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



7651 



subject to interpretation by the Service 

 field personneL 



Response: It would be 

 counterproductive, if not impossible, for 

 a national policy to be worded as 

 precisely as the commentor suggests and 

 still be implemented in a reasonable 

 manner under numerous and diverse 

 local drcimistances. Words used to 

 describe resource categories and 

 mitigation goals do have generally 

 understood meanings. It is essential that 

 field personnel be allowedto exercise 

 professional judgment in applying 

 resource categories and mitigation goals 

 to specific activities. However, 

 numerous clarifying changes were made 

 based on the comments to increase 

 comprehension and understanding. 



Comment- It is essential to other 

 agencies' review to know what general 

 types of habitat will be most important 

 in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 mitigation policy. At a miniTnnm, some 

 examples of the types of habitat within 

 each category should be given. 



Response: The final policy does give 

 guidance on areas that will be generally 

 considered for Resource Category 1 or 2. 

 Providing examples for all resource 

 categories could be misleading since the 

 same type of habitat may fall into 

 several different resource categories, 

 depending on. among other factors, its 

 relative scarcity and qualify &om one 

 locale to another across the nation. 



On the other hand, field professioneds 

 are generally familiar with the qualify 

 and abundance of a given type of 

 habitat that is in their area, so it is 

 preferable not to burden them with 

 potentially inappropriate guidelines of 

 this nature. 



Comment The policy should clearly 

 distinguish between upland habitats and 

 the more valuable wetland habitats. 



Response: In some cases, upland 

 habitats may be determined to have 

 resource values equal to or greater than 

 wetland habitats, so a policy that solely 

 favored one habitat type over the other 

 would not be in the best public interest 

 However, the policy has been changed 

 to indicate that certain habitats within 

 Service-identified Important Resource 

 Problems (IRPs] and special aquatic 

 sites should be given special 

 consideration as Resource Category 1 or 

 2. The IRPs contain a predominance of 

 wetland coastal areas. 



Comment' If you build something in a 

 habitat it just changes it to another 

 habitat that some other animal or fish 

 lives in — including the human being, 

 although the Service does not seem to 

 appreciate that For example, if you 

 build a highway, it is bad for dogs, 

 rabbits, opossums and field rats and 

 such that get run over by cars and 



trucks, but it is good for crows and 

 buzzards that eat dead meat 



Response: The Service has not come 

 across many instances where crows and 

 buzzards could be considered scarce, 

 but when such a circiunstance can be 

 documented and verified, the Service 

 will certainly try to protect and enhance 

 valuable highway habitat 



• Resource Category 1 



Comment: A literal interpretation of 

 the Resource Category 1 mitigation goal 

 would require absolutely no habitat 

 loss — not even a nature traiL Resource 

 Category 1 should be deleted. 



Response: Not all environmental 

 changes are adverse to the habitat of a 

 fish and wildlife resource. If a nature 

 trail resulted in an insignificant impact 

 on habitat value that was determined 

 not to be adverse, then the Service 

 would not recommend against it The 

 policy has been clarified to reflect this 

 point 



Comment- Endangered and threatened 

 species should be included as part of 

 Resource Category 1. 



Response: It would be inappropriate 

 to expand the scope of the Mitigation 

 PoUcy to include threatened and 

 endangered species. The treatment of 

 these species is addressed in an 

 extensive body of compIe.x and detailed 

 legislation and regulation. The Congress 

 has legislated very specific and precise 

 law with regard to threatened and 

 endangered species. Inclusion of these 

 species under this policy would only 

 confuse the issue and compound the 

 difficulties involved in implementation 

 of the Endangered Spedes Act and its 

 associated regidations. Other reasons 

 are discussed in the scope section of the 

 final policy. 



Comment For all practical piuposes. 

 Resource Categories 1 and 2 adopt a "no 

 growth" policy. 



Response: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service is not advocating a "no growth" 

 mitigation policy. The means and 

 measures to achieve mitigation for 

 Resource Categories 1 and 2 are 

 designed to provide some flexibilify so 

 that limited growth can occur in an 

 environmentally prudent manner. The 

 policy reflects the national consensus 

 that some habitats are of exceptional 

 public value and should be carefully 

 conserved, as evidenced in the Wild and 

 Scenic Rivers Act (Pub. L 90-542). the 

 Wilderness Act (Pub. L 88-577). and the 

 National Trails System Act (Pub. L 94- 

 527). 



• Resource Category 2 



Comment It is ill-advised to support 

 in-kind replacement involving trading 

 habitat for lesser value habitat which is 



then improved to support the species 

 affected by the project It takes too long, 

 and in the meantime, populations, 

 supported by the habitat on the project 

 site are lost 



Response: If the period required for 

 improving the replacement habitat to the 

 appropriate condition was exceedingly 

 long, this may be one indication that the 

 habitat at risk was unique or 

 irreplaceable and actually belonged in 

 Resource Category 1. In that case in-kind 

 replacement through improvement of 

 lesser qualify habitat would be an 

 inappropriate mitigation 

 recommendation. Also, additional 

 measures aimed at population 

 restoration could be recommended to 

 restock the area, provided suitable 

 habitat was available to support the 

 stocked spedes. No changes were made. 



Comment One commenter was 

 perturbed by an apparenUy rigid 

 insistence by the policy of in-kind 

 replacement of lost habitat The 

 commentor pointed out that there could 

 be occasions in which in-kind habitat 

 was not available to a project sponsor. 



Response: The policy guideline for 

 Resource Category 2 indudes an 

 exception when "* * • in-kind 

 replacement is not physically or 

 biologically attainable". No change was 

 necessary. 



Comment The policy appears to insist 

 upon "acre-for-acre" replacement of in- 

 kind habitat 



Response: The policy does not insist 

 on "acre-for-acre" replacement of in- 

 kind habitat The mitigation planning 

 goals involving in-kind replacement 

 specifically ask for replacement of in- 

 kind habitat value. This point has been 

 further darified in the definitions 

 section, throughout the policy, and in the 

 policy preamble. 



• Resource Category 3 



CommentThe mitigation goal for 

 Resource Category 3 is not authorized 

 by law and will be difficult to implement 

 due to professional disagreement on 

 satisfactory achievement 



Response: Under the Fish and Wildlife 

 Coordination Act the Service has the 

 responsibilify to recommend 

 compensation for the loss of fish and 

 wildlife resources. The Act does not 

 restrict compensation to in-kind 

 compensation. By recommending out-of- 

 kind compensation under certain 

 circumstances, the Service increases the 

 range of options that developers may 

 use to mitigate project impacts to 

 indude development and improvement 

 of marginal resources different from 

 those lost However, modifications have 

 been made in the policy to indicate that 



