Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7345 

(4) Establish and maintain a database 

of all third-party skills testers and 

examiners, which at a minimum tracks 

the dates and results of audits and 

monitoring actions by the State, the 

dates third-party skills testers were 

certified by the State, and name and 

identification number of each thirdparty CDL skills test examiner; 

(5) Establish and maintain a database 

of all State CDL skills examiners, which 

at a minimum tracks the dates and 

results of monitoring action by the State, 

and the name and identification number 

of each State CDL skills examiner; and 

(6) Establish and maintain a database 

that tracks skills tests administered by 

each State and third-party CDL skills 

test examiner’s name and identification 

number. 

(b) To ensure the integrity of the CDL 

knowledge testing program, the State 

must: 

(1) At least once every 2 years, 

conduct unannounced, on-site 

inspections of third-party knowledge 

testers’ and examiners’ records; 

(2) At least once every 2 years, 

conduct covert and overt monitoring of 

examinations performed by third-party 

CDL knowledge test examiners; 

(3) Establish and maintain a database 

to track pass/fail rates of applicants 

tested by each third-party CDL 

knowledge test examiner, in order to 

focus covert and overt monitoring on 

examiners who have unusually high 

pass or failure rates; 

(4) Establish and maintain a database 

of all third-party knowledge testers and 

examiners, which at a minimum tracks 

the dates and results of audits and 

monitoring actions by the State, the 

dates third-party knowledge testers were 

certified by the State, and name and 

identification number of each thirdparty CDL knowledge test examiner; and 

(5) Establish and maintain a database 

that tracks knowledge tests 

administered by each State and the 

name and identification number of each 

third-party CDL knowledge test 

examiner. 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.87. 

Robin Hutcheson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01710 Filed 2–1–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 29 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–NWRS–2022–0106; 

FXRS12610900000–212–FF09R20000] 

RIN 1018–BG78 

National Wildlife Refuge System; 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed policy 

updates. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose new 

regulations to ensure that the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health (BIDEH) of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (Refuge System) are 

maintained, and where appropriate, 

restored and enhanced, in accordance 

with the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. In 

addition, the Service is proposing 

updates to the existing BIDEH policy, 

which will be available for public 

comment concurrently with the 

proposed regulations in this docket. 

These proposed regulatory and policy 

revisions would 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. Together, these 

proposals would uphold BIDEH across 

the Refuge System by providing refuge 

managers with a consistent approach for 

evaluating and implementing 

management actions to protect 

vulnerable species, restore and connect 

habitats, promote natural processes, 

sustain vital ecological functions, 

increase resilience, and adapt to climate 

change. 

DATES: We will accept comments on the 

proposed rule and proposed revisions to 

the Service Manual chapter at 601 FW 

3 that are received or postmarked on or 

before March 4, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: 

Document availability: This proposed 

rule and the draft Service Manual 

chapter 601 FW 3 are available at the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–HQ–NWRS–2022–0106, 

which is the docket number for this 

rulemaking. Then, click on the Search 

button. To access the Service Manual 

chapter, go to the tab for Supporting & 

Related Material. 

Comment submission: You may 

submit comments on this proposed rule 

or the proposed revisions to 601 FW 3 

by one of the following methods: 

• Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–HQ–NWRS–2022–0106, 

which is the docket number for this 

rulemaking. Then, click on the Search 

button. On the resulting screen, find the 

correct document and submit a 

comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’ 

• By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–NWRS– 

2022–0106; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: PRB 

(JAO/3W); Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We will not accept email or faxes. We 

will post all comments on https://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Request 

for Comments, below, for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katherine Harrigan, (703) 358–2440, 

katherine_harrigan@fws.gov. 

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-ofcontact in the United States. 

In compliance with the Providing 

Accountability Through Transparency 

Act of 2023, please see docket FWS– 

HQ–NWRS–2022–0106 on https://

www.regulations.gov for a document 

that summarizes this proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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 National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 (Improvement Act; Pub. L. 

105–57), 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
7346 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(16 U.S.C. 1131–1136), and various 

other mandates also provide direction 

and authority for refuge management. 

The implementing regulations for 

Refuge System mandates are found in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 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)). It set forth 

policy direction, management 

standards, and stewardship 

requirements for administering the more 

than 560 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 law states that each refuge 

must be managed to fulfill both the 

Refuge System mission and the specific 

purposes for which that refuge was 

established. 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, sustained by a network of 

healthy lands and waters. 

Need for New Regulations and Updated 

Policy 

In 1998, the Service announced our 

intent to issue policy and regulations to 

administer the Improvement Act (63 FR 

3583, January 23, 1998). In 2000, we 

published a draft policy on maintaining 

the ecological integrity of the Refuge 

System (65 FR 61356, October 17, 2000). 

After considering the comments 

received on the draft policy, the Service 

issued its BIDEH policy in 2001 (66 FR 

3810, January 16, 2001). Included in the 

Service Manual at 601 FW 3, the policy 

provides internal guidance for agency 

implementation of the statutory 

requirements. 

At the time the Service adopted the 

BIDEH policy, we did not promulgate 

BIDEH regulations as authorized in the 

Improvement Act. (See 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(b)(5)). The Service did not 

anticipate the extent of climate change 

impacts on refuge species and habitats 

or the need to clarify in regulations our 

interpretation of and authority to 

implement the BIDEH mandate. 

However, in the nearly 25 years since 

enactment of the Improvement Act, 

refuges have begun to experience the 

effects of climate change while 

continuing to contend with the myriad 

of other anthropogenic stressors 

affecting fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats. Climate change is transforming 

historical species composition and 

ecological function of habitats, creating 

new challenges to traditional wildlife 

management strategies that were based 

on stable, stationary baseline 

conditions. As the Refuge System 

becomes increasingly vital to addressing 

the dual threats of biodiversity loss and 

climate change, the Service recognizes 

the need to codify both existing and 

new practices for maintaining BIDEH to 

assist refuges in responding to these 

contemporary conservation challenges. 

Therefore, the Service has identified the 

need to propose new BIDEH regulations 

and updates to the existing BIDEH 

policy to accomplish these goals. 

The purpose of this proposed rule and 

policy revision is to clarify the Service’s 

authority to maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of the Refuge System; ensure 

consistency in evaluating refuge 

management activities that affect 

BIDEH; and provide transparency in 

how we implement one of the most 

fundamental mandates in the laws 

governing the Refuge System. The 

proposed rule would codify 

longstanding refuge management 

principles and further empower refuge 

managers to uphold the Refuge System’s 

conservation mission and achieve refuge 

purposes in the face of complex threats 

to wildlife and their habitat. The 

proposed policy revision would 

modernize the BIDEH policy and 

support the new regulations by 

providing further guidance for refuge 

managers to ensure the BIDEH of the 

Refuge System. 

The Service currently operates and 

has always operated in accordance with 

the same Refuge System-wide principles 

for maintaining BIDEH represented in 

these proposed regulations and policy 

updates. However, the Service has 

determined that this proposed rule and 

policy revision is warranted to clarify 

Refuge System policies and practices; 

better prepare refuges to confront future 

impacts from climate change and other 

anthropogenic change; and provide the 

opportunity for public input on the 

Service’s interpretation of the 

Improvement Act’s BIDEH mandate, 

including its application in the context 

of predator control, conservation 

translocations, genetically engineered 

organisms, invasive species, pesticide 

use, agricultural practices, and mosquito 

control. 

Proposed Additions to Existing 

Regulations 

This proposed rule would amend the 

Refuge System regulations at 50 CFR 

subchapter C, part 29 (Land Use 

Management), subpart A (General 

Rules). The proposed regulatory changes 

would not modify any existing 

regulations but would add regulations 

regarding BIDEH at a new § 29.3. 

Consistent with the Administration 

Act as amended by the Improvement 

Act, the Service is proposing regulations 

to ensure that the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of 

the Refuge System are maintained and, 

where necessary and appropriate, 

restored and enhanced. As shown in the 

rule portion of this document, the 

proposed regulations set forth an 

overarching statement in paragraph (a) 

describing what it means for the Service 

to ensure BIDEH; definitions for 

biological integrity, diversity, 

environmental health, and other key 

regulatory terms in paragraph (b); and 

overall directives for ensuring BIDEH on 

refuges in paragraph (c). Together these 

proposed regulations would provide a 

consistent framework within which 

refuge managers would consider 

potential management actions that may 

affect BIDEH. In addition, in paragraph 

(d), the proposed regulations also 

provide more specific direction for 

certain management activities that the 

Service has identified as having a 

particular propensity to affect BIDEH. 

Notably, the proposed regulatory 

standard repeated throughout the 

regulations—requiring refuge managers 

to consider how management actions 

are necessary to meet statutory 

requirements, fulfill refuge purposes, 

and ensure BIDEH—flows directly from 

the Improvement Act. In the statute’s 

requirements for administering the 

Refuge System, Congress elevated 

ensuring the maintenance of BIDEH to 

a similar level of importance as ensuring 

that the Refuge System mission and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7347 

refuge purposes are carried out, 

challenging the Service to implement 

these integral directives together to 

provide the greatest conservation 

benefits for fish and wildlife. (See 16 

U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)). The content of the 

proposed regulations and policy 

revision is further described below. 

Proposed BIDEH Regulations and 

Accompanying Policy Updates 

The Service is concurrently proposing 

updates to the BIDEH policy, 601 FW 3, 

which accord with and provide 

additional internal guidance for 

implementing the proposed regulations. 

We have decided to provide these 

documents for public comment 

concurrently because the proposed 

policy revision supplies further 

explanation for the application of the 

proposed regulations and therefore 

provides additional context for 

reviewing the proposed regulations. 

Ensure Biological Integrity, Diversity, 

and Environmental Health 

In § 29.3(a), the Service is proposing 

an overarching statement in support of 

the Refuge System’s conservation 

mission defining what it means to 

ensure BIDEH on refuges, which is a 

concept integrated throughout the 

proposed BIDEH policy revision. The 

regulatory statement would promote 

management of the Refuge System as an 

interconnected network of lands and 

waters with functioning ecological 

processes to maintain the composition, 

activity, and resilience of the Refuge 

System over time. This concept means 

recognizing the Refuge System as an 

expansive complex of plant 

communities, habitats, and ecosystems 

representative of variable conditions 

and supporting a diversity of fish and 

wildlife, including viable populations of 

rare and imperiled species. This 

proposed regulation would codify the 

Service’s continued commitment to 

managing refuge ecosystems holistically 

as components of larger landscapes and 

seascapes and supporting natural 

processes to meet our conservation 

goals, while also acknowledging that 

climate change and other anthropogenic 

change can require intervention to carry 

out the Refuge System mission and 

achieve refuge purposes. This 

commitment and acknowledgement are 

further distilled in the proposed policy 

updates. 

The proposed regulatory statement 

includes a legal standard for managing 

refuges that would apply to each of the 

subsequent management directives and 

activities in the proposed rule when the 

Service refers to an action as being 

necessary to ensure BIDEH. This 

proposed legal standard would instruct 

refuge managers to use their sound 

professional judgment, informed by the 

best available scientific information, to 

ensure that management actions benefit 

wildlife conservation by contributing to, 

and not diminishing, BIDEH. The 

Service uses the term ‘‘sound 

professional judgment’’ as defined in 

the Improvement Act and existing 

Refuge System regulations, directing 

refuge managers to make their finding, 

determination, or decision to conduct 

an activity consistent with principles of 

sound fish and wildlife management 

and available science and resources, as 

well as their field experience and 

knowledge of the particular refuge’s 

resources. This proposed requirement 

would foster defensible science-based 

management decisions, strengthen 

management actions that support 

ecological integrity, bolster decision 

making that avoids putting BIDEH at 

risk, and help prevent further 

degradation of environmental 

conditions on refuges. The proposed 

updates to the BIDEH policy would 

incorporate this legal standard 

throughout the policy revision as well. 

Definitions 

In both the new regulations and 

policy revision, the Service is proposing 

updated definitions for biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health based on definitions used in the 

Service’s existing BIDEH policy, 601 FW 

3, that were vetted through public 

notice and comment in 2000 and 2001 

(66 FR 3810, January 16, 2001). The 

Service is proposing to revise these 

definitions to acknowledge that 

historical conditions may need to serve 

as a reference point, rather than an end 

goal, for managing refuges where 

climate change and other anthropogenic 

change are significantly altering 

ecosystems. This proposed language 

would untether current and future 

management actions from sustaining 

historical conditions that may no longer 

be possible on many refuges, while 

continuing to recognize the value of a 

contextual historical baseline for 

developing management goals. The 

Service also proposes to update the 

definitions by explicitly recognizing the 

impacts of climate change and other 

anthropogenic change on refuge 

ecosystems, which is critical to 

understanding the three BIDEH terms in 

their proper context, both now and in 

the future. 

The Service is also including 

proposed definitions for other terms 

helpful to understanding the proposed 

regulations and policy. These terms all 

have established meanings either in 

wildlife biology, in existing Service 

policy, in other Federal law and policy, 

or in some combination of these. The 

Service has not departed from the 

accepted meanings in crafting these 

regulatory definitions, but we did find 

it necessary in the interest of greater 

clarity to tailor them to the BIDEH 

context. The proposed updates to the 

BIDEH policy also include some 

additional proposed definitions that 

would provide further context for the 

content expanding on the proposed 

regulations in the policy itself. 

Management Directives for Ensuring 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health 

Proposed § 29.3(c) would include 

Refuge System-wide directives for 

maintaining BIDEH in refuge 

management. These directives— 

concerning universal concepts of 

climate, habitat, species, water, soil, and 

air—would create a framework within 

which refuge managers can determine 

and implement management activities. 

These fundamental directives are 

common to all refuges and would 

provide basic sideboards to guide 

management decisions consistent with 

other applicable law, regulation, and 

policy. They are central to the Service’s 

ability to meet our statutory obligations 

and policy goals under the Improvement 

Act and are specifically relevant to 

fulfilling refuge purposes and ensuring 

BIDEH. The Service proposes further 

guidance for these management 

directives in section 3.10 of the 

proposed BIDEH policy accompanying 

these proposed regulations. 

In the proposed regulation at 

paragraph (c)(1) and associated policy 

updates, the Service acknowledges that 

climate change and other anthropogenic 

change are affecting refuge fish, wildlife, 

plants, and habitats. The proposed 

language would direct refuge managers 

to address these threats through 

adaptation and mitigation strategies as 

necessary to meet statutory 

requirements, fulfill refuge purposes, 

and ensure BIDEH. This proposed 

regulation and accompanying policy 

revision recognize that climate change is 

a major driver in species decline and 

biodiversity loss, while ecosystem 

conservation can serve an essential role 

in both climate change mitigation and 

adaptation, as well as species survival 

and recovery. They would therefore 

allow refuge managers flexibility to 

implement a combination of responses 

to address climate change impacts and 

other anthropogenic stressors, providing 

discretion for managers to choose the 

most appropriate mitigation and 

adaptation strategies on a particular 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
7348 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

refuge, so long as they meet the 

proposed regulatory standard. 

The proposed regulation at paragraph 

(c)(2) and associated policy updates 

would prioritize deference to natural 

processes and support ecological 

connectivity as a means of achieving 

refuge habitat objectives and landscape 

planning goals. However, when natural 

processes are insufficient to meet refuge 

habitat objectives, the proposed 

language would direct managers to 

intervene with science-based 

management techniques that mimic 

natural processes in accordance with 

the proposed regulatory standard. 

Examples of such management 

techniques are provided in the 

accompanying policy. The proposed 

regulation and associated policy 

updates would also instruct managers to 

use such techniques and encourage 

establishment of wildlife corridors to 

facilitate adaptation to climate change 

and other stressors. 

The proposed regulation at paragraph 

(c)(3) and associated policy updates 

would similarly codify the Service’s 

ability to supplement natural processes 

to meet fish and wildlife population 

objectives, sustain ecosystems, and 

restore or recover imperiled species on 

refuges when habitat conditions and 

natural processes are insufficient. It 

would work in tandem with the 

regulation under proposed paragraph 

(c)(2) to prioritize deference to natural 

processes as the default for determining 

sustainable populations, while also 

providing flexibility to take actions to 

conserve and manage species when 

necessary to meet statutory 

requirements, fulfill refuge purposes, 

and ensure BIDEH. The associated 

policy updates provide examples of 

such supplemental management actions 

and guidance for maintaining native 

populations. 

The regulation regarding refuge water 

rights at proposed paragraph (c)(4) 

stems directly from Improvement Act 

mandates, as reiterated in the associated 

policy updates. The proposed regulation 

and policy would incorporate these 

legal requirements, directing the Service 

to maintain and exercise refuge water 

rights in accordance with local, State, 

and Federal laws and to acquire, 

transfer, or lease water rights in 

accordance with the proposed 

regulatory standard. The proposed 

policy updates would provide 

substantive guidance for refuge 

managers to follow to uphold refuge 

water rights and would further empower 

them to pursue and secure critical water 

assets to support the myriad of 

migratory birds, fish, and other wildlife 

that rely on refuge habitats. 

Finally, the proposed regulation at 

paragraph (c)(5) and associated policy 

updates would direct refuge managers to 

promote and maintain soil health and 

air quality as other abiotic components 

vital for sustaining and restoring refuge 

habitats in addition to water quantity 

and quality. The regulation would 

instruct the Service to conserve and 

manage these essential resources within 

our jurisdiction in accordance with the 

regulatory standard and address threats 

to them through appropriate 

management actions. The proposed 

policy updates provide additional 

guidance to explain how refuge 

managers would maintain these 

foundational resources to support 

healthy ecosystems and ensure the 

BIDEH of the Refuge System. 

Management Activities and Uses for 

Ensuring Biological Integrity, Diversity, 

and Environmental Health 

The regulations in proposed § 29.3(d) 

would guide specific management 

activities and uses that can especially 

influence BIDEH, including predator 

control, conservation translocations, use 

of genetically engineered organisms, 

invasive species management, pesticide 

use, agricultural uses, and mosquito 

control. These proposed regulations are 

not intended to cover the range of 

management practices conducted on 

refuges that may affect BIDEH. Rather, 

the Service carefully selected these 

topics to codify and clarify our existing 

policies regarding these management 

activities and uses, improve our ability 

to respond to climate change and other 

anthropogenic factors, and empower 

refuge managers to consistently analyze 

and apply these tools—or refrain from 

applying them—as appropriate, to better 

support BIDEH. The Service proposes 

further guidance for these management 

activities and uses in section 3.13 of the 

proposed BIDEH policy accompanying 

these proposed regulations. 

The management activities and uses 

included in these proposed regulations 

and associated policy updates would be 

implemented on Refuge System habitats 

in conformance with the overall 

management directives in proposed 

§ 29.3(c) and section 3.10 of the policy. 

This would mean that these activities 

and uses are all subject to the 

underlying conservation principle that 

defers to natural processes and favors 

management that mimics natural 

processes. When natural processes alone 

are insufficient to support ecological 

functions, refuge managers would be 

required to evaluate the necessity for 

and potential environmental effects of a 

proposed management activity or use in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

before authorizing it, including 

considering reasonable alternatives, 

scientific support, and potential risk of 

unintended consequences. This 

approach is consistent with current 

Service policies. 

Additionally, while each of the 

regulations in proposed paragraphs 

(d)(1)–(7) would direct a default 

position regarding use of a particular 

management practice, they 

simultaneously would provide 

flexibility to implement them as 

conservation tools when determined, 

based on comprehensive analysis, that 

they are necessary to meet statutory 

requirements, fulfill refuge purposes, 

and ensure BIDEH. Notably, NEPA 

analysis of management activities and 

uses could occur as part of development 

of a refuge’s comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) or other 

approved management plan or could be 

conducted as a standalone analysis. 

Regardless, such activities and uses 

must be consistent with the CCP. Refuge 

managers must also fulfill other policy 

and legal requirements prior to 

implementing a management activity or 

use when applicable. This could 

include conducting scientific peer 

review (see section 3.14(C) of the 

proposed policy for more information 

on peer review requirements) or 

conducting a compatibility 

determination for refuge management 

economic activities or activities that 

involve use of a refuge by the public or 

other non-Refuge System entity (see the 

Service’s Compatibility policy at 603 

FW 2 and regulations at 50 CFR parts 

25, 26, and 29 for more information). 

See the proposed regulations and 

associated policy updates for further 

substantive details and instruction for 

the management activities and uses 

contained in this proposed rule and 

policy revision. 

Coordination With Adjacent 

Landowners, State and Tribal Partners 

The Service recognizes that ensuring 

the BIDEH of the Refuge System 

necessitates a landscape-level 

perspective for managing an 

interconnected network of lands and 

waters involving collaboration with our 

State and Tribal partners, adjacent 

landowners, and other stakeholders. 

These proposed regulations and policy 

updates comply with and incorporate 

the Service’s commitment to cooperate 

and coordinate with State partners, as 

appropriate, in accordance with 43 CFR 

24.4(e) and 601 FW 7. They also 

encourage effective interaction and 

coordination with other owners of land 

adjoining refuges. The proposed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7349 

regulations and policy updates 

additionally comply with and uphold 

the Service’s continued commitment to 

cooperate and coordinate with federally 

recognized Tribes and other Indigenous 

Peoples, consistent with the Service’s 

Native American Policy at 510 FW 1, to 

protect treaty, religious, subsistence, 

and cultural interests in the Refuge 

System. Further, the Service proposes to 

identify and define Indigenous 

Knowledge in the policy updates as an 

appropriate source of historical 

information that would support best 

available scientific information about 

historical conditions as a reference 

point for management decisions. 

Request for Comments 

You may submit comments and 

materials on this proposed rule by either 

one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. 

We will not accept comments sent by 

email or fax or to an address not listed 

in ADDRESSES. We will not consider 

comments that are not postmarked by 

the date specified in DATES. 

We will post your entire comment on 

https://www.regulations.gov. Before 

including personal identifying 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that we may make your 

entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information— 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. We will post all hardcopy 

comments on https://

www.regulations.gov. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of This Proposed Rule 

Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 

and the Presidential Memorandum of 

June 1, 1998, require us to write all rules 

in plain language. This means that each 

rule we publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant 

rules. OIRA has determined that this 

proposed rulemaking action is not 

significant. The proposed rule would 

simply serve to codify longstanding 

refuge management principles and 

further empower refuge managers to 

uphold the Refuge System’s 

conservation mission and achieve refuge 

purposes in the face of complex threats 

to wildlife and their habitat. 

Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O 13563 

and states that regulatory analysis 

should facilitate agency efforts to 

develop regulations that serve the 

public interest, advance statutory 

objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 

12866, E.O. 13563, and the Presidential 

Memorandum of January 20, 2021 

(Modernizing Regulatory Review). 

Regulatory analysis, as practicable and 

appropriate, shall recognize distributive 

impacts and equity, to the extent 

permitted by law. E.O. 13563 

emphasizes further that regulations 

must be based on the best available 

science and that the rulemaking process 

must allow for public participation and 

an open exchange of ideas. We have 

developed this proposed rule in a 

manner consistent with these 

requirements. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

[SBREFA] of 1996) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 

whenever a Federal agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare and make available for public 

comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis 

to be required, impacts must exceed a 

threshold for ‘‘significant impact’’ and a 

threshold for a ‘‘substantial number of 

small entities.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

This proposed rule would govern the 

actions taken by the Service but would 

not create any requirements for or place 

any regulatory compliance burden on 

private entities. The Service also does 

not anticipate the requirements to 

promote BIDEH to alter the current 

practices of the Service’s cooperative 

agriculture and water rights programs. 

The Service currently operates and has 

always operated in accordance with the 

same Refuge System-wide principles for 

maintaining BIDEH represented in these 

proposed regulations. The Service has 

determined that this proposed 

rulemaking is warranted to clarify our 

policies and practices, better prepare 

refuges to confront future impacts from 

climate change and other anthropogenic 

change, and provide the opportunity for 

public input on our interpretation of the 

Improvement Act’s BIDEH mandate, 

including its application in the context 

of predator control, species 

introductions, genetically engineered 

organisms, invasive species, pesticide 

use, agricultural practices, and mosquito 

control. As a result of the internal 

nature of these proposed regulations, 

this rulemaking action would have no 

impact on small entities. 

Therefore, the Service certifies that 

this rule, as proposed, would not have 

a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

defined under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). A regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Accordingly, a small entity compliance 

guide is not required. 

Congressional Review Act 

The proposed rule is not a major rule 

under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Service 

anticipates no significant employment 

or small business effects. This proposed 

rule: 

a. Would not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

b. Would not cause a major increase 

in costs or prices for consumers; 

individual industries; Federal, State, or 

local government agencies; or 

geographic regions. 

c. Would not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises 

in domestic and export markets. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Since this proposed rule would apply 

to management of refuges by the 

Service, it would not impose an 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
7350 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

Tribal governments or the private sector 

of more than $100 million per year. The 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant or unique effect on State, 

local, or Tribal governments or the 

private sector. A statement containing 

the information required by the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required. 

Takings (E.O. 12630) 

In accordance with E.O. 12630, this 

proposed rule would not have 

significant takings implications. This 

proposed rule would affect only 

management of refuges by the Service. 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

As discussed under Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, above, this 

proposed rule would not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement under E.O. 13132. 

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

In accordance with E.O. 12988, the 

Department of the Interior has 

determined that this proposed rule 

would not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the E.O. 

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 

13211) 

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to 

prepare statements of energy effects for 

regulations that significantly affect 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Because this proposed rule would 

uphold and enforce existing 

management principles and practices by 

the Service on refuges, it is not a 

significant regulatory action under E.O. 

12866, and we do not expect it to 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. Therefore, this 

action is not a significant energy action, 

and no statement of energy effects is 

required. 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175) 

In accordance with E.O. 13175, the 

Service has evaluated possible effects on 

federally recognized Indian Tribes and 

has determined that there are no effects. 

Before taking actions, the Service 

coordinates our activities on Service 

lands and waters with Tribal 

governments having adjoining or 

overlapping jurisdiction. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. 

The Service may not conduct or sponsor 

and you are not required to respond to 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Service is required under the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to assess 

the impact of any Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment, health, and safety. 

The Service has determined that this 

proposed rule falls under the class of 

actions covered by the following 

Department of the Interior categorical 

exclusion: Policies, directives, 

regulations, and guidelines: that are of 

an administrative, financial, legal, 

technical, or procedural nature; or 

whose environmental effects are too 

broad, speculative, or conjectural to 

lend themselves to meaningful analysis 

and will later be subject to the NEPA 

process, either collectively or case-bycase (43 CFR 46.210(i)). Under the 

proposed rule, the Service would take 

future actions guided by the 

requirements to support BIDEH, but 

these future actions would be 

determined and taken at the individual 

refuge level and their environmental 

impacts assessed on a case-by-case 

basis. Therefore, the environmental 

impacts of the proposed rule are too 

speculative to lead to meaningful 

analysis at this time. The Service would 

assess the environmental impact of any 

potential management action mentioned 

in these regulations prior to taking that 

action on Service lands or waters. 

Primary Author 

Katherine Harrigan, Division of 

Natural Resources and Conservation 

Planning, National Wildlife Refuge 

System, is the primary author of this 

proposed rulemaking document. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 29 

Public lands mineral resources, Public 

lands rights-of-way, Wildlife refuges. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, we propose to amend part 29, 

subchapter C of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations as set forth 

below: 

PART 29—LAND USE MANAGEMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 29 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 

664, 668dd, 685, 690d, 715i, 725, 3161; 30 

U.S.C. 185; 31 U.S.C. 3711, 9701; 40 U.S.C. 

319; 43 U.S.C. 315a; 113 Stat. 1501A–140. 

■ 2. Add § 29.3 to read as follows: 

§ 29.3 Biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health. 

We will maintain and, where 

necessary and appropriate, restore and 

enhance the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of 

national wildlife refuges, both 

individually and as a network of intact, 

functioning, and resilient habitats for 

fish, wildlife, and plants, for the benefit 

of present and future generations of 

Americans. 

(a) Ensure biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health. To 

ensure biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health means to 

holistically conserve refuge ecosystems 

and all their components and processes 

across multiple spatial scales; promote 

natural processes; and address 

ecological transformation caused by 

climate change and other anthropogenic 

change to accomplish the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

(Refuge System). We will seek to 

achieve the highest measure of 

biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health on refuges, which 

is represented by diverse, functioning, 

and self-sustaining ecosystems that are 

resilient to emerging or future 

conditions. We will use sound 

professional judgment, informed by the 

best available scientific information, to 

ensure that refuge management 

contributes to and does not diminish the 

biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of refuges and the 

Refuge System for the benefit of fish and 

wildlife conservation. 

(b) Definitions. In addition to relevant 

definitions in § 25.12 of this subchapter 

C, the following definitions apply to this 

section: 

Adaptation means an adjustment in 

natural or human systems to a new or 

changing environment that uses 

beneficial opportunities or moderates 

negative effects. 

Anthropogenic change means 

environmental change that humans 

cause or influence, either directly or 

indirectly. 

Biological integrity means the 

capacity of an ecological system to 

support and maintain a full range of 

biotic composition, structure, function, 

and processes over time that exhibit 

diversity, connectivity, and resilience at 

genetic, organism, population, and 

community levels. We evaluate 

biological integrity by referencing 

historical conditions, recognizing that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7351 

climate change and other anthropogenic 

change are influencing refuge 

ecosystems. 

Climate change mitigation means 

measures taken to reduce the amount 

and speed of future climate change by 

reducing emissions of heat-trapping 

gases or removing carbon dioxide from 

the atmosphere, including by improving 

ecosystem capacity for biological carbon 

sequestration. 

Connectivity means the degree to 

which landscapes, waterscapes, and 

seascapes allow species to move freely 

and ecological processes to function 

unimpeded. 

Conservation translocation means 

deliberately moving organisms from one 

site to another for release, with the 

intention of yielding a measurable 

conservation benefit at the levels of a 

population, species, or ecosystem. 

Diversity means the variety of life and 

its processes, including the richness and 

abundance of living organisms, the 

genetic differences among them, and 

communities and ecosystems in which 

they occur. We evaluate diversity by 

referencing historical conditions, 

recognizing that climate change and 

other anthropogenic change are 

influencing refuge ecosystems. 

Ecological transformation means the 

shift in an ecosystem, resulting in a new 

system that deviates from prior 

ecosystem structure and function or 

species composition. 

Ecosystem means systems comprised 

of biota (living organisms), the abiotic 

environment (e.g., air, light, soils, 

water), the interactions within and 

between them, and the physical space in 

which they operate. 

Environmental change means an 

alteration or disturbance of the 

environment caused by humans or 

natural processes that generates 

differences in the function or 

characteristics of an ecosystem. 

Environmental health means 

composition, structure, and functioning 

of soil, water, air, and other abiotic 

features, including the abiotic processes 

that shape the environment. We 

evaluate environmental health by 

referencing historical conditions, 

recognizing that climate change and 

other anthropogenic change are 

influencing refuge ecosystems. 

Historical conditions means 

composition, structure, and function of 

ecosystems that existed prior to 

ecological degradation caused by 

anthropogenic change, based on best 

available scientific and historical 

information. 

Invasive species means with respect 

to a particular ecosystem a non-native 

organism, including its seeds, eggs, 

spores, or other biological material 

capable of propagating that species, 

whose introduction causes or is likely to 

cause economic or environmental harm, 

or harm to human, animal, or plant 

health. 

Native means with respect to a 

particular ecosystem, a species that, 

other than as a result of an introduction, 

historically occurred or currently occurs 

in that ecosystem, including when such 

a species expands or shifts its range as 

a result of natural processes in response 

to environmental change. 

Natural processes mean interactions 

among plants, animals, and the 

environment that occur without 

substantial human influence. 

Predator control means actions or 

programs with the intent or potential to 

alter predator-prey population dynamics 

on a refuge by reducing a population of 

native predators through lethal or 

nonlethal methods, except for actions 

necessary to protect public health and 

safety and those enumerated under 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 

(c) Management directives for 

ensuring biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health. The 

following regulations serve as a 

framework for determining and 

implementing refuge management 

actions to meet our statutory obligations 

and policy goals: 

(1) Address climate change. Within 

the Refuge System, we will manage 

species and habitats affected by climate 

change and other anthropogenic change 

by using climate change mitigation and 

adaptation strategies when necessary to 

meet statutory requirements, fulfill 

refuge purposes, and ensure biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health. 

(2) Conserve and connect habitat. We 

allow for and defer to natural processes 

on habitats within the Refuge System 

and promote conservation, restoration, 

and connectivity to meet refuge habitat 

objectives and landscape planning 

goals. We will avoid and minimize 

habitat fragmentation to sustain 

biological integrity and diversity. When 

natural processes cannot meet habitat 

objectives or facilitate adaptation to 

anthropogenic change, we will use 

science-based management techniques 

or acquire lands when necessary to meet 

statutory requirements, fulfill refuge 

purposes, and ensure biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health. 

(3) Manage fish and wildlife 

populations. We conserve fish and 

wildlife populations within the Refuge 

System to meet refuge population 

objectives, sustain functioning 

ecosystems, and, where appropriate, 

restore or recover imperiled species. 

When habitat conditions and natural 

processes are insufficient to meet these 

goals or facilitate adaptation to 

anthropogenic change, we may pursue 

actions to supplement natural processes 

when necessary to meet statutory 

requirements, fulfill refuge purposes, 

and ensure biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health. 

(4) Uphold water rights. We will 

maintain and exercise our water rights 

on habitats within the Refuge System in 

accordance with local, State, and 

Federal laws. Where necessary, we will 

acquire, transfer, or lease water rights to 

meet statutory requirements, fulfill 

refuge purposes, and ensure biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health. 

(5) Promote and maintain healthy 

soil, water, and air. We promote and 

maintain soil health, water quality and 

quantity, and air quality as vital to 

sustaining and restoring habitats within 

the Refuge System through conservation 

and management to meet statutory 

requirements, fulfill refuge purposes, 

and ensure biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health. We 

will address threats to these abiotic 

components by pursuing appropriate 

actions, including when such threats to 

refuge resources arise outside refuge 

boundaries. 

(d) Management activities and uses 

with potential to ensure biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health. The regulations in this 

paragraph (d) provide guidance for 

certain management activities and uses 

that may support the maintenance of 

biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health. These activities 

and uses will be implemented within 

the Refuge System only as consistent 

with the management directives set 

forth in paragraph (c) of this section. 

Proposed activities and uses will be 

evaluated in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and other legal 

requirements, as applicable. 

(1) Native predator control. We 

prohibit predator control unless it is 

determined necessary to meet statutory 

requirements, fulfill refuge purposes, 

and ensure biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health. We 

may implement lethal predator control 

only when all other feasible methods 

have been fully evaluated and such 

control is considered the only practical 

means of addressing a specific, 

significant conservation concern and 

ensuring biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health. We do not 

consider the following actions to be 

predator control: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
7352 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Agency removal of native 

predator(s) solely to protect public 

health and safety; 

(ii) Use of barriers or nonlethal 

deterrents to protect the public, 

property, or vulnerable species, but that 

are not intended to reduce native 

predator populations; 

(iii) Compatible, refuge-approved 

taking of fish and wildlife for 

subsistence uses under Federal or State 

subsistence regulations that do not 

compromise maintaining biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health on the refuge; 

(iv) Compatible, refuge-approved 

recreational hunting and fishing 

opportunities that do not compromise 

maintaining biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health on 

the refuge; and 

(v) Removal of invasive species. 

(2) Conservation translocations. We 

may allow the introduction of a species 

outside its current range to avoid 

extinction or extirpation; restore a 

species; reestablish a specific ecological 

function lost to extinction or 

extirpation; or, in accordance with 

§ 17.81(a) of this chapter, when 

necessary to meet statutory 

requirements, fulfill refuge purposes, 

and ensure biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health. 

(3) Use of genetically engineered 

organisms. We prohibit the use of 

genetically engineered organisms unless 

their use is determined necessary to 

meet statutory requirements, fulfill 

refuge purposes, and ensure biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health. 

(4) Invasive species management. We 

pursue actions to control invasive 

species as part of an integrated pest 

management plan when necessary to 

meet statutory requirements, fulfill 

refuge purposes, and ensure biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health. 

(5) Pesticide use. We may allow the 

use of pesticides, following review and 

approval of their use as part of an 

integrated pest management plan, when 

necessary to meet statutory 

requirements, fulfill refuge purposes, 

and ensure biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health. 

Such use must not result in adverse 

effects on populations of nontarget 

species. 

(6) Agricultural uses. We prohibit the 

use of agricultural practices unless they 

are determined necessary to meet 

statutory requirements, fulfill refuge 

purposes, and ensure biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health, and where we cannot achieve 

refuge management objectives through 

natural processes. 

(7) Mosquito control. We prohibit 

control of native mosquitoes unless it is 

determined necessary to meet statutory 

requirements, fulfill refuge purposes, 

and ensure biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health or 

protect human health and safety. In 

these situations, chosen control 

methods must be the least injurious to 

fish, wildlife, and their habitats. We 

may coordinate with public health 

agencies or mosquito control 

organizations to implement the most 

effective control methods that minimize 

risk to refuge ecosystems and public 

health. 

Shannon Estenoz, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02076 Filed 2–1–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS