Loading ...
Jack Berlin
Other
12
0
Try Now
Log In
Pricing
 1  of  8   U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  Protects  the  Rufa  Red  Knot  as  Threatened  Under  Endangered  Species  Act   Questions  and  Answers   In  a  December  11,  2014  final  rule,  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  has  made  a  final  determination  to  protect  the  rufa  subspecies  of  the  red  knot  (Calidris  canutus  rufa)  as  threatened  under  the  Endangered  Species  Act  (ESA).  The  rufa  red  knot  is  a  robin-Ââ€sized  shorebird  that  depends  on  several  areas  of  the  United  States  during  its  annual  journey  across  North  and  South  America,  and  its  population  has  declined  by  about  75  percent  in  some  key  areas  since  the  1980s.    As  noted  in  the  State  of  the  Birds  2014  report,  the  knot’s  status  is  representative  of  the  steep  declines  underway  in  shorebirds  that  migrate  long  distances.  Threats  to  shorebirds  have  become  more  diverse  and  widespread  in  recent  decades,  requiring  coordinated  conservation  efforts  across  their  entire  ranges.   To  see  the  rule,  responses  to  public  comments  and  related  materials,  visit  http://www.fws.gov/northeast/redknot/.    1.  Why  is  the  Service  listing  the  rufa  red  knot  as  threatened  under  the  ESA?  The  Service  analyzed  the  best  available  science  and  determined  the  rufa  red  knot  is  threatened  by  the  following  primary  factors:   1. Loss  of  habitat  across  its  range  due  to  sea-Ââ€level  rise,  some  shoreline  projects  and  Arctic  warming;   2. Reduced  food  availability  and  timing  mismatches  (asynchronies)  throughout  the  bird’s  annual  migratory  cycle;  and  3. Potential  increases  in  predation  by  birds  and  mammals  in  the  rufa  red  knot’s  Arctic  breeding  grounds.  The  rufa  red  knot  faces  other  ongoing  and  emerging  factors  that  may  cause  additional  mortality;  individually  these  factors  are  not  expected  to  affect  the  rufa  red  knot  as  a  whole,  but  cumulatively  they  could  exacerbate  the  primary  threats  and  reduce  the  rufa  red  knot’s  resiliency.  See  the  rule  under  the  Summary  of  Biological  Status  and  Threats  and  the  Determination  sections  for  more  information.   2.  Where  is  the  rufa  red  knot  listed?  The  Service  is  protecting  the  rufa  red  knot  across  all  of  its  range,  which  we  determined  based  on  a  thorough  review  of  published  scientific  literature,  submitted  manuscripts,  species  experts,  and  historical  and  current  occurrence  data.  This  range  includes  inland  areas,  for  a  total  of  40  U.S.  states  and  two  U.S.  territories1,  as  well  as  24  other  countries,  two  British                                                          1  Range  states  include:  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Connecticut,  Colorado,  Delaware,  Florida,  Georgia,  Iowa,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Kansas,  Kentucky,  Louisiana,  Massachusetts,  Maryland,  Maine,  Michigan,  Minnesota,  Missouri,  Mississippi,  Montana,  Nebraska,  North  Carolina,  North  Dakota,  New  Hampshire,  New  Jersey,  New  York,  Ohio,  Oklahoma,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island,  South  Carolina,  South  Dakota,   2  of  8   territories  and  three  French  overseas  regions2.    The  rufa  red  knot  migrates  annually  between  its  breeding  grounds  in  the  Canadian  Arctic  and  several  wintering  regions,  including  the  southeast  United  States,  the  northwest  Gulf  of  Mexico,  northern  Brazil  and  Tierra  del  Fuego  at  the  southern  tip  of  South  America.    During  both  the  northbound  (spring)  and  southbound  (fall)  migrations,  groups  of  a  few  individuals  to  thousands  of  rufa  red  knots  can  be  found  anywhere  along  the  coastal  and  inland  United  States  migration  corridors  from  Argentina  to  Canada.  In  the  spring,  well-Ââ€known  staging  and  stopover  areas  include  Patagonia,  Argentina;  eastern  and  northern  Brazil;  the  southeast  United  States;  the  Virginia  barrier  islands;  and  Delaware  Bay.    In  the  fall,  well  known  migration  stopovers  include  Hudson  Bay,  James  Bay,  St.  Lawrence  River,  Mingan  Archipelago  and  Bay  of  Fundy  in  Canada;  Massachusetts  and  New  Jersey  coasts;  Altamaha  River  in  Georgia;  the  Caribbean;  and  the  northern  coast  of  South  America  from  Brazil  to  Guyana.    Throughout  the  range,  rufa  red  knots  occur  primarily  along  the  coasts  but  also  migrate  across  areas  of  open  ocean  as  well  as  over  land.  In  the  United  States,  knots  use  both  coastal  and  interior  routes  during  migration,  including  the  Central,  Mississippi  and  Atlantic  flyways.  Most  records  in  the  interior  states  show  small  numbers  (fewer  than  10)  of  knots,  but  there  are  multiple  records  in  every  inland  state  included  in  this  listing.  Although  several  thousand  knots  migrate  through  inland  areas  each  year,  scientists  are  just  beginning  to  discover  where  these  birds  are  stopping  to  rest  and  feed  along  the  way.  For  example,  geolocator  information  shows  rufa  red  knots  using  stopovers  in  North  Dakota  and  in  Montana,  and  there  are  clusters  of  sightings  records  along  the  tributaries  to  the  Mississippi  River  and  along  the  Great  Lakes.    3.  What  is  the  size  of  the  rufa  red  knot  population?  Due  to  challenges  with  the  species’  migratory  habits  and  differing  survey  methods  and  observers  across  the  rufa  red  knot’s  broad  range,  we  do  not  have  a  range-Ââ€wide  estimate  of  total  population.  However,  reliable  regional  estimates  are  available  for  key  areas.  The  best  available  data  from  wintering  and  spring  migration  areas  include:   a. Recent  winter  surveys  found  about  10,105  knots  wintering  in  Argentina  and  Chile  (2013);  15,485  in  northern  Brazil  (2013);  2,000  in  the  northwest  Gulf  of  Mexico  (2012);  and  4,000  in  the  southeast  United  States  (2011).  We  do                                                                                                                                                                       Tennessee,  Texas,  Virginia,  Vermont,  Wisconsin,  West  Virginia,  Wyoming,  Puerto  Rico  and  the  U.S.  Virgin  Islands.  2Argentina,  Aruba,  Bahamas,  Barbados,  Belize,  Brazil,  British  Virgin  Islands,  Canada,  Cayman  Islands,  Chile,  Colombia,  Costa  Rica,  Cuba,  Dominican  Republic,  El  Salvador,  France  (Guadeloupe,  French  Guiana,  Martinique),  Guatemala,  Guyana,  Haiti,  Jamaica,  Mexico,  Panama,  Paraguay,  Suriname,  Trinidad  and  Tobago,  Uruguay  and  Venezuela.   3  of  8   not  add  these  to  produce  a  total  population  estimate  because  of  differences  in  survey  methods  and  timing,  and  incomplete  geographic  coverage.   b. The  spring  mid-Ââ€Atlantic  knot  population  estimates  are:  48,955  knots  stopping  in  Delaware  Bay  (2013)  and  5,547  to  8,482  knots  annually  stopping  in  Virginia  (2011-Ââ€2014).  These  estimates  are  produced  from  both  direct  counts  and  by  using  marked  bird  data  in  mathematical  models,  and  they  do  not  include  the  birds  that  bypass  the  mid-Ââ€Atlantic,  such  as  birds  migrating  overland  from  Texas  or  the  Southeast  directly  to  Canada.   c. Comprehensive  counts  from  the  breeding  grounds  are  not  available  because  nesting  knots  are  thinly  distributed  across  a  huge  and  remote  area  of  the  Arctic.   More  details  are  available  in  the  Population  Surveys  and  Estimates  section  of  the  supplemental  document  to  the  rule.   4.  How  much  has  the  rufa  red  knot  population  declined?  Surveys  have  been  conducted  in  a  number  of  areas  across  the  knot’s  range,  but  in  many  regions,  these  efforts  have  not  been  consistent  enough  to  have  high  confidence  in  any  apparent  trends.  However,  two  key  sites  have  been  surveyed  consistently,  and  show  numbers  of  knots  declined  and  remain  low  relative  to  counts  from  the  1980s:  a. The  average  counts  for  Tierra  del  Fuego  (the  most  southern  tip  of  South  America)  between  1985  and  2000  (52,244)  dropped  by  about  75  percent  between  2011  and  2013  (11,385).  b. Comparing  four  different  time  periods,  average  knot  counts  in  Delaware  Bay  declined  about  70  percent  overall  from  59,946  (1981  to  1983)  to  18,387  (2005  to  2014).  Average  counts  between  those  years  also  include  46,886  (1986  to  1994)  and  34,060  (1995  to  2004).   5.  What  process  did  the  Service  follow  in  preparing  this  rule?  The  Service  carefully  assessed  the  best  scientific  and  commercial  information  available  regarding  the  past,  present  and  future  threats  to  the  rufa  red  knot.  The  rufa  red  knot  has  been  a  candidate  for  federal  listing  since  2006,  but  we  were  precluded  from  listing  it  due  to  other  higher  priority  listing  actions.  In  2011,  the  Service  committed  to  publishing  a  proposed  listing  determination  for  the  rufa  red  knot  by  September  2013  through  a  court  settlement  agreement  with  WildEarth  Guardians  and  the  Center  for  Biological  Diversity.    The  Service  solicited  information  from  our  state,  federal,  tribal,  academic  and  other  red  knot  partners,  and  we  received  occurrence  and  habitat  use  data  from  state  natural  resource  and  federal  agencies.  On  September  30,  2013,  we  published  a  proposed  rule  in  the  Federal  Register  to  protect  the  rufa  red  knot  as  threatened  under  the  ESA.  The  proposal  opened  a  30-Ââ€day  public  comment  period.  The  comment  period  was  extended  and  then  reopened  while  we  held  three  public  hearings.   In  accordance  with  our  peer  review  policy,  we  sought  the  expert  opinions  of  three  independent  specialists  during  the  comment  period.  Peer  review  ensures  our  listing  determination  is  based  on  scientifically  sound  data,  assumptions  and  analyses.  The   4  of  8   peer  reviewers  have  expertise  in  the  rufa  red  knot's  biology,  habitat  or  threats,  which  informs  our  determination.    Our  final  determination  is  based  on  an  analysis  of  the  best  available  data  in  more  than  1,700  scientific  documents,  from  peer  review  and  issues  raised  in  more  than  17,400  comments  provided  during  130  days  of  public  comment  periods  and  three  public  hearings.  Learn  more  about  the  listing  process:  http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-Ââ€library/pdf/listing.pdf.   6.  What  kinds  of  substantive  comments  did  the  Service  receive  on  the  proposal?  Comments  typically  fell  into  these  categories:  appropriate  listing  status,  adequacy  of  horseshoe  crab  management,  critical  habitat  implications  (which  are  outside  the  scope  of  the  proposed  listing  rule),  wind  turbine  impacts,  inclusion  of  interior  states  in  listed  range,  and  critiques  of  use  of  best  available  data.  The  Service  addressed  and  responded  to  these  in  the  final  rule  under  the  Summary  of  Comments  and  Recommendations  section.  The  proposed  and  final  rules,  along  with  the  original  comments  can  be  found  at  regulations.gov.    7.  What  changes  were  made  between  the  proposal  and  final  rule?  Our  final  determination  of  the  red  knot  as  a  threatened  species  remained  unchanged  from  the  proposed  rule.  Changes  were  made  to  the  final  rule  based  on  new  information  available  since  publication  of  the  proposed  rule  and  from  peer  review  and  public  comments.  These  include  additional  location  data  and  updated  regional  population  estimates,  updated  information  on  possible  effects  of  horseshoe  crab  harvest  and  management,  and  clarification  to  the  wind  energy  discussion.  The  Summary  of  Changes  from  the  Proposed  Rule  section  of  the  final  rule  fully  describes  these  changes.   8.  How  will  listing  the  rufa  red  knot  affect  beach  management?  The  implications  of  listing  the  red  knot  for  beach  management  will  vary  based  on  the  specific  patterns  of  beach  use  by  knots  and  site-Ââ€specific  habitat  and  project  details.  Coordination  has  already  begun  with  our  partners  in  state  and  other  federal  agencies.  Because  many  parts  of  the  knot's  coastal  range  overlap  with  areas  used  by  other  listed  species,  such  as  piping  plovers  and  sea  turtles,  some  of  the  management  actions  needed  to  protect  the  knot  and  its  habitat  are  already  in  place.   9.  How  is  development  and  associated  shoreline  stabilization  affecting  the  rufa  red  knot?  Coastal  development,  which  often  goes  hand-Ââ€in-Ââ€hand  with  shoreline  hardening,  has  already  decreased  the  amount  of  available  rufa  red  knot  habitat.  More  than  80  percent  of  the  coasts  of  Florida,  New  Jersey  and  New  York  are  substantially  or  partly  developed.  From  North  Carolina  south  to  Texas,  just  under  half  of  the  beaches  are  developed.  Additionally,  about  a  third  of  knot  habitat  in  the  United  States  is  still  available  for  development,  and  winter  and  stopover  habitats  in  Argentina  and  sub-Ââ€Arctic  Canada  face  ongoing  development  pressure.    Further,  sea-Ââ€level  rise  is  expected  to  increase  efforts  to  stabilize  shorelines  and   5  of  8   protect  coastal  development  with  hard  structures,  such  as  seawalls  and  jetties.  These  can  further  degrade  and  eliminate  beach  habitat  and  interfere  with  the  creation  of  new  beach  habitat.   10.  How  can  climate  change  affect  the  rufa  red  knot?  Already  reduced  in  size,  the  rufa  red  knot  population  is  highly  vulnerable  to  changes  in  the  environment.  The  bird’s  lifecycle  makes  it  susceptible  to  mismatches  in  its  migration  and  the  timing  of  its  food  supply  and  necessary  weather  conditions.    Adverse  effects  from  altered  timing  have  already  been  observed  at  migration  stopovers  in  some  years.  For  example,  in  Delaware  Bay,  warming  coastal  waters  may  cause  horseshoe  crabs  to  lay  their  eggs  earlier  than  normal;  conversely,  more  intense  and  frequent  coastal  storms  can  cause  late  spawning.  In  both  cases,  rufa  red  knots,  which  feed  on  the  crabs’  eggs,  can  miss  their  peak  refueling  opportunity.  Additionally,  ocean  acidification  and  warming  coastal  waters  are  already  starting  to  affect  clams  and  mussels,  on  which  the  rufa  red  knot  feeds  in  other  areas  along  the  Atlantic  and  Gulf  coasts.  New  climate  information  reinforces  this.   The  rufa  red  knot’s  breeding  grounds  in  the  Canadian  Arctic  are  experiencing  pronounced  effects  from  climate  change.  Due  to  warming  temperatures,  tundra  habitats,  which  rufa  red  knots  need  for  nesting,  are  already  becoming  shrubbier  and  less  suitable  for  shorebirds.  The  ability  of  red  knots  to  successfully  raise  their  chicks  depends  on  specific  snow  conditions,  the  availability  of  insects  as  food,  and  losses  to  predators—all  of  which  are  affected  by  climate  change.   11.  How  is  the  availability  of  horseshoe  crab  eggs,  mollusks  and  other  food  affecting  the  rufa  red  knot?  Threats  to  food  resources  from  climate  change  and  other  causes  occur  throughout  the  rufa  red  knot’s  range.    The  best  available  data  suggest  reduced  horseshoe  crab  populations  in  Delaware  Bay  due  to  commercial  harvest  were  an  important  factor  in  rufa  red  knot  population  declines.  Since  2000,  the  Atlantic  State  Marine  Fisheries  Commission  has  restricted  harvest,  and  in  2012,  it  implemented  an  adaptive  management  framework  that  explicitly  ties  crab  harvest  levels  to  rufa  red  knot  populations.  Though  crab  numbers  have  not  yet  fully  rebounded,  the  full  implementation  and  monitoring  of  this  framework  should  lead  to  increased  crab  populations  and  help  rufa  red  knot  recovery.    Outside  Delaware  Bay,  the  rufa  red  knot  feeds  mainly  on  small  clams  and  mussels,  except  on  its  Arctic  breeding  grounds,  where  it  feeds  mainly  on  insects.  The  effects  of  climate  change  have  begun  affecting  both  types  of  prey.  Oceans  become  more  acidic  as  carbon  dioxide  emitted  into  the  atmosphere  dissolves  in  the  ocean;  this  has  been  shown  to  interfere  with  the  ability  of  clams  and  mussels  to  form  their  shells.  Clams  and  mussels  also  are  sensitive  to  warming  water  temperatures,  and  changes  in  their  geographic  distribution  or  timing  of  spawning  are  likely  to  affect  rufa  red  knot  food  supplies  during  important  stopover  periods.  For  example,  the  range  of   6  of  8   blue  mussels,  the  young  (called  spat)  of  which  are  an  important  prey  species  for  rufa  red  knots,  has  already  shrunk  due  to  warming  ocean  temperatures,  and  the  mussel  soon  may  not  be  available  as  a  food  resource  for  migrating  rufa  red  knots  in  the  Virginia  stopover  area.  In  the  Arctic  breeding  grounds,  insects  are  hatching  earlier  in  the  spring  due  to  warming  temperatures.  This  change  in  timing  could  cause  rufa  red  knot  chicks  to  miss  the  peak  window  for  feeding  and  rapid  growth  before  their  long  southward  migration.   Additionally,  sand  placement  projects  and  off-Ââ€road  vehicle  (ORV)  use  are  known  to  bury  or  crush  animals  that  the  knots  eat.  The  negative  effects  to  prey  resources  from  these  activities  are  typically  short  term,  though  repeated  renourishing  may  prolong  the  adverse  effects  to  the  invertebrate  community  on  which  knots  rely  for  food.   12.  Does  hunting  or  predation  threaten  the  rufa  red  knot?  Although  legal  and  illegal  sport  and  market  hunting  in  the  United  States  substantially  reduced  rufa  red  knot  populations  in  the  1800s,  the  birds  are  no  longer  hunted  here.  Legal  and  illegal  hunting  does  occur  in  other  parts  of  its  range,  but  we  do  not  have  enough  information  to  determine  if  this  mortality  affects  populations.  The  rufa  red  knot  was  recently  protected  from  hunting  in  parts  of  the  Caribbean  and  in  French  Guiana.    Despite  some  localized  mortality  and  disturbance  from  predators  such  as  peregrine  falcons,  predation  is  not  currently  a  threat  to  the  rufa  red  knot  in  the  United  States  or  other  nonbreeding  portions  of  its  range.  However,  predation  is  an  emerging  threat  on  the  Arctic  breeding  grounds.  Natural  predation  cycles  are  driven  by  the  availability  of  lemmings  and  other  rodents;  when  rodents  are  scarce,  predators  (including  the  long-Ââ€tailed  jaeger  and  other  jaeger  species,  herring  and  glaucous  gulls,  peregrine  falcon  and  snowy  owl,  as  well  as  Arctic  fox  and  sometimes  Arctic  wolf)  turn  to  shorebird  eggs  and  chicks.  Historically,  high  lemming  abundance  occurred  in  three-† to  four-Ââ€year  cycles  and  so  was  not  a  long-Ââ€term  threat  to  shorebirds.  However,  climate  change  is  disrupting  these  cycles,  which  may  put  additional  predation  pressure  on  red  knots  resulting  in  prolonged  periods  of  very  low  reproductive  productivity.  Warming  temperatures  and  changes  in  vegetation  may  also  increase  predation  pressure  in  the  Arctic.   13.  Will  the  Service  designate  critical  habitat  for  the  rufa  red  knot?  If  a  species  is  listed  as  threatened  or  endangered,  the  Service  must  consider  whether  designating  critical  habitat  is  appropriate.  The  Service  is  considering  which  specific  areas  are  essential  to  the  rufa  red  knot’s  conservation  and  expects  to  issue  a  proposal  to  designate  critical  habitat  for  the  rufa  red  knot  in  2015.   Critical  habitat  designation  under  the  ESA  does  not  set  up  a  preserve,  change  land  ownership  or  allow  government  or  public  access  to  private  land.  Critical  habitat  refers  to  specific  geographic  areas  that  contain  elements  that  are  essential  to  the  conservation  of  a  threatened  or  endangered  species.  Critical  habitat  focuses  the  coordination  of  federal  agencies,  which  are  directed  by  the  ESA  to  aid  in  the  conservation  of  listed  species.  Designation  of  critical  habitat  does  not  affect  land   7  of  8   ownership  nor  establish  a  refuge,  and  does  not  affect  private  actions  on  private  lands  that  do  not  receive  federal  funds  or  require  federal  permits.  Where  the  species  occurs  and  how  often,  as  well  as  where  the  most  important  natural  features  exist  for  its  feeding  and  resting,  are  considered  when  determining  where  critical  habitat  should  be  designated.  For  the  rufa  red  knot,  these  features  may  include  wide,  open  beaches  for  roosting  or  habitat  supporting  prey,  among  others.   14.  How  will  the  rufa  red  knot  benefit  from  protection  under  the  ESA?  Listing  raises  awareness  about  the  need  for  national  and  international  cooperation  and  coordination  of  conservation  efforts,  enhances  research  programs,  and  encourages  the  development  of  conservation  measures  that  could  help  slow  habitat  loss  and  population  declines.  A  recovery  plan,  developed  after  a  species  is  listed,  identifies  specific  ways  to  recover  the  species  and  typically  depends  on  the  assistance  of  species  experts;  other  federal,  state  and  local  agencies;  tribes;  nongovernmental  organizations;  academia;  and  other  stakeholders.   The  ESA  includes  regulatory  protections  regarding  import  and  export  and  the  “take† (killing,  harming,  harassing,  pursuing  or  removing  the  species  from  the  wild)  of  listed  species.  The  ESA  also  requires  federal  agencies  to  conduct  their  activities  in  such  a  way  that  conserves  listed  species.    15.  How  does  the  ESA  apply  to  rufa  red  knots  in  foreign  countries?  ESA  regulations  apply  only  to  people  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.  However,  the  ESA  can  generate  conservation  benefits  in  foreign  countries,  such  as  increased  awareness  of  listed  species,  research  efforts  to  address  conservation  needs,  or  funding  for  conservation  of  the  species  in  range  countries.  The  ESA  also  provides  for  limited  financial  and  technical  assistance  to  develop  and  manage  programs  to  conserve  listed  species  in  foreign  countries.   16.  What  actions  are  already  underway  to  protect  the  rufa  red  knot?  Governments  and  scientists  from  several  countries  where  knots  breed,  stopover  or  winter  are  working  to  address  threats  faced  by  the  rufa  red  knot.   In  South  America,  several  key  rufa  red  knot  sites  are  becoming  shorebird  reserves,  and  regional  efforts  include  the  protection  of  rufa  red  knot  habitats  in  urban  development  plans.  Hunting  regulations,  voluntary  hunting  restrictions,  increased  hunter  education  efforts,  no-Ââ€shoot  shorebird  refuges  and  sustainable  harvest  models  are  also  underway  to  address  hunting  in  various  countries.    In  areas  along  the  U.S.  coast,  partners  are  managing  beaches  to  minimize  disturbance  and  to  reduce  interference  from  gulls  and  peregrines.  In  Delaware  Bay,  actions  to  conserve  horseshoe  crabs  have  been  important  in  stabilizing  earlier  rufa  red  knot  population  declines.  In  addition,  biologists  in  the  Carolinas  and  Florida  are  improving  beach  habitat  by  controlling  invasive  plants.    Volunteers,  conservation  organizations  and  researchers  have  made  valuable   8  of  8   contributions  to  the  understanding  and  conservation  of  the  rufa  red  knot,  such  as  surveying  populations,  banding  and  resighting  birds,  outfitting  birds  with  geolocators,  documenting  breeding  habitat,  monitoring  weight  gains,  studying  the  effects  of  disturbance,  and  scientific  modeling.   The  Western  Hemisphere  Migratory  Species  Initiative  (WHMSI)  has  supported  efforts  to  protect  the  Red  Knot  along  with  other  migratory  bird  species  in  the  Western  Hemisphere  by  funding  capacity-Ââ€building  efforts  through  workshops,  training  and  development  of  a  “Flyways  of  the  Americas  Plan,† which  integrates  migratory  bird  conservation  initiatives  in  the  Americas.  This  plan  was  adopted  at  the  11th  Conference  of  the  Parties  of  the  Convention  on  Migratory  Species  (CMS)  in  Quito,  Ecuador  in  November  2014,  as  the  framework  for  CMS'  work  in  the  Americas.    17.  What  can  I  do  now?  The  Service  invites  you  to:  a. Visit  http://www.fws.gov/northeast/redknot/  to  learn  more,  and  join  the  conversation  at  http://www.fws.gov/home/socialmedia/index.html.   b. Learn  what  role  your  backyard  plays  in  the  lifecycle  of  the  knot  and  contact  local  conservation  groups  for  information  on  how  you  can  help  conserve  it.  c. Be  a  citizen  scientist!  Report  knot  and  other  shorebird  sightings  at  bandedbirds.org  and  ebird.org.  Â
