gered species habitats that could be jeopardized by 

 wide distribution of the information. 



(d) Magnitude is the size of the difference be- 

 tween an indicator's without-plans and with-plan es- 

 timates for a particular forecast date. If an indicator 

 is measured in cardinal units (that is, the units can 

 be added, subtracted, multiplied, and divided), mag- 

 nitude should be expressed as the numeric differ- 

 ence between the without-plans and with-plan esti- 

 mates for each forecast date. If an indicator's unit 

 is based on some other type of numeric scale or is 

 descriptive (such as an ordinal scale of "great di- 

 versity, moderate diversity, low diversity,") magni- 

 tude should be expressed in either a numeric or de- 

 scriptive form suitable for accurately describing the 

 difference for each forecast date. 



(e) Other characteristics of effects may be de- 

 scribed if the description is relevant and useful to 

 decisionmaking. Such characteristics could include 

 reversibility, retrievability, and the relationship to 

 long-term productivity. 



(f) Appendix A provides an example documenta- 

 tion format for recording the results of this activity. 



tion. An example of public recognition of an effect 

 is local concern over the potential decline of a trout 

 fishery caused by an alternative plan. 



(d) Significance based on technical recognition 

 means that the importance of an effect is based on 

 technical or scientific criteria related to critical re- 

 source characteristics. Examples are maintenance 

 of permanent low flow in a previously intermittent 

 stream that leads to a year-round fishery, and re- 

 duction in the number of a certain type of archeo- 

 logical site that contains information related to a 

 particular historic period to the extent that currently 

 numerous sites would become scarce. 



(e) If none of the effects on a particular EQ attri- 

 bute is significant, the attribute should be eliminat- 

 ed from EQ evaluation. The attribute should be 

 reintroduced into EQ evaluation if it is likely to be 

 affected by a new alternative plan. 



(f) Appendix A provides an example documen- 

 tation format for recording the results of this activi- 

 ty. Attributes and resources that are not significant- 

 ly affected should be documented as required by 

 the CEQ NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3)). 



3.4.12 Determine significant effects activity. 



(a) This activity is performed to identify which of 

 the previously described effects are significant; that 

 is, that are institutionally, publicly, or technically rec- 

 ognized as important to people, and should there- 

 fore be taken into account in decisionmaking. Fo- 

 cusing on significant issues is required by the CEQ 

 NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500.1(b), 1501.7(a)(2) 

 and (3), and 1502.2(b)). 



(b) Significance based on institutional recognition 

 means that the importance of the effect is acknowl- 

 edged in the laws, adopted plans, and other policy 

 statements of public agencies and private groups. 

 See 3.4.3(c)(1) for examples of sources of institu- 

 tional recognition. Institutional recognition of an 

 effect is often explicit in the form of specific criteria 

 for determining whether an effect is significant. Ex- 

 amples are the criteria in the CEQ NEPA regulation 

 (40 CFR 1508.27), Executive Order 11990 concern- 

 ing the protection of wetlands, and the regulations 

 of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

 covering the protection of historic and cultural prop- 

 erties (36 CFR Part 800). 



(c) Significance based on public recognition 

 means that some segment of the general public 

 recognizes the importance of the effect. Public rec- 

 ognition may take the form of controversy, support, 

 conflict, or opposition; it may be expressed formally 

 (as in official letters) or informally. Environmentally 

 related customs and traditions should also be con- 

 sidered in determining sources of public recogni- 



3.4.13 Appraise effects phase. 



This phase is performed to identify the desirability 

 of significant effects on EQ resources, individually 

 and collectively, for each alternative plan. In the 

 first activity, significant effects on indicators and EQ 

 attributes should be appraised as either "benefi- 

 cial" or "adverse." In the second activity, each al- 

 ternative plan's overall net effect on EQ should be 

 judged as "net beneficial," "net adverse," or "no 

 net effect." 



3.4.14 Appraise significant effects activity. 



(a) This activity is performed to appraise each al- 

 ternative plan's individual significant effects on 

 each significant EQ resource attribute as either 

 beneficial or adverse. The activity should be per- 

 formed in two steps. In the first step, the desirability 

 of effects on indicators is appraised according to 

 guidelines. In the second step, the effects on EQ 

 attributes are appraised. 



(b) First, the effects on indicators should be ap- 

 praised as either beneficial or adverse according to 

 the following criteria: 



(1) An effect is beneficial if, for a given indica- 

 tor, the with-plan condition more closely ap- 

 proaches or attains the indicator's guideline than its 

 without-plans condition. For example, the Julian 

 City archaeological site has been identified as an 

 EQ resource with an indicator "sense of associ- 



119 



