utility representatives and, to a lesser degree, the Corps of Engineers have often been critical 

 of the current wildlife planning process. Their dissatisfaction has centered around the following 

 issues: 1) the need to address impacts to wildlife utilizing a basinwide approach, rather than a 

 project-by-project approach; 2) disagreement with the methods used by the agencies and tribes to 

 determine impacts to wildlife: 3) a belief that the costs of wildlife mitigation must be allocated 

 among the project purposes at multipurpose facilities; and 4) a concern that the overall costs of 

 the mitigation proposals are too high and should be negotiated. 



Disagreement between the parties (i.e., utility interests and the agencies and tribes) has led to 

 polarized opinions regarding wildlife mitigation planning in the basin. Since the Council's decision 

 on the Hungry Horse and Libby dam plans, the utility representatives have preferred not to 

 participate in development of the wildlife mitigation plans and generally have worked internally to 

 develop positions for later presentation to the Council. 



To further the discussion of wildlife issues, the Council staff has developed several 

 alternatives for regional consideration. The staff is not suggesting that any one of these 

 alternatives is the best course of action for the Council, and the various interests may be able to 

 propose additional alternatives for consideration. Each of the alternatives offers different solutions 

 to some of the complex wildlife issues before the Council. StkU has also sketched the most 

 frequently raised issues about each alternative. 



177 The Corps and the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC) in past years 

 have submitted amendment applications to the Council to revise the wildlife planning process 

 (Section 1003(b)). In 1984, PNUCC, the Columbia Basin Rsh and Wildlife Council and the 

 Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks suggested (by amendment application) the 

 Council clarify various Section 1003(b) planning measures. The Council adopted language 

 from these applications and Section 1003(b) has remained unchanged. During the same 

 amendment process, the Council received an amendment application from the Corps that 

 called for a substantial revision of the wildlife program. The Corps proposed a detailed 

 program for protecting selected wildlife species by establishing basinwide wildlife goals and 

 objectivm. While the Council found worthwhile many of the elements in the amendment, it 

 was rejected because the proposed process deviated too much from the wildlife planning 

 approach followed since 1983. See amendment applications PN/I004(b)(1), pp. 2134-2152, 

 CB/1004(b), pp. 2120-2133, MF/1004(b)(1), pp. 2185-2200, CE/1004 pp. 2095-2119, 

 Northwest Power Planning Council Applications for Amendment, Section 1000, Vol. V 

 (January 1984). In 1987, the Council rejected another amendment application submitted by 

 PNUCC calling for another revision to the Section 1003(b) planning process. This application 

 essentially called for negotiation of mitigation plans by the affected parties. See Columbia 

 River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Appendix C, p. 27, (February 11, 1907). 



-19> 



