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



7633 



Wetland Evaluation Procedures" and 

 other publications. This information is 

 not appropriate for inclusion into the 

 policy so no change was made. 



Comment: If other methodologies are 

 found to be more appropriate for use 

 than the Instream Flow Incremental 

 Methodology (IFIM} for measuring flow 

 impacts, they should be used. 



Response: We agree. The final policy 

 does state, however, that consideration 

 should be given to the use of the IFIM. 



Comment: Hopefully, this policy will 

 stop the piecemeal destruction of 

 valuable habitat especially in areas like 

 the Florida Keys where insidious lot-by- 

 lot development continues in low 

 wetland sites with the concurrence of 

 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 



Response: The Service does not 

 concur with piecemeal development 

 where significant resource losses will 

 occur. Cumulative impacts are 

 addressed by this policy. The Service is 

 sensitive to this loss of habitat and will 

 seek mitigation consistent with this 

 policy. No change was necessary. 



Comment Population information 

 should be included as an additional 

 factor in determining mitigation 

 requirements. 



Response: We agree. Although 

 population mitigation was an implicit 

 part of the proposed policy, further 

 language clarifying this point has been 

 added to the final policy statement 



Comment: Professional judgment 

 should be used as an alternative method 

 for assessing project impacts. 



Response: We agree tnat this is a 

 valuable method that has been in use for 

 many years. It is difficult to improve on 

 informed and considered scientific 

 judgment by an expert The Service will 

 continue to rely heavily on this 

 approach. The policy was changed to 

 reflect this emphasis. 



3. Mitigation Recommendations 



Comment Service recommendations 

 should be timely. 



Response: The proposed and final 

 policy specifically require Service 

 personnel to present mitigation 

 recommendations '* * * * at the earliest 

 possible stage of project planning to 

 assure maximum consideration.'' This 

 point has been echoed throughout 

 Service management documents. Service 

 personnel can generally provide timely 

 guidance provided developers make a 

 point of notifying them of proposed 

 projects still in the planning stage and 

 provided Federal action agencies supply 

 sufficient transfer funding with which to 

 conduct environmental investigations. 

 Under Section 2(e] of the Fish and 

 WUdlife Coordination Act Federal 

 action agencies are authorized to 



. transfer funds to the Service " * * * as 

 may be necessary to conduct all or part 

 of the investigations required to carry 

 out the purposes of * * * (Section 2 of 

 the Act)." The Service uses these 

 transfer funds to conduct project- 

 specific investigations. 



Comment Requiring field biologists to 

 consider cost-effectiveness in providing 

 mitigation recommendations is beyond 

 their capability and may conflict with 

 the lead agencies' role as the determiner 

 of overall public interest Habitat 

 protection should be a higher priority 

 than cost-effectiveness. 



Response: The proposed policy did 

 not require a cost-effectiveness analysis 

 by Service biologists in a formal sense. 

 We fully agree that Service personnel 

 must perceive their responsibility to be 

 analysis and recommendations based on 

 the biological aspects of project 

 proposals. There is no intent to require 

 Service biologists to do a formal 

 economic analysis for which they are 

 not trained nor for which there is clear 

 legislative direction. However, the 

 Service has a responsibility to the public 

 to give consideration to cost while 

 recommending ways to conserve fish 

 and wildlife. The policy has been 

 changed to reflect this need for 

 consideration of other factors. 



Comment The Federal action agency 

 should have the option of non-Service 

 expertise to develop mitigation . 

 measures in those instances where the 

 Service cannot meet lead agency 

 program requirements. 



Response: Although the Service 

 cannot prevent other agencies from 

 utilizing biological expertise from non- 

 Federal sources to develop mitigation 

 plans, the Fish and Wildlife 

 Coordination Act specifically authorizes 

 the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a 

 report and recommendations on the fish 

 and wildlife aspects of projects, 

 including mitigation. This report and 

 recommendations are to receive "full 

 consideration" by the development 

 agency. If the Federal action agency 

 involves the Service early and provides 

 sufficient transfer funds, then the 

 Service should be able to meet their 

 needs. No change in the policy was 

 necessary. 



Comment Several mitigation 

 proposals should be prepared for each 

 alternative structural or non-structural 

 plan. 



Response: The Service is willing to 

 prepare multiple proposals provided 

 funds and time are available. 



Comment Some commentors felt that 

 concurrent and proportionate funding of 

 mitigation may not always lead to 

 optimal mitigation and should not be a 

 rigid requirement Other commentors 



strongly supported concurrent and 

 proportionate f unnin g. 



Response: The Water Resources 

 Council's Principles and Standards 

 require " * * "at least concurrent and 

 proportionate implementation with other 

 major project features, except where 

 such concurrent and proportionate 

 mitigation is physically impossible" 

 (emphasis added}. 



We agree with the Council, and 

 endorse expenditure of funds at an 

 earlier stage of project pl annin g when 

 this will lead to more effective 

 mitigation. Appropriate changes to the 

 policy on this matter have been made. 



Comment Mitigation costs should 

 include the cost of managing the 

 acquired land for the life of the project 

 and the value of present and future 

 timber and crops on acquired land. In 

 addition, an environmental benefit/cost 

 analysis should be developed for each 

 project and Coi^ress should not 

 authorize a project unless the project 

 plan includes the proposed mitigation 

 program and all its costs, including the 

 cost of lost timber productivity and 

 other resources. 



Response: Costing of projects is 

 determined by the Water Resource 

 Council's Principles and Standards and 

 is therefore beyond the jurisdiction of 

 this policy. We point out that Service 

 policy does not preclude timber harvest 

 or other resource recovery operations on 

 mitigation lands when the activity is 

 compatible with fish and wildlife 

 management objectives. 



Comment The Service mitigation 

 policy should more clearly note that fee- 

 simple land acquisition should be a 

 measure of last resort 



Response: The policy statement has 

 undergone further modification to more 

 clearly stress the conditions when land 

 acquisition is to be recommended by 

 Service personneL In the future, the 

 Service wiU place far greater emphasis 

 on developing mitigation 

 recommendations Qiat avoid, minimize, 

 or rectify impacts in order to reduce the 

 need for compensation lands. 

 Amplification of this point may be seen 

 in the section on mitigation planning 

 procedures. 



Comment U some interest in land 

 must be acquired, areas of marginal 

 productivity should be considered first 

 Such underdeveloped land would 

 benefit from better management of its 

 productive capacity and respond more 

 vigorously than land already at higher 

 levels of production. 



Response: We agree that special 

 consideration should be given to 

 marginal lands, and have changed the 

 policy accordingly. . 



