The following table shows the adjustment (percentage) tor hydropower allocation using these 

 two methods. 



Congressional Separable Costs 



Project Repayment Method 



Grand Coulee 91.5% 43% 



Willamette Basin 



Cougar 31 23 



Detroit/Big Cliff 61 40.5 



Green Peter/Foster 55 -41,5 



Hills Creek 36 24.5 



Lookout Point/Dexter 48 31 



Palisades 12 7.5 



Anderson Ranch 33 5 



Black Canyon 33 50 



Should the Council choose one of these methods, it could adjust the proposed values in the 

 five mitigation proposals, i.e., adjust the habitat types (acres) and/or the habitat units, which would 

 reduce the number of proposed projects and the overall mitigation cost. 



Issues 



Limiting the ratepayer responsibility for wildlife mitigation proposals by use of any of these 

 allocation methods would reduce significantly the overall cost of mitigation. The Council would be 

 agreeing that the dams are multiple purpose facilities and that the ratepayers of the region should 

 not be held responsible for paying 100 percent of the mitigation for losses to wildlife and wildlife 

 habitat. 



The agencies and tribes are likely to oppose this alternative. Their position is that the 

 mitigation proposals estimated losses and addressed mitigation for hydro-related losses. 

 Therefore, the agencies and tnbes believe strongly that the ratepayers of the region should fund 

 the mitigation they are proposing. 



Alternative 3. Defer action on the pending wildlife mitigation proposals until wildlife policy 

 issues can be addressed or all wildlife mitigation planning under the program is complete. 



Approach 



There are two variations of ihis alternative. First, the Council coukJ defer entering rulemaking- 

 on the pending wildlife mitigation proposals for a period of time, allowing more time for discussion 

 of basinwide wildlife policy issues, perhaps through development of a wildlife policy issue paper. 



-19- 



