33 



are the costs that might be associated with the drawdown as we 

 have known it has been discussed at least? 



Mr. Hardy. We are not opposed to drawdown. We would like to 

 see some form of biologic test before we commit to the large ex- 

 penditure that would be involved. In fact, we, the Corps and the 

 National Marine Fisheries Service are working with the recovery 

 team and others to try to design just such a test. We are kind of 

 a third party in this. It is much more the Corps and the National 

 Marine Fisheries Service that have taken the lead. We have fully 

 endorsed that effort, I think, that is potentially scheduled for 1994. 



In any event, I think some test of the biologic validity would be 

 extremely helpful, and we clearly think that issue needs to be ad- 

 dressed as part of the long-term recovery plan for salmon that the 

 NMFS Recovery Team is currently working on. We need a yes or 

 a no, or more likely, a biologic testing road map to get to yes or 

 no on drawdown, and I am hopeful that will be the outcome. 



The costs of the drawdown proposal, as currently laid out by the 

 Corps, plus the power impacts would probably amount to another 

 5-10 percent rate increase for Bonneville. I should emphasize that 

 that is a rate impact that doesn't occur until well after the turn 

 of the century. I mean it takes you probably on the order of 14- 

 15 years or more to actually do all of these things, so you don't feel 

 the full impact of that in a rate sense until probably between the 

 years 2005 and 2010. So it is not an immediate thing, but clearly 

 it has competitiveness and other implications in the long term. 



Mr. Smith. In dollars, what are we talking about? 



Mr. Hardy. I would have to answer that question for the record. 

 The Corps has estimated that the dam modification costs alone 

 range from $1.3 billion to $4.9 billion. There are also power impact 

 costs in addition to those, and I would have to get those and an- 

 swer that for the record. 



Mr. Smith. All right. Thank you. I wish you would. Thank you. 



[The information follows:] 



Power impact costs associated with operating all four lower Snake River projects 

 to near spillway crest from April 15 to June 15 were analyzed for the 1992 Colum- 

 bia River Salmon Flow Measures Options Analysis Environmental Impact State- 

 ment. Drawdown is to occur April 1 to 15 and refill by early July. The annual cost 

 for lost firm energy is estimated to be $72 million per year and lost firm capacity 

 is $32 million per year. Lost non-firm energy is estimated to range from $21 million 

 to $55 million per year. The lost capacity may not affect the ability to serve North- 

 west peak loads, but may affect the ability to market capacity. These impacts are 

 based on not operating turbines once the reservoir level is reduced below the point 

 that turbine screens can no longer deflect the fish away from the turbines. If the 

 turbines were kept in operation, BPA estimates that impacts would be in the neigh- 

 borhood of about half of the above estimates. 



Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. 



I would like to recognize that we have been joined by two col- 

 leagues, but first our colleague fi-om Washington State, who is not 

 a member of the committee but asked permission to sit today, 

 given the vital concern of Northwest Members, and we welcome 

 him. 



We are going through a round of questions, but if the gentleman 

 had a brief opening statement we would take that now. 



Mike, do you have one? 



