Overview
Title
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Interior Least Tern From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Interior least tern, a small bird, is no longer in danger and has been taken off the list of threatened animals, meaning it is safe and protected now. The people in charge will keep an eye on it to make sure it stays safe and healthy.
Summary AI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has decided to remove the Interior least tern from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife due to its recovery. This decision comes after a detailed review showing that the species has increased in population and no longer faces significant threats that would qualify it as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Effective February 12, 2021, the Interior least tern is no longer protected under the Act, although it will still be covered by other regulations, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Service will continue to monitor the species for at least five years to ensure it remains stable and prevent it from becoming endangered once more.
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing the inland population of the least tern (Interior least tern) (Sterna (now Sternula) antillarum), from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife due to recovery. This determination is based on a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial data, which indicates that the Interior least tern has recovered and the threats to the Interior least tern have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Accordingly, the prohibitions and protections provided by the Act will no longer apply to the Interior least tern.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announces the decision to remove the Interior least tern, a small bird from North America's interior basin, from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This decision is founded on extensive research indicating that the bird's population has grown significantly and no longer meets the criteria for being classified as endangered or threatened. As a result, effective February 12, 2021, the species will no longer benefit from the protections offered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), although it will still be protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The agency will continue to monitor the species over the next five years to ensure that its population remains stable.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document features a technical language characteristic of regulatory texts, which could pose difficulties for a general audience trying to grasp the finer details of the delisting decision. Further complicating understanding, the text refers to several studies and sources without summarizing them, thus requiring interested readers to seek out these original sources for a complete picture. This could be a barrier for those without access or expertise in scientific literature.
The approach to addressing future impacts, particularly those related to climate change, relies heavily on assertions of the species' adaptability and resilience without delving into specific strategies or data to substantiate these claims. This general assurance may not satisfy those concerned about the tangible impacts of climate change on wildlife.
Additionally, there is brief mention regarding changes under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act concerning incidental takes, which refers to harm to birds as a result of lawful activities unrelated to hunting—another area that could have been explored with more depth considering its potential implications.
Moreover, while reliance is placed on continued management commitment by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the document does not shed light on what would happen if these commitments were not maintained or funded in the future, raising questions about long-term security for the species.
Public and Stakeholder Impact
The broader public will likely be concerned with maintaining a balanced ecosystem and may be reassured that the tern's recovery showcases successful conservation efforts. Yet there could also be apprehension given the relatively swift removal of protections within a period that continues to witness environmental uncertainties.
For specific stakeholders, such as conservation groups, there might be apprehension regarding the lack of concrete post-delisting actions to counter climate change or habitat deterioration. Such groups often advocate for extending cautionary measures even post recovery, to buffer potential reversals due to unforeseen ecological shifts.
On the other hand, industries and developers might view the delisting as a lessening of regulatory burden, possibly facilitating operations in areas formerly restricted due to the tern's protected status. However, adherence to existing environmental constraints under laws like the MBTA remains necessary, sustaining some degree of ecological consideration.
In conclusion, while the document reflects a noteworthy conservation success by removing the Interior least tern from the endangered list, it also raises questions about the adequacy of future protections and how resilient these gains will be under evolving environmental conditions. The decision demonstrates a balancing act between celebrating recovery and ensuring ongoing vigilance to prevent any return to threatened status.
Issues
• The document's language is quite technical, which may make it difficult for laypersons to understand all aspects related to the delisting of the Interior least tern.
• The document references a number of studies and source material (e.g., Jorgensen 2009, Farnsworth et al. 2017) without providing summaries, which requires readers to seek out the original sources for a full understanding.
• There is no specific mention of how the delisting will address potential future climate change impacts pragmatically beyond the general statements of resilience and adaptability.
• The justification for the rule being proposed, particularly the balance between habitat loss/regain and the long-term stability of populations, could use more concrete examples or data points to aid understanding.
• The discussion on the regulation related to incidental takes under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act changes is brief and does not fully explore potential consequences or mitigation strategies.
• There is limited information on monitoring funding or costs associated with post-delisting monitoring, which could be essential for understanding potential financial implications.
• The reliance on USACE's current management commitments post-delisting may need further elucidation on what would happen if such commitments are not maintained or funded in the long-term.