Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act — Federal Water Project Consultation Requirements

When a federal agency or a private developer with a federal permit proposes to dam, divert, deepen, or otherwise alter a stream or body of water, federal law requires them to first consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and relevant state fish and wildlife agencies about the impact on fish and wildlife. This consultation requirement is the core of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), one of the oldest federal environmental laws still in active use — originally enacted in 1934 and substantially strengthened in 1958. The FWCA does not give wildlife interests a veto over water development projects, but it does require that wildlife conservation be considered equally with other project purposes, and that reasonable measures to mitigate wildlife impacts be incorporated into project design. The FWCA is less well-known than the Endangered Species Act or National Environmental Policy Act, but it applies to a broader class of water projects than the ESA (which only triggers for listed species) and was the principal federal mechanism for fish and wildlife protection in the era before NEPA and the ESA.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 16 U.S.C. § 661 — Authorization: authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to assist and cooperate with federal and state agencies for the protection, preservation, and restoration of wildlife resources, including species affected by land, water, and soil use; directs that wildlife conservation shall be given equal consideration and be coordinated with other features of water-resource programs
• 16 U.S.C. § 662(a) — Consultation requirement: whenever a federal agency proposes to impound, divert, drain, fill, deepen, or otherwise control or modify any stream or body of water in the United States, it shall first consult with FWS (and NMFS for marine species) and with the head of the state wildlife agency for purposes of preventing loss and damage to wildlife resources; the consultation applies equally to federal projects and to private/other entity projects authorized by federal permits
• 16 U.S.C. § 662(b) — Recommendations: after receiving notification and project information, FWS must submit a written report and recommendations for wildlife conservation measures to the proposing agency; if FWS recommends acquisition of land or other measures, these recommendations must be given full consideration by the proposing agency
• 16 U.S.C. § 662(e) — Equal consideration standard: wildlife conservation is to be given equal consideration with navigation, flood control, irrigation, and other water-development purposes in planning; agencies may acquire land for wildlife conservation as incidental to or in addition to project objectives
• 16 U.S.C. § 663 — Stream improvements: when a federal agency builds a water impoundment or diversion, it shall make provision for the use of project waters for the development and improvement of wildlife resources to the extent consistent with the primary purposes of the project; if an impoundment substantially reduces wildlife habitat, the agency may acquire comparable land for habitat replacement
• 16 U.S.C. § 664 — Administration (land made available to the Secretary under §§ 661-663 must be administered for wildlife conservation; land may be made available to state fish and wildlife agencies under cooperative agreements for management of specific wildlife areas; the Secretary retains overall oversight)
• 16 U.S.C. § 665 — Investigations of water pollution effects (the Secretary of the Interior, through FWS and the Bureau of Mines, may study how sewage, mining waste, petroleum pollution, and other industrial effluents affect fish and wildlife; reports go to Congress and to relevant state agencies — the precursor to modern clean water and RCRA oversight)
• 16 U.S.C. § 666 — Authorization of appropriations (appropriations necessary to carry out the Act and its regulations may be drawn from the Treasury; includes funds for construction and maintenance of wildlife mitigation facilities in conjunction with water resource development projects)
• 16 U.S.C. § 667 — Game management supply depots (funds appropriated for wildlife refuges may be used to purchase, transport, and distribute fish and wildlife for stocking purposes — authorizing the Fish and Wildlife Service's longstanding cooperative fish stocking programs with state fish and wildlife agencies)

How FWCA Consultation Works in Practice

The FWCA consultation is distinct from Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act. The ESA Section 7 consultation is triggered only when a listed (threatened or endangered) species may be affected. FWCA consultation is triggered by any significant modification to water bodies, regardless of whether listed species are present.

Who triggers FWCA: The statute applies to federal agencies constructing water projects (Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, TVA) and to federal agencies that issue permits for private water projects (Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, FERC hydropower licenses, EPA permits, Bureau of Land Management authorization for water diversions). The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act provides a complementary cooperative framework specifically for restoring migratory fish populations affected by these same water projects.

The consultation process:

1. Project applicant or federal agency provides FWS with project description and maps
2. FWS reviews the project's potential wildlife impacts
3. FWS issues written comments and recommendations, typically including wildlife conservation measures (fish ladders, minimum flows, habitat mitigation, monitoring requirements)
4. The proposing agency must give the recommendations "full consideration" before approving or constructing the project
5. If the agency disagrees with FWS recommendations, it may proceed but must document its reasoning; the FWCA does not give FWS a veto

The equal consideration standard is the Act's most important provision but also its least enforceable. Courts have interpreted it as a procedural requirement — the agency must consider wildlife impacts with the same procedural rigor as other project purposes — rather than a substantive requirement that wildlife interests prevail when they conflict with water development objectives.

Coordination with the states: The FWCA requires consultation with state wildlife agencies, not just FWS. State agencies often provide detailed habitat assessments and monitoring requirements that supplement FWS recommendations. The coordination of federal and state recommendations is an important feature distinguishing FWCA from purely federal regulatory processes.

Interaction with Other Environmental Laws

The FWCA is one of several federal laws that apply to water projects, and they work together:

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): NEPA requires environmental impact analysis for major federal actions. FWCA consultation results often become incorporated into the NEPA process — FWS recommendations become part of the biological assessment or wildlife section of the EIS. The two processes are not duplicative but complementary.

Endangered Species Act Section 7: If any listed species is present, Section 7 consultation with FWS is mandatory and can result in a jeopardy finding that blocks the project. FWCA consultation applies regardless of listed species — it covers common fish and wildlife populations.

Clean Water Act Section 404: Dredge-and-fill permits from the Army Corps must include a public interest review of wildlife impacts; FWCA consultation is typically conducted as part of the 404 permit review.

FERC hydropower licensing: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must consult with FWS under FWCA as part of hydropower project licensing and relicensing; the resulting mandatory conditions (fish passage requirements, minimum flow requirements) are major elements of modern hydropower licensing.

How It Affects You

If you are developing a project requiring a federal permit for work on or near water: Any federal permit for dredging, filling, diverting, or impounding water on waters of the United States will trigger FWCA coordination alongside your Corps Section 404 or other permit review. The strategic imperative: engage FWS and the state wildlife agency early — during pre-application scoping, before project design is locked in. FWCA recommendations submitted late in the process are harder to incorporate and more likely to require costly project redesign or schedule delays. Request a pre-application meeting with the relevant FWS Ecological Services field office (find yours at fws.gov/offices) to identify potential wildlife concerns before you submit. FWS typically issues FWCA coordination comments within 60–90 days of receiving a complete project description; complex projects may take longer. Build that time into your permitting schedule. If FWS recommends specific mitigation — fish ladders, minimum flows, riparian buffer zones, habitat acquisition — engaging these measures collaboratively during pre-application discussions almost always produces more cost-effective outcomes than challenging them after the permit application is filed. Environmental screening tools at fws.gov/ipac (Information for Planning and Consultation) allow you to identify FWS concerns for a given project location before any formal consultation.

If you work for a federal agency authorizing or constructing water projects: FWCA consultation is a statutory requirement that must be documented in the project's administrative record before approval or construction. Failure to consult — or failure to give FWS recommendations "full consideration" — exposes project approvals to legal challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act, and courts have found inadequate FWCA records to be grounds for remand or injunction. Best practice: initiate FWCA coordination during early project scoping, before the NEPA process begins, so wildlife conservation measures can be integrated into the project's Purpose and Need statement and alternatives analysis rather than appended as post-design mitigation. When the agency disagrees with FWS recommendations, document the specific reasoning clearly — bare disagreement without explanation is legally vulnerable. The Army Corps uses FWCA coordination as a standard element of Section 404 public interest reviews; Bureau of Reclamation and TVA have similar internal requirements. The FWS coordination framework and field office contacts are at fws.gov/program/ecological-services.

If you work in fisheries restoration, conservation advocacy, or state wildlife management: FWCA gives FWS and state wildlife agencies a formal, statutory voice for any significant water project — including those affecting common, non-listed fish and wildlife populations that the ESA's Section 7 process would miss entirely. For dam removal projects — increasingly common as aging FERC licenses expire across the Pacific Northwest, Northeast, and Southeast — FWCA coordination applies to removal as it does to construction, covering drawdown effects, sediment release management, and fish passage restoration timing. The Act's § 663 habitat replacement requirement — when an impoundment substantially reduces wildlife habitat, the project agency may acquire comparable replacement land — is a specific tool for securing permanent mitigation commitments that outlast any single project authorization. State wildlife agencies that receive Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson excise tax funding (see the Pittman-Robertson program) often coordinate FWCA advocacy with their fish stocking and habitat programs, using FWCA comments to protect restored populations from new project impacts. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) handles FWCA consultation for marine and anadromous species; FWS handles freshwater and terrestrial species.

If you are a hydropower operator facing FERC relicensing: FWCA consultation is a core element of the FERC Integrated Licensing Process (ILP), and FWS recommendations in the relicensing context have binding potential: under § 18 of the Federal Power Act, FWS can exercise mandatory conditioning authority requiring FERC to include specific fish passage measures in relicense conditions. Recent FERC licensing proceedings have resulted in minimum flow regimes, seasonal flow variations, water temperature controls, trap-and-haul programs, and upstream/downstream fish ladders as mandatory license conditions negotiated through the FWCA/ILP coordination process. Operators who engage FWS and state agencies collaboratively during the pre-application stage — filing early study requests, responding to agency information needs, and proposing alternative mitigation approaches — generally achieve more cost-effective outcomes than those who treat FWCA as an adversarial hurdle. Build FWCA coordination costs and timeline into your relicensing budget: the ILP typically spans 3–6 years from pre-application through license issuance. The FWS National FERC Hydropower Licensing page at fws.gov/hydropower and the National Hydropower Association (hydro.org) maintain current resources on FWCA requirements in the relicensing context.

State Variations

State fish and wildlife agencies have independent consultation roles under FWCA. States also have their own water quality certification authority under Clean Water Act Section 401, which can be used to impose wildlife-protective conditions on federally licensed projects. California, Pacific Northwest states, and several others have state laws requiring wildlife consultation for state-permitted water projects that parallel federal FWCA requirements.

Implementing Regulations

The FWS regulations governing management of national fish hatchery areas live at 50 CFR Part 70 — National Fish Hatcheries. Key provisions:

• § 70.1 — Purpose: all national fish hatchery areas are maintained for the fundamental purpose of propagating and distributing fish and other aquatic animal life, and are managed for the protection of all wildlife species on those lands; national fish hatcheries are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System in terms of land management (same prohibited acts and public access rules apply) but have a distinct aquaculture mission
• § 70.2 — Administrative provisions: the general management rules for national wildlife refuges (50 CFR Part 25) apply equally to national fish hatchery areas; this means the same standards for visitor safety, wildlife protection, and facility use apply across the refuge and hatchery systems
• § 70.3 — State cooperation: FWS may enlist state fish and wildlife agencies in management programs at national fish hatcheries — including public hunting, fishing, and recreation — through cooperative agreements executed between the Secretary and the state agency; cooperative programs must comply with all applicable regulations; persons entering hatchery property under cooperative program authorization must have the required state licenses
• § 70.4 — Prohibited acts: the prohibited acts enumerated for national wildlife refuges (50 CFR Part 27) apply equally to hatchery areas; additionally, fishing, taking, seining, or attempting to take any fish, amphibian, or other aquatic animal on any national fish hatchery area is prohibited except when specifically authorized under Part 71 (fishing in national wildlife refuges and hatcheries); hunting, killing, or pursuing wildlife on hatchery property is also prohibited unless specifically authorized; the blanket prohibition on fishing reflects the hatchery mission — fish being propagated for distribution cannot be removed by the public
• § 70.5–70.9 — Cross-incorporation: enforcement, public entry and use, land-use management, range and feral animal management, and wildlife species management provisions from Parts 28, 26, 29, 30, and 31 (respectively) all apply to national fish hatchery areas, with the exception that Part 31 § 31.15 (hunting and fishing) is handled separately by Part 70 because of the hatchery mission's unique relationship to fishing

The National Fish Hatchery System consists of approximately 70 hatcheries managed by FWS across the United States, producing salmon, trout, steelhead, lake trout, Atlantic sturgeon, and other species for stocking in public waters, Native American subsistence programs, and species recovery programs. Part 70 establishes that hatchery areas are simultaneously productive aquaculture facilities and wildlife refuges — visitors can access many hatcheries for tours and wildlife watching, but the fish production mission means that fishing on hatchery grounds without specific authorization is prohibited. Most hatchery-produced fish are stocked into public waters under cooperative agreements with state fish and wildlife agencies; the FWCA's 16 U.S.C. § 667 authority (funds for stocking purposes) is the underlying statutory basis for the cooperative stocking programs Part 70 facilitates.

Pending Legislation

No major amendments to FWCA are currently pending as of 2026. However, the relationship between FWCA and ESA has been debated in the context of listing decisions — if FWS is using FWCA to address declining wildlife populations before they reach ESA listing thresholds, it could reduce pressure for listings. FWCA is sometimes referenced in discussions about reforming the permitting process for water infrastructure projects.

Recent Developments

The FWCA has seen renewed attention in the context of dam removal projects — when federal agencies remove dams to restore fish passage, they must consider the wildlife impacts of removal under the same coordination framework as construction. Several major Pacific Northwest dam removal projects have involved extensive FWCA coordination regarding the effects of drawdown, sediment release, and habitat restoration on fish and wildlife resources. The Sikes Act creates a parallel consultation framework for wildlife management on military installations, where FWS also has a formal cooperative role. Climate adaptation planning for water resources increasingly involves FWCA coordination as agencies plan for altered hydrology, temperature regimes, and species distribution shifts.