they are invoking the "evolutionary species concept" (as opposed to, for example, the "biological" species concept). basically, they are arguing that there is enough morphological similarity within the range (of couperi) and enough average differences from other related groups to make it a legitimate taxon. in addition, the range of the taxon "couperi" represents a geographically isolationed entity. that is, it will continue to evolve independently of other taxonomically related groups.
remember, these ideas of subspecies, species, and genera are our (human's) best way of categorizing what we see in nature. we make this stuff up because we generally like a neat and ordered world that is easy to explain.
what we often fail to remember is that biology is dynamic over time and populations are still evolving. some populations are becoming more canalized and recognizable as a "species," while others are experiencing increased gene flow and becoming less and less like a "species."
hopefully the important part of this is that by raising couperi to the species level, all of a sudden its range is now only in the US, and it has a much more limited range than it did as a member of corais. arguments could be made for greater protection, due to its limited distribution.
"indigos? -- they don't need protection, we got plenty in texas!"
matt