using a trust fund to implement wildlife mitigation at Hungry Horse and Libby dams. Using this 

 approach, the cost to ratepayers may be substantially less than a conventional year-by-year 

 funding scheme. 



Council staff estimated the cost for wildlife mitigation at Hungry Horse and Libby dams to be 

 approximately $16 to $20 million. These were initial 10-year costs plus annual operation and 

 maintenance. After adjusting the acreage figures to account for the hydropower allocation, the 

 mitigation cost per acre is between $400 and $500 per acre. While these are estimated numbers, 

 this may be an approach to use for the pending mitigation proposals. 



Another approach would be to target Bonneville's wildlife budget at a specified level, say 

 approximately $6.5 million per year, (This is the outyear funding level estimated by Bonneville, 

 Council staff and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority in outyear budget discussions that 

 were conducted in 1987.) Other approaches include setting a percentage of fish and wildlife 

 funding that would be available for wildlife or simply negotiating the wildlife funding level among all 

 interested parties. 



Um of trust funds. Selection of a funding level also might be considered with the use of a 

 trust fund(s) to implement the wildlife programs. The trust fund concept would have to be 

 discussed with Bonneville, but on the surface it appears to offer substantial savings to the 

 ratepayer. The Council may want to consider a regional trust fund or provide trust funds at the 

 state or state/tribal level. The Council encourages comment on any other funding mechanisms 

 that might appropriately be used for wildlife mitigation funding. 



Alternative 5. Develop guiding policies for wildlife and amend tfiem Into ths flsft and wildlife 

 program. 



Approach 



As Stated earlier in this paper, some have argued that the wildlife program (Section 1000) 

 lacks specific policy direction due to the absence of program goals and objectives, i.e., goals 

 similar to the Council's interim goal of doubling the salmon and steelhead runs. While it could be 

 difficult to articulate a similar goal for wildlife, it may be appropriate to reevaluate the current wildlife 

 program and make some policy decisions on some of the issues that have consistently arisen 

 since inception of the wildlife program. 



Should the Council decide it wants to develop guiding policies for the wildlife program, a 

 separate issue paper describing policy options in detail might be developed. Briefly, the issue 

 paper could analyze the following areas of concern. 



Establish framework, goals and objectives. To ensure logical and consistent 

 implementation of target goals and objectives, the Council may wish to consider providing a 

 framework for making wildlife mitigation plan decisions and for implementing wildlife mitigation 

 measures. The purpose of the framework would be to provide a systemwide perspective on the 

 relationship among individual wildlife program measures. The framework could include the target 

 goals; policies to guide achievement of those goals; a process to plan future efforts; and a 

 monitoring and evaluation process to measure progress toward the goals and to provide 

 assurance that corrective actions coukj be taken if the goals were not being achieved. 



-22- 



