PUBLIC COMMENTS: Save the Endangered Species Act DUE SEPT 24

The Department of the Interior has proposed new regulations which would dramatically weaken the Endangered Species Act. Please leave a public comment opposing these regulations BEFORE MIDNIGHT ON SEPTEMBER 24. Leave your public comment HERE.


SAMPLE COMMENT FROM HSUS:

The proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act regulations by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service would weaken the ESA regulations by making it harder to secure and maintain federal protections for imperiled species. The FWS and NMFS should keep the existing ESA protections to save threatened and endangered animals from extinction.

SAMPLE COMMENT FROM XERCES SOCIETY:

 I strongly oppose the proposed rule changes to the Endangered Species Act proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Despite the claim from politicians that only a minority of species have recovered after endangered species listing, the fact is the Endangered Species Act is our nation’s most effective law for protecting wildlife in danger of extinction, and has prevented 99 percent of listed species from going extinct. Weakening the Act with the proposed changes will have dramatic implications for species conservation at a time when the threats to all species are increasing, and an increasing number of species are imperiled.

I especially oppose that listing decisions would be coupled with a study on the economic impacts (not benefits) to listing the species. An economic impact analysis could easily influence listing decisions, not to mention be a waste of taxpayer funds.

The Endangered Species Act is a hallmark piece of legislation that has had tremendous benefits for this nation’s iconic wildlife. The proposed changes to the ESA would weaken the law, change the clearly stated and intended purpose of the law, and have negative lasting impacts on our environment for future generations. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the suggested changes.

SAMPLE COMMENT FROM HOWLING FOR WOLVES: 

1. Give economic impact over consideration in decisions about protecting wildlife. Species listing decisions are currently made based solely on scientific considerations–as it should be. The new rules will give veto power to specialist interests over protecting endangered animals.
2. Make it much more difficult to protect plants, fish, and wildlife impacted by the effects of climate change. Species such as wolverines or lynx that are now losing their fight against a warming world will continue to be denied protections;
3. Put enormous roadblocks in the way of protecting habitat needed by endangered and threatened species;
4. Weaken the longstanding requirement that federal agencies work with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to assure that projects do not hurt or kill endangered species;
5. Drastically weaken protections afforded to species designated as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Florida manatees, gray wolves in Minnesota, marbled murrelets, and hundreds of others could face new threats.
6. States can open hunting and trapping seasons to kill these animals if Zinke's plan is enacted.

PETITIONS: Please sign and share the following public comments from conservation groups. (updated Sept 10)

Center for Biological Diversity
Audubon Society
National Anti-Vivisection Society
Sierra Club
Animal Welfare Institute
Endangered Species Coalition
Greater Yellowstone Coalition
Oceana
Defenders of Wildlife
League of Conservation Voters
EarthJustice
National Wildlife Federation
Ocean Conservancy 
IFAW
Wilderness Watch
Environment California
Audubon Society 
WildEarth Guardians
Oregon Wild
Greater Yellowstone Coalition
Food and Water Action
NRDC

Public Comments: Save Red Wolves from Extinction DUE JULY 30

Photo from USFWS

Submit your public comments HERE. If you write them elsewhere and save them, they can also be sent as an email to your Members of Congress or as a letter to the editor of a local paper. Public comments are DUE JULY 30 before midnight.

Talking Points can be found HERE and HERE.

PETITIONS:
Please also sign and share the following petitions.

Animal Welfare Institute
Endangered Species Coalition
Friends of the Earth
Environmental Action
Defenders
Center for Biological Diversity

CLICK TO TWEET:

.@Interior @SecretaryZinke your plan to reduce endangered red wolf habitat is a surrender to extinction and a betrayal of his responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act is outrageous. #redwolfbetrayal pic.twitter.com/Bgwg4e5Rg7

.@USFWS announced their plan today to cut red wolf habitat by 90% and allow private landowners to kill wolves that wander onto their property. #disgraceful #stopextinction #firezinke #redwolfbetrayal pic.twitter.com/b6zNg0j2Qt

Public Comments: Sand Wash Basin Wild Horses DUE JULY 5

Email your public comments to blm_co_wild_horse_management@blm.gov before July 5, 2018.

WHAT TO SAY:

- I write to oppose the proposed gather plan of Sand Wash Basin wild horses. 

- “Appropriate Management Level” is an arbitrary number, with no base in science.

- Follow §4710.5 of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burro Act of 1971, which pertains to the closure of (legally designated) wild horse and burro herd area for livestock grazing. It states in part that, "if necessary to provide habitat for wild horses and burros from disease, harassment or injury, the authorized officer may close appropriate areas of the public lands to grazing use by all or a particular kind of livestock." Grazing on public lands is a privilege, not a right. AND There should be no roundups or use of PZP until BLM proves that there is overpopulation of wild horses.

- Colorado's wild horse population is estimated to be 1693 wild horses, per BLM. These horses roam a "Herd Area" of 723,095. Of that area, there is a designated "Herd Management Area" of 365,988.  This puts the population density for Colorado's wild horses at 0.00230 horse per 1 acre. An international comparison with other wild equines demonstrates that the population density is very low: 
Plain Zebra in Yabllo N.P. Ethiopia: 0.026 - ten times higher, predators are present. 
Plain Zebra in Nechisar N.P.: 0.067 - 29 times higher, predators are present. 
Plain Zebra in Simanjiro Plains Tanzania: 0.044 - 19 times higher, predators are present.

- If Colorado's horses are overpopulated, why does BLM allow do many more cattle on the same land? BLM allows 584,561 “AUM”s (Animal Month Unit) grazing permit that means a 1000 lbs animal: a cow with a calf, or 5 sheep/goat grazing. Why would be 1693 Wild horses too much for the range, if 584,561 cattle is not?

- The gather plan proposes to "use all approved gather methods, such as bait-trapping and helicopter drive-trapping".  These methods can be inhumane and cause great harm to the horses gathered. During the ten miles or so that horses are chased by helicopters, foals and other horses can break bones, hooves can be injured. Once in the holding pen, there is typically insufficient veterinary care and family bands are separated. I oppose these cruel, outdated methods for gathering and holding wild horses. 

- Due to the reasons stated above, I oppose the plan to gather the Sand Wash Basin wild horses. 

Stop Unethical Hunting Practices in Alaska - PETITIONS & PUBLIC COMMENTS DUE JULY 23

Ryan Zinke wants to allow extreme hunting methods in Alaska including hunting and trapping of bears, wolves, and other animals, baiting bears with bacon and donuts, wolf pups in their dens, and blinding hibernating bear cubs with bright spotlights and shooting swimming caribou from motor boats. Please leave a public comment and sign and share all of the petitions. 

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Submit your personalized public comment HERE before July 23. 

TALKING POINTS (taken from Humane Society of the United States and Project Coyote):

• I oppose the National Park Service's plan to repeal the 2015 rule which bans the killing of wolf and coyote families in their dens, the killing of hibernate bears and cubs in their dens while using artificial light, baiting of black and grizzly bears, shooting swimming caribou from motor boats and using dogs to hunt black bears. 
• The practices outlawed by the 2015 rule are widely considered to be unethical and inhumane. They are also inconsistent with the Service's statutory conservation mandate. Consequently, the Service must not repeal this law. 
• Native carnivores play a critical role in our ecosystem. They should be treated humanely and the important role that these animals play in balancing a healthy ecosystem should be acknowledged. 
• The original rule was carefully deliberated and was based on the best available science. It was written after extensive public input. It should not be reversed.
• The rule only prohibits practices in national preserves which is less than 6% of Alaska. This is not an unreasonable limitation on Alaskans access to hunting.
• Baiting of bears is a dangerous practice. It can sicken bears, exposing them and other wildlife to human foods that can be deadly to them. This can also increase the likelihood of parasite transmission of other disease. It is not uncommon for adult or larger bears to prey on cubs or smaller bears at bait sites. Moreover, hunters usually stock bait sites for a month or longer prior to the commencement of hunting season to ensure that bears get used to coming. This eliminates any notion of "fair chase" hunting. Finally, baiting can be dangerous to other humans if hikers or unaware hunters accidentally come across a bait site as brown bears are known to aggressively protect a food source. 
• For the foregoing reasons, please keep these prohibitions in place. 

PETITIONS:
** UPDATED JULY 21

Animal Welfare Institute Friends of the Earth

Sierra Club

Daily Kos

Care2

NPCA

MoveOn.Org

Center for Biological Diversity 

Born Free

Endangered Species Coalition

Wilderness Watch

Force Change
Defenders
Animal Welfare Institute
EarthJustice
Alaska Wild
Wilderness Watch
NRDC

PUBLIC COMMENTS: #SaveStumpy and the Wild Horses of Muddy Creek DUE MAY 20

Speak out for Stumpy and the wild horses of Muddy Creek! BLM is planning to round up these horses to make way for cattle. Please submit your public comments BY MAY 20 .

EMAIL YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS: blm_ut_pr_whb@blm.gov.  Write: 'Muddy Creek Wild Horse Gather Plan EA' in the subject line

WHAT TO SAY:

- 210,000 acres were lost when BLM merged Sinbad and Muddy Creek HMAs in 2008. Those 210,000 acres should be returned to wild horses. 

- Follow §4710.5 of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burro Act of 1971, which pertains to the closure of (legally designated) wild horse and burro herd area for livestock grazing. It states in part that, "if necessary to provide habitat for wild horses and burros from disease, harassment or injury, the authorized officer may close appropriate areas of the public lands to grazing use by all or a particular kind of livestock." Grazing on public lands is a privilege, not a right. 

- Follow advice from geneticist Dr. Gus Cothran regarding maintaining genetic viability. Managing wild horses at low population levels leaves them vulnerable to a long range loss of genetic diversity. Per geneticist, Gus Cothran, the minimum wild horse and burro herd size is 150-200 animals. The AML recommendation of 75-125 will destroy the herd over time.

- There should be no roundups or use of PZP until BLM proves that there is overpopulation of wild horses.

- How many cattle are on the public lands at issue? If only 195 wild horses are allowed on 283,400 acres? Will only a similar number of cattle be permitted? How does BLM ensure that ranchers accurately report the correct number of livestock?

- There should be an absolute ban on removing horses between foaling season which is between March and June.


SIGN AND SHARE THESE PETITIONS:

American Wild Horse Campaign

SPREAD THE WORD ON SOCIAL MEDIA: 

TWITTER: Retweet this account: Freedom4Horses
INSTAGRAM: DontDelistGrizzlies

PUBLIC COMMENTS: Save the California Desert DUE 3/22/08

The Trump administration wants to undo protections for 4.2 million acres of public lands in the California desert. Public comments are due before midnight on March 22, 2018. Please send your comments by email to BLM_CA_DRECP@blm.gov. Consider making a copy of your comments and also sending them to your members of Congress.

WHAT TO SAY:

I oppose the re-opening of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP).

** IF YOU ARE A RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA, please so indicate.

- The land at issue is the most intact wildlife habitat in the lower 48 state. It is critically important to keep this land protected, as laid out in the DRECP and as agreed to just 18 months ago by the federal agencies, the state of California, tribes, conservation groups, recreational groups and renewable energy developers.

- The DRECP is a carefully balanced plan which ensures continued protected of important habitat for wildlife while ensuring energy development on public land. 

- This unique desert landscape which is the subject of the DRECP is easily damaged and slow to heal. This was taken into account through eight years of intensive data collection and scientific studies as well as hundreds of public meetings and tens of thousands of public comments. All of these were ultimately considered and became the DRECP which has never been challenged in court. This is almost unheard of. 

- Reopening the plan would waste taxpayers money. The plan was just agreed upon less than 18 months ago and there have been no challenges to the plan. 

SIGN AND SHARE:

Center for Biological Diversity

Wilderness Society

CalWild

Defenders of Wildlife

California Desert National Conservation Lands

NRDC

Pew Trusts

NPCA

PUBLIC COMMENTS DUE 2/20: BAN NEONIC PESTICIDES

The EPA is taking public comment on four separate pesticides. You will need to compose a SINGLE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT CAN BE COPIED AND PASTED INTO THE FOLLOWING FOUR SEPARATE COMMENT FORMS. Comments are due by 11:59PM EDT on February 20, 2018

HERE

HERE

HERE 

and

HERE.

TALKING POINTS:

- I am very concerned about the use of neonic pesticides. Studies have shown that these pesticides have a detrimental impact on pollinators. Our food supply relies on pollinators to help produce fruits and vegetables. By negatively impacting bees - both managed and wild - neonic pesticides puts at risk not just bees but also our food supply. Bees and other pollinators supply up to 1/3 of the world's food supply.

- Studies have shown that neonic pesticides can drift and contaminate other areas as well as leach into the soil and our waterways. Once there, these pesticides can kill aquatic life and birds. Further, a study has recently shown that these compounds can cause migrating birds to lose weight and their sense of direction. 

- "Twenty-nine independent scientist who conducted a global review of more than 1,000 independent studies of neonicotinoids found overwhelming evidence linking [these] pesticides to declines in populations of bees, earthworms, butterflies and other wildlife." Accordingly, we should move to ban neonic pesticides at this time and no extend the use of these compounds in our environment. 

- Studies have found that neonicotinoids can be found in our drinking water and is found in many of our watersheds. The wide-spread use of these compounds is having a devastating impact on our ecosystem and should be restricted.

- Some studies have even questions whether neonicotinoids can harm developing brains of unborn human babies. This is simply too big of a risk to continue to allow these compounds in our environment without further research and further protection.

- For the foregoing reasons, I oppose the continued use of neonic pesticides.


SIGN AND SHARE ON TO THESE PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Center for Food Safety

Organic Consumer Association

Sierra Club

Center for Biological Diversity

PUBLIC COMMENTS DUE JANUARY 29: California Elk Management Plan

All public comments should be submitted no later than 5 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 29, 2018. Comments may be submitted online at ElkManagementPlan@wildlife.ca.gov.

TALKING POINTS: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit public comment regarding the California Elk Management Plan. I am glad that the state has decided to make an effort to connect elk populations through out the state.

The plan refers to "management" in the plan. Indeed, this word is in the title. I am opposed to management to the extent that it includes culling or removing herds - particularly herds on public lands. 

Elk are native to California and are an important part of our state's ecosystems. They must be given precedence over other non-native animals, including cattle and livestock, as well as any agriculture, on public lands. 

PUBLIC COMMENTS: Nomination to Trophy Hunting Council Due 12/8

Ryan Zinke's "International Wildlife Conservation Council" (aka council to promote trophy hunting abroad) is accepting nominations from the public for members.

The council will be stacked with Safari Club and other trophy hunting ilk. However, CEO and General Counsel for Born Free USA, Prashant Khetan, has offered up his services to sit on the council. 

Please take 3 minutes to email  joshua_winchell@fws.gov BEFORE the close of business on DECEMBER 8th.

COMMENT: I nominate Prashant Khetan, a well regarded conservationist and the CEO and General Counsel of Born Free USA, to the International Wildlife Conservation Council. Mr. Khetan is well known in the conservation community and a respected voice of wildlife advocates, who deserve a seat at the table. 

CLICK TO TWEET: Zinke accepting nominations for #TrophyHunting council to advise USFWS. Nominate a wildlife advocate to sit on it. EMAIL joshua_winchell@fws.gov by 12/8 to nominate Prashant Khetan, CEO of Born Free USA, for International Wildlife Conservation Council. pic.twitter.com/cFsGLaWrMb

INSTAGRAM: Follow us on Instagram and re-gram our posts (@ecouprising2016)

PUBLIC COMMENTS DUE 11/24: Oppose Council to Promote International Trophy Hunting for US Citizens

Ever since Trump was elected President, we knew, in the pits of our stomach, that this day would come. His sons would use their influence to expand their bloodthirsty pastime. Ryan Zinke has announced an International Wildlife Conservation Council which will advise the USFWS on the supposed advantages of international trophy hunting for conservation.

There is a two week public comment period to denounce this council. Please make sure that you speak out! Cecil the lion died two and a half years ago and the world roared. Let us roar on on November 25, 2017 at Secretary Zinke's despicable effort to equate killing with conservation.

PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is by far the most important and absolutely necessary part of this action. No matter what else you do, please write personalized public comment. If you were impacted by Cecil's death, share your feelings. Additional, scientific talking points are below.

Comments are due on November 24 at 11:59 EDT and emailed to joshua_winchell@fws.gov or mailed to Joshua Winchell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

Please choose 2 or 3 of the following talking points and re-word them into your own words as much as possible. Please also include any personal feelings you have - remaining civil. Perhaps share thoughts on Cecil.

- I oppose the proposed International Wildlife Conservation Council. Studies have repeated shown that trophy hunting does not aid in conservation. Over the last several decades, big game hunting has been the primary, in many cases only method of conservation, yet populations of wildlife continue to plummet. 

- Big game hunting is often unsustainable. For instance, only between 20,000 and 35,000 wild lions remain in Africa but 6,000 are killed each year by trophy hunters. That means between 2 and 3% of the popular is killed each year solely by big game hunters. This is NOT sustainable - particularly in light of other pressures on population including poaching, deaths from conflicts with ranchers and habitat loss.

- Trophy hunting works the opposite of natural selection. Nature targets the weakest but hunters target the biggest and the strongest. Hunters want the lion with the biggest mane or tusk. Often, these animals - the oldest, wisest, strongest - play critical roles in their populations. They are the protectors, leaders and their removal puts their populations at risk. It might mean that other individuals start disobeying rules, wrecking havoc with livestock, or that another male lion might move in and kill the cubs of the hunted lion. As a result, the death of an individual animal due to hunting can and often does have a ripple effect. 

- Over the last 100 years, hunting has been the main conservation method employed in main countries yet wildlife numbers keep declining. If trophy hunting was so great for conservation, why have African lions declined by 95% since the 1940's? The numbers simply do not support the assertion that trophy hunting benefits conservation.

- Despite assertions that trophy hunting helps communities, most of the money goes to middle men and does not make its way to local communities. 

- Trophy hunting can be linked to poaching. This can range from instances like with Cecil the lion, where hunters break the law, to poachers using trophy hunting as a smokescreen for a more in depth poaching operation. 

- Trophy hunting fees incentivize managers to inflate numbers to bring in more money, putting species at risk. 

- As we saw by the visceral reaction  to Cecil the Lion, trophy hunting is simply not morally acceptable to most Americans. Our society sees it as outdated, cruel and needless. Please do not expand this elitist and brutal pastime but instead acknowledge that most Americans are now gravitating to more non-consumptive activities such as wildlife watching, bird watching, hiking, kayaking and the like. 

- IF THE COUNCIL GOES FORWARD, I nominate Born Free CEO and General Counsel, Parsham Khetan to sit on the council. 

- For the foregoing reasons, I oppose the creation of an International Wildlife Conservation Council.

TWITTER: Tweet Sheet found HERE. 

FACEBOOK: Please leave a comment on the following two Facebook pages.

Secretary Zinke

Department of Interior

Write your own, civil comments or copy and paste the following:

I oppose the creation of an International Conservation Council to promote US trophy hunting abroad.  Studies have repeated demonstrated that this is not an effective method of conservation and Cecil's death demonstrated that most Americans find this pastime abhorrent. Please abandon plans to go forward with this council. #NoMoreCecils. 🦁

PETITIONS: Please sign and share.

Animal Welfare Institute

Care2 Petition

IFAW

INSTAGRAM: Follow us on Instagram and re-gram our posts (@ecouprising2016)

PUBLIC COMMENTS: Save Alaska's Bristol Bay

Please comment on proposal to withdraw proposed Clean Water Act restrictions for mining the Pebble ore deposit. Comments are due October 17, 2017


ELECTRONIC COMMENTS: Submit HERE. Copy and paste your comments into the contact forms for your Senators and your Representative. What to say:


- Don’t put the interests of a foreign mining company above thousands of American jobs and keep the EPA’s Clean Water Act protections for Bristol Bay in place.

- I oppose this plan which basically puts the interests of a foreign mining company above those of two-thirds of Alaskans, 80% of Bristol Bay residents and indigenous communities, and 85% of commercial fishermen.

- The EPA has previously determined that the planned pebble mine would cause great damage to the unparalleled salmon runs and local fisheries as well as to local Native communities. 

- The foreign owned pebble mine would cause significant damage to the world-renowned salmon runs of Bristol Bay. This fishery is worth moth than 1.5 million dollars a year and supports 14,000 jobs. All of this would be put at risk for the interests of a non-American mining company.

- More than 1.5 million Americans have previously submitted public comments opposing this pebble mine.

- Please listen to the local communities, the best available science and the American people and do not reverse course on this pebble mine.


POSTCARDS: Write "I oppose the EPA proposal to withdraw proposed Clean Water restrictions for mining the Pebble ore deposit in Bristol Bay."
Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code 28221T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OW-2017-0369

PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE THESE PETITIONS:

Pacific Environment

Center for Biological Diversity

NRDC
EarthJustice

League of Conservation Voters
Wilderness Society

CALL TO ACTION: Public Comments on the Clean Water Rule

The EPA is seeking to repeal the Clean Water rule of 2015, which clarifies which streams and wetlands qualify for protection under the Clean Water Act. This proposed repeal threatens drinking water for 1 in 3 Americans as well as millions of acres of important habitat for fish, birds and other wildlife. 

Public comments must be submitted by September 27. Public comments have repeatedly been shown to be one of the most impactful actions an advocate can take.  Public comments slow down the roll back of regulation, buying us time, and provide fodder for lawsuits. Please take five minutes to speak up for clean water! Directions on how to comment and what to say below:

COMMENTS DUE BY SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 at 11PM EDT.  Please prepare your comment in a document where you can save it. Once it is complete, submit your comment HERE and please also email it to your Senators (contact info HERE) and to your representative (contact info HERE).

WHAT TO SAY:

Thank you for accepting comments on Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0203 which would repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule. I write because I strongly oppose repeal of this rule.

Repeal of this rule would impact drinking water for 117 million Americans. Clean and safe drinking water is a basic human right. Unsafe drinking water can have wide-ranging health impacts, ranging from cancer to serious birth defects, and is simply not worth the risk. We ALL suffer when American communities do not have access to clean and safe drinking water.

Repeal of this rule would threaten habitat for wildlife by redefining "waters of the United States" to exclude wetlands, headwaters and some ponds. There are about 110 million acres of wetlands affected and 60% of US stream miles - all of which provide critical habitat for birds and wildlife. The outdoor recreation economy is worth $887 billion each year and repeal of this rule puts that industry at risk.

Repeal of this rule would put at risk millions of acres of wetlands. Healthy wetlands reduce the risk of flooding. The storms that we experienced this summer and the ongoing sea level rise drive home the importance of maintaining wetlands to absorb flood waters. Lives are literally at risk when we do not protect wetlands.

ADD YOUR PERSONAL STORY. FOR EXAMPLE:

• I LIVE NEAR A FLOOD ZONE AND RELY ON HEALTHY WETLANDS TO REDUCE MY PERSONAL RISK OF FLOODING. 
• AS A LOVER OF WILDLIFE or AS SOMEONE WHO FISHES, IT IS IMPORTANT TO ME THAT WE MAINTAIN SAFE HABITAT TO PROTECT OUR BIODIVERSITY. 
• SHARE ANY HEALTH ISSUES YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR FRIEND HAVE THAT MIGHT BE IMPACTED BY LACK OF ACCESS TO CLEAN WATER 

TWEETS:

.@EPAScottPruitt Drinking water of 1 in 3 Americans depends on continued enforcement of WOTUS. #cleanwaterforall pic.twitter.com/ZGIgsRGhFM

.@EPAScottPruitt WOTUS rule protects 110 acres of critical habitat for birds, wildlife. Don't abandon clean water pic.twitter.com/XE6mvEbnvM

.@EPAScottPruitt As an American who drinks water, I demand that you continue to enforce 2015 Clean Water Rule! pic.twitter.com/zJYSji9Wm2

Public comments to protect clean water for 1 in 3 Americans, million of habitat DUE SEPT 27 http://bit.ly/2v9CIPe pic.twitter.com/Ooro7fX8Sp

PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE THESE PETITIONS:
Sierra Club
EarthJustice
American Rivers
Friends of the Earth
Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Environmental Action
Credo Action
Earthworks
National Park Action Fund
American Rivers