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



7639 



areas such as sanctuaries. 6sh and 

 wildlife management areas, hatcheries, 

 and refuges, and other aquatic sites such 

 as floodpiains. wetlands, mudflats, 

 vegetated shallows, coral reefs, riffles 

 and pools, and springs and seeps. 



3. Impact Assessment Principles 



a. Changes in &sh and wildlife 

 productivity or ecosystem structure and 

 function may not result in a biologically 

 adverse impact The determination as to 

 whether a biological change constitutes 

 an adverse impact for which mitigation 

 should be recommended is the 

 responsibility of the Sen.-ice and other 

 involved Federal and State resource 

 agencies. ^ 



b. The net biological impact of a 

 development proposal (or alternatives} 

 is the difference in predicted biological 

 conditions between the future with the 

 action and the future without the action. 

 If the future without the action cannot 

 be reasonably predicted and 

 documented by the project sponsor, then 

 the Service analysis should be based on 

 biological conditions that would be 

 expected to exist over the planning 

 period due to nattu'al species succession 

 or implementation of approved 

 restoration/improvement plans or 

 conditions which currentiy exist in the 

 planning area. 



c Service review of project impacts 

 will consider, whenever practicable: 



(1) The total long-term biological 

 impact of the project including any 

 secondary or indirect impacts regardless 

 of location: and (2) any cumulative 

 effects when viewed in the context of 

 existing or anticipated projects. 



d. The Habitat Evaluation ProceHures 

 will be used by the Service as a basic 

 tool for evaluating project impacts and 

 as a basis for formulating subsequent 

 recommendations for mitigation subject 

 to the exemptions in the Ecological 

 Services Manual (100 ESM 1). When the 

 Habitat Evaluation Procedures do not 

 apply, then other evaluation systems 

 may be used provided such use 

 conforms with policies provided herein. 



e. In those cases where instream 

 flows are an important determinant of 

 habitat value, consideration should be 

 given to the use of the Service's 

 Instream Flow Incremental Methodology 

 to develop instream flow mitigation 

 recommendations, where appropriate. 



f. Where specific impact evaluation 

 methods or mitigation technologies are 

 not available. Service employees shall 

 continue to apply their best professional 

 judgment to develop mitigation 

 recommendations. 



4. Mitigation Recommendations 



a. The Service may recommend 

 support of projects or other proposals 

 when the following criteria are met: 



(1) They are ecologically sound' 



(2) The least enviroimientally 

 damaging reasonable alternative is 

 selected: 



(3) Every reasonable effort is made to 

 avoid or minimize damage or loss of fish 

 and wildlife resources and uses: 



(4) All important recommended means 

 and measures have been adopted with 

 guaranteed implementation to 

 satisfactorily compensate for 

 unavoidable damage or loss consistent 

 with the appropriate mitigation goal; 

 and 



(5) For wetlands and shallow water 

 habitats, the proposed activity is clearly 

 water dependent and there is a 

 demonstrated public need. 



The Service may recommend the "no 

 project" alternative for those projects or 

 other proposals that do not meet all of 

 the above criteria and where there is 

 likely to be a significant fish and 

 wildlife resource loss. 



b. Recommendations will be 

 presented by the Service at the earliest 

 possible stage of project planning to 

 assure maximum consideration. The 

 Service will strive to provide mitigation 

 recommendations that represent the 

 best judgment of the Service, including 

 consideration of cost on the most 

 effective means and measures of 

 satisfactorily achieving the mitigation 

 planning goaL Such recommendations 

 will be developed in cooperation with 

 the Federal action agency or private 

 developer responsible for the project 

 whenever practicable, and will place 

 heavy reliance on cost estimates 

 provided by that Federal action agency 

 or private developer. 



& The Service will recommend that 

 the Federal action agency include 

 designated funds for all fish and wildlife 

 resource mitigation (including, but not 

 limited to. Service investigation costs, 

 initial development costs and continuing 

 operation, maintenance, replacement 

 and administrative costs] as part of the 

 initial and any alternative project plans 

 and that mitigation funds (as authorized 

 and appropriated by Congress for 

 Federal projects) be spent concurrently 

 and proportionately with overall project 

 construction and operation funds 

 throughout the life of the project 



Note. — ^Prevention of losses may 

 necessitate expenditure of funds at an earlier 

 stage of project planning. This is acceptable 

 and preferred. 



d. Service mitigation 

 recommendations will be made under an 

 explicit expectation that these means 

 and measures: (1) would be the ultimate 



responsibility of the appropriate Federal 

 action agency to implement or enforcer 

 and (2) would provide for a duration of 

 effectiveness for the life of the project 

 plus such-addiUonal time required for 

 the adverse effects of an abandoned 

 project to cease to occur. 



e. Land acquisition in fee title for the 

 purpose of compensation will be 

 recommended by the Service only imder 

 one or more of the following three 

 conditions: 



(1) When a change in ownership is 

 necessary to guarantee the future 

 conservation of the fish and wildlife 

 resource consistent with the mitigation 

 goal for the specific project area: or 



(2) When other means and measures 

 for mitigation (see Section 5 below] will 

 not compensate habitat losses 

 consistent with the mitigation goal for 

 the specific project area; or 



(3) When land acquisition in fee tide 

 is the most cost-effective means that 

 may partially or completely achieve the 

 mitigation goal for the specific project 

 area. 



Service recommendations for fee tide 

 land acquisition will seek to identify 

 mitigation lands viith marginal economic 

 potentiaL 



f. First priorit}- will be given to 

 recommendation of a mitigation site 

 within the planning area. Second 

 priority will be given to recommendation 

 of a mitigation site in pro.ximit}' to the 

 planning area within the same ecoregion 

 section. Third priority will be given to 

 recommendation of a mitigation site 

 elsewhere within the same ecoregion 

 section. 



g. Service personnel will fully support 

 a variefy of uses on mitigation lands 

 where such uses are compatible with 

 dominant fish and wildlife uses and. for 

 Federal wildlffe refuges, are consistent 

 with the provisions of the Refuge 

 Recreation Act and the National 

 Wildlife Refuge Administration Act 

 However, it may be in the best public 

 interest to recommend limiting certain 

 uses that would significantly decrease 

 habitat value for species of high public 

 interest In such cases, the Service may 

 recommend against such incompatible 

 uses. 



L Measures to increase recreation 

 values will not be recommended by 

 Service personnel to compensate for 

 losses of habitat value. Recreation use 

 losses not restored through habitat value 

 mitigation will be addressed through 

 separate and distinct recommended 

 measures to offset those specific losses. 



L The gtiidelines contained in this 

 policy do not apply to threatened or 

 endangered species. However, where 

 both habitat and endangered or 

 threatened species impacts are involved. 



