• Approvs sp«cif1c wildlife projects and control the pace of Implementation In the Action < 

 Plan. ' 



Using this approach, the Council could approve specific wildlife projects (e.g., from the 

 perxjing and future wildlife mitigation proposals) and amend them into the fish and wildlife 

 program. Wildlife projects included in the program would have to meet the Act's general 

 standards in section 4(h)(5)-(6), i.e., they: protect, mitigate and enhance wildlife affected by 

 the development at the hydroelectric facilities; do not impact a reliable power supply; 

 complement activities of fish and wildlife agencies and tribes; are based on the best available 

 scientific knowledge; use the least expensive means of achieving a sound biological 

 objective; and are consistent with Indian legal rights (see Section 4(h)(5)-(6) of the Northwest 

 Power Act). 



To pace the implementation of these wildlife projects, the Council could estimate (i.e., based 

 on judgment of proper funding levels comparing wildlife needs with fish needs) the levei of 

 effort Bonneville can be expected to fund over the next five years. The Council would include 

 in the Action Plan (for funding in coming five years) only those wildlife projects that it found 

 consistent with the funding level of effort. The Action Plan list could be amended 

 subsequently as needed to include new wildlife projects from future mitigation proposals or to 

 alter the level of effort. 



• Limit the program level of effort to wildlife projects that address the greatest need for 

 wildlife restoration or protection and pace the Implementation In the Action Plan. 



In this method, the pace of implementation and funding level of effort would remain the same (C 



as the preceding approach. However, the standard for approving wildlife mitigation projects 

 would change. Rather than include all wildlife projects from the mitigation proposals (e.g., 

 those that meet the Act's standards), the Council could limit or prioritize the program. It 

 might address threatened or endangered species and their habitats or projects that address 

 regional species of concern. Wildlife projects meeting these criteria either could be selected 

 from the existing and future mitigation proposals or regionally prioritized by an advisory 

 committee to focus mitigation in areas of greatest biological need. 



issues 



Should the Council wish to pursue this alternative, the following concerns may need further 

 discussion. 



I of effbrt Obviously, choosing the right funding levei of effort will be difficult and would 

 need to be discussed further with the agencies, tribes, utility interests, Bonneville and other 

 affected parties. The dollar amount would need to tal<e into account that the Northwest Power Act 

 directed the Council to develop a program for both fish and wildlife; that limited funding has been 

 directed to wildlife mitigation thus far; and that, generally, the cost of wildlife mitigation is relatively 

 high. 



This paper does not propose a specific level of effort. There are several alternatives that 

 might be used. One approach is to calculate the overall level by determining an appropriate dollar 

 amount per acre inundated. Hungry Horse and Libby dams might be used as an example. 

 Bonneville and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks are negotiating a settlement 



-21- 



