150 



something that is absolutely rigid; yes, you are right, we cannot 

 control nature, drought and those sorts of things. There needs to 

 be flexibility built in, contingencies; we need to incorporate evolv- 

 ing science and our knowledge within that science. But it just 

 seems, given your frustration about enforceability, your frustration 

 about measurable results, the need for oversight, this would have 

 been a way that you could have strengthened your hand a little bit. 



Mr. Grace. That is very possible, but like I say, collectively, we 

 chose not to go that way for a variety of reasons. 



Mr. DeFazio. Okay, back to the Administrator for a couple of 

 questions. Just to finish up on the last round when I was asking 

 about the resident fish and wildlife program, you are looking at a 

 large staff reductions. I mean, what assumptions have you made 

 about your fish and wildlife department, which is at tins point I 

 understand 77 employees, quite large, very expensive 



Mr. Hardy. More like 60, but yes, it is. 



Mr. DeFazio. Oh, well I saw a number 77 in the testimony. 



Mr. Hardy. The Fish and Wildlife Division will be affected, as 

 will virtually every other division and section at Bonneville. We 

 have not targeted specific reductions in that area or in other areas, 

 but we have set ourselves an aggregate goal based on some analy- 

 sis that we have done. I cannot tell you whether the 60 will go to 

 50 or 20 or some other number, but it will definitely be less than 

 it is now. And, it is not only related to the overall staffing reduc- 

 tion, Mr. Chairman, it will also be related to potential implementa- 

 tion of some of the very concepts we have been talking about ear- 

 lier. If we develop wildlife trust arrangements or other types of 

 trust arrangements where we can hand off a lump sum of money 

 and fulfill our obligations, then I do not need nearly the kind of 

 oversight and implementation staff that I have now, because we 

 have got certainty of fulfilling that obligation. So, it is contingent 

 on those two things. But, you will definitely be looking in a year 

 or two from now at a smaller fish and wildlife staff and a smaller 

 Bonneville overall, and you may be looking at some organizational 

 changes within Bonneville in terms of where that staff reports and 

 who it is responsible to, producing better performance. 



Mr. DeFazio. It seems to me that your heightened interest in a 

 lump sum agreement perhaps with another federal agency, NMFS 

 or whatever, to administer the program, is a breakthrough. It is 

 good news because it goes to an awful lot of critical concerns I have 

 seen in the testimony about BPA's role in the process. I think if 

 you were to make that lump sum commitment first, if it was done 

 in concert with a coordinated forum, it would give you some pre- 

 dictability over a longer window, whether it be a 5-year agreement 

 or a 10-year agreement, or whatever in terms of the lump sum 

 agreement. So I would encourage that. But also obviously it would 

 give you the opportunity to reduce a large number of employees. 



Mr. Hardy. We clearly see those benefits. The challenge is what 

 is the nature of the agreement that you can reach and how much 

 certainty it has and can you in fact reach that requisite degree of 

 certainty, given the mandates of ESA where another petition can 

 come in and completely change the playing field. I am not sure 

 what the answers to those questions are, but the concept, I think, 

 is one that has enough potential benefit, that we should explore it. 



