The agencies and tribes have provided the Council with a list of priority wildlife actions spread 

 over various implementation periods in their respective mitigation proposals. This information 

 could be incorporated into the Council's Rve-year Action Plan. Implementation could proceed in a 

 manner similar to that used tor Hungry Horse and Libby dams, where the Action Plan sets up a 

 schedule for advanced design (taking what are conceptual projects and designing them in greater 

 detail), implementation and monitoring. 



Approving the full scope of the mitigation proposals obviously would be viewed positively by 

 the agencies and tribes. It would provide the greatest level of mitigation to the wildlife and wildlife 

 habitat impacted by the various dams. Approving the mitigation proposals also would reconfirm 

 the Council's past actions that a project-by-project approach (i.e., developing wildlife mitigation 

 proposals as set forth in Section l003(b)(2)-(4) of the program) is the correct method for 

 developing future wildlife mitigation proposals. This would give Bonneville and the agencies and 

 tribes the necessary direction to continue planning for the remaining hydroelectric facilities. 



Issues 



A decision to approve the mitigation proposals, as submitted by the agencies and tribes, 

 raises a number of issues. The following are the most likely to arise: 



• Approval of the mitigation proposals would entail agreeing with the agencies' and tribes' 

 determination of the mitigation levels that should be funded by the ratepayers. While the case 

 made by the agencies and tribes deserves further discussion, some would argue that the 

 method of allocating wildlife mitigation costs is not correct and places too large a financial 

 obligation on the ratepayers. 



• The estimated costs of the mitigation proposals are high, especially in light of Bonneville's 

 current wildlife budget To fully execute the pending mitigation proposals, as much as $10 

 million may be needed per year over the implementation period mentioned earlier. Currently, 

 Bonneville's wildlife budget is $1.1 million. The budget is expected to grow to $4.4 million in 

 Fiscal Year 1989 and is proposed at $5 million for Rscal Year 1990, or about 10 percent of the 

 total fish and wildlife budget. These numbers are current estimates and could change. In 

 addition to the costs for the new wildlife proposals, Bonneville will be funding wildlife planning 

 for the remainder of the federal hydroelectric facilities and will be continuing to implement 

 mitigation measures at Hungry Horse and Libby dams. 



• Qenerally, the pending wildlife proposals stress land acquisition (by fee title purchase or 

 easemerrt) as the primary tool for achieving mitigation. While the agencies and tribes state 

 that their proposals conform to the land acquisition criteria spelled out in the program, 

 (Section 1003(d)(1)-(2)), large-scale land purchases raise a number of policy and institutional 

 issues. In particular, concerns arise about the tax impact of acquisition (i.e., would land 

 purchaas remove larxj from property tax rolls?). In addition, another issue likely to arise is 

 the responsibility for operation and maintenance costs and the management arrangements 

 for acquired lands (i.e., will the lands be dedicated for wildlife purposes only or will other 

 practices, such as cattle grazing, be permitted?). 



-17- 



