Environmental Review

Various state laws and regulations, particularly the Endangered Species Conservation Act (RSA 212-A), provide protections for certain species of wildlife.  NH Fish and Game (NHFG) is not the permitting agency for proposed land altering activities but NHFG conducts reviews of certain types of projects and provides conservation measures to project applicants and other state agencies intended to avoid and minimize harm to protected wildlife. 

Yes – Certain permit types (e.g., Alteration of Terrain, Wetlands Dredge and Fill, Shoreland Protection) at the NH Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) require a Natural Heritage Bureau (NHB) DataCheck letter and often a follow-up consultation with NH Fish and Game (NHFG).  NHFG and NHDES are separate agencies, both with independent authorities and responsibilities. NHFG has authority over protected wildlife species and provides conservation measures to ensure applicants and other state agencies are in compliance with state regulations and serve to avoid and minimize harm to protected wildlife.  

The consultation submission guidelines can be found under Fis 1004.03: CHAPTER Fis 1000 CONSERVATION OF ENDANGERED SPECIES (state.nh.us). NHFG developed a checklist to help guide you on requirements: Formal Consultation Application Checklist. Once complete consultation submittal is received, NHFG will initiate review of the project and reach out the applicant with any additional questions or requests for additional information needed to complete the review.  

We strongly recommend completing a Natural Heritage Bureau (NHB) DataCheck (DataCheck Tool | NH Division of Forests and Lands) as soon as possible so that planning, consultation, and permitting can occur prior to the desired project start date. A NHB DataCheck must be conducted when certain state permits or authorizations are requested including but not limited to certain permits from the Department of Environmental Services (i.e., wetlands dredge and fill, alteration of terrain, and shoreland protection). Other projects involving state or federal funding or approvals, such as grant applications, may also require a NHB DataCheck letter in order to ensure necessary compliance. For questions regarding the DataCheck process and submission requirements, please contact the NHB directly DataCheck Tool | NH Division of Forests and Lands.

The NHB DataCheck letter should direct you on the next steps. 

If the NHB DataCheck letter indicates that no protected wildlife species are known from the project area, no further consultation with NHFG is required.  

If you are applying for a state of New Hampshire permit that requires a NHB Datacheck, and a protected wildlife species was listed on the NHB DataCheck letter, then you will likely need to seek further consultation with NHFG. If the ‘NHFG comments’ on the letter indicate “Please refer to NHFG consultation requirements below,” then you will likely need to seek consultation. 

If you are uncertain of whether a consultation with NHFG is required, please contact NHFGreview@wildlife.nh.gov with a copy of your NHB DataCheck letter, and NHFG will make a determination. 
 

Yes.  The NHB DataCheck letter you receive includes all existing records of protected wildlife species from a database maintained by the NHFG and NHB.  The circles on the confidential map represent where an animal was observed and do not represent the area and habitat used by the species. Unlike plants, wildlife can be highly mobile and are often using different or multiple habitat types throughout the year.  NHFG wildlife biologists will evaluate the habitat needs of species appearing on the NHB DataCheck letter as well as the suitability of habitats available on the proposed project site based on information provided in the consultation request.  

All wildlife species listed in the NHB DataCheck letter must be considered. Prior to issuing the NHB Datacheck letter, staff at NHB and NHFG made an initial determination of which species could be potentially impacted by the proposed activity.  Therefore, you should consider all of the species listed on the letter when designing your project and proposing conservation measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential harm to protected wildlife.  The more detail you are able to provide in your NHB DataCheck submission, the more likely a biologist can properly determine the potential impact on a species, and therefore may be able to remove a species from the NHB letter. 

Yes, you still need to consult with NHFG if required by the permitting agency. Redevelopment of a previously developed site is often less impactful to wildlife than development of an undisturbed site, and those considerations go into the review conducted by NHFG. However, some previously developed and disturbed sites provide important habitat for protected wildlife (e.g., sand pits for nesting turtles and snakes, shrublands for New England cottontail and black racer snake, and even certain developed infrastructure for species like common nighthawk, cliff swallows, and peregrine falcon). Therefore, consultation with NHFG is required if a wildlife species is identified on the NHB Datacheck letter.
NHFG provides conservation measures based on the specific scope of work. When the scope of a project changes, new reviews are required to assess the changes in impact for the species. For example, a site permitted to excavate gravel, then later requesting a permit for development of a building on the same site, will have different impacts and associated conservation measures.
 

Provide as much information as possible to limit the number of requests for further additional information (RFAI) by NHFG environmental review staff. Detailed site plans with drainage structures, project timing and duration, wetland assessments, wetland values and functions reports, and multiple photos of onsite habitat and wetland impact areas are all important to the review process. Missing documents, partial answers to reviewer’s questions, and delayed applicant responses to an RFAI will increase the length of time until a reviewer can issue conservation measures for the project. Reviews that include multiple wildlife species, large areas of land disturbance, and projects that occur in sensitive habitat may be more complex and require coordination to adequately avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

All proposed actions shall be designed to avoid and minimize harm to threatened and endangered species and habitat determined to be critical, including any proposed mitigation of harm or other potential adverse impacts to wildlife (RSA 212-A:9, III, Fis 1003.01).  

“Harm” means any act which kills or injures individuals of a threatened or endangered species, or which acts to significantly adversely modify or degrade the habitat supporting the species by interfering with breeding, hibernation, reproduction, feeding, sheltering, migration, or overwintering behaviors that are a part of the species’ normal or traditional life cycle and that are essential to its survival and perpetuation (Fis 1002.10). 

“Avoid and minimize harm” means to avoid harm to the maximum extent practicable and then minimize any harm that cannot be avoided. (Fis 1002.05). 

“Conservation measures” are actions that serve to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse impacts to, and to promote the recovery of or enhance the survival of, threatened or endangered species. (Fis 1002.06).
 

Each project is unique and may need different conservation measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate harm to protected wildlife.  However, there are some conservation measures that are commonly applied to projects.  

The order of evaluation and planning is: 1) avoid impacts, then 2) minimize impacts, 3) then mitigate for any impacts not avoided or minimized.  The examples below are not inclusive of all conservation measures nor are all examples appropriate or acceptable in all situations.  
 
Avoidance conservation measures (examples): 

Select project site where protected wildlife species are not known to occur. 
Design project to avoid impacts to all of the habitat that is likely to be used by the protected wildlife.  
Identify wetlands, vernal pools, and other significant wildlife habitat features on property and avoid impacts during project design.  
Surveys may be required for some species to determine locations of protected wildlife species (e.g., freshwater mussels, den surveys for black racer snakes). 

Minimization conservation measures (examples): 

Project Design – Design a project to minimize impacts to habitats important to protected wildlife. 
Buffers – Provide conservation buffers/development setbacks to important wildlife features like vernal pools, streams, and nesting/denning areas. 
Project Timing - Time project construction and vegetation removal to minimize the likelihood of harm to species according the activity periods of species.  
Wildlife exclusion barriers - Use wildlife exclusion barriers to reduce likelihood of protected wildlife from entering a project site.  The timing and specifications of exclusion barriers will vary with species and project site conditions. 
Biologists - Use a qualified biologist to conduct searches and sweeps for protected wildlife prior to and during construction activities. 
Curbing – Eliminate curbing from project design or use sloped or “Cape Cod” curbing (not steep granite curbing) to allow animals such as turtles to move off the roadway.  

Mitigation: 

Mitigation is determined in consultation with NHFG.  Options may include permanent protection of land through transfer of fee to a recognized conservation entity, conservation easements, and deed restrictions either on the project site or on other parcels providing comparable habitat values for the affected protected wildlife species. Other options have included creation or enhancement of wildlife habitat either on-site or on other protected parcels or contributing to the threatened and endangered species compensatory mitigation fund (RSA 212-A:16, Fis 1006).      
 

Blanding's turtle

Box turtle 

Spotted turtle 

Wood turtle