produce gains in carrj, ing capacity in one area to make up for impact-related 

 losses in carrying capacity in another area. Thus, unmitigated losses are 

 accepted, and an attempt i: made to recoup these losses through intensive en- 

 hancement elsewhere. Compensation may be in-kind (e.g., lost harlequin duck 

 habitat is compensated by increased harlequin duck management) or out-of-kind 

 (e.g., lost harlequin duck habitat is compensated by increased bighorn sheep 

 management). The latter approach creates considerable problems, as it necessi- 

 tates quantification of the relative value or importance of the different species. 



Intensive habitat improvement is often the most feasible means of increas- 

 ing wildlife numbers (Oliver and Barnett 1966, Remington 1971). Compensation 

 of riparian habitat losses by off-site enhancement has recently been applied 

 to several nydroelectric projects in the northwest. The U.S. Army Corps of 

 Engineers was required to partly compensate for inundation of bighorn sheep 

 winter habitat by Libby Dam through purchase of sheep habitat along the 

 Kootenai River near Kootenai Falls. This settlement would result in only 

 partial compensat"ior, , however, sir.ce 3500 acres were inundated and only 107 

 were purchased. Loss of whooping crane migration habitat due to construction 

 of the Grayrocks Dam in Wyoming was compensated by establishment of a $7 million 

 Whooping Crane Trust Fund, the annual interest of which (c. $500,000) will be 

 used to manage habitat elsewhere (Bowen 1979). In perhaps the classic compen- 

 sation settlement to date, riparian habitat lost due to inundation by the Wells 

 Project in Washington is to compensated by a $1.25 million program, which 

 includes not only long-range relief from damage (restoration and off-site 

 enhancement), but immediate interim relief as well (including release of 

 pen-reared game birds to offset decreased availability to hunters). Overall, 

 nearly 2996 ha (7,400 acres) of off-site lands were made available for 

 intensive enhancement management, as compared to losses of about 1903 ha i 

 (4,700 acres) due to inundation (Oliver 1974). Utilities often enter into ' 

 voluntary wildlife compensation agreements, recognizing the considerable public 

 relations value provided by such programs (Burgess and Huber 1979). 



Some possible means of compensating unmitigated losses of the Kootenai 

 Falls project via enhancement are discussed below. 



Riparian Habitat Enhancement. Riparian habitat along the Kootenai River 

 upstream or downstream from the project area could be intensively managed to 

 partly offset project-related losses. Possible techniques would involve con- 

 trol of conifer invasion, artificial propagation of cottonwoods, enhancement 

 of browse species important to white-tailed deer, management to ensure long- 

 term production of old growth cottonwood and snags (perhaps by girdling of 

 live trees), and management to ensure a high structural diversity of tree and 

 shrub habitats. Another possibility is restoration of cleared riparian forest 

 habitats in the Libby-Troy area. Such management would probably be costly 

 and of limited effectiveness in substantially increasing carrying capacity 

 of target species. 



Bighorn Sheep Habitat Enhancement . Bighorn sheep production could be 

 enhanced in the Libby-Troy area by acquisition and management of key habitat 

 (especially winter-spring range). Possible habitat improvements include 

 vegetation manipulation, controlled burning, nitrogen fertilization, and seeding 

 and planting of preferred forage plants (Bailey 1978). However, much grassland 

 habitat along the Kootenai River has already been acquired by MDFWP as part of ^ 



104 



