Predicting Recovery Criteria for Threatened and Endangered Plant Species on the Basis of Past Abundances and Biological Traits

Recovery plans for species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act are required to specify measurable criteria that can be used to determine when the species can be delisted. For the 642 listed endangered and threatened plant species that have recovery plans, we applied recursive partitioning methods to test whether the number of individuals or populations required for delisting can be predicted on the basis of distributional and biological traits, previous abundance at multiple time steps, or a combination of traits and previous abundances. We also tested listing status (threatened or endangered) and the year the recovery plan was written as predictors of recovery criteria. We analyzed separately recovery criteria that were stated as number of populations and as number of individuals (population‐based and individual‐based criteria, respectively). Previous abundances alone were relatively good predictors of population‐based recovery criteria. Fewer populations, but a greater proportion of historically known populations, were required to delist species that had few populations at listing compared with species that had more populations at listing. Previous abundances were also good predictors of individual‐based delisting criteria when models included both abundances and traits. The physiographic division in which the species occur was also a good predictor of individual‐based criteria. Our results suggest managers are relying on previous abundances and patterns of decline as guidelines for setting recovery criteria. This may be justifiable in that previous abundances inform managers of the effects of both intrinsic traits and extrinsic threats that interact and determine extinction risk. Predicción de Criterios de Recuperación para Especies de Plantas en Peligro y Amenazadas con Base en Abundancias Pasadas y Atributos Biológicos     

Actual and Potential Use of Population Viability Analyses in Recovery of Plant Species Listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Use of population viability analyses (PVAs) in endangered species recovery planning has been met with both support and criticism. Previous reviews promote use of PVA for setting scientifically based, measurable, and objective recovery criteria and recommend improvements to increase the framework's utility. However, others have questioned the value of PVA models for setting recovery criteria and assert that PVAs are more appropriate for understanding relative trade‐offs between alternative management actions. We reviewed 258 final recovery plans for 642 plants listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act to determine the number of plans that used or recommended PVA in recovery planning. We also reviewed 223 publications that describe plant PVAs to assess how these models were designed and whether those designs reflected previous recommendations for improvement of PVAs. Twenty‐four percent of listed species had recovery plans that used or recommended PVA. In publications, the typical model was a matrix population model parameterized with ≤5 years of demographic data that did not consider stochasticity, genetics, density dependence, seed banks, vegetative reproduction, dormancy, threats, or management strategies. Population growth rates for different populations of the same species or for the same population at different points in time were often statistically different or varied by >10%. Therefore, PVAs parameterized with underlying vital rates that vary to this degree may not accurately predict recovery objectives across a species’ entire distribution or over longer time scales. We assert that PVA, although an important tool as part of an adaptive‐management program, can help to determine quantitative recovery criteria only if more long‐term data sets that capture spatiotemporal variability in vital rates become available. Lacking this, there is a strong need for viable and comprehensive methods for determining quantitative, science‐based recovery criteria for endangered species with minimal data availability. Uso Actual y Potencial del Análisis de Viabilidad Poblacional para la Recuperación de Especies de Plantas Enlistadas en el Acta de Especies En Peligro de E.U.A     

Assessing the impact of the U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery planning guidelines on managing threats for listed species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of the United States was enacted in 1973 to prevent the extinction of species. Recovery plans, required by 1988 amendments to the ESA, play an important role in organizing these efforts to protect and recover species. To improve the use of science in the recovery planning process, the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) commissioned an independent review of endangered species recovery planning in 1999. From these findings, the SCB made key recommendations for how management agencies could improve the recovery planning process, after which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service redrafted their recovery planning guidelines. One important recommendation called for recovery plans to make threats a primary focus, including organizing and prioritizing recovery tasks for threat abatement. We sought to determine the extent to which results from the SCB study were incorporated into these new guidelines and whether the SCB recommendations regarding threats manifested in recovery plans written under the new guidelines. Recovery planning guidelines generally incorporated the SCB recommendations, including those for managing threats. However, although recent recovery plans have improved in their treatment of threats, many fail to adequately incorporate threat monitoring. This failure suggests that developing clear guidelines for monitoring should be an important priority in improving ESA recovery planning.     

Geography and Recovery under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Abstract: The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines an endangered species as one “at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The prevailing interpretation of this phrase, which focuses exclusively on the overall viability of listed species without regard to their geographic distribution, has led to development of listing and recovery criteria with fundamental conceptual, legal, and practical shortcomings. The ESA's concept of endangerment is broader than the biological concept of extinction risk in that the “esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific” values provided by species are not necessarily furthered by a species mere existence, but rather by a species presence across much of its former range. The concept of “significant portion of range” thus implies an additional geographic component to recovery that may enhance viability, but also offers independent benefits that Congress intended the act to achieve. Although the ESA differs from other major endangered‐species protection laws because it acknowledges the distinct contribution of geography to recovery, it resembles the “representation, resiliency, and redundancy” conservation‐planning framework commonly referenced in recovery plans. To address representation, listing and recovery standards should consider not only what proportion of its former range a species inhabits, but the types of habitats a species occupies and the ecological role it plays there. Recovery planning for formerly widely distributed species (e.g., the gray wolf [Canis lupus]) exemplifies how the geographic component implicit in the ESA's definition of endangerment should be considered in determining recovery goals through identification of ecologically significant types or niche variation within the extent of listed species, subspecies, or “distinct population segments.” By linking listing and recovery standards to niche and ecosystem concepts, the concept of ecologically significant type offers a scientific framework that promotes more coherent dialogue concerning the societal decisions surrounding recovery of endangered species.     

Developing Metapopulation Connectivity Criteria from Genetic and Habitat Data to Recover the Endangered Mexican Wolf

Restoring connectivity between fragmented populations is an important tool for alleviating genetic threats to endangered species. Yet recovery plans typically lack quantitative criteria for ensuring such population connectivity. We demonstrate how models that integrate habitat, genetic, and demographic data can be used to develop connectivity criteria for the endangered Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), which is currently being restored to the wild from a captive population descended from 7 founders. We used population viability analysis that incorporated pedigree data to evaluate the relation between connectivity and persistence for a restored Mexican wolf metapopulation of 3 populations of equal size. Decreasing dispersal rates greatly increased extinction risk for small populations (<150–200), especially as dispersal rates dropped below 0.5 genetically effective migrants per generation. We compared observed migration rates in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) wolf metapopulation to 2 habitat‐based effective distance metrics, least‐cost and resistance distance. We then used effective distance between potential primary core populations in a restored Mexican wolf metapopulation to evaluate potential dispersal rates. Although potential connectivity was lower in the Mexican wolf versus the NRM wolf metapopulation, a connectivity rate of >0.5 genetically effective migrants per generation may be achievable via natural dispersal under current landscape conditions. When sufficient data are available, these methods allow planners to move beyond general aspirational connectivity goals or rules of thumb to develop objective and measurable connectivity criteria that more effectively support species recovery. The shift from simple connectivity rules of thumb to species‐specific analyses parallels the previous shift from general minimum‐viable‐population thresholds to detailed viability modeling in endangered species recovery planning. Desarrollo de Criterios de Conectividad Metapoblacional a Partir de Datos Genéticos y de Hábitat para Recuperar al Lobo Mexicano en Peligro de Extinción     

Taxonomic and Geographic Patterns of Decline for Threatened and Endangered Species in the United States

Abstract: Species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (i.e., listed species) have declined to the point that the probability of their extinction is high. The decline of these species, however, may manifest itself in different ways, including reductions in geographic range, number of populations, or overall abundance. Understanding the pattern of decline can help managers assess extinction probability and define recovery objectives. Although quantitative data on changes in geographic range, number of populations, and abundance usually do not exist for listed species, more often qualitative data can be obtained. We used qualitative data in recovery plans for federally listed species to determine whether each listed species declined in range size, number of populations, or abundance relative to historical levels. We calculated the proportion of listed species in each state (or equivalent) that declined in each of those ways. Nearly all listed species declined in abundance, and range size or number of populations declined in approximately 80% of species for which those data were available. Patterns of decline, however, differed taxonomically and geographically. Declines in range were more common among vertebrates than plants, whereas population extirpations were more common among plants. Invertebrates had high incidence of range and population declines. Narrowly distributed plants and invertebrates may be subject to acute threats that may result in population extirpations, whereas vertebrates may be affected by chronic threats that reduce the extent and size of populations. Additionally, in the eastern United States and U.S. coastal areas, where the level of land conversion is high, a greater percentage of species’ ranges declined and more populations were extirpated than in other areas. Species in the Southwest, especially plants, had fewer range and population declines than other areas. Such relations may help in the selection of species’ recovery criteria.     

Species‐level persistence probabilities for recovery and conservation status assessment

Recovery planning for species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act has been hampered by a lack of consistency and transparency, which can be improved by implementing a standardized approach for evaluating species status and developing measurable recovery criteria. However, managers lack an assessment method that integrates threat abatement and can be used when demographic data are limited. To help meet these needs, we demonstrated an approach for evaluating species status based on habitat configuration data. We applied 3 established persistence measures (patch occupancy, metapopulation capacity, and proportion of population lost) to compare 2 conservation strategies (critical habitat designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service's Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy) and 2 threat scenarios (maximum limestone mining, removal of all habitat in areas with mining claims; minimum mining, removal of habitat only in areas with existing operations and high‐quality ore) against a baseline of existing habitat for 3 federally listed plant species. Protecting all area within the designated critical habitat maintained a similar level (83.9–99.9%) of species persistence as the baseline, whereas maximum mining greatly reduced persistence (0.51–38.4% maintained). The 3 persistence measures provided complementary insights reflecting different aspects of habitat availability (total area, number of patches, patch size, and connectivity). These measures can be used to link recovery criteria developed following the 3 R principles (representation, redundancy, and resilience) to the resulting improvements in species viability. By focusing on amount and distribution of habitat, our method provides a means of assessing the status of data‐poor species to inform decision making under the Endangered Species Act.     

Testing Decision Rules for Categorizing Species’ Extinction Risk to Help Develop Quantitative Listing Criteria for the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Lack of guidance for interpreting the definitions of endangered and threatened in the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) has resulted in case‐by‐case decision making leaving the process vulnerable to being considered arbitrary or capricious. Adopting quantitative decision rules would remedy this but requires the agency to specify the relative urgency concerning extinction events over time, cutoff risk values corresponding to different levels of protection, and the importance given to different types of listing errors. We tested the performance of 3 sets of decision rules that use alternative functions for weighting the relative urgency of future extinction events: a threshold rule set, which uses a decision rule of x% probability of extinction over y years; a concave rule set, where the relative importance of future extinction events declines exponentially over time; and a shoulder rule set that uses a sigmoid shape function, where relative importance declines slowly at first and then more rapidly. We obtained decision cutoffs by interviewing several biologists and then emulated the listing process with simulations that covered a range of extinction risks typical of ESA listing decisions. We evaluated performance of the decision rules under different data quantities and qualities on the basis of the relative importance of misclassification errors. Although there was little difference between the performance of alternative decision rules for correct listings, the distribution of misclassifications differed depending on the function used. Misclassifications for the threshold and concave listing criteria resulted in more overprotection errors, particularly as uncertainty increased, whereas errors for the shoulder listing criteria were more symmetrical. We developed and tested the framework for quantitative decision rules for listing species under the U.S. ESA. If policy values can be agreed on, use of this framework would improve the implementation of the ESA by increasing transparency and consistency. Evaluando Reglas de Decisión para Categorizar el Riesgo de Extinción de Especies con el Fin de Desarrollar de Criterios Cuantitativos de Alistamiento en el Acta de Especies en Peligro de los EE. UU.     

Incorporating Climate Science in Applications of the U.S. Endangered Species Act for Aquatic Species

Aquatic species are threatened by climate change but have received comparatively less attention than terrestrial species. We gleaned key strategies for scientists and managers seeking to address climate change in aquatic conservation planning from the literature and existing knowledge. We address 3 categories of conservation effort that rely on scientific analysis and have particular application under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA): assessment of overall risk to a species; long‐term recovery planning; and evaluation of effects of specific actions or perturbations. Fewer data are available for aquatic species to support these analyses, and climate effects on aquatic systems are poorly characterized. Thus, we recommend scientists conducting analyses supporting ESA decisions develop a conceptual model that links climate, habitat, ecosystem, and species response to changing conditions and use this model to organize analyses and future research. We recommend that current climate conditions are not appropriate for projections used in ESA analyses and that long‐term projections of climate‐change effects provide temporal context as a species‐wide assessment provides spatial context. In these projections, climate change should not be discounted solely because the magnitude of projected change at a particular time is uncertain when directionality of climate change is clear. Identifying likely future habitat at the species scale will indicate key refuges and potential range shifts. However, the risks and benefits associated with errors in modeling future habitat are not equivalent. The ESA offers mechanisms for increasing the overall resilience and resistance of species to climate changes, including establishing recovery goals requiring increased genetic and phenotypic diversity, specifying critical habitat in areas not currently occupied but likely to become important, and using adaptive management. Incorporación de las Ciencias Climáticas en las Aplicaciones del Acta Estadunidense de Especies en Peligro para Especies Acuáticas     

Climate Change,Marine Environments,and the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Climate change is expected to be a top driver of global biodiversity loss in the 21st century. It poses new challenges to conserving and managing imperiled species, particularly in marine and estuarine ecosystems. The use of climate‐related science in statutorily driven species management, such as under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), is in its early stages. This article provides an overview of ESA processes, with emphasis on the mandate to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to manage listed marine, estuarine, and anadromous species. Although the ESA is specific to the United States, its requirements are broadly relevant to conservation planning. Under the ESA, species, subspecies, and “distinct population segments” may be listed as either endangered or threatened, and taking of most listed species (harassing, harming, pursuing, wounding, killing, or capturing) is prohibited unless specifically authorized via a case‐by‐case permit process. Government agencies, in addition to avoiding take, must ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or conduct are not likely to jeopardize a listed species’ continued existence or adversely affect designated critical habitat. Decisions for which climate change is likely to be a key factor include: determining whether a species should be listed under the ESA, designating critical habitat areas, developing species recovery plans, and predicting whether effects of proposed human activities will be compatible with ESA‐listed species’ survival and recovery. Scientific analyses that underlie these critical conservation decisions include risk assessment, long‐term recovery planning, defining environmental baselines, predicting distribution, and defining appropriate temporal and spatial scales. Although specific guidance is still evolving, it is clear that the unprecedented changes in global ecosystems brought about by climate change necessitate new information and approaches to conservation of imperiled species. El Cambio Climático, los Ecosistemas Marinos y el Acta Estadunidense de Especies en Peligro     

Biodiversity Conservation and Indigenous Land Management in the Era of Self‐Determination

Abstract: Indigenous people inhabit approximately 85% of areas designated for biodiversity conservation worldwide. They also continue to struggle for recognition and preservation of cultural identities, lifestyles, and livelihoods—a struggle contingent on control and protection of traditional lands and associated natural resources (hereafter, self‐determination). Indigenous lands and the biodiversity they support are increasingly threatened because of human population growth and per capita consumption. Application of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to tribal lands in the United States provides a rich example of the articulation between biodiversity conservation and indigenous peoples' struggle for self‐determination. We found a paradoxical relationship whereby tribal governments are simultaneously and contradictorily sovereign nations; yet their communities depend on the U.S. government for protection through the federal‐trust doctrine. The unique legal status of tribal lands, their importance for conserving federally protected species, and federal environmental regulations' failure to define applicability to tribal lands creates conflict between tribal sovereignty, self‐determination, and constitutional authority. We reviewed Secretarial Order 3206, the U.S. policy on “American Indian tribal rights, federal–tribal trust responsibilities, and the ESA,” and evaluated how it influences ESA implementation on tribal lands. We found improved biodiversity conservation and tribal self‐determination requires revision of the fiduciary relationship between the federal government and the tribes to establish clear, legal definitions regarding land rights, applicability of environmental laws, and financial responsibilities. Such actions will allow provision of adequate funding and training to tribal leaders and resource managers, government agency personnel responsible for biodiversity conservation and land management, and environmental policy makers. Increased capacity, cooperation, and knowledge transfer among tribes and conservationists will improve biodiversity conservation and indigenous self‐determination.     

Spatially Explicit Power Analyses for Occupancy‐Based Monitoring of Wolverine in the U.S. Rocky Mountains

Conservation scientists and resource managers often have to design monitoring programs for species that are rare or patchily distributed across large landscapes. Such programs are frequently expensive and seldom can be conducted by one entity. It is essential that a prospective power analysis be undertaken to ensure stated monitoring goals are feasible. We developed a spatially based simulation program that accounts for natural history, habitat use, and sampling scheme to investigate the power of monitoring protocols to detect trends in population abundance over time with occupancy‐based methods. We analyzed monitoring schemes with different sampling efforts for wolverine (Gulo gulo) populations in 2 areas of the U.S. Rocky Mountains. The relation between occupancy and abundance was nonlinear and depended on landscape, population size, and movement parameters. With current estimates for population size and detection probability in the northern U.S. Rockies, most sampling schemes were only able to detect large declines in abundance in the simulations (i.e., 50% decline over 10 years). For small populations reestablishing in the Southern Rockies, occupancy‐based methods had enough power to detect population trends only when populations were increasing dramatically (e.g., doubling or tripling in 10 years), regardless of sampling effort. In general, increasing the number of cells sampled or the per‐visit detection probability had a much greater effect on power than the number of visits conducted during a survey. Although our results are specific to wolverines, this approach could easily be adapted to other territorial species. Poder de Análisis Espacialmente Explícito para el Monitoreo Basado en Ocupación del Glotón (Gulo gulo) en las Montañas Rocallosas de Estados Unidos     

Linking Indices for Biodiversity Monitoring to Extinction Risk Theory

Biodiversity indices often combine data from different species when used in monitoring programs. Heuristic properties can suggest preferred indices, but we lack objective ways to discriminate between indices with similar heuristics. Biodiversity indices can be evaluated by determining how well they reflect management objectives that a monitoring program aims to support. For example, the Convention on Biological Diversity requires reporting about extinction rates, so simple indices that reflect extinction risk would be valuable. We developed 3 biodiversity indices that are based on simple models of population viability that relate extinction risk to abundance. We based the first index on the geometric mean abundance of species and the second on a more general power mean. In a third index, we integrated the geometric mean abundance and trend. These indices require the same data as previous indices, but they also relate directly to extinction risk. Field data for butterflies and woodland plants and experimental studies of protozoan communities show that the indices correlate with local extinction rates. Applying the index based on the geometric mean to global data on changes in avian abundance suggested that the average extinction probability of birds has increased approximately 1% from 1970 to 2009. Conectando Índices para el Monitoreo de la Biodiversidad con la Teoría de Riesgo de Extinción     

Intraspecific Chromosome Number Variation: a Neglected Threat to the Conservation of Rare Plants

Abstract: The effectiveness of rare plant conservation will increase when life history, demographic, and genetic data are considered simultaneously. Inbreeding depression is a widely recognized genetic concern in rare plant conservation, and the mixing of genetically diverse populations in restoration efforts is a common remedy. Nevertheless, if populations with unrecognized intraspecific chromosome variation are crossed, progeny fitness losses will range from partial to complete sterility, and reintroductions and population augmentation of rare plants may fail. To assess the current state of cytological knowledge of threatened and endangered plants in the continental United States, we searched available resources for chromosome counts. We also reviewed recovery plans to discern whether recovery criteria potentially place listed species at risk by requiring reintroductions or population augmentation in the absence of cytological information. Over half the plants lacked a chromosome count, and when a taxon did have a count it generally originated from a sampling intensity too limited to detect intraspecific chromosome variation. Despite limited past cytological sampling, we found 11 plants with documented intraspecific cytological variation, while 8 others were ambiguous for intraspecific chromosome variation. Nevertheless, only one recovery plan addressed the chromosome differences. Inadequate within‐species cytological characterization, incomplete sampling among listed taxa, and the prevalence of interspecific and intraspecific chromosome variation in listed genera, suggests that other rare plants are likely to have intraspecific chromosome variation. Nearly 90% of all recovery plans called for reintroductions or population augmentation as part of recovery criteria despite the dearth of cytological knowledge. We recommend screening rare plants for intraspecific chromosome variation before reintroductions or population augmentation projects are undertaken to safeguard against inadvertent mixtures of incompatible cytotypes.     

Reexamining the Minimum Viable Population Concept for Long‐Lived Species

For decades conservation biologists have proposed general rules of thumb for minimum viable population size (MVP); typically, they range from hundreds to thousands of individuals. These rules have shifted conservation resources away from small and fragmented populations. We examined whether iteroparous, long‐lived species might constitute an exception to general MVP guidelines. On the basis of results from a 10‐year capture‐recapture study in eastern New York (U.S.A.), we developed a comprehensive demographic model for the globally threatened bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii), which is designated as endangered by the IUCN in 2011. We assessed population viability across a wide range of initial abundances and carrying capacities. Not accounting for inbreeding, our results suggest that bog turtle colonies with as few as 15 breeding females have >90% probability of persisting for >100 years, provided vital rates and environmental variance remain at currently estimated levels. On the basis of our results, we suggest that MVP thresholds may be 1–2 orders of magnitude too high for many long‐lived organisms. Consequently, protection of small and fragmented populations may constitute a viable conservation option for such species, especially in a regional or metapopulation context. Reexaminando el Concepto de Población Mínima Viable para Especies Longevas Resumen     

Incorporating Climate and Ocean Change into Extinction Risk Assessments for 82 Coral Species

Many marine invertebrate species facing potential extinction have uncertain taxonomies and poorly known demographic and ecological traits. Uncertainties are compounded when potential extinction drivers are climate and ocean changes whose effects on even widespread and abundant species are only partially understood. The U.S. Endangered Species Act mandates conservation management decisions founded on the extinction risk to species based on the best available science at the time of consideration—requiring prompt action rather than awaiting better information. We developed an expert‐opinion threat‐based approach that entails a structured voting system to assess extinction risk from climate and ocean changes and other threats to 82 coral species for which population status and threat response information was limited. Such methods are urgently needed because constrained budgets and manpower will continue to hinder the availability of desired data for many potentially vulnerable marine species. Significant species‐specific information gaps and uncertainties precluded quantitative assessments of habitat loss or population declines and necessitated increased reliance on demographic characteristics and threat vulnerabilities at genus or family levels. Adapting some methods (e.g., a structured voting system) used during other assessments and developing some new approaches (e.g., integrated assessment of threats and demographic characteristics), we rated the importance of threats contributing to coral extinction risk and assessed those threats against population status and trend information to evaluate each species’ extinction risk over the 21st century. This qualitative assessment resulted in a ranking with an uncertainty range for each species according to their estimated likelihood of extinction. We offer guidance on approaches for future biological extinction risk assessments, especially in cases of data‐limited species likely to be affected by global‐scale threats. Incorporación del Cambio Climático y Oceánico en Estudios de Riesgo de Extinción para 82 Especies de Coral     

Hybridization,agency discretion,and implementation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that the “best available scientific and commercial data” be used to protect imperiled species from extinction and preserve biodiversity. However, it does not provide specific guidance on how to apply this mandate. Scientific data can be uncertain and controversial, particularly regarding species delineation and hybridization issues. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had an evolving hybrid policy to guide protection decisions for individuals of hybrid origin. Currently, this policy is in limbo because it resulted in several controversial conservation decisions in the past. Biologists from FWS must interpret and apply the best available science to their recommendations and likely use considerable discretion in making recommendations for what species to list, how to define those species, and how to recover them. We used semistructured interviews to collect data on FWS biologists’ use of discretion to make recommendations for listed species with hybridization issues. These biologists had a large amount of discretion to determine the best available science and how to interpret it but generally deferred to the scientific consensus on the taxonomic status of an organism. Respondents viewed hybridization primarily as a problem in the context of the ESA, although biologists who had experience with hybridization issues were more likely to describe it in more nuanced terms. Many interviewees expressed a desire to continue the current case‐by‐case approach for handling hybridization issues, but some wanted more guidance on procedures (i.e., a “flexible” hybrid policy). Field‐level information can provide critical insight into which policies are working (or not working) and why. The FWS biologists’ we interviewed had a high level of discretion, which greatly influenced ESA implementation, particularly in the context of hybridization.     

The Normative Dimension and Legal Meaning of Endangered and Recovery in the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Abstract:  The ethical, legal, and social significance of the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) is widely appreciated. Much of the significance of the act arises from the legal definitions that the act provides for the terms threatened species and endangered species. The meanings of these terms are important because they give legal meaning to the concept of a recovered species. Unfortunately, the meanings of these terms are often misapprehended and rarely subjected to formal analysis. We analyzed the legal meaning of recovered species and illustrate key points with details from "recovery" efforts for the gray wolf ( Canis lupus ). We focused on interpreting the phrase "significant portion of its range," which is part of the legal definition of endangered species. We argue that recovery and endangerment entail a fundamentally normative dimension (i.e., specifying conditions of endangerment) and a fundamentally scientific dimension (i.e., determining whether a species meets the conditions of endangerment). Specifying conditions for endangerment is largely normative because it judges risks of extinction to be either acceptable or unacceptable. Like many other laws that specify what is unacceptable, the ESA largely specifies the conditions that constitute unacceptable extinction risk. The ESA specifies unacceptable risks of extinction by defining endangered species in terms of the portion of a species' range over which a species is "in danger of extinction." Our analysis indicated that (1) legal recovery entails much more than the scientific notion of population viability, (2) most efforts to recover endangered species are grossly inadequate, and (3) many unlisted species meet the legal definition of an endangered or threatened species.     

The role of scientists in statutory interpretation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Like many federal statutes, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) contains vague or ambiguous language. The meaning imparted to the ESA's unclear language can profoundly impact the fates of endangered and threatened species. Hence, conservation scientists should contribute to the interpretation of the ESA when vague or ambiguous language contains scientific words or refers to scientific concepts. Scientists need to know at least these 2 facts about statutory interpretation: statutory interpretation is subjective and the potential influence of normative values results in different expectations for the parties involved. With the possible exception of judges, all conventional participants in statutory interpretation are serving their own interests, advocating for their preferred policies, or biased. Hence, scientists can play a unique role by informing the interpretative process with objective, policy‐neutral information. Conversely, scientists may act as advocates for their preferred interpretation of unclear statutory language. The different roles scientists might play in statutory interpretation raise the issues of advocacy and competency. Advocating for a preferred statutory interpretation is legitimate political behavior by scientists, but statutory interpretation can be strongly influenced by normative values. Therefore, scientists must be careful not to commit stealth policy advocacy. Most conservation scientists lack demonstrable competence in statutory interpretation and therefore should consult or collaborate with lawyers when interpreting statutes. Professional scientific societies are widely perceived by the public as unbiased sources of objective information. Therefore, professional scientific societies should remain policy neutral and present all interpretations of unclear statutory language; explain the semantics and science both supporting and contradicting each interpretation; and describe the potential consequences of implementing each interpretation. A review of scientists’ interpretations of the phrase “significant portion of its range” in the ESA is used to critique the role of scientists and professional societies in statutory interpretation.     

Minimizing species extinctions through strategic planning for conservation fencing

Conservation fences are an increasingly common management action, particularly for species threatened by invasive predators. However, unlike many conservation actions, fence networks are expanding in an unsystematic manner, generally as a reaction to local funding opportunities or threats. We conducted a gap analysis of Australia's large predator‐exclusion fence network by examining translocation of Australian mammals relative to their extinction risk. To address gaps identified in species representation, we devised a systematic prioritization method for expanding the conservation fence network that explicitly incorporated population viability analysis and minimized expected species’ extinctions. The approach was applied to New South Wales, Australia, where the state government intends to expand the existing conservation fence network. Existing protection of species in fenced areas was highly uneven; 67% of predator‐sensitive species were unrepresented in the fence network. Our systematic prioritization yielded substantial efficiencies in that it reduced expected number of species extinctions up to 17 times more effectively than ad hoc approaches. The outcome illustrates the importance of governance in coordinating management action when multiple projects have similar objectives and rely on systematic methods rather than expanding networks opportunistically.