7662 



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



limited to. maintenance of natural 

 systems and long-term productivity of 

 existing flora and fauna, habitat 

 diversity, hydrological utility, fish, 

 wildlife, timber, and food. Under this 

 Order, a developmental project in a 

 wetland may proceed only if no 

 practicable alternatives can be 

 ascertained and if the proposal . . . 

 includes all practicable measures to 

 minimize harm to the wedand that may 

 result from its use." 



Executive Order llS8&—F!oodplain 

 Management (May 24. 1977). This 

 Executive Order requires that Federal 

 agencies take floodplain management 

 into account when fonnulating or 

 evaluating water or land use plans and 

 that these concerns be reflected in the 

 budgets, procedures, and regulations of 

 the various agencies. This Order allows 

 developmental activities to proceed in 

 Qoodplain areas only when the relevant 

 agencies have ". . . considered 

 alternatives to avoid adverse effects and 

 incompatible developme::t in the 

 floodplains . . ." or when, in lieu of this, 

 they have ". . . designed or modified 

 their actions in order to T^inimize 

 potential harm to or within the 

 floodplain . . .". 



Executive Order 11S8T— Exotic 

 Organisms (May 24. 1977]. This 

 Executive Order requirsj that Federal 

 agencies shall restrict, to the extent 

 permitted by law, the inroduction of 

 exotic species into the lands or waters 

 which they own. lease, cr hold for 

 purposes of administration, and 

 encourage the States, 'ccal governments, 

 and private citizens to do the same. This 

 Executive Order also requires Federal 

 agencies to restrict, to ±e extent 

 permitted by law, the importation of 

 exotic species and to resTict the use of 

 Federal funds and programs for such 

 importation. The Secretary of the 

 Interior, in consultation with the 

 Secretary of Agriculture, is authorized to 

 develop by rule or regulation a system 

 to standardize and simplify the 

 requirements and procedures 

 appropriate for implementing this Order. 



NATIONAL/INTERNATIOM.AL TREATIES 



Federal Trust Responsibility to Indian 

 Tribes. This responsibility is reflected in 

 the numerous Federal treaties with the 

 Indian tribes. These treaties have the 

 force of law. Protection of Indian 

 hunting and fishing rights necessitates 

 conservation offish and wildlife and 

 their habitat 



Convention Between the United 

 States and Japan (September 19. 1974). 

 This Treaty endorses die establishment 

 of sanctuaries and fixes preservation 

 and enhancement of migratory bird 



habitat as a major goal of the 

 signatories. 



Convention Between the United 

 States and the Union of Soviet Socialist 

 Republics Concerning the Conservation 

 of Migratory Birds and Their 

 Environments (November 8. 1978). This 

 Treaty endorses the establishment of 

 sanctuaries, refuges, and protected 

 areas. It mandates reducing or 

 eliminating damage to all migratory 

 birds. Furthermore, it provides for 

 designation of special areas for 

 migratory bird breeding, wintering, 

 feeding, and molting, and commits the 

 signatories to ". . . undertake measures 

 necessary to protect the ecosystems in 

 these areas . . . against pollution, 

 detrimental alteration and other 

 environmental degradation." 

 Implementing legislation. Pub. L 95-616. 

 was passed in the United States in 1978. 



Convention on Nature Protection and 

 Wildlife Preservation in the Western 

 Hemisphere (April 15. 1941). This Treaty 

 has several provisions requiring parties 

 to conserve certain wildlife resources 

 and their habitats. 



Convention Betiveen the United 

 States and Great Britain (for Canada) 

 for Protection of Migrator/ Birds 

 (August 1, 1916. as amended January 30. 

 1979). This Treaty provides for a uniform 

 ". . . system of protection for certain 

 species of birds which migrate bet^veen 

 the United States and Canada, in order 

 to assure the preservation of species 

 either harmless or beneficial to man." 

 The Treaty prohibits hunting 

 insectivorous birds, but allows killing of 

 birds under permit when injurious to 

 agriculture. The 1979 amendment allows 

 subsistence hunting of waterfowl 

 outside of the normal himting season. 



APPENDIX B-OTHER DEFINITIONS 



"Compensation. " when used in the 

 context of Service mitigation 

 recommendations, means full 

 replacement of project-induced losses to 

 fish and wildlife resources, provided 

 such full replacement has been judged 

 by the Service to be consistent with the 

 appropriate mitigation planning goal. 



"Ecoregion " refers to a large 

 biogeographical unit characterized by 

 distinctive biotic and abiotic 

 relationships. An ecoregion may be 

 subclassified into domains, divisions, 

 provinces, and sections. A technical 

 explanation and map is provided in the 

 "Ecoregions of the United States" by 

 Robert G. Bailey, published by die U.S. 

 Forest Service, 1976. 



"Ecosystem" meADs all of the biotic 

 elements (i.e., species, populations, and 

 communities] and abiotic elements (i.e., 

 land, air, water, energy) interacting in a 

 given geographic area so that a flow of 



energy leads to a clearly defined trophic 

 structure, biotic diversity, and material 

 cycles. (Eugene P. Cdum. 1971. 

 Fundamentals of Ecology) 



"Evaluation species" means those fish 

 and wildhfe resources in the plaiming 

 area that are selected for impact 

 analysis. They must currently be present 

 or known to occur in the plaiming area 

 during at least one stage of dieir life 

 history e.xcept where species not present 

 (1) have been identified in fish and 

 wildlife restoration or improvement 

 plans approved by State or Federal 

 resource agencies, or (2) will result from 

 natural species succession over the life 

 of the project. In these cases, the 

 analysis may include such identified 

 species not currently in the planning 

 area. 



There are two basic approaches to the 

 selection of evaluation species: (1) 

 selection of species with high public 

 interest economic value or both: and (2) 

 selection of species to provide a broader 

 ecological perspective of an area. The 

 choice of one apprcach in lieu of the 

 other may result in a completely 

 different outcome in the analysis of a 

 proposed land or water development 

 Therefore, the objectives of the study 

 should be clearly defined before species 

 selection is initiated. If the objectives of 

 a shidy are to base a decision on 

 potential impacts to an entire ecological 

 community, such as a unique wedand. 

 then a more ecologically based 

 approach is desirable. If. however, a 

 land or water use decision is to be 

 based on potential impacts to a public 

 use area, then species selection should 

 favor animals with significant human 

 use values. In actual practice, species 

 should be selected to represent social, 

 economic and broad ecological views 

 because mitigation planning efforts 

 incorporate objectives that have social, 

 economic, and ecological aspects. 

 Species selection always should be 

 approached in a manner that will 

 optimize contributions to the stated 

 objectives of the mitigation planning 

 effort. 



Most land and water development 

 decisions are strcngly influenced by the 

 perceived impacts of the proposed 

 action on human use. Since 

 economically or socially important 

 species have clearly defined linkages to 

 human use. they should be included as 

 evaluation species in all appropriate 

 land and water studies. As a guideline, 

 the following t>T)es of species should be 

 considered: 



• Species that are associated vvith 

 Important Resource Proble-ms as 

 designated by the Director of the Fish 

 and Wildlife Service (except for 

 threate.ned or endangered species). 



