Frazer ESA Comms

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request the following records:

Any written or electronic communications, including email attachments or text messages, that have been sent to Assistant Director Gary Frazer by one more more of the following individuals: Todd Willens, Aurelia Skipwith, Jason Larrabee and/or Susan Combs. This request seeks records that relate to the Endangered Species Act and/or endangered or threatened species. This request seeks records produced between September 1, 2018 and the date this request is processed.

I am a reporter for The Guardian and Pacific Standard.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Jimmy Tobias

Hi Ms. Harke,

Thank you for the update. I appreciate it! What sort of consultation are you referring to exactly? How long do you suspect that process will take? Please let me know if you get a chance and thanks again. I look forward to seeing the documents.

Thanks so much.

Jimmy Tobias

Thank you Ms. Harke!

I appreciate it.

Jimmy

To Whom It May Concern:

This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 in reference to the following FOIA request: FWS-2019-00370. The agency's final response to me is attached below.

The agency provided documents in response to this request on May 15, 2019 (those documents are attached below as well, for your reference). The responsive documents attached below include numerous passages that have been redacted under the deliberative process privilege. I am writing to appeal all of those redactions. These redactions cover information concerning a decision that has already been made, thus obviating the need conceal them from the public. One entire document that has been redacted -- which is referred to in the release as a "summary" -- is an overview of what were impending policy decisions regarding the Endangered Species Act, but those policy decisions, which were being considered by the EPA, have already been made and the summary is not rightfully entitled to redaction by FWS under FOIA. Another redaction in this document concerns information that DOI's Aurelia Skipwith was intending to share with an outside group called the Public Lands Council. Because Skipwith shared the talking points with that outside group, it is inappropriate for the records in question to be redacted. I ask that all redactions be removed so this vital information can be shared with the public.

I trust that upon re-consideration, the FWS will reverse the decision denying me access to this material. However, if within twenty days I have not received a full response to my request, I will deem the appeal denied and explore initiating a lawsuit to compel disclosure on one or more of these requests.

As I have made this request in the capacity of a journalist and this information is of timely value, I would appreciate the FWS expediting the consideration of my appeal in every way possible. In any case, I will expect to receive the department's decision within 20 business days, as required by the statute.

Thank you again for your assistance and for the work that you do. I truly appreciate it.

Sincerely,

Jimmy Tobias
248-763-0088

To Whom It May Concern:

This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 in reference to the following FOIA request: FWS-2019-00370. The agency's final response to me is attached below as well as relevant released documents.

The agency provided an initial release of documents in response to this request on May 15, 2019 (those documents are attached below for your reference). The responsive documents attached below include numerous passages that have been redacted under the deliberative process privilege. I am writing to appeal all of those redactions. These redactions cover information concerning a decision that has already been made, thus obviating the need conceal them from the public. One entire document that has been redacted -- which is referred to in the release as a "summary" -- is an overview of what were impending policy decisions regarding the Endangered Species Act, but those policy decisions, which were being considered by the EPA, have already been made and the summary is not rightfully entitled to redaction by FWS under FOIA. Another redaction in this document concerns information that DOI's Aurelia Skipwith was intending to share with an outside group called the Public Lands Council. Because Skipwith shared the talking points with that outside group, it is inappropriate for the records in question to be redacted. I ask that all redactions be removed so this vital information can be shared with the public.

I also wish to appeal redactions in the agency's July 2019 final response to me. In that final response the agency redacted the near entirety of an email attachment titled "424 final track changes_DOC_working_12.12.18.docx" I am writing to appeal all redactions of that document. In order to redact the document in question, the agency relied on the deliberative process privilege and the attorney client privilege. These exemptions, however, are an illegitimate reason to redact the document in question. First: The document in question relates to revisions to Endangered Species Act regulations that have already been completed, finalized and released to the public. Because the agency's decision on this matter has already been made, the deliberative process privilege should no longer apply to the document in question. Second: The agency applied the attorney client privilege to this document, even though the document was an attachment in an email exchange between two officials who are not involved in an attorney-client relationship. Namely, this document was transmitted from Todd Willens, an Interior Department political appointee, to Gary Frazer, a Fish and Wildlife Service staffer. Willens and Frazer are not in an attorney-client relationship and so this exemption does not apply to the document in question.

I trust that upon re-consideration, the FWS will reverse the decision denying me access to this material. However, if within twenty days I have not received a full response to my request, I will deem the appeal denied and explore initiating a lawsuit to compel disclosure on one or more of these requests.

As I have made this request in the capacity of a journalist and this information is of timely value, I would appreciate the FWS expediting the consideration of my appeal in every way possible. In any case, I will expect to receive the department's decision within 20 business days, as required by the statute.

Thank you again for your assistance and for the work that you do. I truly appreciate it.

Sincerely,

Jimmy Tobias
248-763-0088