Establish interim target goals. The Council could restructure the existing wildlife program 

 by establishing a specific program goal with regional wildlife mitigation objectives (program 

 measures) outlined in the Rve-year Action Plan. The goal could be articulated in biological terms, 

 e.g., the wildlife program could be limited to threatened or endangered wildlife populations and 

 their habitat or regional species of concern. Alternatively, wildlife projects might be prioritized 

 geographically, with priority given to projects in those areas that lack salmon and steelhead 

 rehabilitation opportunities. The Council could conceivably factor in other considerations such as 

 the number of resident fish substitution projects or other program measures being undertaken in a 

 given location. Another option would be for the Council to specify the program level of effort, e.g., 

 defining the level of dollars that will be allocated to the wildlife program over a given period of time 

 (similar to the previous alternative). In either case, the mitigation proposals that have been 

 developed by the agencies and tribes could provide the basis for selecting specific objectives (high 

 priority program measures and action items) to meet the program goal(s). 



Land acquisition. The Council may want to review the present criteria for land acquisition 

 (1003(d)(l)-(2)) and make changes. In particular, the Council may want to prioritize the type of 

 protection and enhancement actions it would emphasize during implementation of the program. 

 As an example, the Council may want to stress wildlife enhancement projects on public or tribal 

 lands over fee title acquisition of private lands. 



Privata utility projects. Currently, the issue of wildlife mitigation planning and 

 implementation at nonfederal hydroelectric projects remains unclear in the program. The current 

 fish and wildlife program calls for mitigation planning activities (1003(b) planning process) to take 

 place at most of the nonfederal projects in the basin. However, with the exception of a few cases, 

 Bonneville and the private utility operators have not carried out mitigation planning and 

 implementation activities at non-federal dams. The Council may want to discuss this issue with the 

 interested parties and make clear its policy direction in the program. Additionally, in the case of 

 many non-federal dams, FERC has required, as a condition of the project license, that certain types 

 of mitigation be carried out by the project operator to offset damage to wildlife caused by 

 construction and operation of the project. The Council is interested in comment on the extent of 

 mitigation at non-federal projects and whether it is viewed as being adequate. 



Hydropower allocation. As discussed earlier, this issue addresses who should pay for 

 mitigation. To date, several methods for allocating responsibility for funding wildlife mitigation have 

 been discussed. The Council may want to make a policy decision to guide future mitigation 

 proposals. 



ISSUM 



As noted earlier, if the Council decides to pursue the development of a wildlife policy for the 

 program, another issue paper may be written to further explore the issues. This could delay action 

 on the pending mitigation proposals. The Council also may want to examine the pending 

 mitigation proposals and select a few of the highest priority projects for earlier, limited 



207 With regard to future proposals for non-federal hydroelectric projects, the Council does not 

 anticipate the need for Bonneville-funded mitigation planning but rather would expect the 

 conditions specified in program Section 1103(a)(2) to be incorporated into the Federal 

 Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses for these projects. 



-23- 



