of lands in perpetuity of their natural condition (MDFWP and USDI no date). 

 Specifically, loss of riparian habitat, harlequin duck habitat or other losses 

 could be partly compensated by the establishment of easements which would 

 assure maintenance of similar habitats in perpetuity elsewhere in the area. 

 For example, easements obtained on riparian habitat between Libby and Troy 

 would contain provisions allowing present uses, but prohibiting future 

 timbe>' clearing, subdivision, inundation, or other activities detrimental to 

 wildlife. Federal easements would be more desirable than rtate easements, 

 since the former could not be overturned by state action, and since much 

 riprian habitat between Libby and Troy is presently owned by the U.S. Forest 

 Service, Such easements are an especially attractive form of compensation, 

 since the cost (Cp, page 144) may be yery low compared to outright purchase, _ 

 and protection is afforded regardless of future ownership status. The benefits 

 of this form of compensation may not be felt for years or decades, and therefore 

 some environmental costs (i.e., unmitigated impact) would continue to accrue. 

 However, as protected habitat becomes increasingly scarce, the benefits of 

 long-term protection would not only accrue but increase over time, and total 

 benefits ever the long-term could eventually be far creater -- even if discounted 

 than those to be obtained by mitigation. Also, since initial costs ^re small 

 and costs do not accrue (as do costs of long-term enhancement), the cost- 

 effectiveness of this strategy would probably be much higher over the long- 

 term than that of either mitigation or enhancement compensation. 



Recormiendations 



Prior to certification, NLI should submit to DNRC and FERC for review, 

 and to FERC and the Board of Natural Resources and Conservation for approval 

 a detailed plan for mitigation and for compensation of unmitigated losses. 

 Such a plan should accompany the reclamation and restoration plan mentioned i 

 earlier, and should employ the most cost-effective mix of strategies -- 

 mitigation, enhancement, and long-term protection of off-si,te habitats. 

 Means should be provided to provide immediate interim relief as well as long- 

 term relief from damage. It appears likely that the best strategy for long- 

 term relief would involve protective easements on habitats similar tothose 

 affected by the project; a reasonable plan would probably afford in-kind 

 protection in perpetuity for an area 20-25 times that of each affected habitat. 

 A map (scale = 1:24,000) should accompany the plan, and show the location and 

 dominant vegetation of enhancement lands as well as land ownership and proposed 

 easements. NLI shoudl be required to negotiate purchase of land or acquisition 

 of easements before final certification of the project. The plan should specify 

 methods of cost-benefit analysis and of estimating the requirements for 

 habitat losses; the habitat evaluation procedures of Schamberger and Farmer 

 (1978) or Fielder (1977) merit consideration for the latter. A procedure 

 for long-term monitoring of the success of mitigation, compensation, and en- 

 hancement should beout lined, and should be capable of ensuring that all 

 mitigating measures are enforced and of discerning unmitigated losses. 



106 



