61356 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[RIN 1018–AG47]

Draft Policy on Maintaining the

Ecological Integrity of the National

Wildlife Refuge System; Notice

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service) propose to establish an internal

policy to guide personnel of the

National Wildlife Refuge System

(Refuge System) in implementing the

clause of the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act of 1997

(Refuge Improvement Act) that calls for

maintaining the ‘‘biological integrity,

diversity, and environmental health’’ of

the Refuge System. The holistic

integration of these three qualities

constitutes ecological integrity. The

concept of ecological integrity requires

a frame of reference for natural

conditions. Our frame of reference

extends from 800 AD to 1800 AD. The

former date marked the beginning of an

ecological transformation associated

with higher temperatures; the latter

approximates the advent of the

industrial era, including drastic and

widespread habitat loss. In areas where

pre-industrial European settlement was

particularly intensive, however, our

frame of reference may be shorter.

Natural conditions also include those

that would have persisted or evolved to

the present time if European settlement

and industrialization had not occurred.

At each refuge, we ascertain natural

conditions, assess current conditions,

and strive to decrease the difference.

However, we are especially concerned

with ecological integrity of the Refuge

System as a whole, which can conflict

with the maintenance of ecological

integrity at individual refuges. In some

cases, we may compromise the

ecological integrity of a refuge for the

sake of maintaining a higher level of

ecological integrity at the Refuge System

scale.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

December 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments or

questions concerning the draft

ecological integrity policy via mail, fax,

or email to: Elizabeth Souheaver, Chief,

Branch of Wildlife Resources, National

Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax

Drive, Room 670, Arlington, Virginia

22203; fax (703) 358–2248; e-mail

Ecointegrityl policy_comments@

fws.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Souheaver, Chief, Branch of

Wildlife Resources, National Wildlife

Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room

670, Arlington, Virginia 22203;

telephone (703) 358–1744.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Disposition. The policy presented in

this notice is a draft policy that may be

modified pursuant to public comment.

The finalized policy will constitute Part

601 Chapter 3 of the Fish and Wildlife

Service Manual.

Comment Solicitation. We seek public

comments on this draft policy and will

consider all comments received during

the 45-day comment period. You may

submit comments by any one of several

methods:

• You may mail comments to:

Elizabeth Souheaver, Branch Chief of

Wildlife Resources, National Wildlife

Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room

670, Arlington, VA 22203.

• You may fax comments to:

Elizabeth Souheaver, Chief, Branch of

Wildlife Resources, National Wildlife

Refuge System, (703) 358–2248.

You may comment via the Internet to:

Ecointegritylpolicylcomments@fws.gov.

• You may hand-deliver comments to

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

National Wildlife Refuge System, Room

670, 4401 North Fairfax Drive,

Arlington, VA.

Our practice is to make comments,

including names and home addresses of

respondents, available for public review

during regular business hours.

Individual respondents may request that

we withhold their home address from

the record, which we will honor to the

extent allowable by law. There also may

be circumstances in which we take the

initiative to withhold from the record a

respondent’s identity, as allowable by

law. If you wish that we withhold your

name and/or address, you must state

this prominently at the beginning of

your comment. However, we will not

consider anonymous comments. We

will make all submissions from

organizations or businesses and from

individuals identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

We published a notice in the Federal

Register on January 23, 1998 (63 FR

3583) notifying the public that we

would be revising the Fish and Wildlife

Service Manual, establishing regulations

as they relate to the Refuge

Improvement Act, and offering to send

copies of specific draft Fish and

Wildlife Service Manual chapters to

anyone who would like to receive them.

We will mail a copy of this draft Fish

and Wildlife Service Manual ecological

integrity chapter to those who requested

one. In addition, this draft Fish and

Wildlife Service Manual ecological

integrity chapter will be available on the

National Wildlife Refuge System web

site (http://refuges.fws.gov) during the

45-day comment period.

Ecological Integrity Draft Policy (Fish

and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 601,

Draft Chapter 3)

3.1 What Is the Purpose of This

Chapter?

This chapter provides policy for

maintaining and restoring the biological

integrity, biological diversity, and

environmental health of the National

Wildlife Refuge System. Throughout

this policy, we use the term ‘‘ecological

integrity’’ to refer to biological integrity,

biological diversity, and environmental

health.

3.2 What Is the Scope of This Policy?

This policy applies to the National

Wildlife Refuge System as a whole and

to all individual units within the

System.

3.3 What Is the Ecological Integrity

Policy?

We will, first and foremost, maintain

existing levels of ecological integrity at

all landscape scales. In addition, we

will restore lost elements of ecological

integrity at all landscape scales where it

is consistent with refuge purposes.

3.4 What Are the Objectives of This

Policy?

A. Provide guidelines for determining

what conditions constitute ecological

integrity.

B. Provide guidelines for determining

how to maintain existing levels of

ecological integrity.

C. Provide guidelines for determining

how and when to restore lost elements

of ecological integrity.

3.5 What Is the Authority for This

Policy?

The authority for this draft policy is

the National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966 as amended

by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C.

668dd–668ee (Refuge Administration

Act). This law states that ‘‘In

administering the System, the Secretary

shall—(A) Provide for the conservation

of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their

habitats within the System; (B) ensure

that the biological integrity, diversity,

and environmental health of the System

are maintained for the benefit of present

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Notices 61357

and future generations of Americans; (C)

plan and direct the continued growth of

the System in a manner that is best

designed to accomplish the mission of

the System, to contribute to the

conservation of the ecosystems of the

United States, to complement efforts of

States and other Federal agencies to

conserve fish and wildlife and their

habitats, and to increase support for the

System and participation from

conservation partners and the public;

(D) ensure that the mission of the

System described in paragraph (2) and

the purposes of each refuge are carried

out, except that if a conflict exists

between the purposes of a refuge and

the mission of the System, the conflict

shall be resolved in a manner that first

protects the purposes of the refuge, and,

to the extent practicable, that also

achieves the mission of the System;

* * *’’ The law also provides that, in

administering the National Wildlife

Refuge System, ‘‘* * * the Secretary is

authorized to * * * Issue regulations to

carry out this Act.’’

3.6 What Do These Terms Mean?

A. Biological diversity. The variety of

life and its processes, including the

variety of living organisms, the genetic

differences among them, and

communities and ecosystems in which

they occur.

B. Biological integrity. Biotic

composition, structure, and functioning

at genetic, organism, and community

levels consistent with natural

conditions, including the natural

biological processes that shape

genomes, organisms, and communities.

C. Ecological integrity. Biological

diversity, biological integrity, and

environmental health.

D. Environmental health.

Composition, structure, and functioning

of soil, water, air, and other abiotic

features consistent with natural

conditions, including the natural abiotic

processes that shape the environment.

E. Native. Not introduced. Present

under natural conditions.

F. Natural conditions. Composition,

structure, and functioning of ecosystems

thought to exist during a reference

period from approximately 800 AD to

the onset of European settlement or the

industrial era and that would have

persisted or evolved to the present time

if European settlement had not occurred

or the industrial era had not arrived.

Our assessment of natural conditions is

based on sound professional judgment.

G. Sound professional judgment. A

finding, determination, or decision that

is consistent with principles of sound

fish and wildlife management and

administration, available science and

resources, and adherence to the

requirements of the National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of

1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee), and

other applicable laws. Included in this

finding, determination, or decision is a

refuge manager’s field experience and

knowledge of the particular refuge’s

resources.

3.7 What Are the Principles

Underlying This Policy?

A. Wildlife First

The Refuge Administration Act

clearly establishes that wildlife

conservation is the singular National

Wildlife Refuge System mission. House

Report 105–106 accompanying the

National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997 states ‘‘* * *

the fundamental mission of our Refuge

System is wildlife conservation: wildlife

and wildlife conservation must come

first.’’ Maintaining biological integrity,

biological diversity, and environmental

health are integral and high priority

components of wildlife conservation.

B. Maintaining Ecological Integrity of

the System and Accomplishing Refuge

Purposes

Each refuge will be managed to fulfill

refuge purposes as well as to help fulfill

the System mission. If a conflict exists

between managing for refuge purposes

and the System mission, the conflict

will be resolved in a manner that first

protects the refuge purposes, and, to the

extent practicable, that also achieves the

System mission. Likewise, if a conflict

exists between managing for refuge

purposes and maintaining or restoring

the ecological integrity of the System,

the conflict will be resolved in a manner

that first protects the refuge purposes,

and, to the extent practicable, that also

maintains or restores the ecological

integrity of the System. When refuge

managers select management actions

that fulfill refuge purposes, they will

follow as closely as possible the

guidelines provided in this ecological

integrity policy so as to maximize our

ability to maintain the ecological

integrity of the System while fulfilling

refuge purposes. These decisions are

based on sound professional judgment.

C. Ecological Integrity in a Landscape

Context

Biological integrity, biological

diversity, and environmental health

occur at various landscape scales from

local to ecosystem, national, and

international. All refuges have varying

levels of biological integrity, biological

diversity, and environmental health,

and they contribute to ecological

integrity at multiple landscape scales.

At the local landscape scale, ecological

integrity varies at individual refuges to

the extent that refuge habitats have been

altered and natural conditions have

been compromised. Also, refuges

contribute to ecological integrity at

other landscape scales, especially when

they provide for populations and

habitats that have been lost at the larger

landscape scales. When determining

strategies to maintain and restore

ecological integrity, we consider refuges

in the context of multiple landscape

scales from local to international.

D. Maintenance and Restoration of

Ecological Integrity

We will, first and foremost, maintain

existing levels of ecological integrity at

all landscape scales. In addition, we

will restore lost elements of ecological

integrity at all landscape scales where it

is consistent with refuge purposes.

Maintaining and restoring ecological

integrity helps to minimize the effects of

further loses of natural conditions at all

landscape scales.

E. Management Based on Goals and

Objectives

Refuge purposes and the System

mission serve as the basis for goals and

objectives at all levels of the System

(e.g., System, Regional, ecosystem, and

refuge level). When we develop these

goals and objectives we include goals

and objectives for maintaining and

restoring the ecological integrity of the

System as described in this policy.

F. Wildlife and Habitat Management

Refuge management ranging from

preservation to active manipulation of

habitats and populations is necessary to

maintain ecological integrity. We favor

management that mimics natural

processes to achieve refuge purposes,

goals and objectives, and to help fulfill

the System mission, goals and

objectives. Our management may differ

from the frequency and timing of

natural processes when necessary to

compensate for the loss of habitat that

existed under natural conditions at

landscape scales beyond the refuge

boundaries.

G. Adaptive Management

We make management decisions

based on sound professional judgment

and we evaluate the effectiveness of

these decisions by comparing results to

desired outcomes. If the results are

unsatisfactory, we assess the causes of

failure and adapt our management

decisions accordingly. In part, we base

management decisions on natural

resource related research that has been

61358 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Notices

conducted on refuges. This type of

research adds to the general body of

information related to natural resource

management and aids us in continually

adapting our management decisions. We

generally encourage natural resource

related research on refuges.

H. Sound Professional Judgment

We use sound professional judgment

to determine what conditions constitute

ecological integrity, how to maintain

existing levels of ecological integrity;

and how and when to restore lost

elements of ecological integrity. These

determinations are inherently complex

and require us to consider our field

experiences and knowledge of refuge

resources, particularly biological

resources, and make conclusions that

are consistent with principles of sound

fish and wildlife management and

administration, available scientific

information, and applicable laws. We

consult with others inside and outside

the Service as necessary.

3.8 What are our responsibilities?

A. Director

(1) Provides national policy, goals and

objectives for maintaining and restoring

the ecological integrity of the System.

(2) Ensures that national plans and

partnerships support maintaining and

restoring the ecological integrity of the

System.

(3) Ensures that the national land

acquisition strategy for the System is

designed to maintain the ecological

integrity of the System at all landscape

scales.

B. Regional Director

(1) Provides regional policy, goals and

objectives for maintaining and restoring

the ecological integrity of the System.

Regional policy will include guidance

pertaining to the relative merits of

pursuing ecological integrity on a

particular refuge versus pursuing

ecological integrity for other landscape

scales.

(2) Ensures that regional and

ecosystem plans, and regional

partnerships support the maintenance

and restoration of Refuge System

ecological integrity.

(3) Resolves conflicts that arise

between maintaining ecological

integrity at the refuge landscape scale

and maintaining ecological integrity at

larger landscape scales.

C. Regional Refuge Chief

(1) Ensures that individual refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plans

support the maintenance and restoration

of Refuge System ecological integrity.

(2) Reviews and ensures that refuge

management programs that occur on

many refuges (e.g., fire management) are

consistent with this policy.

D. Refuge Manager

(1) Follows the procedure outlined in

section 3.9 of this chapter.

(2) Incorporates the principles of this

policy into all refuge management plans

and actions.

(3) Ensures that refuge management

plans, goals and objectives are

consistent with System, regional and

ecosystem goals and objectives to

maintain ecological integrity.

3.9 How do we implement this policy?

The Director, regional directors,

regional chiefs and refuge managers

carry out their responsibilities as

specified in section 3.8 of this chapter.

In addition, refuge managers:

A. Identify the refuge’s purposes.

B. Ascertain natural conditions for the

refuge, including representative

successional stages.

C. Assess current conditions and

compare them to natural conditions to

determine the most appropriate

management strategies for maintaining

and restoring ecological integrity. This

assessment includes determining the

capabilities and limitations of the refuge

to maintain and restore ecological

integrity.

D. Consider the refuge’s importance to

local, ecosystem, national and

international landscape scales of

ecological integrity.

E. Identify the refuge’s roles and

responsibilities within the Regional and

System administrative levels.

F. Consider the relationships among

biological integrity, biological diversity

and environmental health, and resolve

conflicts that may result when

attempting to maintain and restore all

three.

G. Consider refuge purposes and, in

coordination with the comprehensive

conservation planning process,

prescribe appropriate wildlife and

habitat management to maintain and

restore ecological integrity at the

appropriate landscape scales.

H. Evaluate the effectiveness of our

management by comparing results to

desired outcomes. If the results of our

management strategies are

unsatisfactory, assess the causes of

failure and adapt our strategies

accordingly.

3.10 What factors do we consider when

maintaining and restoring ecological

integrity?

This section provides guidance for

maintaining and restoring each

component of ecological integrity; that

is, biological integrity, biological

diversity, and environmental health. We

plan for the maintenance and

restoration of each component, while

considering all three components in an

integrated and holistic manner.

A. Biological Integrity

We evaluate biological integrity by

examining the extent to which

biological composition, structure, and

function have been altered from natural

conditions. Biological composition

refers to biological components such as

genes, populations, species, and

communities. Biological structure refers

to the organization of biological

components, such as gene frequencies,

social structures of populations, food

webs of species, and niche partitioning

within communities. Biological function

refers to the processes undergone by

biological components, such as genetic

recombination, population migration,

the evolution of species, and

community succession.

Biological integrity lies along a

continuum from a biological system

completely altered by industrial

development to a completely natural

system. No landscape retains absolute

biological integrity. However, we strive

to prevent the further loss of natural

biological features and processes; that

is, biological integrity.

Maintaining or restoring biological

integrity is not the same as maximizing

biological diversity. Maintaining

biological integrity may entail managing

for a single species or community at

some refuges and combinations of

species or communities at other refuges.

For example, a refuge may contain

critical habitat for an endangered

species. Maintaining that habitat (and,

therefore, that species), even though it

may reduce biological diversity at the

local landscape scale, helps maintain

biological integrity and biological

diversity at the national landscape scale.

In deciding which management

activities to conduct to accomplish

refuge purposes while maintaining

biological integrity, we start by

considering how the ecosystem

functioned under natural conditions.

For example, we consider the natural

frequency and timing of processes such

as flooding, fires, and migration. Our

management will mimic these natural

processes in natural frequencies and

timing at the local landscape scale,

where they support accomplishing

refuge purposes.

We may find it necessary to modify

the frequency and timing of natural

processes at the local landscape scale to

fulfill refuge purposes or to contribute

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Notices 61359

to ecological integrity at larger

landscape scales. For example, under

natural conditions, an area may have

flooded only a few times per decade.

Migratory birds dependent upon

wetlands may have used the area in

some years, and used other areas that

flooded in other years. Because many

wetlands have been converted to

agriculture or other land uses, the

remaining wetlands must produce more

habitat, more consistently, to support

wetland-dependent migratory birds.

Therefore, to conserve biological

integrity at larger landscape scales we

may flood areas more frequently and for

longer periods of time than they were

flooded under natural conditions.

B. Biological diversity

We evaluate biological diversity at

various taxonomic levels, including

class, order, family, genus, species,

subspecies, and—for purposes of

Endangered Species Act

implementation—distinct population.

These evaluations of biological diversity

begin with population surveys and

studies of flora and fauna. The System’s

focus is on native species and natural

communities.

We also evaluate biological diversity

at various landscape scales, including

local, ecosystem, national, and

international. On refuges, we typically

focus our evaluations of biological

diversity at the local scale; however,

these local evaluations can contribute to

assessments at larger landscape scales.

We strive to maintain populations of

breeding individuals that are genetically

viable and functional. We provide for

the breeding, migrating, and wintering

needs of migratory species. We also

strive to maximize the size of habitat

blocks and maintain connectivity

between blocks of habitats, unless such

connectivity causes adverse effects on

wildlife or habitat (e.g., by facilitating

the spread of invasive species).

At the community level, the most

reliable indicator of biological diversity

is plant community composition. We

use the National Vegetation

Classification System to identify

biological diversity at this level.

C. Environmental Health.

We evaluate environmental health by

examining the extent to which

environmental composition, structure,

and function have been altered from

natural conditions. Environmental

composition refers to abiotic

components such as air, water, and

soils, all of which are generally

interwoven with biotic components

(e.g., decomposers live in soils).

Environmental structure refers to the

organization of abiotic components,

such as atmospheric layering, aquifer

structure, and topography.

Environmental function refers to the

processes undergone by abiotic

components, such as wind, evaporation,

and erosion. A diversity of abiotic

composition, structure, and function

tends to support a diversity of biological

composition, structure, and function.

Environmental health affects

biological integrity at all levels.

Consistent with the wildlife first

principle, we are especially concerned

with environmental features as they

affect living organisms. For example, at

the genetic level, we manage for

environmental health by preventing

chemical contamination of air, water,

and soils that may interfere with

reproductive physiology or stimulate

high rates of mutation. Such

contamination includes carcinogens and

other toxic substances that are released

within or outside of refuges.

At the population and community

levels, we consider the habitat

components of food, water, cover, and

space. Food and water may become

contaminated with chemicals that are

not naturally present. Activities such as

logging and mining or structures such as

buildings and fences may modify

security or thermal cover. Unnatural

noise and light pollution also

compromise security. Unnatural

physical structures, including buildings,

reservoirs, and other infrastructure, may

displace space. Refuge facility

construction and maintenance projects

necessary to accomplish refuge

purposes should be designed to

minimize their impacts on the

environmental health of the refuge.

3.11 How Do We Apply Our

Management Strategies to Maintain and

Restore Ecological Integrity?

We strive to manage for ecological

integrity in a holistic manner by

optimizing the combination of

biological integrity, biological diversity,

and environmental health. We balance

these three components of ecological

integrity by considering refuge

purposes, landscape scales, and the

wildlife first principle. Considered

independently, management strategies

to maintain and restore biological

integrity, biological diversity, and

environmental health may conflict.

For example, physical structures and

chemical applications are often

necessary to maintain biological

integrity and to fulfill refuge purposes.

We may use dikes and water control

structures to maintain and restore

natural hydrological cycles, or use

rotenone to eliminate invasive carp from

a pond. These unnatural physical

alterations and chemical applications

would compromise environmental

health if considered in isolation, but

they may be appropriate management

actions for maintaining ecological

integrity when they are essential for

maintaining biological integrity and

accomplishing refuge purposes.

We may remove physical structures to

promote endangered species recovery in

some areas, or we may remove plants or

animals (e.g., beavers) to protect

structures (e.g., dikes), depending upon

refuge purposes. Unless we determine

that a species was present in the area of

a refuge under natural conditions, we

will not introduce or maintain the

presence of that species for the purpose

of biological diversity. We may make

exceptions where areas are essential for

the conservation of a threatened or

endangered species and suitable

habitats are not available elsewhere. In

such cases, we strive to minimize

unnatural effects and to restore or

maintain natural processes and

ecosystem components to the extent

practicable without jeopardizing refuge

purposes.

3.12 What Do We Use as a Frame of

Reference for Natural Conditions?

We examine the time period from 800

AD to European settlement or to the

industrial era to choose a timeframe that

is appropriate for determining natural

conditions for a given area of the

country. In each area of the country, the

timeframe for determining natural

conditions must be long enough to

define the full range of an area’s plant

community succession, fire regimes,

hydrology, and climatic cycles. Natural

conditions also may include those

natural evolutionary forces and events,

such as range expansions, that would

have occurred if European settlement

had not occurred or the industrial era

had not arrived.

We use 800 AD as the starting point

for natural conditions because it marks

a major ecological transition in North

America. The period from 800 AD to the

industrial era includes warm, cool, and

moderate climates that supported a

variety of naturally occurring

ecosystems. We use both European

settlement and the industrial era as end

points for determining natural

conditions because we recognize both

for causing landscape alterations.

European settlers cleared land,

established farms, and built towns and

cities. Their impacts on the landscape

varied, depending on density and land

use. During the industrial era, the use of

intensive energy sources, such as fossil

fuels, have resulted in degradation and

61360 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Notices

elimination of habitats, exterpitation of

species, and created a need for both

local and landscape level conservation

efforts.

In the United States, European

settlement and the industrial era began

approximately 1600 AD and 1800 AD,

respectively. In some areas the land use

changes that degrade or destroy wildlife

habitat did not begin until much later

than 1800, particularly in Alaska. In

these areas, we may extend the frame of

reference for natural conditions beyond

1800.

In some cases, non-natural and

irreversible changes have occurred since

the industrial era. For example, some

areas have been converted to urban or

industrial uses, some species have been

driven to extinction, and widespread

phenomena like global warming may

increasingly impact ecosystems. We

acknowledge the existence of such

irreversible, non-natural changes and

strive to maintain remaining levels of

ecological integrity without investing

resources in futile management

activities. However, where feasible we

will attempt to mimic the structure,

composition and function of natural

conditions.

3.13 Where Do We Get Information on

Natural Conditions?

Information on natural conditions

may be ethnographic, historical,

archeological, or paleoecological.

Ethnographic information consists

primarily of Native American oral

traditions and belongings passed down

through many generations. Historical

information includes the written and, in

some cases, the pictographic accounts of

explorers, surveyors, traders, and others

present in the United States prior to the

industrial era. Archeological

information comes from collections of

cultural artifacts maintained by

scientific institutions. Paleoecological

information comes from a variety of

ecological artifacts including fossils,

packrat middens, pollen cores, soil

sediments, and tree rings.

We obtain information on natural

conditions from our investigations and

from partners in academia, conservation

organizations, and other Federal, State,

Tribal, and local government agencies.

In many cases, we use historical

vegetation maps to provide data on

natural conditions. Such historical maps

are usually drawn at relatively coarse

scales, perhaps to the level of vegetation

alliance. Small areas such as bogs would

have gone undocumented or undetected

in the historical or paleoecological

records, and generally a comprehensive

list of plant and animal species is not

available or necessary. The

determination of natural species and

ecosystem composition will be based on

sound professional judgment. We

periodically update our information on

natural conditions with results from

ongoing archeological and

paleoecological studies.

When information on natural

conditions is not available for a

particular area, we obtain information

on natural conditions of nearby areas

that have similar environmental traits at

a broad scale, including topography,

geology, soils, and climate. We use these

conditions as a proxy for natural

conditions of the area in question.

3.14 How Do We Incorporate

Information From the Natural

Conditions Reference Period Into Our

Management Decisions?

Maintaining biological integrity,

biological diversity, and environmental

health requires an ecological frame of

reference. This frame of reference allows

us to contrast current conditions with

the natural conditions that existed prior

to European settlement and the advent

of the industrial era. The reference

period guides us in two ways. It

provides information on how the

landscape looked prior to changes in

land use that destroyed and fragmented

habitats and resulted in diminished

wildlife populations and the extirpation

or extinction of species. It also allows us

to examine how natural ecosystems

function and maintain themselves. We

use these conditions as a frame of

reference in which to set current

management goals.

We use the natural conditions frame

of reference to identify composition,

structure, and functional processes that

naturally shaped ecosystems. We

especially seek to identify keystone

species, indicator species, and types of

communities that occurred during the

frame of reference. We also seek to

ascertain basic information on natural

structures such as predator/prey

relationships and topography. Finally,

we seek to identify the scale and

frequency of processes that

accompanied these components and

structures, such as fire regimes, flooding

events, and plant community

succession. Where feasible, we also

pursue ecological integrity by

eliminating unnatural biotic and abiotic

features and processes not necessary to

accomplish refuge purposes.

We do not expect, however, to

reconstruct a complete inventory of

components, structures, and functions

for any successional stage occurring

during the frame of reference. Rather,

we use sound professional judgment to

fit the pieces together as if building a

puzzle. For example, if there is

fossilized evidence that beavers lived in

an area, then we may conclude that

there were beaver dams with associated

floral and faunal components,

community structure, and hydrological

functions. Similarly, if tree ring analysis

indicates a highly regular fire regime of

every 10–15 years in a ponderosa pine

forest, we may conclude that this

functioned to maintain an understory

with a relatively open structure, with a

community of plants and animals

typical of open-structured ponderosa

pine forests.

We ensure that our management

activities result in the establishment of

a community that fits within the natural

successional series, unless doing so

conflicts with accomplishing refuge

purposes. For example, if we determine

that an area in question was an aspen

parkland in 1800, we may manage for

aspen parkland or any other community

that fits within the natural successional

series, with a focus on natural

communities and ecological processes

that are rare, declining, or unique. We

often choose to maintain non-climax

communities pursuant to refuge

purposes or to contribute to ecological

integrity at the regional, national, or

international landscape scale. We favor

techniques such as fire or flooding that

mimic or result in natural processes to

maintain these non-climax

communities. However, where not

precluded by refuge purposes, we allow

or, if necessary, encourage natural

successional processes.

If there is evidence that certain

successional stages naturally were

precluded, we do not attempt to manage

for those stages. For example, if a

volcanic eruption in the 12th century

impounded water that flooded a forest,

creating a lake in the process, we would

not drain the lake to reproduce the

forest. Reproducing conditions that

naturally ceased to exist compromises

ecological integrity.

3.15 How Do We Manage Populations

To Maintain and Restore Ecological

Integrity?

We maintain, or contribute to the

maintenance of, viable populations of

native species. We design our wildlife

population management strategies to

support accomplishing refuge purposes

while maintaining or restoring

ecological integrity. We formulate refuge

goals and objectives for population

management to maintain natural

densities, social structures, and

population dynamics at the local level,

except where precluded by refuge

purposes or by population objectives set

by national plans and programs—such

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Notices 61361

as the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan—in which the System

is a partner. Natural densities are relatively stable

for some species and variable for others.

We manage populations for natural

densities and levels of variation, while

assuring that densities of endangered or

otherwise rare species are sufficient for

maintaining viable populations. On some refuges, including many of

those having the purpose of migratory

bird conservation, we establish goals

and objectives to maintain densities

higher than those that would naturally

occur at the refuge level because of the

loss of surrounding habitats. By

maintaining higher densities at the

refuge level, we more closely

approximate natural levels at larger

landscape scales such as flyways. We

try to prevent, however, densities at

excessive levels that result in adverse

effects on wildlife and habitat. The

effects of producing densities that are

too high may include disease, excessive

nutrient accumulation and the

competitive exclusion of other species.

We use sound professional judgment to

determine prudent limits to densities. We consider population parameters

such as sex ratios and age class

distributions when managing

populations to maintain and restore

ecological integrity. Within the

constraints of refuge purposes, we set

our goals and objectives for these

parameters within the range of values

occurring under natural conditions,

especially for resident populations. For

example, ungulate populations with

natural social structures are

characterized by a high percentage of

males with significant horns or antlers

that are attractive to hunters and the

viewing public alike. Population

management plans, goals, and objectives

for migratory populations generally are

set at ecological scales broader than the

refuge level, although refuges may play

important roles in these efforts. We encourage cooperation and

coordination with State fish and

wildlife management agencies in setting

refuge population management goals

and objectives. Regulations permitting

hunting and fishing within the System

will be, to the extent consistent with

this policy, in keeping with State fish

and wildlife laws, regulations, and

management plans. We support the reintroduction of

extirpated native species. We consider

such reintroduction in the context of

surrounding landscapes. We do not

introduce species on refuges outside

their historic range or introduce species

if we determine that they were naturally

extirpated, unless such introduction is

essential for the survival of a species

and prescribed in an endangered species

recovery plan, or is essential for the

control of an invasive species and

prescribed in an integrated pest

management plan.

3.16 How Do We Manage Habitats To

Maintain and Restore Ecological

Integrity?

We maintain existing levels of

ecological integrity at all landscape

scales. In addition, we will restore lost

elements of ecological integrity at all

landscape scales where it is consistent

with refuge purposes. Maintaining and

restoring ecological integrity helps to

minimize the effects of further loses of

natural conditions at all landscape

scales.

Our habitat management plans call for

the appropriate management strategies

that mimic natural conditions and

accomplish refuge objectives. For

example, prescribed burning to

maintain natural fire regimes or water

level management to mimic natural

hydrological cycles are often necessary

to maintain natural plant and animal

communities in fragmented landscapes.

Farming, haying, logging, livestock

grazing, and other extractive activities

are permissible habitat management

practices only when prescribed in plans

to meet wildlife or habitat management

objectives, and only when more natural

methods, such as fire or grazing by

native herbivores, are not feasible.

We do not allow refuge uses or

management practices that result in the

maintenance of non-native plant

communities unless we determine that

there is no other feasible alternative for

accomplishing refuge purposes. For

example, where we do not require

farming to accomplish refuge purposes,

we cease farming and strive to restore

natural habitats. Generally, farming

must be identified as an important

contribution to ecological integrity at

larger ecosystem, regional, or national

scales. Where past land uses and

management practices have modified

habitats, and where restoration is

feasible, we restore natural habitats in

the pursuit of ecological integrity. We

use native seed sources in ecological

restoration. We do not use genetically

modified organisms in refuge

management unless we determine their

use essential to accomplishing refuge

purposes and the Director approves the

use.

3.17 How Do We Manage Non-Native

Species To Maintain and Restore

Ecological Integrity?

We prevent the introduction of

invasive species, detect and control

populations of invasive species, and

provide for restoration of native species

and habitat conditions in invaded

ecosystems. We develop integrated pest

management strategies that incorporate

the most effective combination of

mechanical, chemical, biological, and

cultural controls while considering the

effects on environmental health.

We require no action to reduce or

eradicate self-sustaining populations of

non-native, non-invasive species (e.g.,

pheasants) unless those species interfere

with accomplishing refuge purposes.

We do not, however, manage habitats to

increase populations of these species

unless such habitat management

supports accomplishing refuge

purposes.

3.18 How Does This Policy Affect The

Acquisition Of Lands For The System?

We consider the mission, goals, and

objectives of the System in planning for

its strategic growth. We will take a

proactive approach to identifying lands,

from national and regional perspectives,

that are critical for maintaining or

restoring the ecological integrity of the

System. We will integrate this approach

into all Service strategies and initiatives

related to the strategic growth of the

System. We incorporate the guidance in

this chapter when we evaluate the

potential of an area to contribute to the

conservation of the ecosystems of the

United States. When evaluating

potential new refuges, we consider how

such refuges will contribute to

maintaining the ecological integrity of

the System.

We use the Land Acquisition Priority

System to rank potential acquisitions

once the Director approves significant

expansions or new refuges. Our Land

Acquisition Priority System includes

components that gauge the

contributions of refuges to maintaining

and restoring ecological integrity.

3.19 What Is The Relationship

Between Ecological Integrity And

Compatibility?

When completing compatibility

determinations, refuge managers use

sound professional judgment to

determine if a refuge use will materially

interfere with or detract from the

fulfillment of the System mission or the

refuge purposes. Inherent in fulfilling

the System mission is not degrading the

ecological integrity of the refuge and the

System. Refuge uses that we reasonably

may anticipate to conflict with

maintaining the ecological integrity of

the refuge or the System are contrary to

fulfilling the System mission and are

therefore not compatible. Specific

policy for compatibility is found in 603

FW 2.

61362 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Notices

3.20 What Is The Relationship

Between Ecological Integrity and

Comprehensive Conservation Planning?

We integrate the principles of this

policy into all aspects of comprehensive

conservation planning as we write plans

to direct long range refuge management

and identify desired future conditions

for planned refuges (602 FW 1.7 D).

3.21 How Do We Protect Ecological

Integrity From Actions Outside Of

Refuges?

When actions of others that occur off

refuge lands or waters that injure or

destroy the natural resources of a refuge,

refuge managers should address those

problems as soon as possible to protect

the property of the United States and to

protect the biological integrity,

biological diversity, and environmental

health of the refuge and the System. The

refuge manager should first inform the

person or entity responsible and request

cooperation. Our first effort to avoid and

rectify injury should always be

partnerships or voluntary cooperation

with adjacent landowners and others. If

these efforts fail to protect the refuge,

refuge managers should request the

Office of the Solicitor for assistance in

pursuing civil remedies, such as an

injunction or damages, just as any other

landowner would.

Primary Author: Brian Czech,

Conservation Biologist, Branch of

Wildlife Resources, National Wildlife

Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, is the primary author of this

notice.

Dated: September 24, 2000.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 00–26398 Filed 10–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[MT–921–01–1320–EL–P; MTM 88405]

Notice of Competitive Coal Lease

Offering by Sealed Bid

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Montana State Office

ACTION: Notice of competitive coal lease

offering by sealed bid MTM 88405.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the coal resources in the lands described

below in Big Horn County, Montana,

will be offered for competitive lease by

sealed bid. This offering is being made

as a result of an application filed by

Spring Creek Coal Company, in

accordance with the provisions of the

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as

amended (41 Stat. 437; 30 U.S.C. 181 et

seq.).

The lease sale will be held at 11:00

a.m., Monday, November 27, 2000, in

the main conference room, side B, at the

Bureau of Land Management, 5001

Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana

59102. Bids for the tract will be in the

form of sealed bids. Sealed bids clearly

marked ‘‘Sealed Bid for MTM 88405

Coal Sale—Not to be opened before

11:00 a.m., Monday, November 27,

2000’’ must be submitted on or before

10:00 a.m., November 27, 2000, to the

cashier, Bureau of Land Management,

Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate

Drive, Post Office Box 36800, Billings,

Montana 59107–6800.

An Environmental Assessment of the

proposed coal development and related

requirements for consultation, public

involvement, and hearings have been

completed in accordance with 43 CFR

3425. The results of these activities were

a finding of no significant

environmental impact. The coal resource to be offered

consists of all recoverable reserves in

the following-described lands:

T. 8 S., R. 39 E., P.M.M.

Sec. 13: SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4,

SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4

Sec. 14: S1⁄2SW1⁄4NE1⁄4SE1⁄4,

S1⁄2NE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4,

NW1⁄4NE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, S1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4,

NW1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4

Sec. 23: NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4,

N1⁄2SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4

Sec. 24: NW1⁄4SE1⁄4NW1⁄4NW1⁄4,

N1⁄2SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4

Containing 150.00 acres, Big Horn County,

Montana.

The tract in this lease offering

contains split estate lands. The surface

is not held by a qualified surface owner

as defined in the regulations, 43 CFR

3400.0–5.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The tract

will be leased to the qualified bidder of

the highest cash amount provided that

the high bid meets the fair market value

of the coal resource. The minimum bid

for the tract is $100 per acre or fraction

thereof. No bid that is less that $100 per

acre, or fraction thereof, will be

considered. The bids should be sent by

certified mail, return receipt requested,

or be hand-delivered. The cashier will

issue a receipt for each hand-delivered

bid. Bids received after 10:00 a.m.,

Monday, November 27, 2000, will not be

considered. The minimum bid is not

intended to represent fair market value.

The fair market value will be

determined by the authorized officer

after the sale.

If identical high bids are received, the

tying high bidders will be requested to

submit follow-up sealed bids until a

high bid is received. All tie-breaking

sealed bids must be submitted within 15

minutes following the Sale Official’s

announcement at the sale that identical

high bids have been received.

A lease issued as a result of this

offering will provide for payment of an

annual rental of $3 per acre, or fraction

thereof; and a royalty payable to the

United States of 12.5 percent of the

value of coal mined by surface methods

and 8.0 percent of the value of coal

mined by underground methods. The

value of the coal shall be determined in

accordance with 30 CFR 206.250.

Bidding instructions for the tract

offered and the terms and conditions of

the proposed coal lease are included in

the Detailed Statement of Lease Sale.

Copies of the statement and the

proposed coal lease are available at the

Montana State Office. Casefile MTM

88405 is also available for public

inspection at the Montana State Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bettie Schaff, Land Law Examiner or

Rebecca Good, Coal Coordinator at (406)

896–5063 or 896–5080, respectively.

Dated: October 11, 2000.

Randy D. Heuscher,

Chief, Branch of Solid Minerals.

[FR Doc. 00–26560 Filed 10–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–$$–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Lower St. Croix National Scenic

Riverway; Environmental Impact

Statement

AGENCY: National Park Service,

Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources, Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources.

ACTION: Notice of availability of the final

cooperative management plan/final

environmental impact statement for the

Lower St. Croix National Scenic

Riverway, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2) of

the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969, the National Park Service,

Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources, and Wisconsin Department

of Natural Resources announce the

availability of the final cooperative

management plan/final environmental

impact statement (FCMP/FEIS) for the

Lower St. Croix National Scenic

Riverway.

The purpose of the cooperative

management plan is to set forth the

basic management philosophy for the

riverway and to provide the strategies

for addressing issues and achieving