7652 



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



in-kind replacement is preferred for 

 Resource Category 3. 



Comment: The mitigation goal for 

 Resource Category 3 should emphasize 

 that in-kind habitat value replacement is 

 preferable to out-of-kind replacement 



Response: We agree. This point has 

 been brought out in the final policy 

 statement 



Comment- Although out-of-kind 

 replacement is acceptable for Resource 

 Category 3 losses and. under certain 

 drcimistances, may be accepted for 

 Resource Category 2 losses, the policy 

 should advise against replacement of 

 rare habitat types for more common 

 habitat types. 



Response: We agree with the 

 commentor's point and expect that 

 Service field personnel will recommend 

 mitigation alternatives that incorporate 

 this concept to the extent practicable. 

 The Service is entirely in favor of 

 preserving and/or promoting habitat 

 diversity. No changes were necessary. 



• Resource Categories 4 and 3 



Comment: Compensation should be 

 included as a means for satisfying the 

 mitigation goal for Resource Category 4. 



Response: Appropriate language 

 changes have been made to allow for 

 such recommendations. 



Comment: Habitats encompassed by 

 Resource Categories 4 and 5 are the only 

 areas wherein significant increases in 

 fish and wildlife can be realized through 

 habitat improvement Yet the mitigation 

 goals for these categories allow 

 continual loss of these areas which 

 possess great potential for 

 improvements in carrying capacity. 



Response: The Service appreciates the 

 significance of areas with relatively low 

 existing habitat values with respect to 

 their potential for carrying capacity 

 improvements. In fact the Service may 

 recommend improvement of these areas' 

 habitat values to mitigate for 

 unavoidable losses in Resource 

 Categories 2 and 3. In addition, where 

 these areas are included in a project 

 planning area and are not appropriate 

 for mitigation efforts, the Service will 

 recommend that all opportunities for 

 enhancement of these areas be 

 thoroughly considered and included in 

 project plans, where practicable. 



We have amended the policy to 

 include the above guidance. 



Comment Resource Category 5 is 

 confusing and unnecessary. All habitat 

 has some value, no matter how low. It 

 should be redefined or deleted. 



Response: We agree. This resource 

 category has be^n deleted from the final 

 policy. 



C Mitigadon Pianning Pioceduies 



1. Mitigation Goals 



Comment: Developers. Federal 

 resource agencies, and the public should 

 participate with the Service and State 

 agencies in making Resource Category 

 determinations and in developing 

 mitigation proposals. 



Response: Developers, as well as 

 other members of the public may 

 provide information that will assist the 

 Service in making Resource Category 

 determinations. This opportunity has 

 been noted in the final policy statement 

 Moreover, where these parties* inputs 

 will significandy aid in development of 

 mitigation proposals that will 

 adequately satisfy mitigation planning 

 goals, the Service will welcome their 

 input 



Comment It is hoped that 

 reclassification of habitats in Resource 

 Category 3 to Resource Categories 2 or 1 

 can be readily employed if and when 

 certain habitats become more scarce. 



Response: Resource Category 

 determinations are made on the basis of 

 conditions likely to occur without the 

 project If those conditions later change, 

 the Resource Category of a given habitat 

 can be redetermined. 



However, once a mitigation plan in 

 connection with a given project has 

 been agreed upon, the U.S. Fish and 

 Wildlife Service will not provide new or 

 additional recommendations except 

 under limited circumstances as outlined 

 in the policy under the scope section. 



2. Impact Assessment Methods 



Comment The policy does not appear 

 to recognize that development activities 

 may also show positive environmental 

 effects. For example, cleared spaces 

 beneath power lines can provide 

 browsing areas for wildlife. Such 

 positive effects should be factored into 

 the mitigation assessment process. 



Response: We agree. This point has 

 been included in the final policy 

 statement The final policy further, 

 indicates that the Service and other 

 State and Federal resource agencies 

 shall make the determination of whether 

 a biological change constitutes a 

 beneficial or adverse impact However, 

 when detennining mitigation needs for a 

 pl annin g area, the Service will utilize 

 these policy guidelines to determine 

 whether these positive effects can be 

 applied towards mitigation. 



Comment The draft policy indicates 

 "no net loss" as a goal for certain 

 Resource Categories but it is imclear in 

 defining the time period allowed to 

 restore the land to its original value as 

 in the case of strip mining operations. 

 Maintenance of "no net loss" throughout 



the life of a long-term operation is not 

 possible. 



Response: The policy states that the 

 net biological impact of a specific 

 project proposal is the difference in 

 predicted habitat value between the 

 future with the action and the future 

 without the action. This is based on the 

 procedures established by the Water 

 Resources Council's Principles and 

 Standards. The future with the project 

 determination includes consideration of 

 losses during the life of the project 

 Under the policy, if the disturbed habitat 

 is of sufficient value for evaluation 

 species to warrant a Resource Category 

 2 or 3 level determination, the Service 

 will provide recommendations for "no 

 net loss" over the life of the project The 

 ability of the project sponsor to achieve 

 this goal depends on many factors that 

 cannot be predicted in advance. In many 

 cases, it will be possible to achieve this 

 goaL No change was necessary. 



Comment TTie with and without 

 analyses should make allowances for 

 human activities and natural species 

 successions which can reasonably be 

 expected to take place in the project 

 area. 



Response: We agree. Appropriate 

 changes have been made in this policy. 



Comment Many commentors 

 disagreed with the emphasis placed on 

 the Habitat Evaluation Procedures 

 [HEP) within the Service policy 

 statement Some commentors felt it 

 should be de-emphasized, whereas 

 others felt it deserved further emphasis. 



Response: Although references to the 

 more technical aspects of HEP have 

 been deleted, the methodology itself 

 remains one of the Service's more 

 important impact assessment tools. The 

 policy does not recommend exclusive 

 use of HEP. since time or resource 

 contraints may, in some cases, show 

 alternative methods to be more 

 practical Where HEP habitat value 

 assessments do not fully capture 

 important biological characteristics 

 within a pl annin g area. Service 

 personnel will use supplemental data, 

 methodologies, and/or professional 

 judgment to develop appropriate 

 mitigation proposals. 



Comment What are the "other habitat 

 evaluation systems" alluded to in the 

 policy's section on impact assessment 

 methods? This reference is very vague. 



Response: Other systems can include 

 the Habitat Evaluation System (HES) 

 developed by the Department of the 

 Army, and the Instream Flow 

 Incremental Methodology [IFIM] of the 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

 Additional systems are referenced by 

 the Water Resources Council in a draft 

 document entitled, "Analysis of 



