Hello all, and sorry for the cross-posting. I wanted to make one more
appeal and reminder to all members interested in endangered species
conservation about the urgent need to send in comment letters opposing
the latest attempts by the Bush Administration to seriously weaken and
eviscerate the E.S.A.

To make this relatively easy, I provide below TWO DIFFERENT ways to
provide input, and I urge all members to utilize one or both methods
to send in comments.

FIRST, (the easy one) is a link to a customizable comment form letter
directed to the alleged Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne
that generally opposes the changes. This link is sponsored by the
excellent activist organization, Center for Biological Diversity:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/esa_in_peril/index.html

Secondly, below is a forwarded and detailed message and links provided
by the Union of Concerned Scientists. This message contains all
necessary background information to make a formal, agency-level
comment on the proposed regulations themselves. The comment period
deadline for the formal comments is SEPTEMBER 15th! This method will
probably have the greatest impact on the process, especially if you
have current or former agency affiliations and/or if you are a
research scientist and can give "expert" testimony.

Thank you in advance to any and all members who are willing to take
the time to complete one or, hopefully, both comment processes.

Best wishes,

Mark Egger

Science teacher and Research Associate, Burke Museum of Natural
History and Culture


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "UCS Scientific Integrity Program" <rsi at ucsusa.org>
> Date: September 3, 2008 2:27:58 PM PDT
> To: "John Egger" <m.egger at comcast.net>
> Subject: UPDATE: Endangered Species Act science threatened again
> Reply-To: notice-reply-igkdsbn4y7mmndw7 at ga-mail.ucsaction.org
>
> UPDATE: Endangered Species Act science threatened again
>
> Dear John,
>
> Two weeks ago, we asked you to weigh in with the media about a
> recent eleventh hour proposal to weaken the scientific
> foundation of the Endangered Species Act. The proposed rules
> allow federal agencies to decide for themselves to what degree
> their own projects will impact endangered wildlife, eliminating
> the requirement for independent scientific review. Letters from
> scientists like you were published around the country, from
> Sacramento (http://ucsaction.org/ct/M12wIN11o4Ww/) to Salt
> Lake City(http://ucsaction.org/ct/Md2wIN11o4Ws/).
>
> Now, we need you to help build opposition and push Congress and
> the next president to intervene by writing an official public
> comment regarding the many problems with the new rules. With
> your help, we can stave off these proposed rules and other
> systemic changes that will sideline science from the
> decision-making process.
>
> Please visit the following URL to let the Interior Department
> know that you oppose the proposed regulations:
> http://ucsaction.org/ct/Ap2wIN11o4W2/. (Once on that web page,
> click the yellow icon next to "Add Comments".) Comments must be
> submitted by September 15, 2008. Please email rsi at ucsusa.org to
> let us know that you submitted comments so that we can monitor
> the effectiveness of this effort.
>
> With sincere thanks,
>
> Francesca Grifo
> Senior Scientist and Director
> Scientific Integrity Program
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> TALKING POINTS:
> Please visit the following URL for a brief UCS analysis of the
> proposal: http://ucsaction.org/ct/M72wIN11o4Wx/
>
> * I am writing regarding docket FWS-R9-ES-2008-0093 regarding
> interagency cooperation under the Endangered Species Act.
>
> * [Be sure to mention your area of expertise and, if relevant,
> how your work connects with the Endangered Species Act.]
>
> * I am opposed to the proposed regulations that would weaken the
> Endangered Species Act by potentially excluding thousands of
> federal activities from scientific review, removing the checks
> and balances currently in place.
>
> * By allowing any federal agency to determine the degree that
> imperiled species would be threatened by their own projects, you
> are ignoring the clear conflict of interest these agencies have
> between their mission and the species they may harm in
> fulfilling it.
>
> * The Endangered Species Act requires decisions to be based on
> the best available science. The new process will remove the
> expert opinions of the scientists from the U.S. Fish and
> Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, who for
> decades have provided critical analysis of the consequences of
> federal projects for endangered species, and replace them with
> the uneven oversight of agencies without the relevant
> specialized scientific expertise.
>
> * Furthermore, I am upset by the inadequate 30-day public
> comment period for this proposal. I am concerned that the
> abbreviated timeline allows major changes to the implementation
> of the Endangered Species Act to move forward without adequate
> public scrutiny. I urge you to extend the comment period and
> hold public hearings into the consequences of the proposed
> changes.
>
> BACKGROUND:
> The Endangered Species Act has protected hundreds of species
> from extinction, as well as contributed to population increases
> and the recovery of species like the peregrine falcon. But now,
> the Bush administration has proposed weakening the Endangered
> Species Act by allowing any federal agency to decide for itself
> whether or not protected species would be threatened by agency
> projects such as roads, dams, or mines.
> Proposed Rules Sideline Science
>
> On August 11, 2008, Department of the Interior Secretary Dirk
> Kempthorne announced proposed rules changes that would allow any
> federal agency to decide for itself whether protected species
> would be threatened by agency projects. Many of these agencies
> do not have significant biological expertise and often have
> clear conflicts of interest with the protection of species.
>
> Currently, when a federal agency considers any project (such as
> a highway, dam, or mine) it is required to consult with the Fish
> and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service about
> impacts that a project might have on species. These "informal"
> consultations typically lead to minor adjustments being made to
> the planned action to lessen the anticipated impacts, and also
> help identify projects with particularly severe or complicated
> impacts, which then receive a thorough "formal" consultation.
> Between 1998 and 2002, the Services conducted over 300,000
> consultations.
>
> Among other things, these new proposed rules would eliminate
> these consultations if the agency planning the activity judges
> that the action will have minimal effect on endangered species,
> removing important checks and balances needed to keep our
> country's biodiversity safe. Many federal agencies do not have
> the scientific expertise needed to assess if and what kind of
> protections are needed. The changes cut the expert scientists
> from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
> Fisheries Service, who for decades have provided critical
> analysis of the consequences of federal projects for endangered
> species, out of the process.
>
> Furthermore, there is often a clear conflict of interest between
> the projects federal agencies want to carry out and the species
> they may harm in doing so. These agencies should not be allowed
> to decide for themselves what affects their proposed projects
> may have on imperiled species.
>
> A Closed Process
> According to press reports, these new regulations were drafted
> behind closed doors with little or no input from endangered
> species biologists. Furthermore, the public has been given only
> 30 days to comment on the changes before they are finalized. The
> Associated Press has reported that the proposed regulations were
> not even shown to expert federal scientists, but instead were
> written by attorneys in the Departments of Commerce and the
> Interior.
>
> One of the founding principles of our nation is a clear system
> of checks and balances designed to protect our citizens and
> natural resources from abuses of power. If these rule changes
> are put into effect, the higher level of accountability required
> by the Endangered Species Act will be diminished, and many
> protected species may follow along with it.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for
> the Restoring Scientific Integrity Network at:
> http://ucsaction.org/ucsaction3/join.html?r=F72wIN1qaKPPE&
>
> Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this.
> http://ucsaction.org/ucsaction3/join-forward.html?domain=ucsaction3&r=F72wIN1qaKPP&
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> This message was sent to m.egger at comcast.net. Visit your subscription
> management page to update your personal profile:
>
> http://ucsaction.org/ucsaction3/smp.tcl?nkey=igkdsbn4y7mmndw7&
>
> From this page you can change your email address, mailing
> address, name, congressional districts, email format preference,
>
> or add or remove yourself from various UCS newsletters,
> networks, and mailing lists.
>
> To stop receiving Restoring Scientific Integrity emails, click
> below to unsubscribe.
>
> http://ucsaction.org/ucsaction3/remove-domain-direct.tcl?ctx=center&nkey=igkdsbn4y7mmndw7&
>
>
> ******************************
> This email is Powered by Convio, Inc.
>
> http://www.convio.com
>
> ******************************
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20080903/7bf7acc6/attachment.htm