The Fish and Wildlife Service is withdrawing a proposed rule that would have only allowed crop cultivation and other farming practices on wildlife refuges that were unable to meet wildlife management objectives by mimicking natural ecosystem processes.
The agency received 50,500 public comments on the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) proposal, which also would have limited the use of predator control, bioengineered crops and pesticides, with exceptions.
“Based on the extensive public comments we received on the proposed rule, the complexity of the topics they covered, and new information not previously considered, it is the Service’s sound professional judgment that any final rule would require revisions that go beyond the logical outgrowth of the original proposal,” Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Shannon Estenoz said in a Federal Register notice.
Farmers who rely on refuge lands to grow crops had expressed concerns about the rule limiting their ability to continue doing so. Oregon farmer Marc Staunton, for example, told Agri-Pulse earlier this year that he feared the rule would hinder his ability to farm Klamath Basin land that has historic ties to agriculture despite now being located on a wildlife refuge.
Ranchers who graze livestock on refuge lands were also concerned. J.D. Schmidt, who ranches in Colorado’s San Luis Valley, told Agri-Pulse he would have nowhere to send 2,000 ewes in the summer if he were restricted from using land in the Monte Vista and Alamosa refuges.
Many of the ideas expressed in the rule were lauded by environmental groups. Sierra Club senior staff attorney Karma Schoenhut, for instance, said in a comment her organization strongly supported the agency's “recognition of the need to ban predator control of native predators on refuge system lands.”
In the agency notice, Estenoz said commenters generally appreciated the concepts of addressing climate change and improving habitat connectivity, but acknowledged that “other concepts, such as deference to natural processes, appeared to generate some confusion.”
“The provisions of the proposal that garnered the most complex and disparate views from commenters were those addressing specific management activities (such as agricultural use and predator control) on refuge lands,” Estenoz wrote, adding that the agency heard calls to both further restrict or to loosen the use of these practices.
Estenoz said the agency “did not intend to be overly prescriptive about implementation processes through the revised BIDEH policy or proposed regulations.” He added that the comments “demonstrate some of the issues that require further communication and coordination with partners and stakeholders to ensure greater understanding of the Service’s intent before the finalization of any BIDEH proposal.”
Rep. Bruce Westerman, an Arkansas Republican who chairs the House Committee on Natural Resources, said the announcement proves the proposed 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.”
For more news, go to agri-pulse.com.
