96 



Senator Kempthorne. This will be brief then. In previous years, 

 Bonneville Power has fulfilled its commitment to repay Idaho 

 Power for water that it has shaped to benefit salmon. 



I understand that BPA does not plan to do this for 1995. Is that, 

 in fact, BPA's policy, and is that fair, in light of the assistance BPA 

 will be receiving from the Federal Government? 



Mr. Hardy. We are, in fact, looking at reducing or eliminating 

 the shaping costs for Idaho Power that we previously funded. 



I am looking at $250 million a year on average worth of budget 

 cuts. I am literally eliminating most of our generation budget and 

 a significant number of transmission projects, and I am reducing 

 20 percent of our staff In that context. Senator, yes, I think it is 

 fair. 



Senator KEMPTHORNE. Thank you. 



Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I will be leaving tempo- 

 rarily, but I do intend to return. 



Senator Hatfield. You are welcome to come back any time. 



Senator KEMPTHORNE. Thank you. 



Senator HATFIELD. We will be here, I am sure, no matter how 

 long you are gone. 



Mr. Hardy, the biological opinion, what directions do you have 

 for drawdown? 



Mr. Hardy. As I understand it, the direction of 1995 biological 

 opinion is, essentially, to look at some advanced planning and de- 

 sign starting in 1996, and to make kind of a go/no-go decision on 

 drawdown in 1999. 



So it is not unlike, say, the planning council's program, which 

 had more immediate steps toward drawdown, with an assumption 

 that that was the way to go. 



I think the NMFS plan is a bit more cautious, in trying to gather 

 some more data, and test the surface collector technology before 

 making a commitment one way or the other to drawdown. That 

 commitment, with a whole series of phase-in steps, would be — the 

 decision would be scheduled as I understand it, in about 1999. 



Senator Hatfield. Are you in the planning and feasibility phase 

 of a possible drawdown? 



Mr. Hardy. That's 



Senator Hatfield. You have no instructions for any immediate 

 drawdown. 



Mr. Hardy. Other than John Day. 



Senator Hatfield. Yes; I am talking about the lower Snake. 



Mr. Hardy. The lower Snake project entails looking at some of 

 the core problems that have to be resolved before proceeding with 

 an immediate drawdown. 



There are significant issues of passage at the dams. Particularly 

 if there was a spillway crest drawdown. How you would do that, 

 and how you would get the fish past the lower Snake dams would 

 be significant concerns. 



I think the judgment that NMFS has made, which we agree 

 with, is to resolve those problems, or at least know how to resolve 

 them, before proceeding with a drawdown strategy that may 

 present more problems than it resolves. 



Senator Hatfield. Would that have an impact on costs? 



