Bonneville's response to Council request for FY 2003 fish and wildlife
spending figures
[BPA letterhead; see links to attachments (PDF format) throughout]
January 23, 2003
Dear Mr. Marker,
Thank you for your help in defining the Council's information needs
regarding Bonneville's spending for fish and wildlife program
implementation. The following materials respond to the requests for
additional information outlined in your letter of December 23, 2002.
- 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.
Definitions of the terms used in the financial accounting and budget
briefing materials previously provided the Council, and in the recently
released draft FY 2003 accrual budget estimates, are included as Attachment
1 (95k PDF).
- 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.
Accrual estimate reports that included Council proposal numbers were
sent on December 18, 2002. Attachment 2A (145k
PDF). A spreadsheet of FY 2002 obligations sorted by
Project # was provided via email to Doug Marker and Mark Fritsch on
January 9, 2003. Attachment 2B (135k
PDF).
The estimated accrual budget report for fiscal year 2003 that we
released on January 17, 2003 omits Council proposal numbers in many
instances. This information was not being captured internally until
sometime in Fiscal Year 2000, and many program investments pre-date that
effort. We again underscore the fact that we are working on our data
systems to fully integrate the information used for reporting
purposes. With the recent conversion from obligations-based to
accrual-based budgeting, we are still pulling information from multiple
data systems that are not yet consolidated.
To alleviate this shortcoming and facilitate cross-referencing and
conversion in the interim, on January 9, 2003 we sent Mark Fritsch two
cross-referenced spreadsheets listing Project Titles only, one sorted by
proposal # and the other by project #. Attachment
2C (140k PDF). Given the size of
the files, they are not repeated here in hard copy.
- A compilation of de-obligations by project implemented by
Bonneville in the current review of outstanding contracts.
A spreadsheet that lists the contracts identified for de-obligation is
enclosed as Attachment 3 (75k
PDF).
- 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.
In accordance with the provisions of the MOA, money unspent in the
expense category of the direct program during the FY 1996-2001 MOA budget
period, Bonneville committed to make available for the benefit of fish and
wildlife and not to re-program for non-fish and wildlife use. These
funds were subsumed in the spending assumptions and revenue projections
underlying the FY 2002-2006 rate period for fish and wildlife.
An annual average of $139 million in accruals represents a weighted
average of thirteen modeled alternatives. As explained in the
briefing paper enclosed as Attachment 4 (100k
PDF), the $139 million accrual projection includes funds unspent
during the prior rate period that are still expected to be spent in the FY
2002-2006 period. Because they are not ?added? but are included
in the funding range assumed in the power rate case that projected an
annual average of $139 million in accruals, there are no terms for
accessing these funds outside of the normal review and prioritization
process.
- 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.
A year-by-year summary of BPA's internal fish and wildlife program
support costs was delivered at the January Council meeting, and is
enclosed here as Attachment 5 (85k
PDF).
- 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.
A response to projects identified by Council staff as potentially being
appropriate for capitalization was provided via e-mail to Mark Fritsch on
January 14, 2003. The response excluded land acquisition
projects which are currently not eligible for capitalization. A
series of discussions between Bonneville and Council staff and management
took place during December and early January to explore the legal,
accounting and policy issues surrounding potential capitalization of land
that is not associated with a capital ?facility? such as a
hatchery. A Bonneville 1/15/03 draft summary of a capitalization
strategy and a paper describing a Performance-Based Approach for
capitalization of Fish & Wildlife Land Purchases was distributed at
the Council meeting in January and is included as Attachment
6 (130k PDF).
For further discussion on the capitalization issue, please refer to
information being sent under separate cover. (See letter dated
January 23, 2003 from Therese Lamb to Judi Danielson).
- 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?.
The amounts included as estimates for placeholders are as indicated in
the enclosed Attachment 7A (80k
PDF) and were presented at the Fish Four meeting and
distributed at the Council meeting in January. A paper titled ?Critical
Elements to Satisfy BPA's Responsibilities under the 2000 Federal
Columbia River Power System Biological Opinions? was presented at the
Fish Four and the Council meeting in January and is enclosed as Attachment
7B (150k PDF). The specific
information relating to RM&E Gaps was also presented at the Fish Four
meeting and distributed at the Council meeting in January and is enclosed
as Attachment 7C (180k PDF).
- 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.
As presented by Paul Norman, Senior Vice President, Power Business
Line, at the Council meeting in January, reductions have been and are
being taken in a number of program areas throughout Bonneville. Attachment
8A (60k PDF) depicts a subset of the Power
Business Line Expense Actuals and Forecasts pertinent to the above request
and Attachment 8B (5k PDF)
displays the same information in graph format. For additional
discussion on the issue of equity of such reductions raised during the
January Council meeting, please refer to the January 23, 2003 letter from
Therese Lamb to Judi Danielson.
We look forward to continuing to work with you on the resolution of the
issues identified in your request for additional information.
Sincerely,
/s/ Sarah McNary
Director for Fish and Wildlife |
home