US Fish and Wildlife Service
5275 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries
1315 East-West Highway, 14th Floor
Silver Spring, MD 20910
19 December 2025
Subject: Conservation Groups Oppose Rules which would Weaken Endangered Species Act
Attn: Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0029, FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0039, FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0044, FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0048
On behalf of the undersigned 88 conservation organizations, we write to express our strong opposition to the suite of proposed rulemakings that would significantly weaken implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)—one of our nation’s most effective and widely supported conservation laws.
Birds are among the most visible indicators of ecosystem health, and their continued declines demand stronger, not weaker, protections. The Bald Eagle, our nation’s symbol, would not exist today without strong protections instituted by the ESA; after a rapid decline due to changes in their environment, federal protections were needed to spur conservation action. The Bald Eagle’s delisting in 2007 is further evidence of the strength and success of the ESA as it currently stands.
These proposed rules would erode safeguards essential to preventing extinctions, recovering imperiled species, and conserving the habitats on which birds and other wildlife depend.
Specifically, we oppose:
Eliminating the Blanket 4(d) Rule (FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0029) – USFWS
The proposal to end the default extension of endangered-level protections to threatened species would create dangerous gaps in conservation at the exact moment when species are most vulnerable. Requiring economic considerations in developing 4(d) rules, as also proposed, further dilutes the ESA’s science-based mandate.
Species like the Rufa Red Knot and Eastern Black Rail rely on broad habitat protections and consultations on federal projects which are currently extended to them. If this rule is enacted, the process for obtaining the necessary protections to keep them from becoming endangered (and therefore posing a greater financial and bureaucratic lift) will become much longer and more unlikely.
Removing Reasonable and Prudent Measures from Species Recovery (FWS-HQ-ES- 2025-0044) – NMFS and USFWS
The rule changes proposed here would undermine the Section 7 consultation process by ignoring the impact of past federal agency actions. In the new definition, past actions would not be considered, discounting possible cumulative impacts on species. Marbled Murrelets in the Pacific Northwest, for example, may not receive the full weight of considerations for past and present impacts to their breeding habitat from logging.
Rather, they would now only have impacts from future logging projects or other forest-modifying activities weigh against their status.
Additionally, the proposed rule would no longer allow creation of habitat offsets to be considered reasonable and prudent measures for species conservation or recovery.
Imagine a species like the Masked Bobwhite Quail, which lives in small patches of arid grasslands in the Southwest, having their range be the ideal place for grazing or new construction. If the projects can only occur in the Bobwhite habitat, offsets (recreating suitable habitat or activities which mitigate the loss of the species elsewhere for a net gain in population) may be the only viable option.
Including Economics Into Listing Decisions (FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0039) – NMFS and USFWS
Requiring economic impacts to be considered when determining whether a species warrants listing goes against decades of Congressional intent that biological status alone should determine protections.
Allowing economic impacts to weigh in on the listing process would delay, or even eliminate, protections from species of greatest conservation need such as Piping Plover or Hawaiian Stilt. Both species live in areas which are highly prized for real-estate development and have little other suitable habitat available; economic considerations could spell disaster.
Making it More Difficult to Designate Critical Habitat for Species (FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0039 & 0048) – NMFS and USFWS
Collectively, the proposed changes would make it far more difficult to designate the habitats birds need to survive and recover. Limiting designations to only those threats considered during Section 7 consultations disregards real-world drivers of decline, and raising barriers to designating unoccupied, but essential, recovery habitat undermines hope for long-term species recovery.
Without the opportunity to expand into currently unoccupied, but critical for survival, habitat, some endangered species may not survive. Northern Spotted Owl recovery is dependent on the Northwest Forest Plan to restore suitable habitat, much of which is currently unoccupied by the owls.
Alternatively, if species are not able to expand their range as they recover, such as with Florida Scrub-Jays, full recovery and de-listing may not be possible.
Conclusion
Collectively, these proposed changes would shift the ESA away from science-based, precautionary conservation and toward increasingly discretionary, economically driven decision making.
The ESA’s successful recovery of endangered birds depends on strong, consistent implementation grounded in biological need, not political or economic pressure.
We urge the Services to withdraw these proposals. Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
American Bird Conservancy
Amos Butler Audubon Society
Animal Defenders International
Arkansas Audubon Society
Arkansas Valley Audubon Society
Audubon Colorado Council
Bird Safe Nashville
Birds Georgia
Bord Conservation Network
Bucks County Audubon Society at Honey Hollow
Center for Food Safety
Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks
Coast to Cascades Bird Alliance
Cottage Codgers
Creation Justice Ministries
Delaware Audubon
Dogwood Alliance
Endangered Habitats League
Endangered Species Coalition
Environmental Protection in the Caribbean (EPIC)
Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC)
Family Farm Defenders
FOUR PAWS USA
Friends of Dyke Marsh
Friends of the Earth
Golden Gate Bird Alliance
Grazing Reform Project
Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association
Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance
Grow Native Massachusetts
Hawaiʻi Audubon Society
Hawk Migration Association
Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association
Hilton Head Audubon
Illinois Environmental Council
International Crane Foundation
John Muir Project
Kettle Range Conservation Group
Klamath Forest Alliance
Lake Michigan Bird Observatory
Lehigh Valley Audubon Society
Los Angeles Audubon Society
Los Padres ForestWatch
Magic
Manomet Inc.
Maryland Ornithological Society
Massachusetts Pollinator Network
New Hampshire Audubon
New Hope Bird Alliance
New Jersey Audubon
New Jersey Conservation Foundation
Next 100 Coalition
Northeastern Wisconsin Bird Alliance
Northern California Council, Fly Fishers International
NYC Bird Alliance
Oakland Bird Alliance
Ocean Conservation Research
One Earth Conservation
Ornitherapy & Nature-based Wellness, LLC
Pacifica Shorebird Alliance
Resource Renewal Institute
Rockbridge Bird Club
Safe Skies Maryland
Salem Audubon Society
Santa Cruz Bird Club
Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition
Southern Wisconsin Bird Alliance
Stanislaus Audubon Society
Surfrider Foundation
Sustainable Agriculture of Louisville (SAL)
Tennessee Ornithological Society
The Connecticut Audubon Society
The Rachel Carson Council
The Urban Wildlands Group
Turtle Island Restoration Network
Turtle Island Restoration Network
Umpqua Watersheds
Valley Forge Audubon Society
Washington Crossing Audubon Society
Wild Cumberland
WildCare of Western New York
WildLands Defense
Wisconsin Society for Ornithology
Wolf Hollow
Wolfandwildlifeadvocates.org
Words for Birds
Wyoming Wildlife Advocates
Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation