[Final Audit Report on the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, Bureau of Reclamation]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Report No. 98-I-383
Title: Final Audit Report on the Central Valley Project Restoration
Fund, Bureau of Reclamation
Date: March 31, 1998
**********DISCLAIMER**********
This file contains an ASCII representation of an OIG report. No attempt
has been made to display graphic images or illustrations. Some tables
may be included, but may not resemble those in the printed version.
A printed copy of this report may be obtained by referring to the PDF
file or by calling the Office of Inspector General, Division of
Acquisition and Management Operations at (202) 208-4599.
******************************
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
AUDIT REPORT
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND,
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
REPORT NO. 98-I-383
MARCH 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Secretary
FROM: Robert J. Williams
Acting Inspector General
SUBJECT SUMMARY: Final Audit Report for Your Information -
"Central Valley Project Restoration Fund,
Bureau of Reclamation" (No. 98-I-383)
Attached for your information is a copy of the subject final
report. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the
Bureau of Reclamation complied with requirements of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act as they related to Restoration
Fund assessments, collections, and expenditures. Since inception
of the Restoration Fund on October 30, 1992, the Bureau
collected about $129 million from water and power users.
Conversely, expenditures for restoration activities totaled
about $175 million, of which $87 million was provided by the
Restoration Fund and $88 million by direct Federal
appropriations.
Overall, we found that the Bureau was in compliance with the
requirements of the Act as they pertained to Restoration Fund
assessments, collections, and expenditures. However, we
concluded that the Bureau's Mid-Pacific Region could improve its
accounting for Restoration Fund activities by integrating the
automated systems used to account for assessments and payments
for water deliveries. We also found that the Region had not
annually accounted for the costs incurred under an agreement
with the State of California to identify the State's share of
costs of restoration activities or negotiated additional task
orders for repayment of California's share of ongoing
restoration activities (which we estimated to be over $31.6
million). Finally, we found that the Bureau had not submitted to
the Congress the following reports: (1) the program report for
fiscal year 1995 and the program and financial reports for
fiscal year 1996, as required by the Act, and (2) the special
reports for fiscal year 1996.
In its response, the Bureau agreed with all three of our
recommendations to address these issues. Based on the response,
we considered one recommendation resolved and implemented and
two recommendations resolved but not implemented.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
me at (202) 208-5745.
Attachment W-IN-BOR-009-96
AUDIT REPORT
Memorandum
To: Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation
From: Robert J. Williams
Acting Inspector General
Subject: Final Audit Report on the Central Valley Project
Restoration Fund, Bureau of Reclamation (No. 98-I-383)
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our review of the Bureau of
Reclamation's Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. The Fund
was established by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act,
Title 34 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and
Adjustment Act (Public Law 102-575), enacted on October 30,
1992. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the
Bureau complied with requirements of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act as they related to Restoration Fund assessments,
collections, and expenditures.
BACKGROUND
The Central Valley Project, authorized in 1935 and located in the
Central Valley of California, is an integrated network that
includes 16 storage dams and reservoirs, 3 diversion dams, over
600 miles of canals and aqueducts, 2 pump-generating plants, 7
hydroelectric power plants, and 3 fish hatcheries. It is the
Bureau's largest multipurpose water project and has been
operated primarily to provide flood control, water for
irrigation and municipal and industrial use, and power
generation. The Project provides water, through over 250 water
service contracts with water districts and authorities, for
irrigation of about 3 million acres of farmland and for more
than 2 million urban residents and Federal, state, and private
wildlife refuges.
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act significantly expanded
the Secretary of the Interior's authority to restore fish and
wildlife and their habitats in the rivers and streams impacted
by the Project. Specifically, the Act required the Secretary to
develop and implement activities to protect, restore, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their associated habitats in the
Central Valley and in the Trinity River Basin. The Act
identified over 40 specific restoration activities, which
included (1) nonstructural actions such as acquiring water and
land and improving habitat conditions in streams and tributaries
and (2) structural actions such as constructing a temperature
control device at Shasta Dam and fish passage facilities at Red
Bluff Diversion Dam. Specific cost-sharing requirements by the
State of California were included in 15 of the more than 40
specific restoration activities.
As specified in the Act, these restoration activities are funded
by direct Federal appropriations, cost sharing from California,
and the Restoration Fund. The Restoration Fund obtains revenues
from annual charges of up to $50 million (October 1992 price
levels) from Project water and power users. However, as required
by Section 3404 of the Act, full annual charges cannot be
collected from the water users until an environmental impact
statement is completed on the Project. Until that time, water
user charges are primarily limited to restoration payments and
to surcharges on water delivered through the Project's Friant
Division, as stipulated in Sections 3406(c)(1), 3407(c), and
3407(d) of the Act. Restoration payments and surcharges are
assessed based on the acre-feet of water delivered.
The Bureau's Mid-Pacific Region, in Sacramento, California, is
responsible for accounting for Restoration Fund revenues and
expenditures. To account for these revenues and expenditures,
the Region used the Governmentwide Federal Financial System,
which accounts for financial statement and budget-related data
Bureauwide; the Region's Water Payment, Delivery and Revenue
Accounting System (referred to as the 705 Works System), which
serves essentially as the customer billing and accounts
receivable system for the Central Valley Project; and
spreadsheet systems maintained by the Regional Office and area
offices. Since inception of the Restoration Fund on October 30,
1992, to June 30, 1997, the Bureau collected about $129 million
from water and power users. Restoration Fund collections totaled
about $33.6 million for fiscal year 1995, $46.8 million for
fiscal year 1996, and $18.7 million for fiscal year 1997
(through June 30, 1997). Since passage of the Act on October 30,
1992, through June 30, 1997, expenditures for restoration
activities totaled about $175 million, of which $87 million was
provided by the Restoration Fund and $88 million by direct
Federal appropriations. Restoration Fund expenditures totaled
$24.5 million for fiscal year 1995, $30 million for fiscal year
1996, and $23 million for fiscal year 1997 (through June 30,
1997).
In accordance with Section 3406(h) of the Act, the Bureau of
Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in June
1994, entered into a cost-sharing agreement with the State of
California in which California is required to pay up to $50
million toward restoration activities contingent on available
State funding and legislative authority. The agreement requires
that individual task orders be executed for each restoration
activity. Since June 1994, the State of California has signed
one cost-sharing task order agreement to contribute $1.5 million
for the restoration-related Georgiana Slough Control Barrier
activity.
On November 5, 1996, California voters passed Proposition 204,
also known as the Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act, which
funds numerous environmental activities within the State,
including restoration of the Bay-Delta (San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta in California), levee
rehabilitation, and assistance to California in meeting most of
its cost-sharing commitment under the Act. The proposition
provides for issuing bonds totaling $995 million. Under this
proposition, $93 million of the $995 million of bond sales was
to be used to meet California's cost-sharing requirements under
Section 3406 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
Since passage of the proposition, California has sold bonds
totaling about $64.4 million to assist California in meeting a
portion of its cost-sharing requirements under the Act. Regional
officials told us that since June 1997, the Bureau's Mid-Pacific
Region and the Service have been negotiating with California to
finalize four task orders totaling about $30 million to fund
restoration activities under the Act. Regional officials also
stated that for fiscal year 1998, the Mid-Pacific Region and the
Service also plan to negotiate additional task orders with
California totaling about $30.4 million to fund additional
restoration activities under the Act.
SCOPE OF AUDIT
We conducted our audit at the Bureau's Mid-Pacific Regional
Office and at selected area offices within the Region (see
Appendix 1). To accomplish our objective, we reviewed and
analyzed documents, financial records, and activities of the
Restoration Fund that occurred from October 30, 1992, through
June 30, 1996. We also performed tests of Restoration Fund
assessments, collections, and expenditures for fiscal years 1995
and 1996 (through June 30, 1996). These tests included verifying
the accuracy of assessments and collections based on the
delivery of Project water for fiscal year 1995; confirming the
validity of accounts receivable balances of non-Federal
contractors as of March 31, 1996; and reviewing the propriety of
selected expenditures. We also interviewed Bureau and Service
program and administrative personnel and an assistant regional
solicitor from the Office of the Solicitor's Pacific Southwest
Regional Office, in Sacramento, concerning programmatic and
legislative requirements of the Act. In addition, in July 1997,
we discussed our preliminary findings with officials and updated
the Fund's revenue and expenditures to reflect balances as of
June 30, 1997.
Our audit was made in accordance with the "Government Auditing
Standards," issued by the Comptroller General of the United
States. Accordingly, we included such tests of records and other
auditing procedures that were considered necessary under the
circumstances. As part of our audit, we reviewed the Department
of the Interior's Annual Statement and Report for fiscal year
1995, which is required by the Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act, and the Departmental Report on Accountability for
fiscal year 1996, which contains information required by the
Act, and determined that none of the Department's reported
weaknesses were related to the objective of this audit. We also
evaluated the Mid-Pacific Region's system of internal controls
related to Restoration Fund assessments, collections, and
expenditures to the extent we considered necessary. The internal
control weaknesses identified are discussed in the Results of
Audit section of this report. Our recommendations, if
implemented, should improve the internal controls.
PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE
Neither the Office of Inspector General nor the General
Accounting Office has issued any reports on the Restoration
Fund. However, in July 1995, the Office of Inspector General
issued the advisory letter "Anadromous Fish Restoration
Activities, Central Valley Project" (No. 95-AL-5), which related
to restoration activities. The letter concluded that restoration
funds were spent for approved purposes but noted that (1) the
Mid-Pacific Region had not developed formalized cost allocation
and repayment procedures for reimbursable restoration costs, (2)
the State of California had not developed a revenue-collection
mechanism to meet its cost-sharing commitment under the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act, and (3) the Mid-Pacific Region
had not developed procedures for applying reimbursement
"credits." During our current audit, we found that the Mid
-Pacific Region was taking actions to address the concerns noted.
RESULTS OF AUDIT
Overall, we found that the Bureau of Reclamation was in
compliance with the requirements of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act as they pertained to Restoration Fund
assessments, collections, and expenditures. In that regard, the
Bureau had issued interim guidelines for assessing, collecting,
and crediting payments from Central Valley Project water and
power contractors and had involved stakeholder work groups in
establishing priorities for uses of the Restoration Fund. In
addition, in August 1996, Regional Office officials established
a Restoration Fund Team to centralize financial activities
associated with the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and
to function as a focal point for the Region's internal and
external customers by providing assessment, collection, and
expenditure data as the data pertained to the financial
management of the Act and the Restoration Fund. However, we
concluded that the Regional Office could improve its accounting
for Restoration Fund activities by integrating the automated
systems used to account for assessments and payments for water
deliveries. The Regional Office also had not annually accounted
for the costs incurred under the agreement with the State of
California to identify the State's share of costs of restoration
activities or negotiated additional task orders for repayment of
California's share of ongoing restoration activities (which we
estimated to be over $31.6 million). In addition, we found that
the Bureau had not submitted to the Congress the following: (1)
the program report for fiscal year 1995 and the program and
financial reports for fiscal year 1996, as required by the Act,
and (2) the special reports for fiscal year 1996.
Accounting Systems
The Mid-Pacific Regional Office used three independent systems to
account for water deliveries, assessments, and payments. The
General Accounting Office Policy and Procedures Manual for
Guidance of Federal Agencies (Title 2) and the Treasury
Accounting Manual require that accounting data be timely to be
meaningful in managing Federal programs. Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-127, "Financial Management Systems," also
requires that financial management systems process and record
financial transactions effectively and efficiently, including
providing complete, timely, and reliable information to Federal
decision makers and the public. In addition, Executive Order No.
13011, dated July 17, 1996, which addresses Federal information
technology, provides Federal agencies with the "clear authority
and responsibility to make measurable improvements in mission
performance and service delivery to the public" through
implementation of integrated information systems. Instead of an
integrated system, the Region tracked water deliveries through
the Works System; recorded payment information in the Federal
Financial System; and recorded combined information on water
deliveries, assessments, and payments in a spreadsheet-based
system maintained by the Regional Office. The maintenance of
three separate systems resulted in the inefficient use of
Regional Office resources (personnel and funds) and delayed the
posting of payments in the system. In turn, the delayed posting
of payments caused the receivables account identified in the
Federal Financial System to be overstated.
The Federal Financial System was designed to account for revenues
and expenditures on a Bureauwide basis to produce annual
consolidated financial statements that are required by the Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990. Although the system records
revenues, it does not have an automated assessment and
collection component to establish accounts receivable for the
Restoration Fund. As a result, receivables are established in
the Federal Financial System based on calculations made by
regional finance personnel through their spreadsheet system.
The Works System was designed to record, accumulate, and report
on Project water deliveries, associated water charges, and the
advance payment balances for the Project's water service
contractors. The Works System was intended to provide historical
water delivery and financial data such as monthly water
contractor statements (Water Delivery Charges reports) and the
monthly revenue-earned statements (Water Delivery Revenue
reports). However, the Works System had not been modified to
account for additional legislative requirements, such as the
restoration water charges imposed by the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act, since the system was developed in the 1970s and
1980s. A June 1995 report prepared by an independent accountant
on the Project's financial systems and rate-setting practices
substantiated these and other deficiencies in the Works System.
The report was requested by the Central Valley Project Water
Association, an organization of Project water contractors. The
report stated that the Works System "has not kept pace with the
changing accounting environment and has not been properly
maintained." The report also stated that "neither the Bureau nor
the contractors placed a very high degree of reliance upon
payment and advance account information obtained from the
system" because information was not timely and reliable.
The Mid-Pacific Region maintained a comprehensive spreadsheet
system to assess and collect Restoration Fund revenues because
neither the Federal Financial System nor the Works System
adequately accounted for and reported water contractor payments.
To assess charges for restoration activities, Regional personnel
manually entered the contractor water deliveries recorded in the
Works System into the Region's spreadsheet system, which
automatically calculated the payments due. On a monthly basis,
Regional personnel manually reconciled the payments due with the
revenues from restoration payments from the water contractors
recorded in the Federal Financial System. If payment was not
received from a water contractor within the 30-day payment
period, personnel sent a bill to the water contractor and
identified the outstanding amount and manually established the
accounts receivable in the Federal Financial System. We reviewed
the $784,000 non-Federal accounts receivable balance as of March
31, 1996, in the Federal Financial System and found that the
amount was overstated by 25 percent. Of the 72 outstanding
receivables that constituted the $784,000, we found that 37
receivables, totaling about $200,000, were not valid because
they either were paid or were not required to be paid. Delays in
recording and reconciling water contractor payments in the
Federal Financial System, the Works System, and the Regional
spreadsheet system caused receivables to be overstated because
invalid receivables were kept in the account.
We also found that the process used by the Regional Office to
record water contractor payments was not timely. According to a
Regional official, water contractors send their payments to a
bank lockbox in San Francisco, California, for deposit. Each
day, the Regional Office receives a report from the bank
identifying the checks received. The bank mails copies of the
checks and supporting payment documents to the Regional Office.
Water contractors can also take or send their payments to the
Regional Office or to the nearest Regional field office in
California. The field offices send the payments to the lockbox
for deposit and the payment information to the Regional Office's
accounts receivable personnel for recording into the Federal
Financial System. Because there is no automated process to
update the Restoration Fund account in the Federal Financial
System, it is necessary to use the separate Regional system to
calculate Restoration Fund revenues in order to record Fund
revenues in the Federal Financial System.
We also found that the Northern California Area Office and the
Willows Construction Office had each developed systems which
produced monthly water contractor statements that showed water
deliveries, assessments, payments, and account balances. At both
offices, personnel manually entered contractor water delivery
and payment information into spreadsheet systems to account for
the assessment and collection of Restoration Fund revenues. Both
offices also requested that water contractors send or bring
payments to the offices rather than send the payments to the
bank so that they would have more timely and complete payment
information. The area offices forwarded the payments either to
the bank or to the Regional Office for recording in the
accounting systems. Officials at these offices told us that
they had developed the separate systems because of the
unreliable data in the Works System and because of the 1-month
delay that it took for the Regional Office to completely record
water contractor payments and to notify area and field offices
that payment had been made.
A Regional Office official acknowledged the lack of an integrated
accounting system, stating that with the present system,
Regional Office employees who should be performing analytical
and review functions were used primarily as data entry clerks.
We believe that an integrated accounting system which produces
reliable monthly statements would improve the assessment and
collection processes, provide better service to meet the water
contractors' needs, and result in the more efficient use of
Regional Office employees. According to Regional Office
officials, the Region was implementing an integrated accounting
system, which is referred to as the Reclamation Accounting
Information Network (RAIN System). This system will (1) replace
the Works System, including the function of accounting for
additional legislative requirements that are not part of the
Works System, such as the restoration water charges imposed by
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and (2) will be
linked with the Federal Financial System. If implemented, the
RAIN System should eliminate the need for multiple data entries
and additional subsystems and better service the water
contractors' needs by providing timely monthly statements. A
Regional Office official said that the Region planned to have
the Reclamation Accounting Information Network fully implemented
by October 1, 1998.
Cost Sharing
As of June 1997, the State of California had not contributed
$31.6 million of its $33.1 million share of restoration activity
costs. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act identifies 15
restoration activities that stipulate cost sharing by
California. For example, Section 3406(b)(6) states that the
Secretary of the Interior is directed and authorized to:
. . . install and operate a structural temperature control
device at Shasta Dam and develop and implement modifications in
CVP [Central Valley Project] operations as needed to assist in
the Secretary's efforts to control water temperatures in the
upper Sacramento River in order to protect anadromous fish in
the upper Sacramento River. Costs associated with planning and
construction of the structural temperature control device shall
be reimbursed in accordance with the following formula: 37.5
percent shall be reimbursed as main project features, 37.5
percent shall be considered a nonreimbursable Federal
expenditure, and 25 percent shall be paid by the State of
California.
California's 25 percent share of the $77 million expended on the
Shasta Dam Temperature Control Device, which was completed in
May 1997, is approximately $19.2 million.
Expenditures on all restoration activities totaled about $175.8
million, which consisted of payments from the Restoration Fund
of approximately $87.3 million and Federal appropriations of
about $88.5 million. Of the $175.8 million, expenditures
totaling $124 million were for 13 of the 15 sections of the Act,
which required cost sharing from California (there were no
reported expenditures on the other 2 restoration activities).
Based on the cost-sharing percentages identified in the Act,
California's share of the $124 million is approximately $33.1
million (see Appendix 2).
The Bureau and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service successfully
negotiated a cost-sharing agreement with California on June 27,
1994, under which California is required to pay up to $50
million toward restoration activities. However, the agreement is
contingent on available State funding and legislative authority
and included additional provisions as follows: One party may
fund all, none, or any percentage of the cost of an individual
restoration action, as long as the total amount expended by each
party equals that party's overall cost allocation under Section
3406 of the Act. Individual task orders will subsequently be
executed pursuant to this Agreement for each restoration action
or element thereof and shall be made a part of this Agreement.
The parties shall make an annual accounting, on a fiscal year
basis, for their costs incurred under this agreement. The
accounting shall include the dollar value of any in-lieu
services as well as direct expenditure of funds. Each party
shall submit its accounting to the other party by February 1 of
each year. The parties shall jointly develop a work plan which
includes a budget and schedule for carrying out the restoration
actions. . . . The work plan will be used as the basis for
negotiating task orders for the restoration actions, or elements
thereof, and shall be updated at least annually. As of June
1997, the Mid-Pacific Region and the Service and California had
signed only one task order for $1.5 million for the Georgianna
Slough Control Acoustic Fish Repulsion Barrier Evaluation. The
Regional Office also had not provided California with a formal
accounting of expenditures for restoration activities requiring
State cost sharing. Regional Office officials said that they had
not performed an annual accounting of expenditures for
restoration activities requiring California cost sharing because
California had not identified sources of funds but that they
were not concerned as long as California eventually met its
cost-sharing obligations. However, by not executing task orders
and obtaining California's share of the costs in conjunction
with restoration activity construction, the Federal Government
funds a disproportionate share of activity financing costs.
Therefore, we believe that the Bureau should prepare and submit
to California the annual cost summaries that identify the
cumulative cost-sharing obligation and expenditures for
restoration activities and negotiate task orders for ongoing and
completed restoration activities. Subsequent to our review
(since June 1997), the Mid-Pacific Region and the Service have
been negotiating with California to finalize four task orders
totaling about $30 million to fund restoration activities under
the Act. For fiscal year 1998, the Mid-Pacific Region and the
Service also plan to negotiate additional task orders totaling
about $30.4 million to fund restoration activities under the
Act.
Reporting
The Bureau had not submitted all of the annual program and
financial reports required by the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act and the special reports requested by the
Committees on Appropriations, U.S. Senate and U.S. House of
Representatives.
Annual Reports. Section 3407(f) of the Act required the
Secretary of the Interior to submit an annual financial report
that described "all receipts to and uses made of monies within
the Restoration Fund" for the prior fiscal year, including
projections of receipts and uses of the Restoration Fund for the
next fiscal year. Section 3408(f) of the Act required the
Secretary to submit a program report that described significant
actions taken to achieve "the intent, purposes and provisions of
this title [Title 34]," including "recommendations for
authorizing legislation or other measures" needed to implement
the Act. These reports were to be submitted not later than
September 30 of each year.
We found that the Bureau had submitted only the financial report
for September 30, 1995. The 1996 financial report had been
drafted and the 1995 program report had been updated to include
1996 program information. Although both reports were forwarded
by the Commissioner's Office to the Assistant Secretary for
Water and Science and the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks for review, they had not been approved for
issuance and submittal to the Congress as of December 1997. A
Regional Office official said that "numerous and diverse reviews
throughout the entire report writing process" delayed the timely
preparation and submission of the reports. The official further
stated that planned changes in the review process should
decrease the preparation and review time for the annual reports
in the future. However, we did not obtain any details on the
planned changes.
Special Reports. In hearings held for fiscal year 1996 by the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Committees
directed that the Bureau provide, by November 15, 1995, a report
on the extent to which the State of California had met its cost
-sharing obligations under the Act and that the Secretary
provide, by February 1996, a report "display[ing] priorities and
activities for a 5-year period beginning with fiscal year 1997,
associated with the restoration requirements and goals of the
CVPIA [Central Valley Project Improvement Act]." We found that
as of December 1997, the Bureau had not submitted these reports.
The Bureau Special Projects Officer attributed the delay of the
cost-sharing and 5-year priority reports to the same lengthy
review process required for the annual reports. As of December
1997, the Secretary's report had been drafted and included
public comments, but it was at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for completion.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, direct
the Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region, to:
1. Integrate the Regional Office's and area offices' accounting
systems with the Federal Financial System to provide timely and
reliable water delivery and payment information to the Regional
Office and water contractors.
2. Provide, to the State of California, a formal annual cost
summary of restoration activities requiring cost sharing by the
State, as required by the cost-sharing agreement. The cost
summary should include cumulative expenditures for restoration
activities that have occurred since enactment of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act and be used as the basis for
negotiating additional task orders as appropriate.
We recommend that the Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation:
3. Ensure that the required program report for fiscal year 1995
and the required program, financial, and special reports for
fiscal year 1996 and future reports are submitted in a timely
manner.
Bureau of Reclamation Response and Office of Inspector General
Reply
The March 31, 1998, response (Appendix 3) from the Commissioner,
Bureau of Reclamation, agreed with the three recommendations.
Based on the response, we consider Recommendation 2 resolved and
implemented and Recommendations 1 and 3 resolved but not
implemented. Accordingly, Recommendations 1 and 3 will be
referred to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
Budget for tracking of implementation.
Since the report's recommendations are considered resolved, no
further response to the Office of Inspector General is required
(see Appendix 4).
The legislation, as amended, creating the Office of Inspector
General requires semiannual reporting to the Congress on all
audit reports issued, actions taken to implement audit
recommendations, and identification of each significant
recommendation on which corrective action has not been taken.
We appreciate the cooperation of Bureau personnel in the conduct
of our audit. APPENDIX 1
OFFICES VISITED
OFFICE Mid-Pacific Region
Northern California Area Office
South Central Area Office
Willows Construction Office
Office of the Solicitor's Pacific Southwest Regional Office
LOCATION Sacramento, California
Redding, California
Fresno, California
Willows, California
Sacramento, California RESTORATION ACTIVITY
EXPENDITURES AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA COST-SHARING
REQUIREMENTS FROM OCTOBER 30, 1992, TO JUNE 30, 1997
Expenditures by Funding Sources
State Cost-Sharing Requirement by Activity
P.L. 102-575 Section
Restoration Activity
Restoration Fund
Federal Appropriation
Expenditure Total1
Percent
Amount2
3406 (b) (1)
Anadromous Fish Program and other Central Valley Project
Impacts
$7,013,089
$7,013,089
3406 (b) (2)
Dedicated Project Yield
2,680,670
2,680,670
3406 (b) (3)
Water Acquisition
11,905,482
$1,516,835
13,422,317
3406 (b) (4)3
Tracy Fish Facility Improv./ Evaluation
0
0
0
25
0
3406 (b) (5)3
Contra Costa Canal Pumping
310,005
310,0054
25
$77,501
3406 (b) (6)3
Shasta Temperature Control Device
34,293,988
42,442,806
76,736,7944
25
19,184,199
3406 (b) (9)
Flow Fluctuation Study
170,632
48,313
218,945
3406 (b) (10)3
Fish Passage Program
679,184
1,616,050
2,295,2344
25
573,809
Demonstration Pumping Plant Evaluation
1,104,066
2,879,599
3,983,6654
25
995,916
Demonstration Pumping Plant
20,472,555
20,472,5554
25
5,118,139
3406 (b) (11)
Coleman National Fish Hatchery
4,650,575
4,650,575
Keswick Fish Trap Modification
16,359
1,262,346
1,278,705
3406 (b) (12)3
Clear Creek Restoration
273,876
7,008
280,8844
50
140,442
3406 (b) (13)3
Restore Spawning Gravel
75,822
75,8224
25
18,956
3406 (b) (14)3
Delta Cross Channel Structure
0
0
0
25
0
Georgiana Slough Control Structure
950,000
950,0004
25
237,500
3406 (b) (15)3
Old River Barrier
0
0
0
25
0
South Delta Barrier
230,766
230,7664
25
57,692
3406 (b) (16)3
CVP Assessment/Monitoring Program
1,497,980
1,497,9804
25
374,495
3406 (b) (17)3
Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District
77,446
77,4464
50
38,723
3406 (b) (18)3
Ecosystem and Water Modeling
0
0
0
50
0
3406 (b) (20)3
Hamilton City Pumping Plant-Glenn Colusa Irrigation District
4,584,126
4,584,1264
25
1,146,032
3406 (b) (21)3
Anadromous Fish Screen Program
689,586
7,304,710
7,994,2964
50
3,997,148
3406 (b) (22)
Agriculture Waterfowl Incentive Program
76,370
76,370
3406 (c) (1)
San Joaquin River Basin Resource Management Initiative
1,571,830
895,536
2,467,366
3406 (c) (2)
American River/Folsom South Conjunction Use Optimal Study
651,686
651,686
3406 (d) (1), (2), & (5)
San Joaquin Basin Action Plan
3,081,479
311,302
3,392,781
3406 (d) (1-4)3
Refuge Water Supply
2,542,216
52,988
2,595,2044
25
648,801
3406 (d) (5)
Refuge Wheeling Costs
5,551,171
5,551,171
3406 (d) (6)
Private Wetlands/Joint Venture
1,366,850
1,366,850
3406 (e)
CVPIA Supporting Investigations
653,655
653,655
3406 (f)
Project Fisheries Impact
1,416,341
1,416,341
3406 (g)3
Ecosystem/Water Operations Models
995,332
1,031,415
2,026,7474
25
506,687
3408 (h)
Land Retirement
3,107,068
1,404,756
4,511,824
3408 (i)
Water Conservation
50,834
465,119
515,953
3408 (j)
Water Augmentation
1,788,305
1,788,305
Totals
$87,330,20 6
$88,437,921
$175,768,127
$33,116,040
3406 (b) (14)
Georgiana Slough Control Structures Task Order Agreement
(1,513,426)5
Total State's Cost-Sharing Obligation
$31,602,614
5California has not paid any of its cost-sharing obligation
under the restoration activities requiring cost sharing under
the Act; however, it did sign the first cost-sharing task order
agreement to contribute $1,513,426 of in-lieu services for the
Georgiana Slough Control Acoustic Fish Repulsion Barrier
Evaluation. APPENDIX 3
Page 1 of 2 APPENDIX 3
Page 2 of 2 APPENDIX 4
STATUS OF AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding/ Recommendation
Reference
Status
Action Required 1 and 3Resolved; not
implemented.No further response to the Office of Inspector
General is required. The recommendations will be referred to the
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget for
tracking of implementation. 2Implemented.No
further action is required.
ILLEGAL OR WASTEFUL ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL BY:
Sending written documents to:
Within the Continental United States
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
1849 C Street,N.W.
Mail Stop 5341
Washington, D.C. 20240
Calling:
Our 24 hour
Telephone HOTLINE
1-800-424-5081 or
(202) 208-5300
TDD for hearing impaired
(202) 208-2420 or
1-800-354-0996
Outside the Continental United States
Caribbean Region
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
Eastern Division- Investigations
1550 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 410
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Calling:
(703) 235-9221
North Pacific Region
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
North Pacific Region
238 Archbishop F.C. F'lores Street
Suite 807, PDN Building
Agana, Guam 96910
Calling:
(700) 550-7428 or
COMM 9-011-671-472-7279