19
28.5
38
Ki!omet.irs
Mite$
13
19.5
26
occupied habitat in Kleberg County. The
unit is along the bayside of Texas Park
Road 22. The northeastern boundary is
the northern edge of the Kleberg County
PO 00000
Frm 00249
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
line in Nighthawk Bay, and the
southwestern boundary ends bayside of
Bird Island Basin Road. This unit
includes a series of small flats along the
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.098
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
EW;J Critical Habitat
37658
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
bayside of Padre Island in the Upper
Laguna Madre. The unit includes
bayside flats and seagrass beds that are
exposed during low tide regimes and
wind tidal flats that are infrequently
inundated. Specific habitat types within
this unit include: Estuarine (bayside)
seagrass mud or sand flats that are
subtidal, seagrass flats that are nearly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
flat areas with rooted vascular plants
(seagrass) growing below the water
surface in subtidal mud or sand
substrate; estuarine (bayside) sandy
shore (beach/sandbar) rarely exposed
due to tidal fluctuation; and estuarine
(bayside) sandy shore (beach/sandbar)
that is irregularly or regularly inundated
by tide, depending upon the location.
PO 00000
Frm 00250
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Lands within this unit include
approximately 273 ac (111 ha) in
Federal ownership (Padre Island
National Seashore), 816 ac (330 ha) in
State ownership, and 68 ac (28 ha) in
private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit TX–7 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37659
Figure 100 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (121)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
TX-7 Upper Laguna Madre/Nighthawk Bay; Kleberg County, Texas
Texas
Kleberg
County
The backgro1md layer is .for display
purposes ohfy; tmay not accurately •·
represent the dynamic Shorelit1e
environment. ·
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
water B.cdy.
Critical Habitat
0 0.425t85
State Boundary
•· •
(122) Unit TX–8: Dagger Hill/
Yarborough Pass/Nine Mile Hole, Texas.
(i) Unit TX–8 consists of
approximately 32,773 ac (13,270 ha) of
occupied habitat in Kleberg and Kenedy
Counties. The unit is located bayside
along and within the Laguna Madre
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
a::.:
0
(f3 0.6
1J!
,Ui!i
t2
3.4
Kii~melers
1.8
l\ilit•
2. 4
adjacent to the west side of the Padre
Island National Seashore. The northern
boundary of the unit is Dagger Hill, and
the southern boundary is approximately
6 mi (9.7 km) south of the land cut at
Nine Mile Hole. The eastern boundary
of this unit is the dense vegetation line
PO 00000
Frm 00251
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
on the bayside of the Padre Island
National Seashore. The western
boundary extends toward the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway to the MLLW
(i.e., the highly dynamic beach and
emergent sand shoals that are covered at
high tide and uncovered at low tide).
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.099
=-=-=- Major Road
37660
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
The southern portion of this unit
extends across the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway dredge spoil islands. The unit
includes bayside flats and all seagrass
beds that are exposed during low tide
regimes and wind tidal flats that are
infrequently inundated. Specific habitat
types within this unit include: Estuarine
(bayside) seagrass mud or sand flats that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
are subtidal and are nearly flat areas
with rooted vascular plants (seagrass)
growing below the water surface in
subtidal mud or sand substrate;
estuarine (bayside) sandy shore (beach/
sandbar) that is irregularly or regularly
inundated by tides, depending upon the
location; and estuarine (bayside) sandy
shore (beach/sandbar) and spoils
PO 00000
Frm 00252
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
irregularly inundated by tides. Lands
within this unit include approximately
9,731 ac (3,938 ha) in Federal
ownership (Padre Island National
Seashore) and 23,042 ac (9,332 ha) in
State ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit TX–8 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37661
Figure 101 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (122)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
TX-8 Dagger Hill/Yarborough Pass/Nine Mile Hole;
Kleberg and Kenedy Counties, Texas
Texas
Kenedy
County
Major Road
The bact2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
-
envl ronrnent
0 1.75.3,5
7
•
0
1
14
10..5
Kiloll\$1Ji)(S
Mites
2
4
6
8
and Cameron Counties. The northern
boundary is Pintail Cut, extending south
along the bay side of North Padre and
South Padre Islands, with the southern
boundary being Andy Bowie County
PO 00000
Frm 00253
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Park. The center of the unit is
approximately at Port Mansfield East
Cut. North of the East Cut the western
boundary is the MLLW (i.e., the highly
dynamic beach and emergent sand
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.100
~
37662
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
shoals that are covered at high tide and
uncovered at low tide), and the eastern
boundary is where dense vegetation
begins. South of East Cut the western
boundary is the MLLW, and the eastern
boundary includes the beach side Gulf
of Mexico out to the MLLW. The unit
includes bayside flats and seagrass beds
that are exposed during low tide
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
regimes, and wind tidal flats that are
infrequently inundated. Specific habitat
types within this unit include: Estuarine
(bayside) algal mud or sand flats
irregularly inundated by tides; estuarine
(bayside) sandy shore (beach/sandbar)
regularly inundated by tides; and
estuarine (bayside) sandy shore (beach/
sandbar); and marine sandy coastline
PO 00000
Frm 00254
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
beach (irregularly or regularly
inundated by tides, depending upon the
location). Lands within this unit include
approximately 25,881 ac (10,482 ha) in
Federal ownership (Laguna Atascosa
NWR), 34,165 ac (13,826 ha) in State
ownership, and 34,125 ac (13,802 ha; 36
percent) in private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit TX–9 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37663
Figure 102 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (123)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa R.ed Knot
TX""".9 Pintail Lake/Padre· Island/La Punta Larga;
Kenedy. Willacy. and Cameron Counties, Texas
Texas
Kenedy
County
WH!acy
County
Cameron
County
Major Road
N
\Nater Body
~ CriticalHabitat
.
.
l_, ___! County Boundary
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
i--~---:
State. Boundary
(124) Unit TX–10: Peyton’s Bay/
Arroyo Colorado/Three Islands/
Gabrielson Island, Texas.
(i) Unit TX–10 consists of
approximately 35,651 ac (14,427 ha) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
A
The background layer is for display
purposes ont;; ,It may not accu.ratety
represent the dynamic shoreline
e.nvironment
--
0
3
6
12
0
2.
4
8
-•
18
24
Kililmet&f$
12
.Miles.
16
occupied habitat in Willacy and
Cameron Counties. The northern
boundary of this unit is approximately
11 mi (18 km) north of the Arroyo
Colorado Cutoff and encompasses
PO 00000
Frm 00255
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Peyton’s Bay (north being Chubby
Island), and the southern boundary is
approximately 9 mi (14 km) south of the
Arroyo Colorado Cutoff encompassing
Rattlesnake Bay (south edge near
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.101
-
37664
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Gabrielson Island). The eastern
boundary is the western side of the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway dredge spoil
islands, and the western boundary is
where dense vegetation begins. The unit
includes bayside flats and seagrass beds
that are exposed during low tide
regimes and wind tidal flats that are
infrequently inundated, and does not
include densely vegetated habitat
within these boundaries. Specific
habitat types within this unit include:
Estuarine (bayside) seagrass mud or
sand flats that are subtidal and are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
nearly flat areas with rooted vascular
plants (seagrass) growing below the
water surface in subtidal mud or sand
substrate; estuarine (bayside) algal mud
or sand flats regularly inundated by
tides and that are nearly flat areas with
a layer of algae growing on a moist mud
or sand substrate and are otherwise
devoid of vegetation; estuarine (bayside)
algal mud or sand flats irregularly
inundated by tides; estuarine (bayside)
sandy shore (beach/sandbar) rarely
exposed due to tidal fluctuation;
estuarine (bayside) sandy shore (beach/
PO 00000
Frm 00256
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sandbar) areas that are irregularly or
regularly inundated by tides, depending
upon the location; and estuarine
(bayside) sandy shore (beach/sandbar),
to include spoils irregularly inundated
by tides. Lands within this unit include
approximately 8,145 ac (3,296 ha) in
Federal ownership (Laguna Atascosa
NWR), 25,316 ac (10,245 ha) in State
ownership, and 2,190 ac (886 ha) in
private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit TX–10 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37665
Figure 103 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (124)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Ruta Red Knot
TX-10 Peyton's Bay/Arroyo Coloradoffhree Islands/Gabrielson Island;
Willacy and Cameron Counties, Texas
Texas
Willacy
County
Cameron
County
Major Road
N
\/\later Body
~ Critics I Habitat
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
r-·-"""'.: l_,.,..J
·C.ou nty Boundary
State Boundary
(125) Unit TX–11: South Bay/Boca
Chica, Texas.
(i) Unit TX–11 consists of
approximately 15,243 ac (6,173 ha) of
occupied habitat in Cameron County.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
A
The badlgrwnd 111yer is for display
purposes onfy; It may no! e
~
37666
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
bayside of the Boca Chica Beach (Gulf
of Mexico) up to where dense vegetation
begins, and the western boundary is
west of the Loma islands up to where
dense vegetation begins along the wind
tidal flats. The unit includes wind tidal
flats and all seagrass beds that are
infrequently inundated and/or exposed
as low tides, and the tidal flats within
the area known as South Bay. Specific
habitat types within this unit include:
Estuarine (bayside) seagrass mud or
sand flats that are subtidal and are
nearly flat areas with rooted vascular
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
plants (seagrass) growing below the
water surface in subtidal mud or sand
substrate; estuarine (bayside) algal mud
or sand flats regularly inundated by
tides and that are nearly flat areas with
a layer of algae growing on a moist mud
or sand substrate and are otherwise
devoid of vegetation; estuarine (bayside)
algal mud or sand flats irregularly
inundated by tides; estuarine (bayside)
sandy shore (beach/sandbar) rarely
exposed due to tidal fluctuation;
estuarine (bayside) sandy shore (beach/
sandbar) irregularly or regularly
PO 00000
Frm 00258
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
inundated by tides, depending upon the
location; estuarine (bayside) sandy
shore (beach/sandbar) spoils irregularly
inundated by tides; and marine sandy
coastline (beach) irregularly or regularly
inundated by tides, depending upon the
location. Lands within this unit include
approximately 5,536 ac (2,242 ha) in
Federal ownership (Lower Rio Grande
Valley NWR), 3,923 ac (1,589 ha) in
State ownership, and 5,784 ac (2,342 ha)
in private/other ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit TX–11 follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37667
Figure 104 to Rufa Red Knot paragraph (125)(ii)
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot
TX-11 South Bay/Boca Chica; Cameron County, Texas
Mexico
Body
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
~ Critical Habitat
State Boundary
*
*
*
*
*
Signing Authority
The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, approved this document and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
A
--
me background .layer is for display
purposes onfy: It may nat. aecuratety
represent the dynamic shoreline
environment,
0 .0,5 1
M
o
3
WI
o:.375 0.1s
4
Kilometers
Miles
2.25
3
authorized the undersigned to sign and
submit the document to the Office of the
Federal Register for publication
electronically as an official document of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
PO 00000
Frm 00259
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Martha Williams, Principal Deputy
Director, Exercising the Delegated
Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, approved this
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
EP15JY21.103
N
River
=-- Majior Road
37668
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
document on June 30, 2021, for
publication.
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of
Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and
Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–14406 Filed 7–14–21; 8:45 am]
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00260
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\15JYP2.SGM
15JYP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 133 (Thursday, July 15, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37410-37668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14406]
[[Page 37409]]
Vol. 86
Thursday,
No. 133
July 15, 2021
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa); Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 37410]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
1018-BF87
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for the federally threatened rufa red knot
(Calidris canutus rufa) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). In total, approximately 649,066 acres (ac) (262,667
hectares (ha)) are proposed in 120 units (18 of which are further
subdivided into 46 subunits) in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey,
Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. We also announce a public
informational meeting and public hearing and the availability of a
draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation.
DATES:
Comment submission: We will accept comments received or postmarked
on or before September 13, 2021. Comments submitted electronically
using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be
received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
Public informational meeting and public hearing: On August 18,
2021, we will hold a public informational meeting from 6:00 to 7:30
p.m., Eastern Time, followed by a public hearing from 7:30 to 9:00
p.m., Eastern Time. See Public Hearing, in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION,
for more information.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking
on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Schrading, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, New Jersey Ecological Services Field Office,
4 East Jimmie Leeds Road, Suite 4, Galloway, NJ 08205; telephone 609-
382-5272. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, when we determine
that any species is an endangered or threatened species, we are
required to designate critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable. Designations of critical habitat can only be
completed by issuing a rule.
What this document does. This document proposes a designation of
critical habitat for the rufa red knot, a threatened species of bird,
in portions of 61 counties (or parishes) in 13 States.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, if we determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species we must, to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable, designate critical habitat. Section
4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking
into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and
any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if she
determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she
determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the
failure to designate such area will result in the extinction of the
species.
Peer Review. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and
our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of
peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert
opinions of five appropriate specialists regarding the species status
assessment report (Service 2020a, entire) that informed this proposed
rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that the science behind
our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We received review of the Species Status
Assessment (SSA) report from two experts outside the Service. We are
also conducting a peer review of this proposed critical habitat
designation (including the supplemental ``Methodology'' document
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032) to ensure that this proposal is based on
scientifically sound data and analysis. We have invited peer reviewers
to comment on our specific assumptions and conclusions in this proposed
rule, and we will consider any comments received, as appropriate,
before a final agency determination.
Uncommon Acronyms Used in This Proposed Rule
For the convenience of the reader, listed below are some of the
acronyms used in this proposed rule:
Act = Endangered Species Act
ASMFC = Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
DDFW = Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife
DEA = draft economic analysis
DHS = Department of Homeland Security
DMR = Department of Marine Resources
DoD = Department of Defense
DHS = Department of Homeland Security
EIS = environmental impact statement
FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FGDC = Federal Geographic Data Committee
FR = Federal Register
GDNR = Georgia Department of Natural Resources
HCP = habitat conservation plan
IEc = Industrial Economics, Incorporated
IEM = incremental effects memorandum
INRMP = integrated natural resources management plan
IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LDWF = Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
MLLW = mean lower low water
NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCWRC = North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NERR = National Estuarine Research Reserve
NPS = National Park Service
NWR = National Wildlife Refuge
ORV = off-road vehicle
SCDNR = South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
SCDPRT = South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism
[[Page 37411]]
Service = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SSA = Species Status Assessment
TNC = The Nature Conservancy
USCCSP = U.S. Climate Change Science Program
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including information to inform the following factors that the
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may
be not prudent:
(a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of rufa red knot habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing
(specifically referring to January 12, 2015, which is the effective
date for the December 11, 2014, final listing rule (79 FR 73705)) and
that contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and
why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species. We particularly seek comments
regarding:
(i) Whether occupied areas are adequate for the conservation of the
species; and
(ii) Specific information regarding whether or not unoccupied areas
would, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the conservation of the
species and contain at least one physical or biological feature
essential to the conservation of the species.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the rufa red knot's proposed critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the benefits of including or excluding specific areas.
(6) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable
estimate of the likely economic impacts.
(7) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in particular those based on a conservation
program or plan, and why. These may include Federal, Tribal, State,
county, local, or private lands with permitted conservation plans
covering the species in the area such as habitat conservation plans,
safe harbor agreements, or conservation easements, or non-permitted
conservation agreements and partnerships that would be encouraged by
designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. Detailed
information regarding these plans, agreements, easements, and
partnerships is also requested, including:
(a) The location and size of lands covered by the plan, agreement,
easement, or partnership;
(b) The duration of the plan, agreement, easement, or partnership;
(c) Who holds or manages the land;
(d) What management activities are conducted;
(e) What land uses are allowable; and
(f) If management activities are beneficial to the rufa red knot
and its habitat.
(8) Ongoing or proposed conservation efforts that could result in
direct or indirect ecological benefits to the associated habitat for
the rufa red knot; as such, those efforts would lend to the recovery of
the species and therefore areas covered may be considered for exclusion
from the final critical habitat designation.
(9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Also,
please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition
to, the action under consideration without providing supporting
information, although noted, will not be considered in making a
determination.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. At this time, we have preemptively scheduled a
public informational meeting and public hearing on this proposed rule.
We will hold the public informational meeting and public hearing on the
date and at the times listed above under Public informational meeting
and public hearing in DATES. We are holding the public informational
meeting and public
[[Page 37412]]
hearing via the Zoom online video platform and via teleconference so
that participants can attend remotely. For security purposes,
registration is required. To listen and view the meeting and hearing
via Zoom, listen to the meeting and hearing by telephone, or provide
oral public comments at the public hearing by Zoom or telephone, you
must register. For information on how to register, or if you encounter
problems joining Zoom the day of the meeting, visit https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/. Registrants will receive the Zoom link and the
telephone number for the public informational meeting and public
hearing. If applicable, interested members of the public not familiar
with the Zoom platform should view the Zoom video tutorials (https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/206618765-Zoom-video-tutorials) prior
to the public informational meeting and public hearing.
The public hearing will provide interested parties an opportunity
to present verbal testimony (formal, oral comments) regarding this
proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the rufa red knot.
While the public informational meeting will be an opportunity for
dialogue with the Service, the public hearing is not. Rather, the
public hearing is a forum for accepting formal verbal testimony. In the
event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral
statements may be limited. Therefore, anyone wishing to make an oral
statement at the public hearing for the record is encouraged to provide
a prepared written copy of their statement to us through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, or U.S. mail (see ADDRESSES, above). There are no
limits on the length of written comments submitted to us. Anyone
wishing to make an oral statement at the public hearing must register
before the hearing https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/. The use of a
virtual public hearing is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).
Reasonable Accommodation
The Service is committed to providing access to the public
informational meeting and public hearing for all participants. Closed
captioning will be available during the public informational meeting
and public hearing. Further, a full audio and video recording and
transcript of the public hearing will be posted online at https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/ after the hearing. Participants will also
have access to live audio during the public informational meeting and
public hearing via their telephone or computer speakers. Persons with
disabilities requiring reasonable accommodations to participate in the
meeting and/or hearing should contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 5 business days prior to the date
of the meeting and hearing to help ensure availability. An accessible
version of the Service's public informational meeting presentation will
also be posted online at https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/ prior to
the meeting and hearing (see DATES, above). See https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/ for more information about reasonable
accommodation.
Previous Federal Actions
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat for the rufa red knot in this
document. For more information on the rufa red knot or its habitat,
refer to:
(1) The final listing rule published in the Federal Register on
December 11, 2014 (79 FR 73706), available online at https://www.regulations.gov (at Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097).
(2) The November 2014 Rufa Red Knot Background Information and
Threats Assessment (Supplemental Document; Service 2014, entire),
available online at https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/ and https://www.regulations.gov (at Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097). And
(3) The Species Status Assessment Report for the Rufa Red Knot
(Calidris canutus rufa), Version 1.1, available on the internet at
https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/ and https://www.regulations.gov
(Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032).
For more information on previous Federal actions associated with
listing rufa red knot, please refer to the supplemental document
(``Previous Federal Actions'') on the internet at https://fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/ and https://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R5-
ES-2013-0097).
On June 22, 2018, Defenders of Wildlife filed a complaint (Case
1:18-cv-01474-APM) alleging that the Service violated the Act by
missing the statutory deadline to designate critical habitat (i.e., 12
months following publication of the final listing rule on December 11,
2014). On February 1, 2019, the Service and Defenders of Wildlife filed
with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia a
joint motion to stay proceedings until June 30, 2021, whereby the
Service agreed to submit to the Federal Register a proposed critical
habitat designation. The court granted the motion on February 7, 2019.
This document constitutes the proposed critical habitat designation for
rufa red knot, and complies with the court order issued February 7,
2019.
Supporting Documents
An SSA team prepared an SSA report (Service 2020a, entire) for the
rufa red knot primarily to inform the development of a draft recovery
plan for the species (Service 2021, entire). The timing and
thoroughness of the peer-reviewed SSA report supported the analysis and
development of this proposed critical habitat rule. The SSA report
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data
available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts
of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial)
affecting the species. The Service sent the SSA report (which
accompanied the draft Recovery Plan) to five independent peer
reviewers; two peer reviewers provided a review of the document. The
Service also sent the SSA report and draft Recovery Plan for review by
more than 177 parties, which included both internal/Service biologists
and managers, and external partners, including scientists with
expertise in rufa red knot biology, habitat management, and threats. We
received review from 24 partners, including Federal and State agencies.
We are also conducting a peer review of this proposed critical habitat
designation (including the supplemental ``Methodology'' document
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032) during the open comment period to ensure that
this proposal is based on scientifically sound data and analysis.
Availability of Supporting Materials
The SSA report and other materials relating to this critical
habitat proposal, including coordinates or plot points or both from
which the maps are generated, are included in the administrative record
and are available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-
R5-ES-2021-0032. Any additional tools or supporting information that we
may develop for the critical habitat designation will also be available
at https://www.fws.gov/northeast/red-knot/, and may also be included in
the preamble of this proposal and/or at https://www.regulations.gov.
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
[[Page 37413]]
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely, by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the
Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would result in
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the
Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the
proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they
must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas,
we focus on the specific features that are essential to support the
life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation,
symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat
characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first
evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only
consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition,
for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the draft recovery plan
for the species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the
[[Page 37414]]
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species; and (3)
the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that
the Secretary may, but is not required to, determine that a designation
would not be prudent in the following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data
available.
There is currently no imminent threat of collection or vandalism
identified under Factor B for the rufa red knot, and identification and
mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such
threat. In the proposed listing determination for rufa red knot (79 FR
73705, December 11, 2014) and our more recent SSA report (Service
2020a, entire), we determined that the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a
threat to rufa red knot and that those threats in some way can be
addressed by section 7(a)(2) consultation measures. Additionally,
although the species range occurs in other parts of North, Central, and
South America outside of the United States, the areas within the
jurisdiction of the United States serve a significant conservation
value to the species during both its northbound and southbound
migration to/from its breeding grounds and overwintering regions, using
these migration areas as key staging and stopover areas to rest and
feed. Some portions of the United States also provide significant
conservation value for certain populations of overwintering rufa red
knots. Our analysis of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates there are areas within the range of the species
in the United States that meet the definition of critical habitat.
Therefore, because none of the circumstances enumerated in our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) have been met and because there are
no other circumstances the Secretary has identified for which this
designation of critical habitat would be not prudent, we have
determined that the designation of critical habitat for rufa red knot
is prudent.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the rufa
red knot is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state
that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the
following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical
habitat.''
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where the species is
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data
available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical
habitat is determinable for the rufa red knot.
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate critical
habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological features
that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may
require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example,
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkali soil
for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or susceptibility
to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-successional habitat
characteristics. Biological features might include prey species, forage
grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting,
symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of nonnative species consistent
with conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be
combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the
relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a
characteristic essential to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality,
quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat
characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition,
and status of the species. These characteristics include, but are not
limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding,
reproduction,
[[Page 37415]]
or rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are
protected from disturbance.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential
for the rufa red knot from studies of the species' habitat, ecology,
and life history, which are described more fully in the final listing
rule (79 FR 73706, December 11, 2014) and associated supplemental
materials (Service 2014, entire). Additionally, these features were
most recently described in the SSA report (Service 2020a, entire), in
the context of the needs of individuals, populations, and the species.
With regard to ``space for individual and population growth and for
normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other
nutritional or physiological requirements; and cover or shelter,''
these characteristics are captured by the summary discussion in the
following paragraphs. The characteristic of ``sites for breeding,
reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring'' does not apply
for this proposed critical habitat designation because the rufa red
knot does not breed in the United States. Regarding ``habitats that are
protected from disturbance,'' rufa red knots are particularly sensitive
to disturbance from human activities, which are nearly ubiquitous along
the U.S. coasts. Thus, management of habitats to ensure minimal human
activity during those seasons when birds are present is essential to
the conservation of this subspecies. Overall, rufa red knot requires
both an abundance of suitable nonbreeding habitats, as well as a
suitable distribution of those habitats across the landscape.
Habitat Features
Coastal habitats used by rufa red knots (i.e., for foraging and
roosting) are similar across both migration and wintering areas
(Harrington 2001, p. 9), and can be generally characterized as sparsely
vegetated coastal marine and estuarine habitats with large areas of
exposed intertidal substrates. Migration and wintering habitats include
high-energy ocean- or bay-front barrier island or mainland beaches, as
well as shorelines and tidal flats in more sheltered estuaries (e.g.,
bays, sounds, lagoons) (Harrington 2001, p. 9). Beaches used by rufa
red knots may be backed by dune fields, tidal waters, salt marsh,
mangroves, or human development. Unimproved tidal inlets (e.g., the
mouths of creeks or larger rivers) often provide an optimal mosaic of
preferred habitat types. Along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts,
dynamic and ephemeral features are important rufa red knot habitats,
including sand spits, islets, shoals, and sandbars, features often
associated with inlets (Harrington 2001, p. 8; Sitters 2005, entire;
Winn and Harrington in Guilfoyle et al. 2006, pp. 8-10; Harrington in
Guilfoyle et al. 2007, pp. 18-19; Harrington 2008, pp. 2, 4-5; Niles et
al. 2008, p. 30; Lott et al. 2009, pp. 18-19; North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) 2013, entire).
In the United States, there has been considerable loss or
degradation of dynamic and ephemeral coastal features, including the
associated loss of rufa red knot habitat as a result of shoreline
stabilization and other engineering practices that support coastal
development (Nordstrom 2000, pp. 20, 98-107; Nordstrom and Mauriello
2001, entire; U.S. Climate Change Science Program (USCCSP) 2009, pp.
99-100; Defeo et al. 2009, p. 4; Kisiel 2009, p. 65; Titus et al. 2009,
p. 5; Rice 2012, p. 6; Rice 2017, entire). In some cases, however,
engineered or artificial features may be used as habitat, or may
enhance habitat (Botton et al. 1994, p. 614; Niles et al. 2008, pp. 40,
46; Schwarzer 2013, pers. comm.; Breese 2013, pers. comm.; Niles et al.
2013, entire; Firmin 2020, pers. comm.). In some localized areas, rufa
red knots will use artificial habitats that mimic natural conditions,
such as nourished beaches, dredge spoil sites, elevated road causeways,
rock structures (e.g., jetties, breakwaters), or impoundments. In other
areas, living shorelines or even traditional (``hard'') engineering
structures may enhance rufa red knot habitat, for example by
concentrating surf-cast prey items or by calming wave energies.
Notwithstanding these localized examples, rufa red knots generally
require areas where natural coastal processes (e.g., erosion,
accretion, overwashes, island migration, inlet migration) are allowed
to operate in order to create and maintain optimal habitat, which is
typically dynamic and ephemeral.
In all nonbreeding habitats, rufa red knots require sparse
vegetation and open landscapes, affording the birds good visibility of
the surrounding area in order to avoid predation (Piersma et al. 1993,
pp. 338-339, 349; Niles et al. 2008, p. 44). Rufa red knots tend to
migrate in large single-species flocks, and may also flock with other
shorebirds, particularly when roosting or staging for spring and fall
migration (Harrington 2001, p. 8). Thus, areas that provide foraging
and resting habitat capable of supporting large concentrations of birds
are especially important.
Foraging Habitat: In coastal areas, rufa red knot foraging habitats
include intertidal portions of beaches, islands, and shoals; tidal
flats; wind-exposed bay bottoms or oyster reefs; peat banks; brackish
ponds or impoundments; and ephemeral tidal pools. Foraging substrates
can include sand, mud, peat, and sand embedded with shell, gravel, or
cobble (Niles et al. 2008, pp. 30, 47; Harrington 2001, pp. 8-9;
Newstead 2014, pp. 13-14; Service 2014, pp. 63-67). Feeding birds may
be concentrated at higher tides, pushed into a smaller area by rising
waters and also attracted to higher food densities along the high water
line, where food may be concentrated in wrack material and where
horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus) tend to nest. However, rufa red
knots have also been shown to spread out and forage across the full
tidal range (Service 2014, pp. 63-67; Service 2016a, pp. 76-82; Burger
et al. 2018, entire).
Roosting Habitat: In many wintering and coastal stopover areas,
quality high-tide roosting habitat (i.e., close to feeding areas,
protected from predators, with sufficient space during the highest
tides, free from excessive human disturbance) is limited (Kalasz 2008,
p. 9; Kalasz 2012, pers. comm.; Niles 2012, pers. comm.; Conseil
Scientifique R[eacute]gional du Patrimoine Naturel 2013, entire).
Typical roosting areas are relatively open and flat beaches between the
high water line and the primary dune line. In some locations, roosts
can include shoals, sand bars, areas of upper beach between/among
unstabilized dunes, overwashes, patches of mostly bare ground (e.g.,
blowouts, depressions, salt pannes) within salt marshes, dredge spoil
sites, rock structures (e.g., jetties, breakwaters), or among wrack
including atop mounds of seaweed deposited on the beach (Service 2014,
pp. 63-67). Such areas may have microtopographic relief offering
shelter from high winds, storms, and cold weather. Rufa red knots'
selection of high-tide roosting areas on the coast appears to be
strongly influenced by raptor predation (Niles et al. 2008, p. 28).
Inland Habitat: Rufa red knots use inland saline lakes as stopover
habitat in the Northern Great Plains (Skagen et al. 1999, pp. 80-81;
Newstead et al. 2013, p. 57). We have little information to indicate
whether or not rufa red knots may also use inland freshwater habitats
during migration, but certain freshwater areas (e.g., wetlands,
riverine sandbars) may warrant further study as potential stopover
habitats (Dovichin 2014, pers. comm.; Russell 2014, entire). Small
numbers of rufa red knots sometimes
[[Page 37416]]
use manmade freshwater habitats (e.g., impoundments) along inland
migration routes (Simnor 2012, pers. comm.; Russell 2014, entire;
Service 2014, pp. 68-70).
Diet: The rufa red knot is a specialized molluscivore, eating
primarily hard-shelled mollusks, though sometimes supplemented with
softer invertebrate prey such as arthropods, marine worms, and
horseshoe crab eggs (Harrington 2001, pp. 9-11; Piersma and van Gils
2011, p. 9). In most U.S. coastal habitats, rufa red knots feed
primarily on bivalves such as small clams and mussels (including mussel
spat) (Harrington 2001, pp. 10-11; Niles et al. 2008, p. 30; Service
2014, pp. 71-73). Prey size is approximately 0.16 to 0.79 inch (in) (4
to 20 millimeters (mm)) long, and up to 1.18 in (30 mm) in
circumference. Foraging activity is largely dictated by tidal
conditions, as rufa red knots rarely wade in water more than 0.8 to 1.2
in (2 to 3 centimeters (cm)) deep (Harrington 2001, p. 10). Due to bill
morphology, rufa red knots forage on only shallow-buried prey, within
the top 0.8 to 1.2 in (2 to 3 cm) of sediment (Zwarts and Blomert 1992,
p. 113; Gerasimov 2009, p. 227). Long-distance migrant shorebirds, such
as rufa red knots, must take advantage of seasonally abundant food
resources at migration stopovers to build up fat reserves for the next
nonstop, long-distance flight (Clark et al. 1993, p. 694). Although
migrating rufa red knots can be found widely distributed in small
numbers within suitable stopover habitats, birds tend to concentrate in
those areas where abundant food resources are consistently available
from year to year. The spatial distribution of rufa red knots in many
different stopover areas has been correlated with the distribution of
the primary prey species (Service 2014, p. 71).
A prominent departure from typical prey items occurs each spring
when rufa red knots feed on the eggs of horseshoe crabs, particularly
during the key migration stopover at Delaware Bay. Delaware Bay serves
as the principal spring migration stopover area for the rufa red knot
because of the abundance and availability of horseshoe crab eggs
(Harrington 2001, pp. 2, 7; Niles et al. 2008, pp. 36-39; Clark et al.
2009, p. 85; Service 2014, pp. 73-76). Outside of Delaware Bay,
horseshoe crab eggs are eaten opportunistically when available. In
several areas along the Atlantic coast, horseshoe crab eggs are a
preferred food resource and may be a locally important component of the
diet, particularly in spring (Service 2014, pp. 71-76).
Sensitivity to Disturbance
We define ``disturbance'' as any human activity that is audible or
visible to rufa red knots and that interrupts the normal behavior of
the birds. The daily and seasonal selection of non-breeding habitats by
individual rufa red knots represents an adaptive optimization of
several factors and the fitness trade-offs among them. These factors
include seasonal time pressures (particularly during migration)
(Hedenstr[ouml]m 2008, p. 287; Service 2014, pp. 249-250), food
availability (Service 2014, p. 71), predator avoidance (Niles et al.
2008, p. 28), tides (Newstead 2014, pp. 13-14; Burger et al. 2018,
entire), and weather. It is in this context that disturbance from human
activities occurs, such that interruption of normal behaviors can
result in reduced fitness of the affected birds (West et al. 2002, p.
319; Goss-Custard et al. 2006, p. 88). Typical rufa red knot behaviors
include feeding in intertidal areas, and roosting, resting, or preening
above the high water line. Rufa red knot reactions to human activity
that indicate disturbance typically include stopping or slowing
feeding, assuming an alert posture, calling, walking, running, or
flying (Koch and Paton 2014, entire). Rufa red knots are exposed to
disturbance from recreational and other human activities throughout
their non-breeding range (Niles et al. 2008, pp. 105-107; Service 2014,
pp. 266-272).
Among shorebird species, rufa red knots appear to be particularly
reactive to the presence of humans (Burger and Niles 2013, p. 657; Koch
and Paton 2014, p. 64; Hunt et al. 2018, pp. 18-19). Although
population-level impacts cannot be concluded from species' differing
behavioral responses to disturbance (Gill et al. 2001, p. 265; Stillman
et al. 2007, p. 73), behavior-based models can be used to relate the
number and magnitude of human disturbances to impacts on the fitness of
individual birds (West et al. 2002, p. 319; Goss-Custard et al. 2006,
p. 88). When the time and energy costs arising from disturbance were
included, disturbance could be more damaging to shorebirds than
permanent habitat loss (West et al. 2002, p. 319).
Excessive disturbance precludes rufa red knot use of otherwise
preferred habitats (Service 2014, pp. 267-270; Watts 2017, p. 72; Hunt
et al. 2018, p. 22). Disturbance can also impact shorebird energy
budgets (Service 2014, pp. 270-272; Hunt et al. 2018, pp. 26-29). Both
of these effects are likely to exacerbate other threats to the rufa red
knot, such as habitat loss from erosion and development, reduced food
availability, asynchronies in the annual cycle, and competition with
gulls. Disturbance that displaces birds from preferred habitats and/or
disrupts their behavioral patterns can impair the ability of rufa red
knots to gain or maintain sufficient weight, which can in turn impact
fitness. Studies have found a link between the weights of rufa red
knots leaving Delaware Bay after their spring stopover and subsequent
survival rates, and possibly also to reproductive success (Baker et al.
2004, p. 878; McGowan et al. 2011, p. 9; Duijins et al. 2017, entire).
Habitat Abundance and Distribution
Rufa red knots move among, and depend on, multiple foraging and
roosting habitat areas on local, regional, and rangewide scales. As
discussed above, habitat selection by rufa red knots represents trade-
offs among factors including seasonal time pressures, food
availability, predator avoidance, tides, weather, and human
disturbance. This complex suite of factors results in shifting patterns
of habitat use on daily, seasonal, and annual temporal scales. In
addition, the dynamic and shifting nature of the shoreline also
influences habitat selection over multiyear scales (e.g., through
natural cycles of erosion and accretion). Rufa red knots make regular
movements within (though not between) wintering regions (Niles et al.
2012, pp. 198, 200, 202; Newstead 2014, pp. 3, 6-8; Service 2014, pp.
43-44) and to use clusters of habitats as regional stopover complexes
during migration (Clark et al. 2009, pp. 87, 89; Watts 2009, entire;
Service 2014, pp. 54-55).
We define ``staging areas'' as those stopover sites with abundant,
predictable food resources where birds prepare for an energetic
challenge (usually a long flight over a barrier such as an ocean)
requiring substantial fuel stores and physiological changes without
which significant fitness costs are incurred (Warnock 2010, p. 622).
Staging areas are a subset of stopover habitats (Service 2020a, p. 31),
and they serve as vital stepping stones between wintering and breeding
areas. Shorebirds migrate along traditional routes characterized by a
chain of key staging areas that are essential to successful migration;
staging areas serve as vital stepping stones between wintering and
breeding areas (Myers 1983, p. 23; International Wader Study Group
2003, p. 10; Service 2014, p. 49). However, even a robust network of
staging areas is not sufficient to support recovery of this subspecies.
Rufa red knots also require an ample supply of other coastal and inland
stopover
[[Page 37417]]
habitats distributed across the range, allowing birds to shift among
habitat patches across multiple temporal and geographic scales in
response to a number of stochastic conditions. Because rufa red knots
require this flexibility, even some highly suitable and important
nonbreeding habitats may not be used every year, and, within a given
season, usage of particular habitat patches is likely to fluctuate
across days and months (Service 2014, pp. 53-60; Smith et al. 2017a, p.
3; Service 2020a, p. 32). One particular non-breeding habitat is that
used by juvenile rufa red knots. Rufa red knots do not reach adulthood
until 2 years of age, at which point they make their first full
northern migration to their nesting grounds. Where they spend their
first 2 years and their movement patterns are largely unknown. However,
Florida and the Caribbean are likely important for this stage of their
life (Kalasz 2021, pers. comm.).
Sea Level Rise
Due to background rates of sea level rise and the naturally dynamic
nature of coastal habitats, we concluded at the time of listing that
rufa red knots are adapted to moderate (although sometimes abrupt)
rates of habitat change in their wintering and migration areas.
However, we also concluded, based on overwhelming evidence, that rates
of sea level rise have increased beyond those that have occurred over
recent millennia and continue to accelerate (Service 2014, pp. 142-143;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2013, pp. 11, 25).
These conclusions are further supported by newer information evaluated
in the SSA report (Service 2020a, pp. 32-36). Over the period 1902 to
2015, global mean sea level rose by 0.5 feet (ft) (0.16 meters (m))
(likely range of 0.4 to 0.7 ft (0.12 to 0.21 m)) (IPCC 2019, p. 42).
The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger
than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence)
(IPCC 2014a, p. 4). Extreme wave heights, which contribute to extreme
sea level events and coastal erosion, have increased in the North
Atlantic by around 0.3 in (0.8 cm) per year over the period 1985 to
2018 (medium confidence) (IPCC 2019, p. 42).
The rufa red knot is vulnerable to inundation of tidal flats and
erosion of sandy beaches, which are typically caused or accelerated by
climate-driven sea level rise (Service 2014, pp. 126-143; Vousdoukas et
al. 2019, entire). In most of the rufa red knot's nonbreeding range,
shorelines are expected to undergo dramatic reconfigurations over the
next century as a result of accelerating sea level rise (USCCSP 2009,
pp. 13, 44, 50). Extensive areas of marsh are likely to become
inundated, which may reduce foraging and roosting habitats. Marshes may
be able to establish farther inland, but the rate of new marsh
formation (e.g., intertidal sediment accumulation, development of
hydric soils, colonization of marsh vegetation) may be slower than the
rate of deterioration of existing marsh, particularly under the high
sea level rise scenarios (Nikitina et al. 2013, p. 11; Glick et al.
2008, p. 6). The primary rufa red knot foraging habitats, intertidal
flats, and sandy beaches will likely be locally or regionally inundated
or eroded, but replacement habitats are likely to re-form along the
shoreline in its new position (Scavia et al. 2002, p. 152; USCCSP 2009,
p. 186). However, if shorelines experience a decades-long period of
high instability and landward migration (i.e., under higher rates of
sea level rise), the formation rate of new beach habitats may be slower
than the rate of loss of existing habitats (Iwamura et al. 2013, p. 6).
Additionally, low-lying and narrow islands, such as those along the
U.S. Gulf and Atlantic coasts, may disintegrate rather than migrate
(Titus 1990, p. 67; IPCC 2014b, p. 15), representing a net loss of rufa
red knot habitat. Galbraith et al. (2002, p. 178) examined several
scenarios of future sea level rise and projected major losses of
intertidal habitat in Delaware Bay.
Superimposed on these changes are widespread human attempts to
stabilize the shoreline, which exacerbate losses of intertidal habitats
by preventing their landward migration, and human infrastructure that
blocks the landward migration of coastal habitats (Service 2014, pp.
143-159). The cumulative loss of habitat across the nonbreeding range
could affect the ability of rufa red knots to complete their annual
cycles, possibly affecting fitness and survival, and is thereby likely
to negatively influence the long-term survival of the rufa red knot
(Galbraith et al. 2014, p. 7 and Supplement 1).
Summary of Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of rufa red knot from studies of the species' habitat,
ecology, and life history as described below. Additional information
can be found in the SSA report (Service 2020a, entire; available on
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032). We
have determined that rufa red knots need areas where natural coastal
processes will be able to continue well into the future to allow the
formation of ephemeral features and the landward migration of
coastlines in response to sea level rise. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify areas that support natural coastal
processes, as well as localized areas where artificially created,
maintained, or enhanced habitat supports important concentrations of
red knots, as physical or biological features for the rufa red knot.
These features are as follows:
(1) Beaches and tidal flats used for foraging. This feature
includes high-energy ocean- or bay-front barrier island or mainland
beaches, as well as shorelines and tidal flats in more sheltered
estuaries (e.g., bays, sounds, lagoons). Foraging substrates can
include sand, mud, peat, and sand embedded with shell, gravel, or
cobble. Foraging areas are between mean lower low water and mean higher
high water. Suitable foraging habitats provide abundant quantities of
accessible and appropriately sized prey items (e.g., mussels and mussel
spat, clams, other mollusks, horseshoe crab eggs, crustaceans,
polychaete worms), timed to occur in high densities during those
seasons when rufa red knots are present. ``Superabundant'' prey
densities, typically bivalves or horseshoe crab eggs, are needed in
migration staging areas to support rapid weight gain following long-
distance flights. Large areas capable of supporting concentrations of
shorebirds are especially important.
(2) Upper beach areas used for roosting, preening, resting, or
sheltering. This feature includes unvegetated or sparsely vegetated
sand between the high water line and the primary dune line. Generally
these sites are open, with a large viewscape for predator avoidance.
Many sites have micro-topographic relief offering refuge from high
winds. Large areas capable of supporting concentrations of shorebirds--
close to foraging areas, with limited predation pressure and protected
from human disturbance--are especially important.
(3) Ephemeral and/or dynamic coastal features used for foraging or
roosting. This includes dynamic and ephemeral features such as sand
spits, islets, shoals, and sandbars, features often associated with
inlets. Other ephemeral features used by rufa red knots include tidal
pools; wind-exposed bay bottoms or oyster reefs; and unvegetated
overwash areas (e.g., among or behind dunes, as formed by storms or
extreme wave action).
(4) Ocean vegetation deposits or surf-cast wrack used for foraging
and roosting. This feature includes Sargassum (a species of macroalgae
in
[[Page 37418]]
oceans that inhabits shallow water and coral reefs), seagrass, or
seaweed deposits with mussel spat attached, or surf-cast wrack that
accumulates along beaches and supports or captures food items, such as
horseshoe crab eggs. In some areas, rufa red knots may also roost atop
wrack mounds.
(5) Intertidal peat banks used for foraging and roosting. In some
areas, exposed intertidal peat banks (e.g., along bay front beaches and
fronting tidal marshes) provide important foraging and roosting
habitat.
(6) Features landward of the beach that support foraging or
roosting. In some areas, rufa red knots use sparsely vegetated habitats
landward of the beach berm, such as unstabilized dunes, mangrove edges,
brackish ponds, and patches of mostly bare ground (e.g., blowouts,
depressions, pannes) within salt marshes.
(7) Artificial habitat mimicking natural conditions or maintaining
the physical or biological features 1 to 6 (above). Coastal engineering
that interferes with natural coastal processes is generally considered
a threat to the rufa red knot. However, in some cases, artificial
habitats mimic the natural conditions described in the other physical
or biological features described above. Such artificial habitats can
include nourished beaches, dredged spoil deposition sites, elevated
road causeways, jetties, or impoundments. Additionally, some
anthropogenic structures may promote or maintain the natural physical
or biological features. For example, in parts of Delaware Bay, rufa red
knot habitat features are enhanced by living shorelines (e.g., shell
bag reefs), and in one case by a rock breakwater.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of the rufa red
knot may require special management considerations or protection to
reduce the threats to the species; these threats are described in the
final listing rule (79 FR 73706, December 11, 2014; pp. 73707-73708),
the Service's supplement to the proposed and final listing rule
(Service 2014, pp. 124-314), and an updated summary in the recent SSA
report (Service 2020a, pp. 15-18). For rufa red knot habitat, we
grouped the primary threats that may require special management
considerations or protection into seven threat categories:
(1) Disturbance of foraging and roosting red knots by humans, pets
and domestic animals (e.g., dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), cats (Felis
catus), horses (Equus ferus caballus)), vehicles (e.g., off-road
vehicles (ORVs), golf carts, segways, all-terrain vehicles,
automobiles, heavy equipment, beach rakes), ships/dredges, powered and
unpowered (e.g., kayaks) boats, personal watercraft (e.g., jet skis),
bicycles, surf kites, kite boards, dune surfers, surf fishing, paddle
boards, para-sails, low-flying aircraft, drones, and research
activities. Special management considerations or protection that could
reduce or ameliorate this threat may include (but not be limited to):
Managing access to rufa red knot foraging or roosting habitat during
different seasonal windows; reducing disturbance (e.g., managing
sources of disturbance that could include humans, pets, vehicles,
construction equipment, watercraft, and aircraft), such as through
restrictions on timing, locations, and types of activities; providing
designated beach access points that reduce conflict with rufa red
knots; enforcing or creating dog restrictions during key periods; or
minimizing boat or aircraft activity during key periods.
(2) Predation, especially by peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus),
hawks (Buteo spp. or Accipter spp.), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), coyotes
(Canis latrans), raccoons (Procyon lotor), gulls (Larus spp.), feral
cats, and owls (Bubo spp. or Tyto spp.). Special management
considerations or protection that could reduce or ameliorate this
threat may include (but not be limited to): Conducting predator
control, controlling trash that may attract predators, or relocating
any unnatural perches that attract avian predators.
(3) Competition with gulls, especially laughing gulls (Larus
atricilla). Special management considerations or protection that could
reduce or ameliorate this threat may include (but not be limited to):
Controlling trash and removing any unnatural perches, both of which
attract gulls; and prohibiting the feeding of gulls.
(4) Modification or loss of habitat, or both, due to residential
and commercial development, uncontrolled recreational activities, beach
cleaning, hard and soft beach stabilization efforts (e.g., beach
nourishment, sediment backpassing, sand scraping, sand fencing, dredged
material disposal, inlet channelization or relocation, construction of
jetties, revetments, and other armoring structures), invasive species,
sand mining and dredging, erosion, and sea level rise. Special
management considerations or protection that could reduce or ameliorate
this threat may include (but not be limited to): Implementing
conservation measures (e.g., beach profiles designed to mimic natural
habitat, ensuring a close grain size match to the native beach,
limiting the frequency of activities to allow recovery of the prey
base, seasonal timing to allow habitat recovery before red knots
return) that help reduce modification or loss of habitat; managing
sediment to abate habitat impacts from coastal engineering projects and
sea level rise, and to maintain habitat features such as wide beaches,
tidal flats, overwash areas, and high prey densities; coordinating with
landowners and local managers to improve beach management practices,
such as beach cleaning and sand fencing; implementing best management
practices when conducting habitat restoration activities (e.g.,
creating living shorelines, raising marsh elevations, conducting
facilitated shoreline migration, maintaining and managing water control
structures to provide rufa red knot habitat); conducting public
outreach and education (especially on private and possibly State
lands); and addressing the impacts of potential oil spills or gas
drilling activities through facility placement, spill response plans,
and training.
(5) Threats to the rufa red knot's food supply that can be managed
or mitigated at the local or regional level (e.g., unsustainable levels
of marine crab harvest, excessive driving, and certain coastal
engineering practices). Special management considerations or protection
that could reduce or ameliorate this threat may include (but not be
limited to): Monitoring and managing beach invertebrates; limiting
vehicle use; implementing conservation measures for coastal engineering
projects (e.g., sediment grain size; frequency, timing, and scope of
sediment placement); and managing horseshoe crab fisheries, such as for
bait and biomedical uses.
(6) Insufficient water quality or pollution control that may
trigger or worsen harmful algal blooms. Special management
considerations or protection that could reduce or ameliorate this
threat may include (but not be limited to): Working with local
pollution authorities to limit those point discharges or non-point
sources that are substantially impairing water quality or contributing
to the frequency or severity of red tides or other harmful blooms.
[[Page 37419]]
(7) Human-caused disasters and response to natural and human-caused
disasters such as oil spills, oil spill response including beach
cleaning and berm construction, and response to natural disasters
(e.g., hurricanes). Special management considerations or protection
that could reduce or ameliorate this threat may include (but not be
limited to): Considering oil facility placement alternatives, preparing
spill response plans, conducting oil spill training, conducting debris
cleanup after a natural disaster while concurrently minimizing
disturbance to rufa red knots, and establishing protocols and
agreements to allow storm-enhanced habitats to persist.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered
for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet
the definition of critical habitat. Within areas of the species' range
under U.S. jurisdiction, we determined that occupied areas are
sufficient for the conservation of the species, following our
evaluation of all suitable habitat across the species range that has
documented use by rufa red knots.
The recovery strategy detailed in the species' draft Recovery Plan
(Service 2021, entire) is to prevent loss of the rufa red knot's
adaptive capacity by maintaining representation within and among four
Recovery Units: (1) Southern (Atlantic coasts of Argentina and Chile),
(2) North Coast of South America, (3) Western Gulf of Mexico/Central
America, and (4) Southeast United States/Caribbean, and improving their
resiliency and redundancy. Recovery efforts in the United States and in
other portions of the subspecies' range will focus on protecting,
restoring, maintaining, and managing important nonbreeding habitats for
adults and juveniles. Recovery actions are designed to directly abate
threats to rufa red knots in their wintering and migration ranges
(which includes those areas identified as proposed critical habitat in
this rule), and will also increase resiliency of populations to
withstand threats that stem from climate change on their Arctic
breeding grounds and elsewhere. These actions include monitoring and
safeguarding ample food supplies, preventing impacts from development
and shoreline stabilization, managing human disturbance, and restoring
key habitats. They may also include land acquisition, facilitated
migration of certain beaches or tidal flats, and restoring natural
coastal processes that create and maintain rufa red knot habitat.
Consistent with the Act and implementing policies, as well as recovery
needs throughout the species' annual cycles, the draft Recovery Plan
includes necessary recovery actions across the range of the rufa red
knot. Although many Service-led recovery actions will focus on the U.S.
portions of the range, the Service will also coordinate with and
support the recovery efforts of foreign governments and other partners
in portions of the range outside the United States.
Sources of data for this proposed critical habitat designation
include 2020 eBird data (eBird 2020, website), and multiple local and
regional sources as available (e.g., reports, databases, and
geolocator/resighting data maintained by State Fish and Wildlife
Departments, universities, local governments, and nonprofit
organizations across the range of the species (see SSA report; Service
2020a, entire)). For some areas where multiple sources of information
were available, we used either one or both sources, ensuring that
records used were not duplicated and included the best available
information. Our analysis included reviewing the best available
information that pertains to the habitat requirements of this species,
as presented in the ``Species Biology'' and ``Subspecies Needs''
sections of the SSA report (Service 2020a, pp. 4-14); sources of this
information include studies conducted at occupied sites and published
in peer-reviewed articles and agency reports, and data collected during
monitoring efforts, such as aerial surveys and tracking or resighting
data.
A detailed step-down methodology was developed for identifying
proposed critical habitat areas (see the supplemental ``Methodology''
document available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032). In summary, for areas within the
geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing, we
delineated critical habitat unit boundaries based on our evaluation and
consideration of the following:
(1) Migration patterns/locations across the range of the subspecies
within the United States, including migratory stopovers away from the
coasts. This includes the migration premise that 100 percent of rufa
red knots winter within or south of the United States and 100 percent
of the subspecies breed north of the United States. Therefore, 100
percent of rufa red knots migrate through the United States. However,
rufa red knots from the four different wintering regions (as described
in Service 2020a, p. 9) are differentially reliant on the various
regions of the U.S. coast for migration stopovers (Service 2020a, pp.
6-7).
(2) Landforms (e.g., islands, inlet complexes) and breaks in
suitable habitats (e.g., sections of high-density development, open
water), which are key factors in delineating units.
(3) Gaps between rufa red knot records (another key factor in
delineating units).
(4) Temporal metrics to delineate seasonal occurrence windows
(i.e., spring migration, fall migration, wintering) and to minimize the
potential for double-counting birds.
(5) Numerical metrics showing consistent habitat use by substantial
numbers of rufa red knots, as an indicator that the physical and
biological features of each area are essential to the conservation of
the subspecies. Regarding bird numbers, we adapted the approach of the
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, which designates as
``Sites of Regional Importance'' those areas that support at least one
percent of a biogeographic population. We used one percent as a key
indicator of a habitat's importance, and we applied the one percent
metric to derived estimates of regional population sizes. Best
available data from several sources were considered and used to
estimate the wintering and/or migration population sizes for each of
several U.S. regions. (The various regions were delineated based on
resighting and tracking data.) Consistency of use was indicated for
those areas that supported the minimum number of rufa red knots (i.e.,
at least one percent of the estimated population for that region in
that season) for at least 3 of the past 10 years. In some areas, 10-
year data sets were unavailable; in those cases, we used 1 year in 3 as
the minimum.
(6) Adjustments to account for differences between observational
data (e.g., ground and aerial surveys, eBird) versus population
estimates derived from modeling.
(7) Food availability, including the rufa red knot's need to take
advantage
[[Page 37420]]
of seasonally abundant food resources. This relates to the well-
documented correlations (e.g., Botton et al. 1994, p. 605; Karpanty et
al. 2006, p. 1,706; Niles et al. 2008, pp. 17, 19; Smith et al. 2008,
p. 15; Cohen et al. 2010a, pp. 659-661; Cohen et al. 2010b, p. 355;
Fraser et al. 2010, p. 97; GDNR 2013; SCDNR 2013, p. 37; Thibault and
Levisen 2013, p. 6) between the spatial distribution of rufa red knots
and the distribution of their primary prey species.
(8) The subspecies' need for flexibility in the selection of
wintering and migration habitats to respond to daily, seasonal, and
annual changes in conditions such as weather, tides, coastal processes,
predation pressure, competition, and disturbance from human activities
(Service 2014, pp. 71, 195, 259; Smith et al. 2017a, p. 3).
(9) Once areas were identified to meet the criteria summarized
above, the best available data was further evaluated to ensure that the
area(s) were occupied at the time of listing. For example, if all data
used to meet the numerical metrics were recorded after January 12, 2015
(i.e., the effective date of the rufa red knot final listing rule),
then a separate check was conducted to verify that the area was known
to be occupied by at least some rufa red knots at the time of listing.
Once this methodology was applied and evaluated across the regions
of the United States where concentrations of rufa red knots may occur,
units and subunits were then drawn based on the most recent available
aerial or satellite imagery. In deciding whether to draw a single large
unit or multiple units/subunits, we aimed to facilitate consistent
management of each unit and subunit through section 7 consultation by
distinguishing concentration areas of the same ownership or
jurisdiction. Additionally, we evaluated older imagery dating back as
far as 2010 to estimate the range of landform movement (e.g., landward
island migration, landward shoreline migration, cyclic patterns of
erosion/accretion, movement of shoals). Due to the dynamic nature of
the coastline, units and subunits inevitably include some areas that do
not currently, or may not in the future, contain the physical or
biological features such as densely vegetated marsh or open water. In
some instances, these areas are included to allow the dynamic physical
or biological features to move across the landscape, noting that where
they occur within a unit, they will be excluded by the unit
descriptions.
We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have
determined were occupied at the time of listing (i.e., specifically
referring to January 12, 2015, which is the effective date for the
December 11, 2014, final listing rule (79 FR 73706)), that contain one
or more of the physical or biological features that are essential to
support life-history processes of the species, and that may require
special management considerations or protection.
We propose to designate as critical habitat 120 units (18 of which
are further subdivided into 46 subunits) based on one or more of the
physical or biological features being present to support the rufa red
knot's life-history processes. Some units contain all of the identified
physical or biological features and support multiple life-history
processes, while other units contain only some of the physical or
biological features necessary to support the rufa red knot's particular
use of that habitat.
For the rufa red knot, most of the units contain highly dynamic
barrier beaches and intertidal seashore areas that are covered at high
tide and uncovered at low tide. This area has the potential to vary
year-to-year. In other words, the precise location of the physical or
biological features may shift daily as a result of tides, but also may
shift over time because of the intrinsically dynamic nature of
shorelines, and due to sea level rise. In general, the physical or
biological features we describe are the intertidal areas and sandy
beaches up to the vegetated areas that do not contain the physical or
biological features, noting that availability of different habitats
based on the tide cycle may also cause rufa red knots to vary foraging
or roosting locations throughout a day and/or forage at night.
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the
end of this document. We include more detailed information on the
boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation in the
discussion of individual units, below. We will make the coordinates or
plot points or both on which each map is based available to the public
on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2021-0032.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made every
effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by
pavement, buildings, and other structures (e.g., docks, maintained
rights-of-way, work yards, and stormwater facilities) because such
lands lack physical or biological features necessary for the rufa red
knot. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation under the Act with
respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse
modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or
biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing 120 units (18 of which are further subdivided into
46 subunits) as critical habitat for rufa red knot, all of which were
occupied at the time of listing, and totaling approximately 649,066 ac
(262,667 ha). Table 1, below, shows the proposed unit or subunit names,
land ownership, and approximate acreage. The land ownership values in
many (but not all) proposed critical habitat units also include a
category called ``uncategorized lands.'' For the purposes of this
analysis and proposed critical habitat designation, this category
refers to open water. Although open water is not rufa red knot habitat
per se, it is an integral part of the habitat mosaic that these birds
require. Rufa red knots use the edges of certain coastal ponds, marsh
blow-outs, salt pannes, and sand or mud flats that may be classified by
some States as open water if they are submerged during high tides.
Additionally, open waters at inlets are regularly reshaped by natural
coastal processes that create and maintain dynamic and ephemeral rufa
red knot habitat features, such as shoals and spits.
The areas we propose as critical habitat for the rufa red knot are
presented below and organized by State, north to south. Brief
descriptions of all units and subunits are presented, including the
reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the rufa
red knot. All units contain one or more of the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species and that may
require special management considerations or protection. Also, many of
the proposed units overlap in part or whole with existing critical
habitat designated for other federally threatened species (i.e., the
piping plover (Charadrius melodus), the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta
caretta), the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), and the
West
[[Page 37421]]
Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus)), and one federally endangered
species (i.e., the aboriginal prickly-apple (Harrisia aboriginum)), as
specified below (Table 2).
Additional considerations include:
(1) Most of the units contain highly dynamic barrier beaches and
intertidal seashore areas that are covered at high tide and uncovered
at low tide. This area has the potential to vary year-to-year. In other
words, the precise location of the physical or biological features may
shift daily as a result of tides, but also may shift over time somewhat
because of the intrinsically dynamic nature of shorelines and due to
sea level rise. In general, the physical or biological features we
describe are the intertidal areas and sandy beaches up to the vegetated
or developed areas that do not contain the physical or biological
features.
(2) The availability of different habitats based on the tide cycle
may also cause rufa red knots to vary foraging or roosting locations
throughout a day and/or forage at night.
Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Land Ownership and Unit Size for the Rufa Red Knot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate Approximate
Critical habitat unit or subunit name (state) Land ownership by type acres hectares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA-1 Pleasant Bay............................. Federal......................... 126 51
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 1,596 646
Uncategorized................... 2,634 1,066
-------------------------------
Total........................ 4,357 1,763
MA-2 Monomoy and South Beach Islands.......... Federal......................... 4,047 1,638
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 1,045 423
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 5,093 2,061
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY-1 Moriches Inlet........................... Federal......................... 78 32
State........................... 63 25
Private/Other................... 163 66
Uncategorized................... 697 282
-------------------------------
Total........................ 1,001 405
NY-2 Jones Inlet.............................. Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 710 287
Private/Other................... 1,111 450
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 1,821 737
NY-3 Jamaica Bay.............................. Federal......................... 5,458 2,209
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 0 0
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 5,458 2,209
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ-1 Brigantine and Little Egg Inlets......... Federal......................... 1,560 632
State........................... 3,187 1,291
Private/Other................... 10 4
Uncategorized................... 4,961 2,006
-------------------------------
Total........................ 9,719 3,933
NJ-2 Seven Mile Beach......................... Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 536 217
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 536 217
NJ-3 Hereford Inlet........................... Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 175 71
Private/Other................... 735 297
Uncategorized................... 721 292
-------------------------------
Total........................ 1,631 660
NJ-4 Two Mile Beach........................... Federal......................... 128 52
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 0 0
[[Page 37422]]
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 128 52
NJ-5 Cape May Bayshore........................ Federal......................... 133 54
State........................... 44 18
Private/Other................... 167 67
Uncategorized................... 858 347
-------------------------------
Total........................ 1,202 487
NJ-6 Dennis Creek............................. Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 279 113
Private/Other................... 0 0
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 279 113
NJ-7 Heislerville............................. Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 524 211
Private/Other................... 459 186
Uncategorized................... 127 52
-------------------------------
Total........................ 1,110 449
NJ-8 Egg Island............................... Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 1,908 773
Private/Other................... 32 13
Uncategorized................... 14 5
-------------------------------
Total........................ 1,955 791
NJ-9 Newport Neck............................. Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 202 82
Private/Other................... 176 71
Uncategorized................... 93 38
-------------------------------
Total........................ 472 191
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE-1A St. Jones North......................... Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 37 15
Private/Other................... 3 1
Uncategorized................... 3 1
-------------------------------
Total........................ 43 18
DE-1B St. Jones South......................... Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 1 0.5
Private/Other................... 2 0.6
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 3 1
DE-2A North Brokonbridge Gut.................. Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 2 1
Private/Other................... 91 37
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 93 37
DE-2B South Brokonbridge Gut.................. Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 70 29
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 70 29
DE-3A Main Harbor............................. Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 32 13
Private/Other................... 0 0
Uncategorized................... 29 12
-------------------------------
Total........................ 61 25
DE-3B Rawley Island Roost..................... Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 1,139 461
Private/Other................... 153 62
Uncategorized................... 6 2
-------------------------------
Total........................ 1,298 525
[[Page 37423]]
DE-3C Slaughter Beach......................... Federal......................... 1 0.25
State........................... 59 24
Private/Other................... 2 1
Uncategorized................... 528 213
-------------------------------
Total........................ 590 239
DE-4 Prime Hook............................... Federal......................... 480 195
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 6 2
Uncategorized................... 63 25
-------------------------------
Total........................ 549 222
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA-1 Assateague Island........................ Federal......................... 2,817 1,140
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 0 0
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 2,817 1,140
VA-2A Wallops Island North.................... Federal......................... 540 218
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 0 0
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 540 218
VA-2B Wallops Island South.................... Federal......................... 31 13
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 0 0
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 31 13
VA-3 Assawoman Island......................... Federal......................... 633 256
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 0 0
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 633 256
VA-4 Metompkin Island......................... Federal......................... 64 26
State........................... 56 22
Private/Other................... 1,239 502
Uncategorized................... 110 44
-------------------------------
Total........................ 1,468 594
VA-5 Cedar Island............................. Federal......................... 203 82
State........................... 77 31
Private/Other................... 920 372
Uncategorized................... 1,074 434
-------------------------------
Total........................ 2,274 920
VA-6 Parramore Island......................... Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 5,631 2,280
Uncategorized................... 1,171 473
-------------------------------
Total........................ 6,802 2,753
VA-7 Chimney Pole Marsh....................... Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 1,224 496
Private/Other................... 285 116
Uncategorized................... 495 200
-------------------------------
Total........................ 2,004 811
VA-8 Hog Island............................... Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 16 7
Private/Other................... 2,966 1,201
Uncategorized................... 253 101
-------------------------------
Total........................ 3,235 1,309
VA-9 Cobb Island.............................. Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 16 7
Private/Other................... 1,778 720
[[Page 37424]]
Uncategorized................... 547 221
-------------------------------
Total........................ 2,342 948
VA-10 Little Cobb Island...................... Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 82 33
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 82 33
VA-11 Wreck Island............................ Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 1,270 514
Private/Other................... 0 0
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 1,270 514
VA-12 Myrtle Island........................... Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 1,028 417
Uncategorized................... 388 156
-------------------------------
Total........................ 1,416 573
VA-13 Smith Island............................ Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 2,529 1,024
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 2,529 1,024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC-1A Hatteras Island and Shoals.............. Federal......................... 4,940 1,999
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 0 0
Uncategorized................... 814 329
-------------------------------
Total........................ 5,754 2,329
NC-1B Ocracoke Island......................... Federal......................... 1,427 577
State........................... 3,612 1,462
Private/Other................... 0 0
Uncategorized................... 575 233
-------------------------------
Total........................ 5,613 2,271
NC-2A North Core Banks........................ Federal......................... 6,534 2,644
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 0 0
Uncategorized................... 1,654 669
-------------------------------
Total........................ 8,187 3,313
NC-2B South Core Banks........................ Federal......................... 3,094 1,252
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 0 0
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 3,094 1,252
NC-3 Shackleford Island....................... Federal......................... 4,972 2,012
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 0 0
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 4,972 2,012
NC-4 Emerald Isle-Atlantic Beach.............. Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 1,908 772
Private/Other................... 122 50
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 2,030 822
NC-5 New Topsail Inlet-Topsail Beach.......... Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 0 0
Private/Other................... 1,612 652
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 1,612 652
[[Page 37425]]
NC-6 Cape Fear-Fort Fisher.................... Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 1,713 693
Private/Other................... 274 111
Uncategorized................... 0.00 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 1,986 804
NC-7 Ocean Isle Beach......................... Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 182 73
Private/Other................... 116 47
Uncategorized................... 0 0
-------------------------------
Total........................ 298 120
NC-8 Sunset Beach-Bird Island................. Federal......................... 0 0
State........................... 345 139
Private/Other................... 39 16
Uncategorized................... 0 0