Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />2413 <br /> <br />For comparative purposes we have compiled Table 2 below which depicts <br />the choices available for replacement of net HU losses in each <br />impact segment. Tables 3a through Sf serve as documentation of the <br />acreage requirements determined for each impact segment under the <br />particular compensation goal. <br /> <br />Table 2. Compensation Acreage Requirements Determined <br />by the HE? Software Program for each Mitigation Goal <br /> <br /> Impact Segment "In-Kind" Equal Relative <br /> (mid-ranqe) <br />Conservation Pool 20,101 19,104 l7,571 <br />Fee 2,57& 2,830 2,8l& <br />(plus former easement) <br />Recreation 4,727 4,72& 4,404 <br />Rights-of-Way 1,496 1,49& 1,394 <br />(highway and railroad) <br />Fish Hatcherv 189_. 208 207 <br />Total Acres 29,089 28,364 26,392 <br /> <br />The HEP evaluation team throuqh group concensus determined relative <br />important values for all evaluation species. Relative importance <br />values were consistent with management plan objectives mentioned <br />earlier. Relative importance values assigned to each target <br />species are as follows: <br /> <br />Tarqet S.Eecies <br /> <br />RVI <br /> <br />1.0 <br />.9 <br />.5 <br /> <br />l. Blue-winged teal <br />2. Ring-necked pheasant <br />3. Mule deer <br /> <br />Table & presents the RVI values for the target species (Form Fl. <br /> <br />II <br />