Use your right to comment to protect environmental law

“More than fifty research and development facilities across thirty-one states. Gone. Consolidated into a single location in Fort Collins, Colorado. And ‘consolidated’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence, because what it actually means is that decades of place-based, long-term ecological research—the kind that literally cannot exist anywhere else because it depends on specific forests, specific watersheds, specific ecosystems studied over generations—will be snuffed out.

If your senator is a Republican, the question is simple: you voted for a law that requires USDA to get committee approval before reorganizing or relocating any office. USDA didn’t get that approval. Their own lawyers declared your law unconstitutional. What are you going to do about it?

If your senator is a Democrat, the question is just as simple: the legal basis for stopping this already exists. Where are the subpoenas? Where are the hearings? Why is USDA’s general counsel allowed to declare a duly enacted law unconstitutional by internal memo and face no consequences?

Make them answer. Make their staff write it down. Call back next week and ask what happened.

(source)

We have 30 days to submit comments if we want to prevent this. This article has suggestions for what you can say, and how:

You can read more about it here:

If you live in Oregon and you love our forests, please submit a comment before March 23rd.

"The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is a 1.1 million-acre Wilderness in Northeastern Minnesota in the Superior National Forest along the Canadian border. It is the most-visited Wilderness in the country, a wild and beautiful place where millions of people have developed a lifelong love of the outdoors through camping, fishing, paddling, dog sledding, hunting, and hiking.

The Boundary Waters is threatened by proposed copper mining. Twin Metals, owned by Chilean mining giant Antofagasta, wants to build a copper-nickel mine immediately upstream of the Boundary Waters along waterways that flow into and through the heart of the Wilderness and downstream to Voyageurs National Park and Quetico Provincial Park in Canada. In 2023, after extensive review and public input, the Department of Interior signed a Public Land Order banning mining on 225,504 acres of federal public land around the Boundary Waters.

But there are now efforts to overturn the federal mining ban in the headwaters of the Boundary Waters. Right now, Congress is using a law called the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal the regulation with a simple majority vote in the House and Senate; the CRA has never been used to rescind a Public Land Order in the past. House Joint Resolution 140 (H.J.Res. 140) passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Jan 21st, with a vote of 214-208, and will now head to the U.S. Senate."

"On December 16, 2025, the White House announced plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. Trump administration officials, including budget director Russell Vought, criticized the lab for its “climate alarmism” and “woke” waste of taxpayer dollars.

Established in 1960, NCAR is the backbone of American weather and climate science. Its researchers develop the models and tools that the National Weather Service, private forecasters, and emergency managers rely on every day. NCAR scientists pioneered dropsondes (the instruments dropped into hurricanes) which have revolutionized forecasting and saved countless lives. NCAR scientists also developed the forecasting systems for microbursts (sudden violent wind gusts) that caused airplanes to crash during take-off and landing.

NCAR has shaped the careers of meteorologists and climate scientists across the country. Through internships, graduate fellowships, workshops, and open-access educational resources, NCAR trains the next generation of atmospheric scientists. When a forecaster issues a warning it’s likely their training, their models, or their data trace back to NCAR.

The White House is moving forward with a “comprehensive review” of the NCAR and its work. Demand your representatives take action to stop the administration’s dangerous dismantling of this crucial climate science lab."

A bill, HJ Res. 140, just passed Congress. This overturns some of Biden's environmental protections and would allow mining in the Boundary Waters watershed, a beautiful wilderness area here in Minnesota.

Please contact your senators and ask them to oppose this.

I'm including a couple of pictures that I took while I was up there doing research, but they really don't do it justice.

The US federal rule-making process is founded around the right to comment: the public's opportunity to publicly address the agency responsible for a decision. This right is enshrined by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 and reinforced by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, which both require that citizens be able to take part in pre-decision communication with a federal agency.

Public comments are important for a number of reasons:

Agencies must consider all new information received during the comment period and address that new information before publishing the final rule; this includes revising the proposed rule.

A good comment can be the basis for a court challenge. If the agency does not adequately address the new information in the comment, they can then be sued and the rule placed on hold until the issues raised by the new information are resolved.

Advocacy groups and journalists often scour public comments to get ideas for their own comments and campaigns, and to contextualize proposed rules.

Submitting a public comment on proposed federal rules and regulations is not like commenting on social media, though. Substantive comments that require agency response are those that contain information pertinent to the actions proposed in the regulation, such as community impacts, scientific evidence, or other data. Non-substantive comments ("I don't like this!") don't require any response beyond maybe a "Comment noted."

Here's a brief set of tips from the Public Comment Project:

“The most valuable public comments are unique, fact-based, and succinct. The agency will have to sort through many identical form letters and expressions of personal opinion.  

Your comment can report on scientific evidence that opposes or supports the theory behind the regulation. Providing additional supporting evidence helps strengthen the agency's position by creating a stronger scientific foundation for their action.

Use an opening sentence to establish your credibility. State who you are and summarize any of your experiences that are relevant to the topic of the proposal.

You do not have to come to a conclusion or judgement regarding the entirety of the regulation, but you do have to clearly communicate the implications of the research you present. Avoid leaving it up to the agency to infer how research or data relates to the regulation. 

Check out the agency's mission statement and any statutes relevant to the regulation. Federal agencies' actions are driven by their mission and held to the standards dictated by statutes, so make your comment stronger by explaining how your information contributes to their mission.”

You can also find templates here: https://publiccommentproject.org/comment-templates

Sources:

The Public Comment Project https://publiccommentproject.org

Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions, Beierle and Cayford 2002

(yes this entirely for corporate profit)

Cut and paste the docket number to put in your response if you remember. You can comment anonymously if you want.

The Oregon Zoo has some sample arguments you can make.

Since OP didn't explain what's actually changing (lots of things) here's a simple explanation of one of the Big Ones.

One of the biggest changes is a proposal to remove the ESA’s Threatened Species Blanket Rule (FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0029). The Blanket Rule is extremely important because it automatically extends the same protections given to endangered species to all newly listed threatened species, quickly providing prohibitions on harming, killing or trading the species. If the Blanket Rule is rescinded, species-specific rules would have to be enacted, imposing additional procedural delays and uncertainty at the most critical time for the species' survival. And with more and more species in danger each year, that’s a risk that we as a country cannot afford to take. 

Also, @why-animals-do-the-thing / @animalphotorefs this seems like something that your reach might help with, and that's relevant to your blog(s).

If you run into issues, try turning off your VPN if you have one, in case it's getting annoyed that you're not "in the U.S.".

If you need a template, I'm putting one I got sent at work under the cut. (But check out the Oregon Zoo link, too! Or better yet, write your own! Unique and individual comments catch more attention than copy-pasted ones!)

I’m going to give you a little bit of information about the process that’s happening here, why it’s happening, and how you can best contribute to protecting the Endangered Species Act. You can skip it by scrolling to the red text, but you’ll be best set up to comment and help if you know some things about what’s happening first, so please stick with me. I promise to be as simple and jargon free as possible.

First, and to catch people's attention as they scroll, here's two red wolf sisters: a species the ESA actively preserving. This is who we're doing this for.

To clarify one thing: they’re not trying to totally repeal the ESA, the entire law, they’re looking to roll back regulations implementing it/enforcing it to what was being used in 2019. This is still bad! Very bad! But a thing that’s important when dealing with legislation/regulation is precision in the language we use.

Okay, so here’s what you need to know. This is part of what is known as the “notice-and-comment” rule making process, which is federally mandated. This happens with the implementation of regulations to enact new laws, or changes to the interpretation of laws. Laws like the ESA, once passed, are delegated to various federal agencies and departments to enact and make happen, and they do that by deciding what regulations need to exist to fulfill the text and intent of the law. This change to the ESA is happening because one of the earliest executive orders from this administration “directed all departments and agencies to immediately review agency actions to identify those actions that potentially impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources, and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, consider suspending, revising, or rescinding agency actions identified as unduly burdensome that conflict with this national objective.” So, as @sweetfirebird said, literally go figure out what laws and regs and protections they can interpret differently, put on hold, or trash for the energy sector. Fucking gross.

This “notice-and-comment” process is the process with which all these federal agencies go about exploring changing regulations. It’s a formal process that is specifically designed to allow stakeholders to have input on what happens. Good news: in the ESA, the public is literally a stakeholder! It’s written into the law that any “person” (basically an individual or a group of individuals) can sue the government for a violation of the law. This is actually historically the prime enforcement mechanism of the ESA. Which means you, as an American on tumblr reading this, have absolutely valid standing to go tell the feds to knock this shit off. And with the way the “notice-and-comment” process works, they actually have to take your argument into account. (Yes, even though we know this admin is a piece of shit and dgaf). Here’s why.

A “notice and comment” process has four major steps.

Agency issues a notice of proposed rulemaking. That’s what you’re looking at in the first link @sweetbirdfire shared. They have to describe what the rule they want to make/change is and explain the legal authority for the rule.

The public must be given an opportunity to participate in a written comment period. That’s what you’re being asked to do - submit a comment before the comment period is over on the 22nd.

The agency must “consider all relevant, timely-submitted comments. If it decides to issue a final rule, the agency develops the regulatory text along with a preamble explaining the rule’s basis and responding to all significant issues raised in the comments.”

Final rule is published.

Okay, so why did I jump to a direct quote from federal documents in the third bullet point? Because that’s the really important shit. When federal agencies move forward with rulemaking after a public comment period, they are required to consider and response to all significant issues raised. And that is why you should write your own comment if you can.

It’s really common for organizations encouraging people to leave public comment to ask people to send in form letters. It’s easy, it takes no time or real work, it shows a lot of general public support on the issue, and they can quote the comment numbers when they’re lobbying.

But! What I’ve been told by serious professional people who work with regulatory agencies is that all those form letters only have the functional weight of a single comment during the “notice-and-comment” process. If 100 people only bring up the same significant set of issues, that requires far less time and work for the agency to respond to than even 20 people writing in with their individual concerns. I’ve seen follow-ups on comment periods where they actually count how many people raised issues on a single topic or concern - but the form letters only counted as one “comment” because they were the exact same thing.

And while the political agency head probably wants to fast-track this process of changing the regs to let the feds tear up whatever the fuck they want, a “notice-and-comment period” is a really good way to gum up those gears. There are still people in lower-level positions who do this daily work and I expect that they’re opposed to this and will go through the whole process like they’re been trained to. Under normal administrations, an overwhelming number of concerns raised during comment periods have stalled the creation/change of specific regulations for a decade. This is a process that works best when as many people as possible participate, and it’s detrimental to our interests as invested members of the public that that isn’t more widely known or the process understood.

So! What does that mean you should do here?

Write your own comment if you have the time/spoons.

Literally, write it in your own words, rather than using the form letters provided. If you make it a “different comment” it has to be considered separately and your concerns on the topic will be given more weight. Even if you just stick to the topics the Oregon Zoo offered: to be clear, they’re really good ones.

But, you’ll have even more impact if you can tie it to specific concerns for you. It takes a little more work so I don’t expect everyone to do this, but if you have some specialized or local knowledge that can be relevant, this is a great time to drop that in. Tie the concern to endangered or threatened species in your specific community, or an ecosystem that you know companies might want to pillage.

Your comment doesn’t have to be super well written or perfectly edited. It can be in language about as casual as you’d use in a tumblr post (with punctuation, though). This isn’t something you’re turning in for a grade - it’s raising your hand to say hey, I object! You’re not a major advocacy group or professional org, you don’t have to be perfect, you just have to tell them how you feel. That being said. Public comments are public record. You can submit them anonymously but don’t include identifying information.

Here’s a link directly to the comment portal. While the site has a text box embedded in the page, you can also submit a document/file containing your comment.

https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0039-0001

Comments close at 11:59 PM EST (4:59 GMT) on December 22nd. We have less than five days to get more comments in. I’m really not kidding when I say every unique, individual comment makes an impact. Let’s do this.

https://nationalaglawcenter.org/fws-nmfs-propose-new-esa-rules/

Additionally. Look. Okay. I admire the energy, I really do, but none of you understand the public comment process. Submitting a comment that reads "I dont like these changes because it will harm wildlife" is meaningless. When agencies request public comment, they are not taking an opinion poll. They are looking for actual substantive feedback on the proposed rules, if they'll do what the agency thinks they will, if they comply with the underlying statute, etc. I'm not saying don't submit a comment, but if all you're planning to do is submit a comment that essentially boils down to "I don't like this," then you're better off donating $5 to an environmental organization like Center for Biological Diversity that, you know, employs lawyers to read the regulatory proposals, craft well-thought out comments, and then use those comments as the basis for an upcoming lawsuit.

Also, no offense, but your comment does need to be well written. It does need to make sense. If you want the agency to consider it, your comment does need to be more theb "hey, I don't like this." Sorry to keep coming back to this, but the notice and comment process is NOT like voting. The agencies traditionally do NOT consider comments that boil down to "I like/don't like this." Do you know what they do with those comments? When issuing the final rule, they agency has to issue responses to the comments they receive. And when they receive multiple identical or near-identical "I don't like this" comments, they have a wee little one or two sentence paragraph in the preamble to the final rule where they essentially say "we got several of these and noted 👍" then they move on to actual, substantive comments.

(yes this entirely for corporate profit)

Cut and paste the docket number to put in your response if you remember. You can comment anonymously if you want.

The Oregon Zoo has some sample arguments you can make.

Since OP didn't explain what's actually changing (lots of things) here's a simple explanation of one of the Big Ones.

One of the biggest changes is a proposal to remove the ESA’s Threatened Species Blanket Rule (FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0029). The Blanket Rule is extremely important because it automatically extends the same protections given to endangered species to all newly listed threatened species, quickly providing prohibitions on harming, killing or trading the species. If the Blanket Rule is rescinded, species-specific rules would have to be enacted, imposing additional procedural delays and uncertainty at the most critical time for the species' survival. And with more and more species in danger each year, that’s a risk that we as a country cannot afford to take. 

Also, @why-animals-do-the-thing / @animalphotorefs this seems like something that your reach might help with, and that's relevant to your blog(s).

If you run into issues, try turning off your VPN if you have one, in case it's getting annoyed that you're not "in the U.S.".

If you need a template, I'm putting one I got sent at work under the cut. (But check out the Oregon Zoo link, too! Or better yet, write your own! Unique and individual comments catch more attention than copy-pasted ones!)

I’m going to give you a little bit of information about the process that’s happening here, why it’s happening, and how you can best contribute to protecting the Endangered Species Act. You can skip it by scrolling to the red text, but you’ll be best set up to comment and help if you know some things about what’s happening first, so please stick with me. I promise to be as simple and jargon free as possible.

First, and to catch people's attention as they scroll, here's two red wolf sisters: a species the ESA actively preserving. This is who we're doing this for.

To clarify one thing: they’re not trying to totally repeal the ESA, the entire law, they’re looking to roll back regulations implementing it/enforcing it to what was being used in 2019. This is still bad! Very bad! But a thing that’s important when dealing with legislation/regulation is precision in the language we use.

Okay, so here’s what you need to know. This is part of what is known as the “notice-and-comment” rule making process, which is federally mandated. This happens with the implementation of regulations to enact new laws, or changes to the interpretation of laws. Laws like the ESA, once passed, are delegated to various federal agencies and departments to enact and make happen, and they do that by deciding what regulations need to exist to fulfill the text and intent of the law. This change to the ESA is happening because one of the earliest executive orders from this administration “directed all departments and agencies to immediately review agency actions to identify those actions that potentially impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources, and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, consider suspending, revising, or rescinding agency actions identified as unduly burdensome that conflict with this national objective.” So, as @sweetfirebird said, literally go figure out what laws and regs and protections they can interpret differently, put on hold, or trash for the energy sector. Fucking gross.

This “notice-and-comment” process is the process with which all these federal agencies go about exploring changing regulations. It’s a formal process that is specifically designed to allow stakeholders to have input on what happens. Good news: in the ESA, the public is literally a stakeholder! It’s written into the law that any “person” (basically an individual or a group of individuals) can sue the government for a violation of the law. This is actually historically the prime enforcement mechanism of the ESA. Which means you, as an American on tumblr reading this, have absolutely valid standing to go tell the feds to knock this shit off. And with the way the “notice-and-comment” process works, they actually have to take your argument into account. (Yes, even though we know this admin is a piece of shit and dgaf). Here’s why.

A “notice and comment” process has four major steps.

Agency issues a notice of proposed rulemaking. That’s what you’re looking at in the first link @sweetbirdfire shared. They have to describe what the rule they want to make/change is and explain the legal authority for the rule.

The public must be given an opportunity to participate in a written comment period. That’s what you’re being asked to do - submit a comment before the comment period is over on the 22nd.

The agency must “consider all relevant, timely-submitted comments. If it decides to issue a final rule, the agency develops the regulatory text along with a preamble explaining the rule’s basis and responding to all significant issues raised in the comments.”

Final rule is published.

Okay, so why did I jump to a direct quote from federal documents in the third bullet point? Because that’s the really important shit. When federal agencies move forward with rulemaking after a public comment period, they are required to consider and response to all significant issues raised. And that is why you should write your own comment if you can.

It’s really common for organizations encouraging people to leave public comment to ask people to send in form letters. It’s easy, it takes no time or real work, it shows a lot of general public support on the issue, and they can quote the comment numbers when they’re lobbying.

But! What I’ve been told by serious professional people who work with regulatory agencies is that all those form letters only have the functional weight of a single comment during the “notice-and-comment” process. If 100 people only bring up the same significant set of issues, that requires far less time and work for the agency to respond to than even 20 people writing in with their individual concerns. I’ve seen follow-ups on comment periods where they actually count how many people raised issues on a single topic or concern - but the form letters only counted as one “comment” because they were the exact same thing.

And while the political agency head probably wants to fast-track this process of changing the regs to let the feds tear up whatever the fuck they want, a “notice-and-comment period” is a really good way to gum up those gears. There are still people in lower-level positions who do this daily work and I expect that they’re opposed to this and will go through the whole process like they’re been trained to. Under normal administrations, an overwhelming number of concerns raised during comment periods have stalled the creation/change of specific regulations for a decade. This is a process that works best when as many people as possible participate, and it’s detrimental to our interests as invested members of the public that that isn’t more widely known or the process understood.

So! What does that mean you should do here?

Write your own comment if you have the time/spoons.

Literally, write it in your own words, rather than using the form letters provided. If you make it a “different comment” it has to be considered separately and your concerns on the topic will be given more weight. Even if you just stick to the topics the Oregon Zoo offered: to be clear, they’re really good ones.

But, you’ll have even more impact if you can tie it to specific concerns for you. It takes a little more work so I don’t expect everyone to do this, but if you have some specialized or local knowledge that can be relevant, this is a great time to drop that in. Tie the concern to endangered or threatened species in your specific community, or an ecosystem that you know companies might want to pillage.

Your comment doesn’t have to be super well written or perfectly edited. It can be in language about as casual as you’d use in a tumblr post (with punctuation, though). This isn’t something you’re turning in for a grade - it’s raising your hand to say hey, I object! You’re not a major advocacy group or professional org, you don’t have to be perfect, you just have to tell them how you feel. That being said. Public comments are public record. You can submit them anonymously but don’t include identifying information.

Here’s a link directly to the comment portal. While the site has a text box embedded in the page, you can also submit a document/file containing your comment.

https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0039-0001

Comments close at 11:59 PM EST (4:59 GMT) on December 22nd. We have less than five days to get more comments in. I’m really not kidding when I say every unique, individual comment makes an impact. Let’s do this.

Script and representatives' contact info at the link!

"The Trump administration has created a massive public lands staffing crisis. The National Park Service has already lost a quarter of its park rangers, with key services impacted, like search and rescue, firefighting, research, and maintenance. To make matters worse, the federal hiring freeze has made it impossible to hire non-temporary staff.

Instead of hiring more park rangers to address this emergency, the Department of the Interior – which manages agencies like the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management – is moving forward with mass firings and budget cuts. These staffing cuts threaten our public lands and critical public services: from wildfire response and land management to clean water protection and tribal obligations.

In response, Congressional Democrats have introduced H.R.4854, the Saving the Department of the Interior’s Workforce Act to stop the firings and protect the rangers who work to preserve America’s public lands.

Demand your legislators support legislation to end the hiring freeze and stand up for the people who protect your public lands.

Park Rangers are integral to the continued enjoyment—and likely, existence—of public lands.

Here's just a few things of what Park Rangers do for you:

• Provide free educational, often hands-on programming for all ages.

• Provide virtual field trips and in-person visits to schools in rural communities (also for free).

• Protect lands with natural, cultural, and historical significance from corporations and private entities.

• Protect biodiversity.

• Connect urban communities to nature, culture, and history.

"The U.S. Forest Service today [Aug. 29, 2025] posted notice of its intention to roll back significant protections on some 45 million acres of mid-elevation forestland, and will accept public comments through Sept. 19 to gauge Americans’ appetite for the change.