work. Such knowledge and opinions are especially 

 critical in determining public recognition and con- 

 cerns. 



(2) Second, as a reviewer of the results of EQ 

 evaluation, the public will have opportunities to 

 ensure that their views have been properly incorpo- 

 rated; understand the implications of their views on 

 plan formulation; and react to evaluation results in 

 a way that will facilitate modification of alternative 

 plans. 



(c) The means to achieve public involvement in 

 EQ evaluation are left to the discretion of agencies. 

 The P&G and the CEQ and NEPA regulations (40 

 CFR 1506.6) suggest several means of public in- 

 volvement. In some cases, means of public involve- 

 ment are specifically established in law and should 

 be relied upon to provide input to EQ evaluation. 

 Examples of specifically established means are: 



(1) The NEPA scoping process (see the CEQ 

 NEPA regulations, 40 CFR 1501.7). 



(2) The participation of cooperating agencies with 

 junsdiction by law or special expertise (see the 

 CEQ NEPA regulations, 40 CFR 1501.6, 1501.7, 

 1508.5, 1508.15, and 1508.26). 



(3) Procedures, developed pursuant to Federal 

 laws other than NEPA, that require a specific type 

 of review, coordination, or consultation between 

 planning agencies and agencies with custodial re- 

 sponsibilities for certain EQ-related factors. Such 

 procedures include, but are not limited to, the "Sec- 

 tion 7 Consultation Process" pursuant to the En- 

 dangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Pub. 

 L 93-205; 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.); the "Section 

 106 Procedure" pursuant to the National Historic 

 Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89- 

 655; 16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.)\ the "Coordination Act 

 Report" pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordina- 

 tion Act of 1958, as amended (Pub. L. 85-624; 16 

 U.S.C. 661, et seq.); and the "Consistency Determi- 

 nation" pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management 

 Act of 1972, as amended (Pub. L 92-583; 16 

 U.S.C. 1451, et seq.). 



3.3.3 Integration of other review, coordination, 

 and consultation requirements. 



(a) To the fullest extent possible, EQ evaluation 

 and its documentation should be conducted and 

 prepared concurrently and integrated with the anal- 

 yses and documentation required by other review, 

 coordination, and consultation requirements related 

 to EQ evaluation, as required by the CEQ NEPA 

 regulations (40 CFR 1500.2(c), 1501.7(a)(6), 

 1502.2(d), 1502.25, and 1506.2). Such require- 

 ments include, but are not limited to, those related 

 to NEPA; the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 



amended (Pub. L 93205; 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.); 

 the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

 amended (Pub. L. 89-655; 16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.); 

 the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as 

 amended (Pub. L. 85-624; 16 U.S.C. 661, et seq.); 

 and the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as 

 amended (Pub. L 92-583; 16 U.S.C. 1451, et seq.). 



(b) These procedures for EQ evaluation are not 

 intended to duplicate or in any way modify such 

 other requirements. Rather, the EQ evaluation proc- 

 ess described in these procedures may be used as 

 the basic analytical framework for concurrently inte- 

 grating into water resources planning the informa- 

 tion developed in response to other requirements. 

 The relationship between the requirements of 

 NEPA for contents of environmental impact state- 

 ments and these procedures is given in futher 

 detail in Appendix B. 



3.3.4 Documentation. 



(a) EQ evaluation should be documented in such 

 a way that an independent reviewer can fully and 

 clearly understand the decisions that were made 

 and the reasons for making them. Documentation 

 in water resources project reports, however, should 

 be limited to that required for the agency decision- 

 making process. Other documentation should be 

 retained on file and its availability referenced in the 

 project report. Documentation should be clear and 

 concise, as required by the CEQ NEPA regulations 

 (40 CFR 1502.2(a) and (c) and 1502.8). 



(b) Information collected by field sampling, labo- 

 ratory experiments, interviews, literature searches, 

 and other means should be documented to include: 



(1) Date and place of information collection; 



(2) Name of person(s) who collected the informa- 

 tion; 



(3) Techniques and methods used; including as- 

 sumptions and rationale for selecting techniques 

 and methods used; 



(4) Known or suspected factors that could affect 

 the accuracy of information collection techniques 

 and methods, including gaps in relevant information 

 and scientific uncertainty; 



(5) Information collected; and 



(6) Interpretations of the information. 



(c) Information collected prior to initiation of an 

 EQ evaluation and referenced or incorporated in 

 the EQ evaluation should be documented as de- 

 scribed in paragraph (b) of this section, to the 

 extent practical. 



106 



