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 a Criterion for Delisting the Southern Sea Otter under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Recent surveys of recovery plans indicate that criteria, such as population sizes, for delisting species from the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) are often unrealistically low by scientific standards. We describe the delisting criterion for the threatened southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) developed by the Southern Sea Otter Recovery Team. A major oil spill is the most serious threat to this sea otter population. After extensive modeling of oil spills, the recovery team concluded that it was not scientifically defensible to develop a delisting criterion in terms of a single probability of extinction over a specified time period. Instead, the team decided to define a size at which it would consider the population endangered and to consider the population threatened as long as a major oil spill might reduce it to that size. The effective population size (N_e) for endangered status was set at 500, estimated to be about 1850 otters. Using a spill the size of the Exxon Valdez spill (250,000 bbl), the oil spill model was iterated to generate a frequency distribution of the number of sea otters contacted by oil, from which the team estimated that less than 800 otters would be killed by 90% of the simulated spills. Thus, the delisting criterion was set at 1850 + 800 = 2650 individuals. There have been several proposals to improve the Endangered Species Act by providing quantitative guidance, in the form of specific probabilities of extinction within some time frame or specific criteria like those used by the World Conservation Union as to the levels of extinction risk represented by the terms "threatened" and "endangered." Experiences of the Sea Otter Recovery Team indicate that guidelines should not be overly rigid and should allow flexibility for dealing with specific situations. The most important consideration is to appoint a recovery team that is both technically well qualified and unconstrained by pressures from management agencies.     

Quantitative tools for implementing the new definition of significant portion of the range in the U.S. Endangered Species Act

In 2014, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service announced a new policy interpretation for the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). According to the act, a species must be listed as threatened or endangered if it is determined to be threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range (SPR). The 2014 policy seeks to provide consistency by establishing that a portion of the range should be considered significant if the associated individuals’ “removal would cause the entire species to become endangered or threatened.” We reviewed 20 quantitative techniques used to assess whether a portion of a species’ range is significant according to the new guidance. Our assessments are based on the 3R criteria—redundancy (i.e., buffering from catastrophe), resiliency (i.e., ability to withstand stochasticity), and representation (i.e., ability to evolve)—that the FWS uses to determine if a species merits listing. We identified data needs for each quantitative technique and considered which methods could be implemented given the data limitations typical of rare species. We also identified proxies for the 3Rs that may be used with limited data. To assess potential data availability, we evaluated 7 example species by accessing data in their species status assessments, which document all the information used during a listing decision. In all species, an SPR could be evaluated with at least one metric for each of the 3Rs robustly or with substantial assumptions. Resiliency assessments appeared most constrained by limited data, and many species lacked information on connectivity between subpopulations, genetic variation, and spatial variability in vital rates. These data gaps will likely make SPR assessments for species with complex life histories or that cross national boundaries difficult. Although we reviewed techniques for the ESA, other countries require identification of significant areas and could benefit from this research.     

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.     

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     

Developing Classification Criteria under the U.S. Endangered Species Act: Bowhead Whales as a Case Study

Abstract: Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, a species is classified as endangered, threatened, or recovered based on the extent to which its survival is affected by one or more of five subjective factors. A key criticism of the act is that it makes no reference to quantitative or even qualitative parameters of what constitutes "danger of extinction." Without objective standards to guide decisionmakers, classification decisions fall prey to political and social influences. We recommend the development of species-specific, status-determining criteria as a means to rationalize and expedite the listing process and reclassification decisions, independent of the requirement for delisting criteria in recovery plans. Such criteria should (1) clearly define levels of vulnerability, (2) identify gaps in information on life-history parameters, and (3) address uncertainty in existing data. As a case study, we developed preliminary criteria for bowhead whales (    Balaena mysticetus ). Thresholds for endangered and threatened status were based on World Conservation Union ( IUCN) Red List criteria and population viability analyses. Our analysis indicates that particular attention must be focused on population structure within the species to appropriately classify the degree to which one or more components of a species are vulnerable to extinction. A similar approach could be used in the classification of other species. According to our application of the IUCN criteria and those developed for similar species by Gerber and DeMaster (1999) , the Bering Sea population of bowhead whales should be delisted, whereas the other four populations of bowheads should continue to be considered endangered.     

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.     

A Framework for Developing Objective and Measurable Recovery Criteria for Threatened and Endangered Species

For species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service are tasked with writing recovery plans that include “objective, measurable criteria” that define when a species is no longer at risk of extinction, but neither the act itself nor agency guidelines provide an explicit definition of objective, measurable criteria. Past reviews of recovery plans, including one published in 2012, show that many criteria lack quantitative metrics with clear biological rationale and are not meeting the measureable and objective mandate. I reviewed how objective, measureable criteria have been defined implicitly and explicitly in peer‐reviewed literature, the ESA, other U.S. statutes, and legal decisions. Based on a synthesis of these sources, I propose the following 6 standards be used as minimum requirements for objective, measurable criteria: contain a quantitative threshold with calculable units, stipulate a timeframe over which they must be met, explicitly define the spatial extent or population to which they apply, specify a sampling procedure that includes sample size, specify a statistical significance level, and include justification by providing scientific evidence that the criteria define a species whose extinction risk has been reduced to the desired level. To meet these 6 standards, I suggest that recovery plans be explicitly guided by and organized around a population viability modeling framework even if data or agency resources are too limited to complete a viability model. When data and resources are available, recovery criteria can be developed from the population viability model results, but when data and resources are insufficient for model implementation, extinction risk thresholds can be used as criteria. A recovery‐planning approach centered on viability modeling will also yield appropriately focused data‐acquisition and monitoring plans and will facilitate a seamless transition from recovery planning to delisting. Un Marco de Referencia para Desarrollar Criterios de Recuperación Objetivos y Medibles para Especies Amenazadas y en Peligro     

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     

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     

Protected Areas and Prospects for Endangered Species Conservation in Canada

Abstract:  Reserve networks figure prominently in conservation strategies that aim to reduce extinction rates. We tested the effectiveness of the current reserve network at protecting species at risk in Canada, where relatively extensive wilderness areas remain. We compared numbers of terrestrial species at risk included in existing reserves to randomly generated networks with the same total area and number of reserves. Existing reserve networks rarely performed better than randomly selected areas and several included fewer endangered species than expected by chance, particularly in the most biologically imperiled regions. The extent of protected area and density of species at risk were unrelated at either broad (countrywide) or finer spatial scales (50 × 50 km grids), although there was a tendency for the most threatened regions of the country to have few or no protected areas (1.5% of areas with >30 endangered species were in reserves). Although reserves will play a useful role in conserving endangered species that occur within them, reducing extinction rates in a region with much of the world's remaining wilderness will require integrating conservation strategies with agricultural and urban land-use plans outside formally protected areas.     

The Threat of Disease Increases as Species Move Toward Extinction

At local scales, infectious disease is a common driver of population declines, but globally it is an infrequent contributor to species extinction and endangerment. For species at risk of extinction from disease important questions remain unanswered, including when does disease become a threat to species and does it co‐occur, predictably, with other threats? Using newly compiled data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, we examined the relative role and co‐occurrence of threats associated with amphibians, birds, and mammals at 6 levels of extinction risk (i.e., Red List status categories: least concern, near threatened, vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered, and extinct in the wild/extinct). We tested the null hypothesis that the proportion of species threatened by disease is the same in all 6 Red List status categories. Our approach revealed a new method for determining when disease most frequently threatens species at risk of extinction. The proportion of species threatened by disease varied significantly between IUCN status categories and linearly increased for amphibians, birds, and all species combined as these taxa move from move from least concern to critically endangered. Disease was infrequently the single contributing threat. However, when a species was negatively affected by a major threat other than disease (e.g., invasive species, land‐use change) that species was more likely to be simultaneously threatened by disease than species that had no other threats. Potential drivers of these trends include ecological factors, clustering of phylogenetically related species in Red List status categories, discovery bias among species at greater risk of extinction, and availability of data. We echo earlier calls for baseline data on the presence of parasites and pathogens in species when they show the first signs of extinction risk and arguably before. La Amenaza de Enfermedades Incrementa a Medida que las Especies se Aproximan a la Extinción     

Gray Whales and the Value of Monitoring Data in Implementing the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Abstract: Many scientists lament the absence of data for endangered species and argue that more funds should be spent acquiring basic information about population trends. Using 19 years of abundance estimates for the eastern North Pacific gray whale ( Eschrichtius robustus ), we sampled subsets of the original survey data to identify the number of years of data required to remove the population from the U.S. Endangered Species Act's (ESA) list of endangered and threatened wildlife. For any given duration of monitoring, we selected all possible combinations of consecutive counts. To incorporate variability in growth rates, we extracted a maximum likelihood estimator of growth rate and confidence interval about that growth rate on the assumption that the population changes can be approximated by a simple diffusion process with drift. We then applied a new approach to determine ESA status for each subset of survey data and found that a quantitative decision to delist is unambiguously supported by 11 years of data but is precariously uncertain with fewer than 10 years of data. The data needed to produce an unequivocal decision to delist gray whales cost the National Marine Fisheries Service an estimated U.S. $660,000, a surprisingly modest expense given the fact that delisting can greatly simplify regulatory constraints. This example highlights the value of population monitoring in administering the ESA and provides a compelling example of the utility of such information in identifying both imperiled and recovered species. The economic value of such data is that they provide the foundation for delisting, which could ultimately save much more money than the collection of the data would ever cost.     

Planting State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Plants

The distribution and planting of state-listed endangered and threatened plants is outlawed in most states of the United States, yet listed species are commonly used in landscaping and restorations. There is a need to re-examine policy regarding planting and propagation of endangered and threatened plants outside of planned recovery efforts. Potential advantages associated with increased outplanting of rare species include (1) improved public education and relations; (2) demographic security derived from creation of new populations; (3) provision of new, appropriate gene-flow opportunities; (4) applied research opportunities; and (5) ability to regulate a currently uncontrolled activity. Potential disadvantages are (1) confusion of natural and planted populations; (2) bureaucratic problems with protection of planted populations; (3) potential far inappropriate gene flow between natural and planted populations causing outbreeding depression and loss of genetic purity of natural populations; and (4) extension of the natural geographic and ecological range of the species. Policies, regulations, and nursery practices exist that would maximize the potential advantages and minimize the risks associated with the distribution of endangered and threatened plants. Policy considerations discussed include selection of appropriate species, production of appropriate and high-quality genetic stock, and regulation of outplanting programs. I weigh the risks and benefits of a program that would allow the general public access to some state-listed plants for natural landscaping. I conclude that a less restrictive but enforceable set of policies and regulations may be preferable to the status quo.     

Phylogenetic Comparative Methods Strengthen Evidence for Reduced Genetic Diversity among Endangered Tetrapods

Abstract: The fitness of species with little genetic diversity is expected to be affected by inbreeding and an inability to respond to environmental change. Conservation theory suggests that endangered species will generally demonstrate lower genetic diversity than taxa that are not threatened. This hypothesis has been challenged because the time frame of anthropogenic extinction may be too fast to expect genetic factors to significantly contribute. I conducted a meta‐analysis to examine how genetic diversity in 894 tetrapods correlates with extinction threat level. Because species are not evolutionarily independent, I used a phylogenetic regression framework to address this issue. Mean genetic diversity of tetrapods, as assessed by protein heterozygosity, was 29.7–31.5% lower on average in threatened species than in their nonthreatened relatives, a highly significant reduction. Within amphibians as diversity decreased extinction risk increased in phylogenetic models, but not in nonphylogenetic regressions. The effects of threatened status on diversity also remained significant after accounting for body size in mammals. These results support the hypothesis that genetic effects on population fitness are important in the extinction process.     

Critique of the Evolutionarily Significant Unit as a Definition for "Distinct Population Segments" under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Endangered Species Act grants protection to species, subspecies, and "distinct population segments" of vertebrate species. Historically, Congress included distinct population segments into endangered species legislation to enable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement a flexible and pragmatic approach in listing populations of vertebrate species. Recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have proposed a policy that would narrowly define distinct population segments as evolutionarily significant units based on morphological and genetic distinctiveness between populations. Historically, the power to list species or populations as distinct population segments has been used to tailor management practices to unique circumstances; grant varied levels of protection in different parts of a species' range; protect species from extinction in significant portions of their ranges as well as to protect populations that are unique evolutionary entities. A strict redefinition of distinct population segments as evolutionarily significant units will compromise management efforts because the role of demographic and behavioral data will be reduced. Furthermore, strictly cultural, economic, or geographic justifications for listing populations as threatened or endangered will be greatly curtailed.     

Setting Realistic Recovery Targets for Two Interacting Endangered Species,Sea Otter and Northern Abalone

Failure to account for interactions between endangered species may lead to unexpected population dynamics, inefficient management strategies, waste of scarce resources, and, at worst, increased extinction risk. The importance of species interactions is undisputed, yet recovery targets generally do not account for such interactions. This shortcoming is a consequence of species‐centered legislation, but also of uncertainty surrounding the dynamics of species interactions and the complexity of modeling such interactions. The northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) and one of its preferred prey, northern abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana), are endangered species for which recovery strategies have been developed without consideration of their strong predator–prey interactions. Using simulation‐based optimization procedures from artificial intelligence, namely reinforcement learning and stochastic dynamic programming, we combined sea otter and northern abalone population models with functional‐response models and examined how different management actions affect population dynamics and the likelihood of achieving recovery targets for each species through time. Recovery targets for these interacting species were difficult to achieve simultaneously in the absence of management. Although sea otters were predicted to recover, achieving abalone recovery targets failed even when threats to abalone such as predation and poaching were reduced. A management strategy entailing a 50% reduction in the poaching of northern abalone was a minimum requirement to reach short‐term recovery goals for northern abalone when sea otters were present. Removing sea otters had a marginally positive effect on the abalone population but only when we assumed a functional response with strong predation pressure. Our optimization method could be applied more generally to any interacting threatened or invasive species for which there are multiple conservation objectives. Definición de Metas de Recuperación Realistas para Dos Especies en Peligro Interactuantes, Enhydra lutris y Haliotis kamtschatkana     

Correlates of Population Recovery Goals in Endangered Birds

Abstract: Endangered species recovery plans commonly set goals for population size that are used to define the success of recovery efforts. We examined variation in these population recovery goals for bird species listed under the U. S. Endangered Species Act to determine whether there were simple predictors of recovery population size. The median population sizes that must be met for a species to be removed from the list or downlisted to the threatened category are 4000 and 1500 respectively, but the thresholds varied considerably. Most variation in population recovery goals ( ≥75%) was explained by the population size when the recovery plan was written. Species listed when their population's size was relatively large have higher population recovery goals, whereas those listed when populations were small have lower population goals. Population sizes set for recovery also increased over time and were higher for species listed throughout the United States rather than for part of the country. In combination, these three variables explained 86% of the variance in population goals for delisting and 94% of the variance in goals for downlisting. Body mass, annual fecundity, maximum lifespan, whether the population was listed as threatened or endangered, and whether a formal population viability analysis was conducted were variables not significantly associated with population recovery goals. Thus, we found that variables relating to the circumstances under which the populations were listed could explain almost all of the variance in recovery population goals, and that biological traits of the endangered birds explained little of the variance.     

Impacts of phylogenetic nomenclature on the efficacy of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Cataloging biodiversity is critical to conservation efforts because accurate taxonomy is often a precondition for protection under laws designed for species conservation, such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). Traditional nomenclatural codes governing the taxonomic process have recently come under scrutiny because taxon names are more closely linked to hierarchical ranks than to the taxa themselves. A new approach to naming biological groups, called phylogenetic nomenclature (PN), explicitly names taxa by defining their names in terms of ancestry and descent. PN has the potential to increase nomenclatural stability and decrease confusion induced by the rank‐based codes. But proponents of PN have struggled with whether species and infraspecific taxa should be governed by the same rules as other taxa or should have special rules. Some proponents advocate the wholesale abandonment of rank labels (including species); this could have consequences for the implementation of taxon‐based conservation legislation. I examined the principles of PN as embodied in the PhyloCode (an alternative to traditional rank‐based nomenclature that names biological groups based on the results of phylogenetic analyses and does not associate taxa with ranks) and assessed how this novel approach to naming taxa might affect the implementation of species‐based legislation by providing a case study of the ESA. The latest version of the PhyloCode relies on the traditional rank‐based codes to name species and infraspecific taxa; thus, little will change regarding the main targets of the ESA because they will retain rank labels. For this reason, and because knowledge of evolutionary relationships is of greater importance than nomenclatural procedures for initial protection of endangered taxa under the ESA, I conclude that PN under the PhyloCode will have little impact on implementation of the ESA. Impactos de la Nomenclatura Filogenética sobre la Eficiencia del Acta Estadunidense para las Especies en Peligro     

Public Willingness to Pay for Recovering and Downlisting Threatened and Endangered Marine Species

Abstract: Nonmarket valuation research has produced economic value estimates for a variety of threatened, endangered, and rare species around the world. Although over 40 value estimates exist, it is often difficult to compare values from different studies due to variations in study design, implementation, and modeling specifications. We conducted a stated‐preference choice experiment to estimate the value of recovering or downlisting 8 threatened and endangered marine species in the United States: loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica), upper Willamette River Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Hawaiian monk seals (Monachus schauinslandi), and smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata). In May 2009, we surveyed a random sample of U.S. households. We collected data from 8476 households and estimated willingness to pay for recovering and downlisting the 8 species from these data. Respondents were willing to pay for recovering and downlisting threatened and endangered marine taxa. Willingness‐to‐pay values ranged from $40/household for recovering Puget Sound Chinook salmon to $73/household for recovering the North Pacific right whale. Statistical comparisons among willingness‐to‐pay values suggest that some taxa are more economically valuable than others, which suggests that the U.S. public's willingness to pay for recovery may vary by species.