Feae^TR^ter / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday. January 23. 1981 / Notices 



7645 



1. RelatioDship of Servira Mitigation 

 PoUcy to Other Service Plaiming ^ 

 Activities. " - r— " - " i.3^-T»fe«3j&-i 





The final policy is de^^t^ iDsl 

 on its own. However, for a aeaxM'T£r: ' 

 perspective of the relationship'of tte ' 

 policy to the goals and ob|ectives'of the 

 VS. Fish and Wildlife ServiceTit can be 

 read vnth the Service Management Plan 

 and the Habitat Preservation Pro-am 

 Management Document -^Pi^^:^""-' 



The Service Management Plan' /. ^ . 

 describes the overall direction of die ' 

 Service and the intenelatidnships'bf the 

 four major categories, including Habitat 

 Preservatioa Wildlife Resources; "=^1. - 

 Fishery Resources, and Federal Aid- " 

 Endangered Spedes. "^vlv-i^^j»>.',"n;l' 



The Habitat PreservatfqnlSbgrain' '.. 

 Management Do<nmient outlines what 

 the Service will do over'a'brie; to five- 

 year period to ensioe^die^nservation 

 and proper management of fish and 

 wildlife habitat It provides guidance to 

 Service persomiel and other interested 

 parties on the goab, objectives, policies, 

 and strategies of the Habitat . • - — 

 Preservation Category of the U.S. Fish 

 and Wildlife Service. It includes a 

 discussion of important resource ','■ 

 problems that the Service believes 

 require priority attention, -jfi-'r 



2. Relationship of the Mitigation Policy 

 to any future Fish and Wildlife 

 Coordination Act (FWCA) Regulations 

 and the National Environmental Policy 

 Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) (NEPA). 



The Service jnit^ationTpolicy outlines 

 internal guidance.fpr Service personnel 

 for all investigations' and _2 

 recommendations for mitigation under 

 relevant Service authorities, including 

 the FWCA and NEPA. However, the 

 coverage of the policy is basically 

 different from that of any future FWCA 

 regulations as wasjetplained in the 

 preamble to the proposed policy 

 (September 9, 1980) (45 FR 59488-59494). 

 Any future FVyCAregnlations will 

 principally recommend procedures for 

 all affected agencies to ensure 

 compliance with that Act before and 

 after they receive fish and wildlife 

 agency recommendations. In coiitrast 

 the Service mitigatioii policy only 

 applies to Service peispimel and 

 outlines mitigation planning goals and 

 policies for impact analyses and 

 recommendations. '% j^^^i-S,^'-.- 



The relationship'of the mitigation 

 policy to NEPA requirements b also a 

 complementary one. The regulations 

 implementing NEPA (43 FR 55978-56007) 

 recognize "appropriate" mitigation 

 recommendations as an important 

 element of the rigorous ianalysis and 

 display of alternatives^ including the 



proposed action (40 CFR Part 1502.14). 

 ■ ITie NEPA regulations later specify that 

 Service impact analyses and mitigation 

 recommendations shall be used as input 

 to preparation of draft environmental 

 impact statements (DEIS) as foUows: 



"To the fullest extent possible, 

 agencies shall prepare draft 

 environmental impact statements 

 concurrendy with and integrated with 

 environmental impact analyses and 

 related surveys and studies required by 

 the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

 (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). the National 

 Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 

 U.S.C 470 et seq.). the Endangered 

 Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C 1531 et 

 seq.). and other environmental review 

 laws and executive orders." (40 CFR 

 1502.25(a)). 



These provisions provide clear 

 direction that NEPA requirements are 

 not duplicative of or substitute for 

 mitigation recommendations developed 

 under the Fish and Wildlife 

 Coordination Act and other Service 

 authorities. In fact the NEPA 

 regulations require that Service 

 recommendations be fully integrated 

 into the NEP.'\ process as vital 

 information necessary to comply with 

 NEPA 

 3. Focus of the Policy on Habitat Value. 



The policy covers impacts to fish and 

 wildlife populations, their habitat and 

 the human uses thereof. However, the 

 primary focus in terms of specific 

 guidance is on the mitigation of losses of 

 habitat value. Population estimates are 

 considered by many to be unreliable 

 indicators for evaluating fish and 

 wildlife impacts. Sampling errors, cyclic 

 fluctuations of populations and the lack 

 of time series data all contribute to the 

 problem. Therefore, the Service feels 

 that habitat value, by measuring 

 carrying capacity,' is a much better basis 

 for determining mitigation requirements. 

 However, the use of population 

 information is not foreclosed by the 

 policy. In fact concern for population 

 losses led to formulation of the "General 

 Policy" section to ". . . seek to 

 mitigate all losses of fish, wildlife, 

 theirhabitat and uses thereof . . ."The 

 Service agrees that mitigation of 

 population losses is a necessary aspect 

 of this policy, for example, when habitat 

 value is not affected but migration 

 routes are blocked off as in the case of 

 dam construction on a salmon river. 



Mitigation of human use losses of fish 

 and wnldlife resources is also a 

 necessary aspect of the policy. 

 However, if mitigation of habitat value 

 occurs, then in the majority of cases, 

 losses of human use are also minimized. 

 But in some cases, public access to the 



resource may be cut off by the project 

 and significant recreational or 

 commercial benefits may be lost 



In those cases where mitigation of 

 habitat value is not deemed adequate 

 for losses of fish and wildlife 

 populations or human uses, the Service 

 will seek to mitigate such losses in 

 accordance with the general principles 

 and concepts presented in the policy. 

 However, in the majority of cases, the 

 Service feels that mitigation of impacts 

 on habitat values will assure a 

 continuous supply of fish and wildlife 

 populations and human use 

 opportunities. 



The Service has recently revised and 

 updated its Habitat Evaluation 

 Procedures (HEP). It can be used, where 

 appropriate, to determine mitigation 

 needs based on habitat value losses. In 

 some cases, the project may not be 

 deemed appropriate for applying the 

 methodology as in the case of activities 

 conducted on the high seas under the 

 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing 

 program. In such cases, the use of other 

 . methods to describe habitat value 

 impacts is clearly acceptable, including 

 the best professional judgment of 

 Service biologists. Other limitations 

 related to the use of HEP are outlined in 

 the Ecological Services Manual (100 

 ESM 1). The HEP are available upon 

 request from the Chief. Division of 

 Ecological Services. U.S. Fish and 

 WildliJFe Service. Department of the 

 Interior, Washington. D.C 20240. 



4. Acre for Acre Loss Replacement Is 

 Not Necessarily Recommended by the 

 Policy. 



As explained above, the policy 

 focuses on habitat value. The habitat 

 value of an acre of habitat can vary 

 considerably depending on the type of 

 vegetation and other physical, biological 

 or chemical features. Service 

 recommendations, therefore, will be 

 based on the habitat value adversely 

 impacted, as opposed to strictly acreage. 

 For example, loss of one acre of a 

 specific type of wetland might result in 

 recommendations for replacement of 

 less than one acre of a different type of 

 wetland of greater habitat value. If the 

 habitat value of the weUand available 

 for replacement was equal to that lost 

 then recommendations could be on an 

 acre-for-acre basis. 



5. Rationale for Mitigation Planning 

 Goals. 



In developing this policy, it was 

 agreed that the fundamental principles 

 guiding mitigation are: 1) that avoidance 

 or compensation be recommended for 

 the most valued resources; and 2) that 

 the degree of mitigation requested 



U 



