7658 



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



b. Mitigation Goal 



No Net Loss of In-Kind Habitat Value. 



c Guideline 



The Service will recommend ways to 

 avoid or minimize losses. If losses are 

 likely to occur, then the Service will 

 recommend ways to immediately rectify 

 them or reduce or eliminate them over 

 time. If losses remain likely to occur, 

 then the Service will recommend that 

 those losses be compensated by 

 replacement of the same kind of habitat 

 value so that the total loss of such in- 

 kind habitat value will be eliminated. 



SpeciBc ways to achieve this planning 

 goal include: (1) physical modification of 

 replacement habitat to convert it to the 

 same type lost: (2) restoration or 

 rehabilitation of previously altered 

 habitat: (3) increased management of 

 similar replacement habitat so that the 

 in-kind value of the lost habitat is 

 replaced, or [4] a combination of these 

 measures. By replacing habitat value 

 losses with similar habitat values. 

 populations of species associated with 

 that habitat may remain relatively 

 stable in the area over time. This is 

 generally referred to as in-kind 

 replacement. 



Exceptions: An exception can be 

 made to this planning goal when: (1) 

 different habitats and species available 

 for replacement are detemined to be of 

 greater value than those Iosl or (2) in- 

 kind replacement is not physically or 

 biologically attainable in the ecoregion 

 section. In either case, replacement 

 involving different habitat kinds may be 

 recommended provided that the total 

 value of the habitat lost is recommended 

 for replacement (see the guideline for 

 Category 3 mitigation beloiv). 



RESOURCE CATEGORY 3 



a. Designation Criteria 



Habitat to be impacted is of high to 

 medium value for evaluation species 

 and is relatively abundant on a national 

 basis. 



b. Mitigation Goal 



No Net Loss of Habitat Value While 

 Minimizing Loss of In-Kind Habitat 

 Value. 



c Guideline 



The Service will recommend ways to 

 avoid or minimize losses. If losses are 

 likely to occur, then the Service will 

 recommend ways to immediately rectify 

 them or reduce or eliminate them over 

 time. If losses remain likely to occur, 

 then the Service will recommend that 

 those losses be compensated by 

 replacement of habitat value so that the 

 total loss of habitat value will be 

 eliminated. 



It is preferable, in most cases, to 

 recommend ways to replace such 

 habitat value losses in-kind. However, if 

 the Service determines that in-kind 

 replacement is no.t desirable or possible, 

 then other specific ways to achieve this * 

 planning goal include: (1) substituting 

 different kinds of habitats, or (2) 

 increasing management of di^erent 

 replacement habitats so that the value 

 of the lost habitat is replaced. By 

 replacing habitat value losses with 

 different habitats or increasing 

 management of different habitats, 

 populations of species will be dinerent 

 depending on the ecological attributes of 

 the replacement habitat This will result 

 in no net loss of total habitat value, biit 

 may result in significant differences in 

 fish and wildlife populations. This is 

 generally referred to as out-of-kind 

 replacement 



RESOLTICE CATEGORY 4 



a. Designation Criteria 



Habitat to be impacted is of medium 

 to low value for evaluation spedes. 



b. Mitigation Goal 



Minimize Loss of Habitat Value. 



c Guideline 



The Service ^vill recommend ways to 

 avoid or minimize losses. If losses are 

 likely to occur, then the Service will 

 recommend ways to immediately recuiy 

 them or reduce or eliminate them over 

 time. If losses remain likely to occur, 

 then the Service may make a 

 reconmiendation for compensation, 

 depending on the significance of the 

 potential loss. 



However, because these areas possess 

 relatively low habitat values, they will 

 likely exhibit the greatest potential for 

 significant habitat value improvements. 

 Service personnel wrill fully investigate 

 these areas' potential for improvement 

 since they could be used to mitigate 

 Resource Category 2 and 3 losses. 



C Mitigation Planning Policies 



1. Slate-Federal Partnership 



a. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 will fully coordinate activities with 

 those State agencies responsible for fish 

 and wildlife resources, the National 

 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and 

 the Environmental Protection Agency 

 (EPA) related to the investigation of 

 project proposals and development of 

 mitigation recommendations for 

 resources of concern to the State. NMFS 

 or EP.\. 



b. Service personnel will place special 

 emphasis on working with State 

 agencies responsible for fish and 

 wildlife resources. NMFS and EP.-\ to 



develop compatible approaches and to 

 avoid duplication of efforts. 



2. Resource Category Detenninations 



a. The Service will make Resource 

 Category determinations as part of the 

 mitigation planning process. Such 

 determinations wiU be made early in the 

 planning process and transmitted to the 

 Federal action agencj* or private 

 developer to aid them in tiieir project 

 planning, to the e.x'ent practicable. 



b. Resource Category determinations 

 will be made through consultation and 

 coordination with State agencies 

 responsible for fish and wildlife 

 resources and other Federal resource 

 agencies, particularly the National 

 Marine Fisheries Ser.ice and the 

 Environmental Protection Agenc>% 

 whenever resources of concern to those 

 groups are involved. Where other 

 elements of the public, including 

 development groups, have information 

 that can assist in making such 

 determinations, the Ser/ice will 

 welcome such information. 



c. All Resource Category 

 determinations will contain a technical 

 rationale consistent with the designation 

 criteria. The rationale will: (i) outline 

 the reasons why the evaluation species 

 were selected; (2) discuss the value of 

 the habitat to the evaluation species: 

 and (3) discuss and contrast the reladve 

 scarcity of the fish and wildlife resource 

 on a national and ecoregion section 

 basis. 



Note. — If the State agency responsible for 

 fish and wildlife resources wishes to outline 

 scarcity on a more local basis. L'3. Fish asd 

 Wildlife Service personnel should assist is 

 developing such rationale, whenever 

 practicable. 



d. When funding. persoimeL and 

 available information make it 

 practicable, specific geographic areas or. 

 alternatively, specific habitat types that 

 comprise a given Resource Category 

 shoiild be designated in advance of 

 development Priority for predesignation 

 will be placed on those areas that are of 

 high value for evaluation spedes and 

 are subject to development pressure in 

 the near future. Such predesignations 



ca I be used by developers or regulators 

 tc determine the least valuable areas for 

 u:.e in project planning and siting 

 considerations. 



e. The following examples should be 

 given special consideration as either 

 Resource Category 1 or 2: 



(1) Certain habitats within Service- 

 identified Important Resource Problem 

 (IRP) areas. Those ERPs dealing with 

 threatened or endangered species are 

 not covered by this policy. (See Scope) 



(2) Special aquatic and terrestrial sites 

 including legally designated or set-aside 



