Third, the Council urged all parties to explore alternative methods, including a trust fund, for 

 financing the wildlife mitigation measures at these facilities. The trust fund approach involves 

 Bonneville Power Administration placing funds in an interest-bearing account. The implementing 

 wildlife agency can draw on this account to fund approved wildlife mitigation activities. In theory, 

 the account would be managed to produce additional funds for mitigation over time. Currently, 

 Bonneville and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks are continuing negotiations on 

 a trust fund for long-term implementation of measures at Hungry Horse and Libby dams. Parties 

 are hopeful an agreement can be reached and forwarded to the Council later this calendar year. 



PENDING WILOUFE MITIQATION PROPOSALS 



This section of the paper summarizes the wildlife mitigation proposals currently before the 

 Council. Further descriptions and analysis of the proposals occur later in this paper. Because the 

 proposals are lengthy, their details are summarized by the use of tables. Attachment 2 contains 

 maps of the study areas for each of the hydropower facilities. Attachment 3 provides a summary of 

 the estimated wildlife impacts (losses) identified by the agencies and tribes. Additional detail can 

 be found in the individual mitigation proposals available from Bonneville Power Administration or 

 the Council. 



1. Th« Grand Coule* Proposal (Summarized from "Wildlife Protection, Mitigation and 

 Enhancement Planning for Grand Coulee Dam," Rnal Report, August 1986.) 



Grand Coulee Dam was completed in 1941 and impounded the Columbia River to form 

 Franklin D. Roosevelt Reservoir, which is 151 miles long and averages 4,650 feet wide. In addition 

 to the Columbia River, the reservoir includes portions of the Sandpoil River, the Spokane River, the 

 Colville River, the Kettle River, and other tributary streams. At full pool level, the reservoir is 385 

 feet deep near the dam, has a surface area of about 82,270 acres, and holds approximately 5 

 million acre feet of water or about 10 percent of the Columbia River's average annual flow at the 

 Canadian border. Grand Coulee Dam, with an installed capacity of 6,180 megawatts, is a 

 multipurpose project and is operated and maintained by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau). 

 Congress provided no funding to mitigate the hydropower-related effects of the project on wildlife. 



The wildlife mitigation proposal for Grand Coulee Dam was completed by the Washington 

 Department of Wildlife in late 1986 and submitted to the Council for action in January 1987. The 

 planning process used to develop the mitigation plan was unique in two ways. First, a detailed bss 

 statement (1003(b)(2)) was not completed for Grand Coulee Dam. This planning step was 

 bypassed at the request of the Council. The Council feit it would be better for the affected parties 

 to move directly into mitigation planning (1003(b)(3)) rather than spend time detiating the size of 

 the wildlife losses. 



Second, the Grand Coulee mitigation proposal was developed under the supervision of an 

 oversight committee. The committee included representatives of the pertinent wildlife agencies, 



5J The Pacific Nortfiwest Utilities Conference Committee has argued that a substantial amount of 

 wildlife mitigation has been undertaken in conjunction with the Columbia Basin Project. The 

 agencies and tribes argue that these mitigation activities were designed to mitigate for 

 irrigation development, not hydropower development 



