1 of 998 DOCUMENTS

The Washington Post

January 28, 2012 Saturday 

Suburban Edition

Markey criticizes endangered species proposal

BYLINE: Juliet Eilperin

SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A02

LENGTH: 491 words

The Obama administration is setting too high a threshold for listing an imperiled plant or animal under the Endangered Species Act, according to Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass).

Markey, one of the White House's closest congressional allies, late Thursday sent a letterto Dan Ashe, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, questioning a draft policy the agency issued last month with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The policy, which seeks to clarify a 2007 Bush administration proposal that was ruled illegal, redefines what constitutes a "significant portion of its range" for a given species. It says that a plant or animal deserves listing only if its disappearance from one area threatens the entire species' survival. It also defines a species' range as its current distribution, as opposed to its historic one.

When the agency issued the policy Dec. 8, Ashe released a statement: "This proposed interpretation will provide consistency and clarity for the services and our partners, while making more effective use of our resources and improving our ability to protect and recover species before they are on the brink of extinction."

In the proposal, which is subject to public comment until Feb. 7, the agency predicted that it would lead to the additional listing of species, but "only under  a limited set of circumstances."

Markey questioned the agency's assessment, saying that under the proposed approach, the bald eagle would not have qualified for protection in the 1970s because the bird was faring better in Alaska than in the lower 48.

"This proposed threshold for protecting species is simply too high under the ESA," Markey wrote. "Even during the worst era of DDT-pesticide usage, healthy populations of eagles lived in Alaska, meaning that, even if the eagle had completely disappeared from the lower 48 states, the 'viability' of the species was never in doubt."

The policy the Bush administration put forward was even more limited, saying that if a species was found to be threatened in a part of its range, federal protections would only be extended to the area where the species was in trouble.

Noah Greenwald, who directs the endangered species program for the advocacy group Center for Biological Diversity, called the Obama administration's move a "regulatory sleight of hand" that undermines the Endangered Species Act.

The act "allowed for species to be protected if they weren't at risk everywhere," said Greenwald, whose group successfully challenged the Bush policy in federal court.

But in a statement, Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Chris Tollefson said the new policy "will make it possible to protect species before they are at risk of disappearing everywhere."

"We can act on the basis of threats in only a portion of the range of a species, but only when that portion is so important that without it, the species would be in danger of extinction everywhere," he added.

eilperinj@washpost.com

LOAD-DATE: January 28, 2012

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

Copyright 2012 The Washington Post

All Rights Reserved

I don't agree with this new definition. It seems that under this new definition that very few species would be added to the Endangered Species Act. How can you make a definite decision that a species disappearance from one area would threaten the entire species population? How do you know that if you let an animal disappear from one habitat that the other will survive? We could never say for sure that the other population will continue to exist. Why are we letting it go that far? We should protect species whose entire populations are endangered not just select groups. The article says that it would help us protect species before they are on the brink of extinction but it seems that this new definition would let populations disappear in some areas on the hope that others will live.