Date: 12/10/25 9:37 am From: Greg D. Jackson via groups.io <g_d_jackson...> Subject: [ALbirds] BIRD CONSERVATION: Trio of major US environmental threats
AL Birders:
The holiday season began with what may be the darkest week in history for
U.S. environmental protection with significant pertinence to bird
populations. Within a few days span, major changes were officially proposed
to massively expand offshore oil and gas leasing, limit the Endangered
Species Act, and weaken the Clean Water Act. I'm asking that everyone
consider submitting brief opinions to the appropriate agencies during the
limited window for comment. Even though in reality the changes may be
implemented regardless of public opinion and scientific knowledge, it is
useful in the inevitable legal (and possible later legislative) actions to
know public sentiment.
After each section I offer a link that allows an easy method to register an
official comment on that topic with the appropriate agency. These are
through the Earthjustice site, so be aware that group pulls no punches in
its opinions. (A little of the factual verbiage below is borrowed from that
site or those of other conservation groups.) I'm suggesting this route not
to incite a political debate, but due to the simplicity of posting your
opinions with the agencies through this portal - I used it myself for each
and it was very simple. You can also try to search for the official portals
of the agencies and find a way to comment directly. I changed the text of my
submission, replacing much of the suggested verbiage to make a few simple
statements. Whatever route you take please exercise your rights to express
opinions to the agencies on these important matters.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT:
The ESA (1973) has been one of the most important and effective tools we
have had to pull endangered and threatened species from the brink. This
landmark law has so far helped to preserve 99% of listed species, an amazing
rate considering how low some of these populations had slipped. It was
designed to use scientific data to assess species for listing, make plans
for recovery, and implement these until the populations were no longer in
significant danger.
The multifaceted new proposals would for the first time introduce "economic
considerations" into the assessments. Since economic factors are often the
driving force behind the population decreases in the first place, allowing
these to weigh heavily on the decision could allow the science to be ignored
for the sake of profit. Projected loss of revenue of a project could sway a
decision not to protect a species. This violates the spirit of the act and
the letter of the law.
The proposals would also include depriving newly listed threatened animal
and plant species from automatically receiving protections from killing,
trapping, and other forms of prohibited "take." Species now proposed for
listing could be left unprotected even after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service finalizes the listings.
An additional portion of the new proposals would narrow the definition of
"critical habitat" to exclude currently unoccupied but historic habitat.
Historic habitat is often vital for recovery of imperiled species.
It would also loosen compliance measures for federal agencies to make it
easier to greenlight destructive actions, like logging or drilling, that put
a protected species in harm's way. Another change would be to alter the
criteria for designating critical habitat to make it easier to exclude areas
from protections by giving more weight to industry claims of economic
impact.
Link to make comments to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
The Clean Water Act (1972) has been a bulwark for protecting American health
as well as aquatic ecologies for over five decades. There has been some
fluctuation over the years as to what constitutes waters covered under the
act; these are officially considered the "waters of the United States"
(WOTUS). In 2023 a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed that
definition. The proposal by the EPA and the U.S. Department of the Army (and
included Corps of Engineers) would not only incorporate that definition but
restrict it further.
What's at stake is federal protection for an enormous number of small
wetlands throughout the country (estimated at about 80% of our wetlands).
This includes temporary ("ephemeral") wetlands which are very common but, of
course, have a significant relationship with larger downstream waterways as
well as groundwater. A recent study in the journal Science (Brinkerhoff et
al. 2024) showed that ephemeral streams were the source of 55% of the water
in regional river systems (a significant drinking water source). Pollution
and development of these smaller wetlands and waterways will not only affect
local ecology but ultimately alter downstream waters.
Link to make comments to the Environmental Protection Agency:
The third leg of this cluster of proposals involves opening nearly 1.3
billion (yes, with a "b") acres of U.S. public waters to new oil and gas
drilling. This involves the offshore areas of California, Alaska, and the
eastern Gulf of Mexico, despite adamant objections by many state and local
governments. While drilling off Alaska and California are relatively
unlikely in the near future even with this change, it is more likely to
result in new oil drilling in the Gulf. Anyone who has been in this area for
a while will have no problem recalling the horrors of Deepwater Horizon and
its effects on the people and environment of the northern Gulf.
Supposedly these new leases are because of an "energy emergency," despite
the fact that the U.S. is already producing not only more oil than ever, but
more than any nation in history. While we still import some crude oil, we
have a significant net export surplus of petroleum. There is no emergency
basis for these leases, but the risk from drilling in these areas is
substantial.
Link to make comments to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management:
Thank you for your help with these major threats to birds and their
environment. Please share this with whomever you feel may be interested, as
the clock is ticking on the public comment period. We need as many comments
registered as possible on these issues.
