7650 



Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday. January 23. 1981 / Notices 



our legislative mandates, operate under 

 time and money constraints, and assist 

 in maximizing overall social well-being. 

 The basic concept therefore, is 

 unchanged in the final policy, although 

 minor changes were made to improve 

 understanding based on the comments. 



Comment Rather than rely on strict 

 inflexible mitigation goals, the Service 

 should use "tradeoS" evaluation 

 procedures in developing mitigation 

 proposals. 



Response: It is the responsibility of 

 the Federal action agency to use 

 tradeoff evaluation procedures 

 consistent with the Water Resources 

 Council's Principles and Standards, 

 where applicable, to select a mitigation 

 alternative that will assist in maximizing 

 overall project benefits. The Fish and 

 Wildlife Coordination Act specifies that 

 "the project plan shall include such 

 justifiable means and measures for 

 wildlife purposes as the reporting 

 agency (emphasis added) finds should 

 be adopted to obtain maximum overall 

 project benefits." The role of the Service 

 is to represent those public trust 

 resources under its jurisdiction. The 

 proposed policy outlined a system 

 wherein the highest valued resources 

 would be subject to the most protective 

 mitigation recommendations. Few, if 

 any, commentors have disagreed with 

 this valuation perspective. Therefore, no 

 changes were made. 



However, many commentors have 

 questioned the reasonableness of a 

 seemingly uncompromising system that 

 did not appear to allow occasional 

 deviations from these goals. 



The system is not rigid. As stated in 

 the Purpose section of the policy, the 

 policy advice will be used as guidance 

 for Service personnel, but variations 

 appropriate to individual circumstances 

 are permitted. 



Comment Numerous commentors 

 raised the issue of the somewhat 

 subjective nature of identifying certain 

 species as "important" for the purposes 

 of the policy. In addition, commentors 

 indicated that such distinctions coidd 

 lead to mis-classification of habitats in 

 terms of resource categories and that 

 clear criteria were needed. Finally, 

 many commentors felt that the artificial 

 distinction of certain species as 

 "important" was both a violation of the 

 public trust and Service legal 

 authorities. 



Response: People perceive some 

 spedes to be more important than 

 others. In the context of biology and 

 ecology, all species are important 

 serving a useful purpose within the 

 confines of their biological niche. The 

 mitigation policy must address both the 

 needs and desires of human society and 



the ecosystem perspective. This is a 

 difficult task. But human decisions 

 concerning fish and wildlife resources in 

 the face of a development action require 

 judgment about the values of what will 

 be lost and the need to avoid or 

 minimize and compensate for loss of 

 such values. 



The specific criteria for such 

 determinations are also exceedingly 

 difficult to frame in a National policy 

 context The importance of a species to 

 society depends on a complex, changing 

 mix of factors. The importance of a 

 species within an ecosystem is also 

 subject to many dynamic factors. But 

 human decisions about the level and 

 type of mitigation necessary for 

 development actions must be made in 

 the absence of perfect information 

 concerning these factors. In addition, the 

 Service biologist reviewing project 

 impacts has severe constraints on the 

 number of species and ecosystem 

 linkages that can be analyzed given 

 funding, personnel and time limitations. 

 Somehow, choices must be made. 



We have deleted the term "important 

 species" from the policy and replaced it 

 with a more precise term, "evaluation 

 species." The criteria for selection of 

 evaluation species still includes those 

 species of high resource value to 

 humans or that represent a broader 

 ecological perspective of an area. Other 

 changes have been made related to the 

 determination of resource categories to 

 allow for additional public input and 

 resource agency coordination into such 

 determinations, where appropriate. 



The effect of this change is not 

 intended and shall not be interpreted to 

 broaden the scope or extent of 

 application of this policy. But it does 

 remove the implication that spedes can 

 be ranked against each other in terms of 

 their overall importance to sodety. 

 which many considered quite beyond 

 the capability of human beings. 



Comment The wording of the policy 

 should dearly indicate that spedes 

 selected for analysis should only be 

 those demonstrated to actually utilize an 

 area. 



Response: We agree, except for 

 situations where fish and wildlife 

 restoration or improvement plans have 

 been approved by State or Federal 

 resource agendes. In that case the 

 analysis vtrill indude spedes identiBed 

 in such plans. Appropriate darification 

 has been added to the definition of 

 evaluation spedes. 



Comment The proper focus of the 

 policy should be the ecosystem rather 

 than particular species. 



Response: Aside from the very real 

 technical problems of applying a 

 complex concept such as the ecosystem 



to mitigation planning, the authorities 

 underlying this policy deal with fish and 

 wildlife and their habitat rather than 

 ecosystems. - 



Ecosystems are addressed under this 

 policy in two ways. First one criterion 

 in the selection of an evaluation spedes 

 is the biological importance of the 

 spedes to the functioning of its 

 ecosystem. Secondly, when habitat loss 

 is mitigated, the part of the ecosystem 

 comprising that habitat is itself 

 protected. No changes have been made. 



Comment Recreational use losses 

 may at times have to be directiy 

 mitigated. The goal statements should 

 reflect this need. 



Response: We agree. Appropriate 

 changes were made. 



Comment In addition to assessing 

 conditions of scardty from a 

 biogeographical viewpoint Le.. 

 ecoregions, the policy should also use 

 geopolitical subdivisions. e.g.. state 

 botmdaries. 



Response: As a Federal agency, the 

 Service perceives its major 

 responsibility to be to protect those fish 

 and wildlife and their habitat that are 

 valuable and scarce on a national level, 

 whether or not they transcend state 

 boundaries. However, should State 

 resource agencies wish to outline 

 relative scarcity on a more local basis.' 

 Service personnel would certainly 

 assist whenever practicable. This point 

 has been added to the policy. 



CommentThe policy should scale the 

 relative need to achieve a particular 

 mitigation goal to the degree a particular 

 habitat will be impacted. For example, if 

 a half-acre of important habitat is 

 affected by a project and it is part of a 

 one-acre plot this circumstance should 

 lead to a mitigation recommendation 

 different from the situation where the 

 same half-acre is part of a ten thousand 

 acre area. As drafted, the policy does 

 not reflect the differences in these 

 situations. 



Response: The Purpose section of the 

 policy states that it will be used as 

 guidance for Service personnel but 

 variations appropriate to individual 

 circumstances will be permitted. The 

 relative need to achieve a particular 

 mitigation goal depends primarily on the 

 perceived value of the habitat its 

 scarcity, and the replaceability of the 

 threatened habitat Other factors, such 

 as scaling considerations, can combine 

 to modify this general Service 

 perspective on what constitutes 

 appropriate mitigation. 



Comment The resource categories 

 and mitigation goals are general, lack 

 definition, and provide no guidance on 

 habitat value. These categories are aU 



