Date: 12/10/25 1:58 pm From: Grace via groups.io <larwood...> Subject: Re: [ALbirds] BIRD CONSERVATION: Trio of major US environmental threats
Thank you so this information. It’s a horrifying time for wildlife and the environment.
Grace Simms
> On Dec 10, 2025, at 11:36 AM, Greg D. Jackson via groups.io <g_d_jackson...> wrote:
>
> 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:
>
> https://earthjustice.org/action/the-law-that-saves-species-needs-saving?ms=email&sourceid=1048457&utm_source=crm&utm_medium=email&utm_term=action&utm_campaign=2511_Action_ESA_FWS&utm_content=HTMLTakeActionButton2&contactdata=DdCtKfWiDAe8QGsJX2n%2f3ADa+EHElV5Mx2%2fhdBLqvainHOEzVrBEIpyF9%2fjd8jfvo7Zt3uLYFMST%2fDxhjT8%2fhtuewCT6uOqZie696c81S+iVKtvHQHQSHS4WetLqgGtsh5sgdZqZEpwyVYqEWuMF+vq3BHhIgGO%2fmOAYUQjbg0Ueh04kKFrPgoXg1Wq22B9V84NhdxHlHWdCcIXnf%2fQiaUACXYN286pvaJv5hApLBtI%3d&emci=42dcfd5e-abcf-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&emdi=d9dee2b4-1ed1-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&ceid=3716036 >
>
> CLEAN WATER ACT
>
> 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:
>
> https://earthjustice.org/brief/2025/trumps-epa-just-tried-to-gut-the-protections-that-keep-our-drinking-water-clean?ms=email&sourceid=1048523&utm_source=crm&utm_medium=email&utm_term=action&utm_campaign=2512_Cultiv_WOTUSBrief&utm_content=HTMLTakeActionButton1&contactdata=9nIS7s%2fuY2fAyvAq+Gjbax9EZy2NVz0rpGfqdCgrJ9Xv2zd+NZbIa7kWdC9rqCLSTt2qO4pEGYbk+qSttbGpVRDTX3lnfjjQ+VpUDyZKBBmM65r+6O40ojEFnyvyliqk5wvZYGxdF9mogyAC87e541iFcZUz7cD7JkqTnCzHVvmg4zLVLxT3fe9ahAP+C%2fFb1mryu3yXAEhv4TKetH+CtDu40ISPm95kiFCwpMhkHOQ%3d&emci=b710a77d-1dd2-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&emdi=7b680d2a-72d4-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&ceid=3716036 >
>
> EXPANSION OF OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASING
>
> 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:
>
> https://earthjustice.org/action/stop-trumps-plan-to-expand-oil-drilling-in-our-oceans?ms=email&sourceid=1048390&utm_source=crm&utm_medium=email&utm_term=action&utm_campaign=2511_Action_OffshorePlan_DOI&utm_content=HTMLTakeActionButton1&contactdata=9M5bS9XnD1In1RPTZSb+7Z5tqStb2fDBm5ij6z1zmpB5QRHt2dnnlcFYzuosAPaxQSmRpAVPo5Ri183SV4iLgyIH13MTk8yoSgM+oGFsZo%2fHR1XI5CSlnbe7EJ4gk6HgGR%2fZOTKk9u97IcOt5aTKyK+CxRtIlE1HXV9nc+jJFAUOOFjmOwxiSyOJstfS71YHdcVNHof1IARZQzRLQYeJSsId7uN+0ipi+CFgKSl4B8U%3d&emci=198797bc-a4d0-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&emdi=4892f168-add0-f011-8195-000d3a1d58aa&ceid=3716036 >
>
> 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.
>
> Greg
>
>
> Greg D. Jackson
> Birmingham, AL
>
>
>
>
