Misinterpretation of Genomic Data Matters for Endangered Species Listing: The Sub-specific Status of the Peñasco Least Chipmunk (Neotamias minimus atristriatus)

We provide a response to a recently published evaluation of the subspecies status of the Peñasco least chipmunk (Neotamias minimus atristriatus). The work we discuss used exon capture genomic approaches and concluded that their results did not support the distinction of this taxon as a subspecies, with recommendation that it be synonymized with N. m. operarius. We refute the interpretations, conclusions, and taxonomic recommendations of this study, and explain in clearer terms how to interpret genomic analyses for applied management. We identify four broad conceptual issues that led to errant recommendations: (1) interpretation of subspecies and diagnosability, (2) inappropriate use of reciprocal monophyly as a criterion for subspecies, (3) importance of geographic isolation, and (4) error in hypothesis testing and misinterpretation of results. We conclude that the data from this genomic appraisal add to information from prior studies providing strong support for recognition of N. m. atristriatus as a subspecies. Our conclusions have important and immediate implications for the proposed listing of N. m. atristriatus as an endangered species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

Status of the Recovery Mandate Under Section 7(a)(1) of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) is widely considered to be one of the strongest laws for protecting imperiled wildlife, with nearly all species protected under the law still existing today. Among the ESA's strongest provisions, at least as written, is the requirement under section 7(a)(1) that federal agencies use their authorities to help recover imperiled species. New initiatives like 30 x 30, the campaign to conserve at least 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030, offer opportunities to reinvigorate and expand 7(a)(1) programs to play a significant role in biodiversity conservation. To gauge the current status of 7(a)(1) plans and assess their effectiveness, we collected all section 7(a)(1) materials available to the public through internet searches and direct requests to agencies. We evaluated the scope of existing 7(a)(1) programs and found that despite the clear potential benefits of strong programs, the section has been significantly underused by federal agencies. Further, we show that existing plans are highly inconsistent in content and style, and we trace that inconsistency to the lack of policy guidance for their creation and implementation. Based on these findings, we recommend five strategies for improving 7(a)(1) implementation: establishment of formal guidance from the federal wildlife agencies, tailored guidance from other federal agencies to help them meet their 7(a)(1) obligation, dedicated funding, integration of 7(a)(1) into existing initiatives and opportunities, and top-level executive branch coordination and cooperation.

Misinterpretation of genomic data matters for endangered species listing: the subspecific status of the Peñasco least chipmunk (Neotamias minimus atristriatus)

Puckett et al. (2021. Ecology and Evolution, 11, 12114-12128) evaluated the subspecies status of the Peñasco least chipmunk (Neotamias minimus atristriatus) using genomic approaches and concluded that their results did not support the taxonomic distinction of this endemic mammal as a subspecies and recommended it be synonymized with N. m. operarius. We refute the interpretations, conclusions, and taxonomic recommendations of Puckett et al. (2021), and explain in clearer terms how to interpret genomic analyses for applied management. We identify six conceptual issues that led to the faulty interpretations and recommendations: 1) error in hypothesis testing, 2) overlooking statistical support (or lack thereof) of lineages, 3) inappropriate use of reciprocal monophyly as a criterion for subspecies, 4) importance of geographic isolation and inferences from historical biogeography, 5) diagnosable criteria, and 6) importance of phenotype. We conclude that the data of Puckett et al. (2021) add to information from prior studies providing strong support for N. m. atristriatus as a well-defined taxonomic unit at the rank of subspecies (or species). This finding has important and immediate implications for the proposed listing of N. m. atristriatus as an endangered species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

A Database of Habitat Conservation Plans and Related Documents Developed Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, non-federal parties may be permitted to “take,” or harm, listed threatened and endangered species provided they develop an appropriate “habitat conservation plan” that details how the applicant will minimize and mitigate the impacts of their activities on the species at issue. Despite widespread use of such plans, with more than 700 approved to date, there have been few systematic analyses to determine their effectiveness in protecting imperiled wildlife. This has been driven by a lack of a centralized repository of essential habitat conservation plan documents, from the plans themselves to required monitoring reports. Here we present a new data resource of 6,290 documents related to 601 separate HCPs, assembled through a United States Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, supplemented by web scraping of available HCP documents online. We describe the completeness of responses, characterize the scope of documents, and identify data and research gaps.

Status of the recovery mandate under section 7(a)(1) of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) is widely considered to be one of the strongest laws for protecting imperiled wildlife, with nearly all species protected under the law still existing today. Among the ESA’s strongest provisions, at least as written, is the requirement under section 7(a)(1) that federal agencies use their authorities to help recover imperiled species. New initiatives like 30x30, the campaign to conserve at least thirty percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030, offer opportunities to reinvigorate and expand 7(a)(1) programs to play a significant role in biodiversity conservation. To gauge the current status of 7(a)(1) plans and assess their effectiveness, we collected all section 7(a)(1) materials available to the public through internet searches and direct requests to agencies. We evaluated the scope of existing 7(a)(1) programs and found that despite the clear potential benefits of a strong 7(a)(1) program, the section has been significantly underused by federal agencies. Further, we show that existing plans are highly inconsistent in content and style, and we trace that inconsistency to the lack of policy guidance for their creation and implementation. Based on these findings, we recommend four strategies for improving 7(a)(1) implementation: establishment of formal guidance from federal wildlife agencies, tailored guidance from other federal agencies to help them meet their 7(a)(1) obligation, and dedicated funding.

Economics and the Endangered Species Act

Economics plays strong roles in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). First, the ESA’s language allows for economic analysis of critical habitat designations, recovery plan implementations, listing postponements, and the design of habitat-conservation plans. Extensive administrative changes to the ESA in the 1990s were designed to reduce economic costs and to elicit landowners’ cooperation. These reforms were partly motivated and guided by economic analysis. Second, economic analysis plays a role in providing credible estimates of the economic costs of ESA implementation. Cost estimates are highly variable and likely to depend on species’ characteristics and the effectiveness of recovery programs. Emerging evidence suggests that the 1990 reforms are reducing costs and increasing effectiveness. Third, economic science contributes to estimation of benefits. Because of the “public goods” nature of nearly all ecosystem and species conservation efforts, estimates must be based on stated preference methods. This use leads to difficulties in establishing the authenticity of benefits estimates. Also, research suggests that benefits estimates are highly sensitive to the spatial nature of the market (beneficiaries’ geographic locations). Future research needs to tackle both authenticity and spatial issues. Fourth, benefit–cost analysis (BCA) is required by law to inform many resource decisions affecting ecosystem and species conservation. Four illustrative BCAs show that whether benefits exceed costs is highly dependent on the authenticity of benefits based on stated preference methods and assumptions about the spatial nature of the market. Substantial uncertainty accompanies both benefit and cost estimates.

Nearly Extinct in the Wild: The Vulnerable Transparency of the Endangered Species List

This article reconstructs the Endangered Species Act as a government information statute. That Act makes use of an official list of vulnerable creatures that is used for agency action to save them from extinction. This article argues that the official list of species is not sufficiently accurate or transparent to citizens, so the compilation of that list does not satisfy the public interest goals of American environmental law or government transparency policy.