The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has announced the withdrawal of their proposed Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (BIDEH) rule for national wildlife refuge system.
The agency first proposed the update earlier this year, saying it was needed because of the changes at refuges stemming from climate change. Citing in part both the number of comments and the complexity of the points that were raised, the federal agency announced it will drop its revision proposal.
The proposal would have issued several changes including prioritizing “natural processes” over agricultural uses, the ability for the agency to introduce species, including federally protected ones, to the refuge, and the ability to acquire private land to fulfill refuge purposes and protect the biological integrity, diversity, and economic health of the lands.
Groups like the Montana Stockgrowers Association (MSGA) and Montana Farm Bureau Federation pushed back on the rule pointing out the negative impacts it could have created. In their comments, MSGA emphasized the importance and value of livestock grazing for land health, habitat conservation, rural communities and the economy. The stockgrowers also expressed concerns with detrimental effects to cattle operations surrounding the refuge if predatory species are introduced to the landscape.
Pressure from the House Committee on Natural Resources also helped to lead to the withdrawal of the rule. Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) said, “the announcement proves something we knew from the beginning, the BIDEH Rule was a terrible idea and should have never been proposed in the first place. As a lifelong outdoorsman, I’ve seen firsthand how our wildlife refuges benefit from collaboration with farmers and communities to ensure the best possible results for conservation, and I’m glad to see one example of common sense in this administration’s dying days.”
“The BIDEH rule was a completely misguided approach to management of the National Wildlife Refuge System,” said Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.) “The rule would have imposed bureaucratic nightmares on refuge managers and opened the door for a wave of anti-farmer and rancher litigation. Under the proposed rule, normal and historic management tools, such as grazing, planting crops, and native predator control, would have required a full NEPA review prior to implementation. This would have severely restricted the discretion of refuge managers and putting at risk the very purpose of individual refuges. I welcome the withdrawal of the rule and will continue to push back on policies that put politics over practical management.”
###
Northern Ag Network/House Natural Resources Committee/MT Stockgrowers
