How Can An Animal Be Fully Recovered From Endangered

Extinction and the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Noah Greenwald

¹Center for Biological Diversity, Portland, OR, U.s.a.

Kieran F. Suckling

^twoCenter for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ, USA

Brett Hartl

³Center for Biological Multifariousness, Washington, DC, USA

Loyal A. Mehrhoff

⁴Middle for Biological Diversity, Honolulu, HI, Usa

Academic Editor: Stuart Pimm

Received 2019 Jan 7; Accepted 2019 Mar 16.

Supplementary Materials: Supplemental Information i: Extinct or possibly extinct listed species with source data. Extinct or possibly extinct species cleaved out past whether last seen before or after protection was enacted, including relevant source data and literature cited.

DOI:x.7717/peerj.6803/supp-1

Data Availability Statement

The following data was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw data are available in a Supplementary File and include a complete list of the species we identified as extinct or mayhap extinct along with all supporting data.

Abstract

The U.S. Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest laws of any nation for preventing species extinction, but quantifying the Act'southward effectiveness has proven difficult. To provide one measure of effectiveness, we identified listed species that accept gone extinct and used previously adult methods to update an gauge of the number of species extinctions prevented by the Deed. To date, simply 4 species have been confirmed extinct with another 22 maybe extinct following protection. Another 71 listed species are extinct or possibly extinct, merely were last seen before protections were enacted, meaning the Act's protections never had the opportunity to salvage these species. In contrast, a full of 39 species take been fully recovered, including 23 in the last ten years. Nosotros estimate the Endangered Species Act has prevented the extinction of roughly 291 species since passage in 1973, and has to date saved more than than 99% of species under its protection.

Keywords: Endangered species, Extinction, U.South. Endangered Species Human action, Species recovery

Introduction

Passed in 1973, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) includes potent protections for listed threatened and endangered species and has helped stabilize and recover hundreds of listed species, such as the bald eagle and gray whale (Taylor, Suckling & Rachlinski, 2005; Schwartz, 2008; Suckling et al., 2016). In office because of its stiff protections, the ESA has engendered substantial opposition from industry lobby groups, who perceive the law equally threatening their profits and have been effective in generating opposition to species protections among members of the U.South. Congress. One mutual refrain from opponents of the ESA in Congress and elsewhere is that the law is a failure considering only 2% of listed species have been fully recovered and delisted (Bishop, 2013).

The number of delistings, however, is a poor measure of the success of the ESA because virtually species have not been protected for sufficient time such that they would be expected to take recovered. Suckling et al. (2016), for example, found that on average listed birds had been protected just 36 years, only their federal recovery plans estimated an average of 63 years for recovery. Short of recovery, a number of studies have found the ESA is effectively stabilizing or improving the status of species, using both biennial status assessments produced by the U.S. Fish and Wild animals Service for Congress and abundance trends (Male person & Edible bean, 2005; Taylor, Suckling & Rachlinski, 2005; Gibbs & Currie, 2012; Suckling et al., 2016).

In addition to recovering species, ane of the primary purposes of the ESA is to prevent species extinction. Previous studies point the ESA has been successful in this regard (McMillan & Wilcove, 1994; Scott et al., 2006). As of 2008, the ESA was estimated to have prevented the extinction of at least 227 species and the number of species delisted due to recovery outnumbered the number of species delisted for extinction by 14–seven (Scott et al., 2006). In this written report, nosotros identified all ESA listed species that are extinct or possibly extinct to quantify the number of species for which ESA protections have failed and use these figures to update the estimated number of species extinctions prevented. This is the first study in over 20 years to compile information on extinction of ESA listed species, providing an important measure out of one of the globe's strongest conservation laws (McMillan & Wilcove, 1994).

Methods

To identify extinct or possibly extinct ESA listed species, we examined the status of all i,747 (species, subspecies and distinct population segments) U.Due south. listed or formerly listed species, excluding species delisted based on a change in taxonomy or new information showing the original listing to take been erroneous. Nosotros determined species to be extinct or possibly extinct based on not being observed for at least 10 years, the occurrence of acceptable surveys of their habitat, and presence of threats, such every bit destruction of habitat of the last known location or presence of invasive species known to eliminate the species.

To differentiate extinct and perhaps extinct species we relied on determinations past the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, IUCN, species experts and other sources. In most cases, these determinations were qualitative rather quantitative. Species were considered extinct if surveys since the last observation were considered sufficient to conclude the species is highly probable to no longer exist, and perhaps extinct if surveys were conducted after the final observation, only were not considered sufficient to conclude that extinction is highly likely (Butchart, Stattersfield & Brooks, 2006; Scott et al., 2008).

Source data included five-year reviews, list rules and critical habitat designations by the U.South. Fish and Wildlife Service (for aquatic and terrestrial species) or NOAA Fisheries (for marine species), published and grey literature, personal communication with species experts and classifications and accounts by NatureServe, IUCN and the Hawaiian Plant Extinction Prevention program. For each species, we identified twelvemonth of list, year last seen, NatureServe and IUCN ranking, taxonomic group, and U.Due south. Fish and Wildlife Service region. For species terminal seen after list, nosotros also searched for abundance estimates at fourth dimension of listing in order to give a sense of likelihood of survival regardless of ESA protection.

Post-obit previously developed methods, we estimated the number of species extinctions prevented by the ESA by assuming that listed threatened and endangered species have a comparable extinction risk to IUCN endangered species, which was estimated as an boilerplate of 67% over 100 years (Mace, 1995; Schwartz, 1999; Scott et al., 2006). Nosotros believe this guess of extinction gamble is bourgeois based on similarity of IUCN criteria to factors considered in ESA listings, observed low numbers for species at fourth dimension of ESA listing and observed correspondence betwixt ESA listed species and species classified as endangered or critically endangered past the IUCN (Wilcove, McMillan & Winston, 1993; Wilcove & Master, 2005; Harris et al., 2012). Presumed extinction risk was then multiplied by the number of extant listed species and the proportion of a century in which species were protected past the ESA. Previous studies used the length of fourth dimension the ESA has been in existence (1973-present) for the proportion of a century species have been protected (Schwartz, 1999; Scott et al., 2006), just because many species have not been protected the entire 45 years the law has existed, we instead used the more than conservative average length species were protected (25 years). This corresponds to the post-obit formula:

$Expected extinctions = (spp. \times one 00 year extinction adventure \times average proportion of a century with protection).$

Results

Nosotros identified a full of 97 ESA listed species that are extinct (23) or possibly extinct (74). Of these, we found 71 extinct (19) or possibly extinct (52) species were last observed earlier they were listed nether the ESA and thus are not relevant to determining the Deed's success in preventing extinction (Tabular array S1). These species were last seen an boilerplate of 24 years before protection was granted with a range of one to more than 80 years prior.

A full of 26 species were concluding seen after listing, of which four are confirmed extinct and 22 are possibly extinct (Table S2). On average, these species were last seen thirteen years later listing with a range of 2–23 years. Nosotros were able to detect an affluence estimate at the time of listing for 19 of these species, ranging from one individual to more than two,000 with an average of 272. In several cases, these estimates were based on extrapolations from very few sightings.

The distribution of extinct and mayhap extinct species was not-random with 64 of the 97 species from Hawaii and other Pacific Islands, followed by 18 from the southeast (Fig. i). This was also the case for taxonomy. A total of 40 of the 97 species were mollusks dominated past Hawaiian tree snails and southeast mussels, followed by birds (xviii) and plants (17) (Fig. 2).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is peerj-07-6803-g001.jpg

Extinction and taxonomic grouping.

Extinct or possibly extinct listed species past taxonomic group.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is peerj-07-6803-g002.jpg

Extinctions by region.

Extinct or possibly extinct listed species by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region.

We identified several other species that have been missing for more than than 10 years, but for which at that place has not been any effective surveys and thus classifying them as possibly extinct did not seem appropriate, including two Hawaiian yellow-faced bees (Hylaeus facilis and Hylaeus hilaris) (K. Magnacca, 2018, personal communication) and Fosberg'south dear grass (Eragrostis fosbergii) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011). If indeed extinct, all three were lost prior to protection under the ESA.

Including updated figures for number of listed species, time of protection and species extinctions, we approximate the ESA has prevented the extinction of roughly 291 species in its 45 year history. Based on the number of confirmed extinctions following listing, we further guess that the ESA has to appointment prevented the extinction of more than than 99% of species nether its protection. To date, a total of 39 species have been delisted for recovery compared to four species that are extinct and 22 that are potentially extinct.

Give-and-take

The few number of listed species that have gone extinct following protection combined with an estimated 291 species for which extinction was prevented demonstrate the ESA has achieved one of its cadre purposes—halting the loss of species. Nosotros will not effort to itemize them here, but numerous individual examples provide further support for this decision. Well known species similar the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) and Hawaiian monk seal (Neomonachus schauinslandi), as well as lesser known species like the yellowfin madtom (Noturus flavipinnis), are but a few of the species that likely would have been lost were it not for the ESA.

The madtom is a case in point. Wrongly presumed extinct when described in 1969, individual madtom were found in the Powell River in Tennessee and Copper Creek in Virginia and the species was protected under the ESA in 1977 (U.S. Fish and Wild animals Service, 1977). Post-obit protection, federal and country officials worked with a non-governmental organization, Conservation Fisheries Inc., to discover additional populations and repatriate the species to rivers and streams in its historic range and there are now populations of the yellowfin madtom in three different watersheds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012a). The history of the ESA is replete with similar such stories.

The distribution of extinct or mayhap extinct listed species largely tracks those regions with the highest rates of species endangerment, including Hawaii and the Northern Mariana Islands with 64 of the 97 extinctions or possible extinctions, and the Southeast with 18 of the extinctions or possible extinctions, mostly freshwater species. The fragility of Hawaii'due south owned fauna to introduced species and habitat destruction and high degree of species imperilment is well recognized (Duffy & Kraus, 2006). Similarly, the extinction and endangerment of freshwater fauna in the southeast is well documented (Benz & Collins, 1997). To avoid further extinctions, these areas should exist priorities for increased funding and effort.

Protection under the ESA came too late for the 71 species last seen prior to listing. Information technology'south possible that some of these species survived undetected following listing, merely nosotros detect this unlikely for almost if not all of the species. It is very difficult to document extinction, but all of the species were the subject of survey both earlier and subsequently list, which is described in the listing rules and subsequent condition surveys. In addition, the 71 species were last seen an average of 24 years prior to listing, providing a long window for detection prior to listing. If some of these species did survive after list information technology was likely at very low numbers, such that recovery would have been difficult at all-time.

That these 71 species were lost before protections were applied clearly highlights the need to motility speedily to protect species. Indeed, Suckling, Slack & Nowicki (2004) identified 42 species that went extinct while under consideration for protection. Since that analysis was completed, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has adamant five boosted species did not authorize for protection because they were extinct, including the Tacoma pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama tacomensis), Tatum Cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus parvus), Stephan's riffle beetle (Heterelmis stephani), beaverpond marstonia (Marstonia castor) and Ozark pyrg (Marstonia ozarkensis), meaning there are now 47 species that accept gone extinct waiting for protection (U.Southward. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012b, 2016, 2017, 2018a).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently faces a excess of more than 500 species that have been adamant to potentially warrant protection, but which await a determination (U.Southward. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018b). Nether the ESA, decisions about protection for species are supposed to take 2 years, but on average it has taken the Fish and Wildlife Service 12 years (Puckett, Kesler & Greenwald, 2016). Such lengthy look times are sure to result in loss of further species and run counter to the purpose of the statute. This problem can be addressed by streamlining the Service's process for listing species, which has become increasingly cumbersome, and by increasing funding for the listing program. For every species listed, the Service's procedure includes review by upward of 20 people, including numerous individuals who take no specific knowledge of the species and in a number of cases are political appointees. Nosotros instead recommend that the Service adopt a procedure similar to scientific peer review, involving review past ii to iii qualified individuals.

The loss of 26 species later they were protected is indicative of conservation failure. This failure, still, in virtually cases cannot be wholly attributed to the ESA because most of these species were reduced to very low numbers past the time they were protected, making recovery difficult to impossible. Of the xix species we could find an abundance estimate for at the time of listing, 13 had an estimated population fewer than 100 with viii having fewer than 10 individuals. Of the six other species, 2 Hawaiian birds, Oahu creeper (Paroreomyza maculate) and 'O'u (Psittirostra psittacea) had estimated populations in the hundreds, but this was based on sightings of single individuals. Given the lack of further sightings and the presence of disease carrying mosquitoes throughout their habitat, these estimates were likely optimistic. The other four species, the dusky seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus nigrescens), Morro Bay kangaroo rat (Dipodomys heermanni morroensis), pamakani (Tetramolopium capillare) and Curtis' pearlymussel (Epioblasma florentina curtisii), had populations at the time of list ranging from 100 to 3,000 individuals, simply sufficient action was not taken to save them, making them true conservation failures.

At some level, all of the 97 ESA listed species that we identified as perhaps extinct or extinct are conservation failures. For 42 of these species, the police itself was also late because they were concluding seen before the ESA was passed in 1973. Just for others, there may accept been fourth dimension and we did non human activity chop-chop enough or dedicate sufficient resources to saving them. In that location are many examples of species both in the U.S. and internationally that have been successfully recovered even after dropping to very small numbers, but this can simply occur with fast, effective action, resource and in many cases luck. The Mauritius kestrel (Falco punctatus), for example, was brought back from just two pairs (Cade & Jones, 1993) and the Hawaiian plant extinction prevention program, which focuses on saving plants with fewer than 50 individuals, has rediscovered many species believed extinct, brought 177 species into cultivation, constructed fences to protect species from non-native predators and reintroduced many species into the wild (Wood, 2012, http://www.pepphi.org/).

The failure to provide sufficient resources for conservation of listed species, however, continues to the present. As many every bit 27 species of Oahu tree snail (achatinella spp.) are extinct or mayhap extinct, yet expenditures for the species that still survive are inadequate to back up minimal survey and captive propagation efforts. Besides, the Hawaiian plant extinction prevention plan, which has been so effective in saving species on the brink of extinction, is facing a budget cut of roughly 70% in 2019 (http://world wide web.pepphi.org/), which very probable could mean the extinction of dozens of plants that otherwise could be saved. Overall, Greenwald et al. (2016) approximate electric current recovery funding is roughly 3% of estimated recovery costs from federal recovery plans. We can save species from extinction, only information technology must exist more than of a priority for federal spending. Nevertheless, despite funding shortfalls and the tragedy of these species having gone extinct, the ESA has succeeded in preventing the extinction of the vast majority of listed species and in this regard is a success.

Direction implications

Of the 97 species we identified as extinct or potentially extinct, only 11 have been delisted for extinction. Another xi accept been recommended for delisting due to extinction. The San Marcos gambusia (Gambusia georgei) could also be delisted since there is very little promise it survives. For the other 74 possibly extinct species, we recommend retaining protections in the hope that some will exist rediscovered and considering in that location is little price in retaining listing.

Funding Argument

The authors received no funding for this work.

Additional Information and Declarations

Competing Interests

All authors are employed by the Centre for Biological Diversity which works to protect endangered species and their habitats.

Author Contributions

Noah Greenwald conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the information, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the newspaper, approved the terminal draft.

Kieran F. Suckling conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final typhoon.

Brett Hartl conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, canonical the final draft.

Loyal A. Mehrhoff conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the information, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final typhoon.

Data Availability

The post-obit information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw data are available in a Supplementary File and include a complete list of the species we identified as extinct or possibly extinct along with all supporting information.

References

Benz & Collins (1997) Benz GW, Collins DE, editors. Aquatic animate being in Peril: the Southeastern perspective. Decatur: Southeast Aquatic Research Constitute Special Publication i, Lenz Blueprint and Communications; 1997. p. 553. [Google Scholar]

Butchart, Stattersfield & Brooks (2006) Butchart SHM, Stattersfield AJ, Brooks TM. Going or gone: defining 'Possibly Extinct' species to give a truer flick of contempo extinctions. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club. 2006;126A:7–24. [Google Scholar]

Cade & Jones (1993) Cade TJ, Jones CG. Progress in restoration of the republic of mauritius kestrel. Conservation Biology. 1993;7(1):169–175. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07010169.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Duffy & Kraus (2006) Duffy DC, Kraus F. Scientific discipline and the art of the solvable in Hawai'i's extinction Crisis. Environment Hawaii. 2006;16(xi):3–half-dozen. [Google Scholar]

Gibbs & Currie (2012) Gibbs KE, Currie DJ. Protecting endangered species: do the main legislative tools piece of work? PLOS One. 2012;7(five):e35730. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035730. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Harris et al. (2012) Harris JBC, Leighton Reid J, Scheffers BR, Wanger TC, Sodhi NS. Conserving imperiled species: a comparing of the IUCN Red List and U.S. Endangered species act. Conservation Letters. 2012;five:64–72. [Google Scholar]

Mace (1995) Mace GM. Classification of threatened species and its part in conservation planning. In: Lawton JH, May RM, editors. Extinction Rates. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; 1995. pp. 197–213. [Google Scholar]

Male & Bean (2005) Male TD, Edible bean MJ. Measuring progress in U.s.a. endangered species conservation. Ecology Letters. 2005;8(9):986–992. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00806.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

McMillan & Wilcove (1994) McMillan K, Wilcove DS. Gone merely not forgotten: why have species protected past the ESA become extinct? Endangered Species Update. 1994;11(11):5–6. [Google Scholar]

Puckett, Kesler & Greenwald (2016) Puckett EE, Kesler DC, Greenwald N. Taxa, petitioning agency, and lawsuits affect time spent pending listing under the US Endangered Species Human activity. Biological Conservation. 2016;201:220–229. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Schwartz (1999) Schwartz MW. Choosing the appropriate calibration of reserves for conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1999;thirty(i):83–108. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.30.ane.83. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Schwartz (2008) Schwartz MW. The functioning of the Endangered Species Act. Annual Review of Ecology, Development, and Systematics. 2008;39:279–299. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173558. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Scott et al. (2006) Scott JM, Goble DD, Scvancara L, Pidgorna A. By the numbers. In: Goble DD, Scott JM, Davis FW, editors. The Endangered Species Deed at Xxx: Renewing the Conservation Hope. Washington, D.C.: Isle Printing; 2006. pp. 16–35. [Google Scholar]

Scott et al. (2008) Scott JM, Ramsey FL, Lammertink G, Rosenberg KV, Rohrbaugh R, Wiens JA, Reed JM. When is an "extinct" species really extinct? Gauging the search efforts for Hawaiian woods birds and the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Avian Conservation and Environmental. 2008;iii(2):iii. doi: x.5751/ACE-00254-030203. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Suckling et al. (2016) Suckling KF, Mehrhoff LA, Beam R, Hartl B. A wild success, a systematic review of bird recovery under the Endangered Species Human action. 2016. http://www.esasuccess.org/pdfs/WildSuccess.pdf

Taylor, Suckling & Rachlinski (2005) Taylor M, Suckling K, Rachlinski J. The effectiveness of the endangered species act: a quantitative analysis. BioScience. 2005;55(four):360–367. doi: x.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0360:TEOTES]2.0.CO;2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1977) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Terminal threatened condition and disquisitional habitat for 5 species of Southeastern fishes. Federal Register. 1977;42(175):45526–45530. [Google Scholar]

U.S. Fish and Wild animals Service (2012a) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Yellowfin madtom (noturus flavipinnis), smoky madtom (Noturus baileyi) five-Year review summary and evaluation. 2012a. https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc4146.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wild fauna Service (2012b) U.S. Fish and Wild fauna Service List four subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher and designation of critical habitat, proposed rule. Federal Register. 2012b;77:73769–73825. [Google Scholar]

U.South. Fish and Wildlife Service (2016) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-Month findings on petitions to listing 10 species as endangered or threatened species. Federal Register. 2016;81:69422–69425. [Google Scholar]

U.S. Fish and Wild animals Service (2017) U.Southward. Fish and Wild animals Service Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month findings on petitions to listing a species and remove a species from the federal lists of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Federal Register. 2017;82:61725–61727. [Google Scholar]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2018a) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month findings on petitions to list 13 species equally endangered or threatened species. Federal Register. 2018a;83:65127–65134. [Google Scholar]

Wilcove & Main (2005) Wilcove DS, Master LL. How many endangered species are there in the Us? Frontiers in Ecology and the Surround. 2005;three(8):414–420. doi: x.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0414:HMESAT]2.0.CO;2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Wilcove, McMillan & Winston (1993) Wilcove DS, McMillan M, Winston KC. What exactly is an endangered species? An assay of the U.Due south. endangered species list: 1985–1991. Conservation Biological science. 1993;7(1):87–93. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07010087.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Wood (2012) Forest KR. Possible extinctions, rediscoveries, and new plant records within the Hawaiian Islands, records of the Hawaii biological survey for 2011. In: Evenhuis NL, Eldredge LG, editors. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers. Vol. 113. Honolulu: Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum; 2012. pp. 91–102. [Google Scholar]

Articles from PeerJ are provided here courtesy of PeerJ, Inc

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6482936/

Posted by: newellfieve1936.blogspot.com