36472 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.); Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 661– 

667(e)); and National Environmental 

Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.). 

Dated: July 24, 2018. 

Gregory J. Sheehan, 

Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16171 Filed 7–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Chapter I 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2015–0126]; 

[FXHC11220900000–156–FF09E33000] 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mitigation Policy 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Policy; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce we 

are withdrawing the Mitigation Policy 

published November 21, 2016, which 

guides Service recommendations on 

mitigating the adverse impacts of land 

and water developments on fish, 

wildlife, plants, and their habitats. In 

our document of November 6, 2017, we 

requested additional public comments 

regarding this policy’s overall mitigation 

planning goal of net conservation gain. 

We are now withdrawing this policy as 

it is no longer appropriate to retain the 

‘‘net conservation gain’’ standard 

throughout various Service-related 

activities and is inconsistent with 

current Executive branch policy. Until 

further notice, all policies that were 

superseded by the 2016 Mitigation 

Policy are reinstated, including the Fish 

and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy 

(46 FR 7644–7663) published in the 

Federal Register on January 23, 1981. 

DATES: Withdrawal effective on July 30, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 

received, as well as supporting 

documentation, are available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket Number FWS–HQ–ES–2015– 

0126. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Aubrey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Environmental 

Review, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803, telephone 

703–358–2442. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Mitigation Policy (81 FR 83440, 

November 21, 2016) was developed to 

ensure consistency with directives in 

effect at the time of issuance, including 

former President Obama’s Memorandum 

on Mitigating Impacts on Natural 

Resources From Development and 

Encouraging Related Private Investment 

(November 3, 2015). Under the 

memorandum, all Federal mitigation 

policies were directed to clearly set a 

net-benefit goal or, at minimum, a nonet-loss goal for natural resources, 

wherever doing so is allowed by 

existing statutory authority and is 

consistent with agency mission and 

established natural resource objectives. 

The Presidential Memorandum was 

subsequently rescinded by Executive 

Order 13783, ‘‘Promoting Energy 

Independence and Economic Growth’’ 

(March 28, 2017). 

The Mitigation Policy also described 

its consistency with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Order 3330 on Improving 

Mitigation Policies and Practices of the 

Department of the Interior (October 31, 

2013), which established a Departmentwide mitigation strategy to ensure 

consistency and efficiency in the review 

and permitting of infrastructuredevelopment projects and in conserving 

natural and cultural resources. The 

Secretary’s Order was subsequently 

revoked by Secretary of the Interior’s 

Order 3349 on American Energy 

Independence (March 29, 2017). It 

directed Department of the Interior 

bureaus to reexamine mitigation 

policies and practices to better balance 

conservation strategies and policies 

with job creation for American families. 

In light of the revocation of the 2015 

Presidential Memorandum and 

Secretary’s Order 3330, on November 6, 

2017, the Service requested comment on 

the Mitigation Policy, as well as the 

Endangered Species Act— 

Compensatory Mitigation Policy (81 FR 

95316, December 27, 2016), specifically 

‘‘regarding whether to retain or remove 

net conservation gain as a mitigation 

planning goal within our mitigation 

policies.’’ Mitigation Policies of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; Request for 

Comment (82 FR 51382, 51383, 

November 6, 2017). The comment 

period for this request ended on January 

5, 2018. 

Under Supreme Court precedent, the 

Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment 

of the United States Constitution limits 

the ability of government to require 

monetary exactions as a condition of 

permitting private activities, 

particularly private activities on private 

property. In Koontz v. St. Johns River 

Water Management District, 570 U.S. 

595 (2013), the Supreme Court held that 

a proposal to fund offsite mitigation 

proposed by the State of Florida as a 

condition of granting a land-use permit 

must satisfy the test established in 

Nollan v. California Coastal 

Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and 

Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 

(1994). Specifically, ‘‘a unit of 

government may not condition the 

approval of a land-use permit on the 

owner’s relinquishment of a portion of 

his property unless there is a ‘nexus’ 

and ‘rough proportionality’ between the 

government’s demand and the effects of 

the proposed land use.’’ Id. at 599. 

Compensatory mitigation 

requirements in particular raise serious 

questions of whether there is a sufficient 

nexus between the potential harm and 

the proposed remedy to satisfy 

constitutional muster. Further, because 

by definition compensatory mitigation 

does not directly avoid or minimize the 

anticipated harm, its application is 

particularly ripe for abuse. These 

concerns are particularly acute when 

coupled with a net conservation gain 

standard, which necessarily goes 

beyond mitigating actual or anticipated 

harm to forcing participants to pay to 

address harms they, by definition, did 

not cause. 

In light of the change in national 

policy reflected in Executive Order 

13783 and Secretary’s Order 3349, the 

comments received by the Service, and 

concerns regarding the legal and policy 

implications of compensatory 

mitigation, particularly compensatory 

mitigation with a net conservation gain 

policy, the Service has concluded that it 

is no longer appropriate to retain 

references to or mandate a net 

conservation gain standard in the 

Service’s overall mitigation planning 

goal within each document. Because the 

net conservation gain standard is so 

prevalent throughout the Mitigation 

Policy, the Service is implementing this 

conclusion by withdrawing the 

Mitigation Policy. 

Summary of Comments and Responses 

Executive Order 13783—‘‘Promoting 

Energy Independence and Economic 

Growth’’ (March 28, 2017)—rescinded 

the Presidential Memorandum on 

Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources 

from Development and Encouraging 

Related Private Investment. The 

Secretary of the Interior subsequently 

issued Secretarial Order 3349 on 

American Energy Independence (March 

29, 2017), which directed Department of 

the Interior (DOI) bureaus to reexamine 

mitigation policies and practices to 

better balance conservation strategies 

and policies with job creation for 

American families. Pursuant to 

Secretarial Order 3349, we published a 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 36473 

notice on November 6, 2017 (82 FR 

51382), requesting additional public 

comments specifically addressing the 

advisability of retaining or removing 

references to net conservation gain as a 

mitigation planning goal within our 

mitigation policies. In addition, in 

carrying out Executive Order 13777, 

‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory Reform 

Agenda,’’ DOI published a document 

with the title ‘‘Regulatory Reform’’ in 

the Federal Register of June 22, 2017 

(82 FR 28429). The document requested 

public comment on how DOI can 

improve implementation of regulatory 

reform initiatives and policies and 

identify regulations for repeal, 

replacement, or modification. This 

notice addresses comments that DOI has 

received in response to the regulatory 

reform docket that relates to the 

Service’s use of mitigation. 

During the combined comment 

periods, for the Service-wide Mitigation 

Policy we received approximately 427 

comments from Federal, State, and local 

government entities, industry, trade 

associations, conservation 

organizations, nongovernmental 

organizations, private citizens, and 

others. Two of those submissions 

transmitted the discrete comments from 

an additional 1,756 citizens expressing 

support for the Service’s mitigation 

policy approach. The range of 

comments otherwise varied from those 

that provided general statements of 

support or opposition to the draft or 

final Policy, to those that provided 

extensive comments and information 

supporting or opposing the draft or final 

Policy, or specific aspects thereof. The 

majority of comments submitted 

included detailed suggestions for 

revisions addressing major concepts as 

well as editorial suggestions for specific 

wording or line edits. 

We considered all of the comments 

we received in the comment period 

beginning November 6, 2017 (82 FR 

51382), and following the DOI’s 

‘‘Regulatory Reform’’ Federal Register 

announcement (June 22, 2017, 82 FR 

28429); we respond to the substantive 

comments below. 

A. Policy Addresses Multiple 

Authorities 

Comment (1): One commenter stated 

there were constitutional limits on 

requiring mitigation, referencing the 

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water 

Management District case decided by 

the U.S. Supreme Court, 570 U.S. 595 

(2013). This commenter noted that any 

compensatory mitigation measures must 

have an essential nexus with the 

proposed impacts and be roughly 

proportional, or have a reasonable 

relationship between the permit 

conditions required and the impacts of 

the proposed development being 

addressed by those permit conditions. 

Response: The Service agrees that the 

Koontz case, as well as predecessor 

cases including, but not limited to, 

Nollan v. California Coastal 

Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and 

Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 

(1994), raise serious constitutional 

concerns about the viability of some 

elements of the Service’s mitigation 

programs. These concerns are 

particularly acute for offsite 

compensatory-mitigation programs and 

programs that seek a net conservation 

gain. Offsite compensatory-mitigation 

programs raise concerns regarding an 

appropriate nexus between the 

anticipated impact and the mitigation 

requirement. As mitigation moves 

further away from the direct impacts of 

a project, the risk that the connection 

between required compensation and the 

initial project becomes more attenuated 

increases. Further, by seeking to err on 

the side of mitigating above and beyond 

the impacts of the specific project at 

issue, a net conservation gain standard 

raises inherent concerns about 

proportionality, as well as the 

appropriate nexus between project 

impacts and mitigation methods, 

particularly where mitigation is in 

essence being used to rectify past, 

unrelated harms. We, like all agencies, 

must implement our authorities 

consistent with any applicable case law 

as appropriate. Consideration of the 

Constitutional standard set forth in 

Koontz is one reason, though not the 

only reason, that the Service is 

withdrawing its previous Mitigation 

Policy. In light of the Koontz case and 

any other relevant court decisions, the 

Service, in using its previous policies 

(e.g., 1981 Policy), will make sure that 

any statutorily authorized mitigation 

measures will have a clear connection 

(i.e., have an essential nexus) and be 

commensurate (i.e., have rough 

proportionality) to the impact of the 

project or action under consideration. 

Comment (2): Several commenters 

addressed aspects of the Service’s 

authority under the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act). One 

commenter supported the 

acknowledgement that compensatory 

mitigation for bald and golden eagles 

may include preservation of those 

species’ habitats and enhancing their 

prey base. The commenter noted that 

existing regulations establishing a 

permit program for the non-purposeful 

take of bald and golden eagles recognize 

these options but that these options 

have not been used. One commenter 

stated the Service was incorrect in 

stating in the proposed Policy: ‘‘the 

statute and implementing regulations 

allow the Service to require habitat 

preservation and/or enhancement as 

compensatory mitigation for eagle take.’’ 

The commenter said that Congress has 

not exercised jurisdiction over the 

habitats of eagles, meaning the Service 

lacks authority to require mitigation for 

impacts to eagle habitats. One 

commenter suggested the Policy should 

articulate whether compensatory 

mitigation would be in addition to 

current requirements of a 1-for-1 take 

offset. 

Response: We agree that the authority 

of the Eagle Act is limited, and the 

Service has outlined its authority in its 

regulations (50 CFR part 22). Nothing in 

the Eagle Act directly addresses eagle 

habitat, or requires that the Service 

apply a net conservation gain standard. 

Accordingly, the withdrawal of the 2016 

Mitigation Policy and reinstatement of 

the 1981 Mitigation Policy will not 

change our authority under the Eagle 

Act. 

Comment (3): Several commenters 

addressed the Service’s authority under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). 

One commenter said the Service was 

incorrect in describing implied 

authority to permit incidental take of 

migratory birds under the MBTA and 

noted that the Service has no authority 

to require compensatory mitigation for 

incidental take of migratory birds. 

Several commenters said that mitigation 

for migratory birds exceeds MBTA 

authority and that the Policy should 

exclude potential incidental impacts to 

migratory birds under the MBTA until 

the Service establishes statutory or 

regulatory authority to require 

landowners to obtain incidental take 

authorization prior to undertaking 

otherwise lawful activities. They added 

that the MBTA does not directly address 

mitigation or habitat impacts. 

One commenter said the Service was 

incorrect in writing that the Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Act implicitly 

provided for mitigation of impacts to 

migratory birds. The commenter said 

that the language does not authorize the 

Service to engage in any management 

activities associated with migratory 

birds, particularly over private parties, 

only directing the Service to monitor 

and assess population trends and 

species status of migratory nongame 

birds. 

Response: DOI’s Office of the Solicitor 

issued M-Opinion 37050, The Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit 

Incidental Take (M-Opinion), on 

December 22, 2017, which concludes 

that the take of birds resulting from an 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
36474 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

activity is not prohibited by the MBTA 

when the underlying purpose of that 

activity is not to take birds. In addition, 

the Service does not have specific 

statutory authority pursuant to the 

MBTA to require Federal action 

agencies and/or their permittees to 

provide compensatory mitigation for 

unavoidable impacts to (loss of) 

migratory bird habitat resulting from 

federally conducted or approved, 

authorized, or funded projects or 

activities. Like the Eagle Act, the MBTA 

does not directly protect habitat. When 

the Service authorizes otherwise 

prohibited intentional take, however, it 

can make that authorization subject to 

appropriate conditions, including noncompensatory mitigation, such as 

measures to avoid, minimize, reduce, or 

rectify anticipated harm. In addition, 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13186 directs 

Federal agencies ‘‘taking actions that 

have, or are likely to have, a measurable 

negative effect on migratory bird 

populations’’ to sign a Memorandum of 

Understanding with the Service ‘‘that 

shall promote the conservation of 

migratory bird populations.’’ 

Comment (4): One commenter 

specifically questioned the treatment of 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment 

actions conducted under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act, Oil Pollution Act, and the Clean 

Water Act, stating that the Presidential 

Memorandum on Mitigating Impacts on 

Natural Resources from Development 

and Encouraging Related Private 

Investment, dated November 3, 2015, 

requires that separate guidance be 

developed for when restoration banking 

or advance restoration would be 

appropriate. 

Response: The Presidential 

Memorandum on Mitigation was 

rescinded by Executive Order 13783, 

Promoting Energy Independence and 

Economic Growth (March 28, 2017). 

Furthermore, when a release of 

hazardous substance or oil injures 

natural resources subject to the natural 

resource damage assessment and 

restoration trusteeship of States, Tribes, 

or the Federal Government, appropriate 

restoration is determined by the scope 

and scale of the injury and the nexus of 

the restoration action to that specific 

injury. 

B. Net Conservation Gain/No Net Loss 

Comment (5): Many commenters 

addressed the Policy’s mitigation 

planning goal of improving (i.e., a net 

gain) or, at minimum, maintaining (i.e., 

no net loss) the current status of affected 

resources. A number of commenters 

supported the goal while a number of 

commenters opposed the inclusion of a 

net conservation gain. Of commenters 

opposed to net conservation gain, their 

specific reasons included: 

(a) The Service lacks the statutory 

authority to implement the net 

conservation gain goal for mitigation 

planning. 

(b) The net conservation gain goal 

imposes a new standard for mitigation 

and that mitigation requirements should 

be commensurate with the level of 

impacts. 

(c) Concern about the costs associated 

with achieving net conservation gain. 

(d) Questions about the ability to 

achieve net conservation gain and how 

it would be measured. 

(e) The Policy does not provide the 

methodology to assess or measure the 

net conservation gain. 

(f) Net conservation gain is 

incompatible with the standards of the 

ESA sections 7 and 10. One commenter 

asked that we clarify that the net 

conservation gain goal does not modify 

or expand proponents’ obligations 

under ESA sections 7 or 10 permitting 

programs. One commenter stated that 

the Policy’s goal would have limited 

relevance to section 10 decisions other 

than serving as an aspiration or goal for 

negotiating conservation measures. One 

commenter asked that we specify how 

the Policy’s goal will be applied to 

processing incidental take permit 

applications under section 

10(a)(2)(B)(ii), especially for projects 

predicted to directly kill listed species. 

This commenter added that neither no 

net loss nor net gain is an appropriate 

goal under section 10 if the goal implies 

that impacts at the individual level will 

not be minimized to the maximum 

extent practicable. 

Response: We agree with concerns 

expressed by commenters that the 

Service generally lacks the statutory 

authority to implement ‘‘net 

conservation gain’’ for mitigation 

planning. No statute within the 

Service’s purview mandates that the 

Service directly apply a net 

conservation gain standard. For 

example, under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA), the standard for section 7 is 

that a ‘‘Federal agency shall, in 

consultation with and with the 

assistance of the Secretary, insure that 

any action . . . is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of habitat’’ 

(§ 7(a)(2)); under section 10, the 

requirement is ‘‘to the maximum extent 

practicable, minimize and mitigate the 

impacts of such taking’’ 

(§ 10(a)(2)(B)(ii)). As one court has 

noted, ‘‘[t]he words ‘maximum extent 

practicable’ signify that the applicant 

may do something less than fully 

minimize and mitigate the impacts of 

the take where to do more would not be 

practicable. Moreover, the statutory 

language does not suggest that an 

applicant must ever do more than 

mitigate the effect of its take of species.’’ 

National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, 

306 F. Supp. 2d 920, 928 (E.D. Cal. 

2004); see also Union Neighbors United, 

Inc. v. Jewell, 831 F.3d 564 (D.C. Cir. 

2016) (holding that the obligation to 

minimize and mitigate to the maximum 

extent practicable was satisfied by a 

plan that the Service found to fully 

offset the impact of the proposed 

taking). Since what is ‘‘practicable’’ may 

not fully offset proposed take, the 

‘‘maximum extent practicable’’ standard 

is inconsistent with both a general net 

conservation gain and a no-net-loss 

mitigation objective. Nothing in the ESA 

requires that the Service apply a net 

conservation gain or no-net-loss 

standard. 

Those commenters supporting the 

goal generally asserted, among other 

points, that the Service has the authority 

to require compensatory mitigation, 

found the measures to be clear, and 

thought the policy encouraged 

consistent implementation. While we 

appreciate these comments, for the 

reasons described above, we are not 

persuaded. 

As ‘‘net conservation gain’’ was 

central to and integrated throughout the 

policies, in addition to the more 

recently issued 2017 Executive and 

Secretarial Orders, modifying these 

policies would likely have caused even 

more confusion. Thus, we are 

withdrawing the 2016 Mitigation Policy, 

and restoring the policies and guidance 

that were superseded by the 2016 

policies. 

C. Landscape-Scale Approach 

Comment (6): Several commenters 

described their concerns with the 

implications of the Policy’s inclusion of 

a landscape-scale approach: 

(a) There is no statutory authority for 

taking a landscape-scale approach. 

(b) Including a landscape-scale 

approach would lead to the Service 

seeking mitigation for impacts beyond a 

project under review, including impacts 

that happened in the past or in 

unrelated locations. They said that 

meeting the standards of an applicable 

authority within the narrow geographic 

scope of their project is the proponent’s 

only responsibility. 

(c) General concern that a landscapescale approach would mean Federal 

overreach, including disregard for the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 36475 

plans, processes, and resource interests 

of States, tribes, and local governments. 

Response: We agree with commenters 

that proponents’ and action agencies’ 

responsibilities include the provisions 

of relevant authorities and that those 

responsibilities do not extend to 

impacts unrelated to their action. 

Requiring mitigation to impacts 

unrelated to a proponent’s action would 

likely conflict with the ‘‘essential 

nexus’’ required under Koontz for 

property development (see Comment 1 

above). Accordingly, any effort to apply 

a landscape-scale approach to 

mitigation must ensure that there is an 

essential nexus between the proposed 

activity and the contemplated 

mitigation and that mitigation is not 

being imposed to correct for past 

impacts by other actors. 

Section 5 of the Mitigation Policy, 

‘‘Mitigation Framework,’’ calls for both 

consideration of a landscape-scale 

approach in addition to ‘‘net 

conservation gain.’’ Because net 

conservation gain is integral to the 

policies, even though considerations of 

landscape-scale approaches may be 

useful in some cases, withdrawing these 

policies will reduce confusion over the 

net conservation gain goal. This notice 

does not affect the Service authorities 

that already allow the flexibility to 

consider landscape-scale approach. In 

some cases, taking the broader 

ecological context of both impacts and 

mitigation opportunities into account by 

applying a landscape-scale approach is 

an effective means of implementing the 

Service’s mission in a way that also 

benefits proponents. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

We have analyzed the withdrawals of 

this policy in accordance with the 

criteria of the National Environmental 

Policy Act, as amended (NEPA) (42 

U.S.C. 4332(c)), the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s Regulations for 

Implementing the Procedural Provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), and 

the Department of the Interior’s NEPA 

procedures (516 DM 2 and 8; 43 CFR 

part 46). Issuance of policies, directives, 

regulations, and guidelines that are of 

an administrative, financial, legal, 

technical, or procedural nature, or 

whose environmental effects are too 

broad, speculative, or conjectural to 

lend themselves to meaningful analysis 

and will later be subject to the NEPA 

process, either collectively or case-bycase may be categorically excluded 

under NEPA (43 CFR 46.210(i)). We 

have determined that a categorical 

exclusion applies to withdrawing this 

policy. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This policy withdrawal does not 

contain any new collections of 

information that require approval by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

OMB has reviewed and approved the 

information collection requirements for 

applications for incidental take permits, 

annual reports, and notifications of 

incidental take for native endangered 

and threatened species for safe harbor 

agreements, candidate conservation 

agreements with assurances, and habitat 

conservation plans under OMB Control 

Number 1018–0094, which expires on 

March 31, 2019. We may not conduct or 

sponsor and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments,’’ and the Department of 

the Interior Manual at 512 DM 2, we 

have considered possible effects on 

federally recognized Indian tribes and 

have determined that there are no 

potential adverse effects of withdrawing 

this policy. Our intent with 

withdrawing these policies is to reduce 

confusion of mitigation programs, 

projects, and measures, including those 

taken on Tribal lands. We will work 

with Tribes as applicants proposing 

mitigation as part of proposed actions 

and with Tribes as mitigation sponsors. 

Authority 

The multiple authorities for this 

action include the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.); Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 661– 

667(e)); and National Environmental 

Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.). 

Dated: July 24, 2018. 

Gregory J. Sheehan, 

Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16172 Filed 7–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES