(3) If the relationship between an indicator's with- 

 out-plans and with-plan condition changes over the 

 period of analysis so that an effect would be bene- 

 ficial part of the time and adverse at other tinnes, 

 the different desirabilities should be shown as iden- 

 tified for each of the forecast dates. For example, a 

 levee to be constructed as a part of Plan Z would 

 initially destroy 200 acres of streamside riparian 

 habitat. However, with the habitat management pro- 

 gram included in the plan, the habitat would be re- 

 stored and an additional 100 acres would be 

 changed to become riparian habitat. See Figure 

 3.4.14-3 for a graphic illustration of this example. 



(c) Second, the effects on each EQ attribute 

 should be appraised as either beneficial or adverse 

 based on the judgment of professionals with exper- 

 tise relevant to each attribute. 



(1) The following should be considered in judging 

 the desirability of an effect on an EQ attribute: 



(i) The duration, location, magnitude, and other 

 relevant characteristics of effects on the attribute's 

 indicators as previously identified (see 3.4.11). 



(ii) The appraisal of effects on the attribute's indi- 

 cators (beneficial or adverse), as identified in the 

 previous step (see paragraph (b) of this section). 



(iii) The relationships among the attribute's quan- 

 tity and quality characteristics, as expressed in ef- 

 fects on the attribute's indicators. For example, the 

 acreage (quantity) of a particular habitat may be 

 beneficially increased with an alternative plan, but 

 the habitat's productivity (quality) could be adverse- 



ly affected by human activities, such as recreation, 

 attracted to the area. Conversely, an improvement 

 in the productivity of a habitat would not necessar- 

 ily be beneficial unless an adequate amount of 

 habitat would be available. 



(iv) Whether effects on the indicators, the attri- 

 bute, or the resource would fulfill or violate a public 

 law, executive order, or other source of institutional 

 recognition. See 3.4.3(c)(1) for examples of sources 

 of institutional recognition. 



(v) Whether effects on the indicators, the attri- 

 bute, or the resource would be supported or other- 

 wise viewed as beneficial by the public, or would be 

 opposed or otherwise viewed as adverse by the 

 public. 



(vi) Whether effects on the indicators, the attri- 

 bute, or the resource would be critical based on 

 scientific or technical knowledge or judgment 



(vii) Other considerations that may have a materi- 

 al bearing on decisionmaking. Such other consider- 

 ations should be clearly described. 



(2) Agencies may use various approaches, such 

 as weighting, scaling or ranking, to consider these 

 factors in judging effects on EQ attributes. Ap- 

 proaches used should be documented. 



(d) Appendix A provides example documentation 

 formats for recording the results of this activity. A 

 table should be prepared in accordance with the 

 format illustrated in Table 3.4.14 for each candidate 

 plan and provided to the agency decisionmaker for 

 judgment of net EQ effects. 



Table 3.4.14— Significant EQ Effects 

 [Alternative plan "X"] 



3.4.15 Judge net EQ effects activity. 



(a) This activity is pertormed to describe the net 

 (overall) EQ effect of each alternative plan. Net 

 effect should be described as "net beneficial EQ 

 effect," "net adverse EQ effect," or "no net EQ 

 effect" according to the following criteria: 



(1) A net beneficial EQ effect occurs when, in the 

 judgment of the agency decisionmaker, an alterna- 

 tive plan's combined beneficial effects on EQ re- 



sources outweigh the plan's combined adverse ef- 

 fects on EQ resources. 



(2) A net adverse EQ effect occurs when, in the 

 judgment of the agency decisionmaker, an alterna- 

 tive plan's combined adverse effects on EQ re- 

 sources outweigh the plan's combined beneficial ef- 

 fects on EQ resources. 



(3) No net EQ effect occurs when, in the judg- 

 ment of the agency decisionmaker, an alternative 



122 



