Environmental Analysis Tools - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 299

Some progress was made when the construction and monitoring costs of
restoring the resources to their predamaged condition were used as a basis
for negotiating a monetary settlement. However, these efforts were com-
plicated and often derailed by debate and disagreement over the area or
intensity of restoration, the projected construction costs, and the specifics of
monitoring. But the concept of restoration cost as compensation for natural
resource damage did have merit and contributed to development of a more
workable approach quantifying environmental value.
If the party responsible for the natural resource damage could restore
and replace, rather than make monetary payments for the damaged natural
resource, much of the debate and many of the roadblocks to restoration could
be avoided. The key was to find nonmonetary currency to measure and con-
firm that the value of the restoration and replacement equaled or exceeded
the natural resource damage integrated over the entire duration of the deg-
radation and recovery. This or a similar currency could also be used as a
common environmental benefit measure for various remediation alterna-
tives and the alternatives could be compared. The currency could be used to
calculate both the debit from destruction of environmental resources result-
ing from remediation and the natural resource credit created by removing
contaminants and restoring the resource.
For both the NRDA issues and remediation with demonstrable ecological
benefits, NEBA could be a very useful approach. However, the value had to be
quantified and a common currency developed to express the quantification.
Two tools were available to develop site-specific environmental currency and
thus enable NEBA to assist in remediation and restoration decisions: Habitat
Evaluation Procedure (HEP) and Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA).
7.3.3 EnvironmentalCurrency
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) had developed a technique to
quantify habitat value for selected species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1980), which showed promise as a common currency for determining net
environmental benefit. The USFWS HEP was developed to determine the
reduction in habitat value for key species as part of their NEPA review of
federal agencies' actions. The method was used to determine the Habitat
Suitability Index (HSI) of an area for selected species calculated as: Study
Area Habitat Conditions/Optimum Habitat Conditions. The existing and
optimum conditions could be determined from habitat models created
by USFWS for common species of either high societal (i.e., recreational or
aesthetic prominence) or ecological integrity value (i.e., performed or indica-
tive of critical ecological functions such as food or nutrient processing). Thus
models were developed for such species as small mouth bass, white tail deer,
or bald eagle. The product of HSI times the total acreage of habitat in the study
area yields the number of habitat units (HU) which could be determined for
the affected environment and predict conditions after project implementation.