```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 103761-103763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29236]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 29

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2022-0106; FXRS12610900000-256-FF09R20000]
RIN 1018-BG78

National Wildlife Refuge System; Biological Integrity, Diversity, 
and Environmental Health

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), withdraw the 
proposed rule (proposal) published on February 2, 2024, that proposed 
new regulations addressing the biological integrity, diversity, and 
environmental health (BIDEH) of the National Wildlife Refuge System 
(Refuge System) and updates to the existing BIDEH policy. The Service 
has determined that withdrawing the proposal is justified based on the 
significant number of public comments received, the complexity of the 
substantive comments received and the issues involved, as well as the 
requests from the public for further opportunities to review and engage 
with the Service on the substance of this proposal. With this action, 
the existing BIDEH policy remains in effect.

DATES: The proposed rule that published on February 2, 2024 (89 FR 
7345), is withdrawn on December 19, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The February 2, 2024, proposed rule, proposed updates to the 
existing BIDEH policy, and the comments received are available at 
https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2022-0106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Harrigan, (703) 358-2440, 
[email protected]. Individuals in the United States who are 
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 
711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay 
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay 
services offered within their country to make international calls to 
the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 2, 2024, the Service published in the Federal Register 
(89 FR 7345) a proposed rule to adopt new regulations to ensure that 
the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) 
of the Refuge System are maintained, and where appropriate, restored 
and enhanced, in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act; Pub. L. 105-57). In addition, 
the Service proposed updates to the existing BIDEH policy, which was 
available for public comment in the proposed rule's docket on https://www.regulations.gov. These proposed regulations and policy revisions 
were intended to support conservation throughout the Refuge System in 
response to both longstanding and contemporary conservation challenges, 
including the universal and profound effects of climate change on 
refuge species and ecosystems.
    The National Wildlife Refuge System is the only network of Federal 
lands and waters in the United States dedicated to fish and wildlife 
conservation and, at more than 850 million acres, the largest system of 
its kind in the world. The National Wildlife Refuge System 
Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act; 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), 
as amended by the Improvement Act, is the primary statutory authority 
under which the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Service, 
administers the Refuge System. The Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126), the Wilderness Act of 
1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136), and various other statutes also provide 
direction and authority for refuge management. The implementing 
regulations for the Administration Act are found in title 50 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations at subchapter C.
    The Improvement Act established the mission of the Refuge System to 
administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 
management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and 
plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 
benefit of present and future generations of Americans (16 U.S.C. 
668dd(a)(2)). The Improvement Act sets forth policy direction, 
management standards, and stewardship requirements for administering 
the more than 570 national wildlife refuges in the Refuge System; 
prioritizing conservation while ensuring public access to compatible, 
wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities; and ensuring effective 
coordination with adjacent landowners and State fish and wildlife 
agencies. The Improvement Act states that each refuge must be managed 
to fulfill both the Refuge System mission and the specific

[[Page 103762]]

purposes for which that refuge was established (16 U.S.C. 
668dd(a)(3)(A)). It additionally requires that, in administering the 
Refuge System, the Secretary shall ensure that the biological 
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are 
maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of 
Americans (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)(B)).
    The Improvement Act is recognized as a visionary legislative 
charter for managing a system of wildlife reserves in part due to its 
mandate to ensure BIDEH. The terms comprising the BIDEH mandate are 
grounded in conservation biology and demonstrate congressional intent 
to conserve Refuge System fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats in 
accordance with the latest scientific understanding. This directive for 
a comprehensive, science-based approach to refuge management is 
critical to ensuring that imperiled species and diverse wildlife 
populations in North America are secure and thriving and are sustained 
by a network of healthy lands and waters. Therefore, as the Refuge 
System becomes increasingly vital to addressing the dual threats of 
biodiversity loss and climate change, the Service recognized the need 
to codify, clarify, and update its interpretation of the BIDEH mandate 
to better equip refuges in responding to these and other anthropogenic 
stressors.

Reasons for Withdrawal of the Proposal

    On February 2, 2024, the Service published in the Federal Register 
(89 FR 7345) proposed new regulations and proposed revisions to the 
policy to ensure that the BIDEH of the Refuge System are maintained, 
and where appropriate, restored and enhanced, in accordance with the 
Improvement Act. The public comment period on the proposed rule and 
proposed policy revisions was extended from 30 days to a total of 90 
days (see 89 FR 7345, February 2, 2024; 89 FR 15806, March 5, 2024) due 
to significant public interest and requests for an extension to the 
original comment period.
    More than 200,000 individuals commented on the BIDEH proposed rule 
and revised policy in a total of more than 50,500 public comment 
submissions. Of these comments, approximately 150 lengthy, substantive 
comment letters were received from State and Tribal partners, 
environmental organizations, sporting groups, agricultural and animal 
welfare interests, and other stakeholders. We received approximately 
150,000 combined signatures from comment campaigns, many of which also 
included unique substantive comments, organized by various 
organizations regarding specific topics in the proposed rule.
    The substantive comments received addressed a broad scope of issues 
in the BIDEH proposal and demonstrated the complexity of the topics 
addressed in the proposal. The commenters highlighted a myriad of 
multifaceted subjects and suggested modifications to a variety of 
provisions. 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. Therefore, 
the Service has determined that the best course of action is to 
withdraw the entirety of the February 2, 2024, proposed rule and policy 
revision as discussed further below.
    While the majority of the comments were generally supportive of 
many fundamental concepts contained in the proposed BIDEH rule, they 
expressed various views on the proposal's framing and approach. For 
example, overall, the commenters conveyed an understanding and 
appreciation of the need to address climate change and use best 
available science, although they provided a variety of opinions on the 
specifics and how science should be applied. The concept of improving 
habitat connectivity also tended to garner support, along with 
suggestions for bolstering such provisions, although this concept 
generated some concerns from economic and industry interests. Other 
concepts, such as deference to natural processes, appeared to generate 
some confusion, indicating the need for additional explanation or 
revisions to the proposal for clarity.
    Many of the comment letters contained complicated implementation 
questions or concerns with refuge management capacity and perceived 
administrative and financial burdens, which were raised across the 
spectrum of stakeholders. Some of these commenters interpreted the 
BIDEH proposal as requiring a separate BIDEH determination process for 
all refuge management decisions alongside existing processes. Many 
commenters expressed concerns that implementation of the BIDEH proposal 
would place unnecessary administrative burdens on managers of national 
wildlife refuges that would require time and resources the Service does 
not have, especially if the proposal required the completion of new 
documentation. The Service received requests from commenters for 
further coordination with States, partners, and other stakeholders 
regarding the content and application of the proposal.
    The intent of the BIDEH proposal has been to rely on the use of 
existing processes (comprehensive conservation planning, compatibility 
determinations, and actions to comply with the National Environmental 
Policy Act) to implement the proposed policy and regulations. In 
reviewing these comments, the Service understands the concern raised by 
commenters about a lack of clarity within the proposal regarding the 
specific implementation process for ensuring BIDEH. However, because 
refuge management decisions and actions are not one-size-fits-all, the 
Service did not intend to be overly prescriptive about implementation 
processes through the revised BIDEH policy or proposed regulations. 
Therefore, the Service acknowledges the need to provide guidance both 
internally and externally explaining how BIDEH will be considered 
through existing processes. While this level of detail regarding 
implementation would not be prudent to include in a final rule for this 
proposal, it warrants further consideration to ensure an appropriate 
approach that promotes public support and facilitates on-the-ground 
application.
    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. The differing viewpoints included many calls either to 
further restrict or alternatively to liberalize the application of 
these management practices. The controversy raised by these comments 
stemmed primarily from differing views on how rigid or flexible refuge 
management tools ought to be: Some favor more flexibility, while others 
seek stricter control of actions on refuges. The range of comments the 
Service received on these topics relied on a variety of sources, 
including peer-reviewed science, best practices, industry standards, 
and field experience. These 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.
    For the reasons provided above, we are withdrawing the proposed 
rule that published on February 2, 2024 (89 FR 7345). The existing 
policy in part 601 of

[[Page 103763]]

the Service Manual at 601 FW 3 remains in effect.

Authority

    The authority for this action is the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended 
by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 
105-57).

Shannon Estenoz,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2024-29236 Filed 12-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
```