facility. In most cases, wildlife loss statements and the corresponding mitigation plans are being 

 developed on a hydroelectric project-by-project basis. 



3. Wlldllta MNigatlon Plans 



The third planning step (Section 1003(b)(3)) funded by Bonneville is the development of a 

 wildlife mitigation plan to address the impacts identified in the loss statements. Once mitigation 

 plans are completed by the appropriate agencies and tribes, they are forwarded to the Council for 

 review. Mitigation proposals for Grand Coulee Dam, the Willamette Basin facilities. Palisades Dam, 

 and Anderson Ranch and Black Canyon dams have reached this stage of the planning process. 

 Attachment 1 provides the status of wildlife planning at federal hydroelectric facilities in the basin. 



4. Program Amendments 



The final action in this four step planning process (Section 1003(b)(4)) calls for the Council to 

 amend the mitigation plans or appropriate alternatives into the fish and wildlife program. Council 

 action is needed before Bonneville or the appropriate project operator begins funding the 

 implementation of the mitigation plan(s). Prior to the submission of the current wildlife proposals, 

 the Hungry Horse and Libby wildlife mitigation plans were the only plans to have come before the 

 Council. Those plans were amended into the fish and wildlife program in February 1987, and 

 implementation is being funded by Bonneville. 



WILOUFE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 



1 . Hungry Hors« and Ubby Dam Mitigation Plans 



The Council made several significant decisions in the course of adopting the Hungry Horse 

 and Libby mitigation plans. First, the Council determined that ratepayers should not be held 

 accountable for funding 100 percent of the wildlife mitigation at these hydroelectric facilities. To 

 determine the hydropower (ratepayer) obligation, the Council selected the Congressional 

 repayment allocation (percent of invested dollars returnable to the Federal Treasury to repay 

 borrowed funds) as a method to determine implementation responsibilities. Using this method, the 

 hydropower obligation was reduced to approximately 77 percent of total mitigation costs for both 

 mitigation plans. The Council explicitly stated that this method should not be construed as a 

 precedent for future mitigation plan decisions. The Council felt at that time there had not been 

 sufficient discussion and analysis of the allocation issue to adopt one method for all future wildlife 

 mitigation plans. 



Second, the Council rejected certain portions of the Hungry Horse and Ubby mitigation plans 

 because they proposed the conduct of additional studies to identify long-range management plans. 

 The Council did not believe that further study constituted effective mitigation. 



AJ See Northwest Power Planning Council Issue Paper, Hungry Horse Dam: Wildlife Mitigation 

 Proposal (February 1986) and Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Appendix C, p. 

 20 (February 1987). 



