Letter requesting Bonneville's estimated spending figures for fish and wildlife program implementation in Fiscal Year 2003

Related links:

December 23, 2002

Ms. Sarah McNary
Manager, Fish and Wildlife
Bonneville Power Administration

Dear Ms. McNary:

During the Council's discussion of Bonneville's financial condition, several Council members requested specific additional information about Bonneville's estimated spending for fish and wildlife program implementation in Fiscal Year 2003. The purpose of this letter is to define those information needs and request your assistance in responding. The following list is a compilation of requests from the Council members:

The accounting terms used by Bonneville in the briefing materials need clear definition. It is critical that we have a clear and concise understanding of the terms that are used in Bonneville's summary tables and workbooks, including the column headings of the workbooks you have provided us.
In addition to the data fields in the most recent accrual estimate reports, we would appreciate the FY 2002 obligations and a conversion table of Council proposal numbers to Bonneville project numbers.
A compilation of deobligations by project implemented by Bonneville in the current review of outstanding contracts.
The disposition of the $27 to $37 million under spent in the direct program expense category during the MOA, and terms for accessing those funds to pay for fish and wildlife obligations.
Bonneville program support costs need to be clearly defined. For comparison to previous levels, what would be most useful are year by year summaries of the budget for Bonneville program support costs from FY 1996 forward, the obligations by line item at each year's end and the actual accruals recorded by Bonneville. The first two summaries should be what was reported by Bonneville at each year's final Quarterly Review report, but we would appreciate your confirmation of those reports.
As soon as possible, Bonneville and the Council need to publicly consult to resolve the criteria used to define capital, and also make a determination of which projects may be capitalized. This is another foundational element of this exercise and needs to occur before the January Council meeting. Another question regarding Bonneville's capital borrowing policy is the repayment schedule for fish and wildlife projects and whether different schedules are used for different types of projects.
Due to the time frames set by Bonneville, it is critical that Bonneville and the Council clearly define the objectives and cost estimates required for placeholders suggested by you in your presentation; specifically for Biological Opinion research, monitoring and evaluation gaps, data management and a ?risk management fund?.
Specific descriptions of reductions in the fish and wildlife programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that are now directly funded by Bonneville. We would like to be able to compare those reductions with what Bonneville is requesting for reductions for fish and wildlife program implementation.

Thank you for your assistance with these requests.

Sincerely,

Doug Marker
Director, Fish and Wildlife Division