[Senate Report 107-39]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 79
107th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 107-39
======================================================================
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 2002
_______
July 13, 2001.--Ordered to be printed
Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2001
_______
Mr. Reid, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1171]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1171)
making appropriations for energy and water development for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes,
favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2002
Budget estimates considered by Senate................... $23,008,002,000
Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................ 25,450,485,000
The bill as reported to the Senate--
Above the budget estimate, 2002..................... 2,442,483,000
Over enacted bill, 2001............................. 1,404,173,000
========================================================
__________________________________________________
C O N T E N T S
----------
TITLE I
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
Corps of Engineers--Civil:
Page
General investigations................................... 8
Construction, general.................................... 29
Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries......... 49
Operation and maintenance, general....................... 54
Regulatory program....................................... 76
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.......... 76
General expenses......................................... 77
TITLE II
Department of the Interior:
Central Utah project completion account...................... 79
Bureau of Reclamation: Water and related resources........... 79
Bureau of Reclamation loan program account................... 91
Central Valley project restoration fund...................... 91
California bay-delta ecosystem restoration................... 92
Policy and administrative expenses........................... 93
TITLE III
Department of Energy:
Energy Supply................................................ 95
Renewable energy resources............................... 95
Nuclear energy programs.................................. 99
Environment, safety, and health.......................... 102
Energy support activities................................ 102
Environmental management (nondefense)........................ 102
Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation............... 103
Nuclear waste fund........................................... 104
Science...................................................... 107
High energy physics...................................... 107
Nuclear physics.......................................... 108
Biological and environmental research.................... 108
Basic energy sciences.................................... 108
Other energy research programs........................... 109
Fusion energy sciences................................... 110
Departmental administration.................................. 110
Miscellaneous revenues................................... 110
Inspector General............................................ 110
Atomic energy defense activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapon activities.................................... 111
Defense nuclear nonproliferation..................... 119
Naval reactors....................................... 122
Office of the Administrator.......................... 122
Other defense related activities:
Defense environmental restoration and waste
management......................................... 122
Defense facilities closure projects.................. 127
Defense environmental management privatization....... 128
Other defense activities............................. 128
Defense nuclear waste disposal....................... 133
Power marketing administrations:
Operations and maintenance, Southeastern Power
Administration......................................... 135
Operations and maintenance, Southwestern Power
Administration......................................... 135
Construction, rehabilitation, operations and maintenance,
Western Area Power Administration...................... 135
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission......................... 136
General provisions........................................... 157
TITLE IV
Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.............................. 159
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board...................... 159
Delta Regional Authority..................................... 160
Denali Commission............................................ 160
Nuclear Regulatory Commission................................ 160
Office of Inspector General.............................. 162
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board......................... 162
TITLE V
General provisions............................................... 163
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 164
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the
Senate......................................................... 164
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 165
Budgetary impact statement....................................... 167
Additional views of Senator Larry E. Craig....................... 168
Purpose
The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for
the fiscal year 2002 beginning October 1, 2001, and ending
September 30, 2002, for energy and water development, and for
other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources
development programs and related activities of the Department
of the Army, Civil Functions--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Civil Works Program in title I; for the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the
Department of Energy's energy research activities (except for
fossil fuel programs and certain conservation and regulatory
functions), including environmental restoration and waste
management, and atomic energy defense activities of the
National Nuclear Security Administration in title III; and for
related independent agencies and commissions, including the
Appalachian Regional Commission, Delta Regional Authority,
Denali Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
title IV.
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations
The fiscal year 2002 budget estimates for the bill total
$23,008,002,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The
recommendation of the Committee totals $25,450,485,000. This is
$2,442,483,000 above the budget estimates and $1,404,173,000
over the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.
The bill, as recommended, is in compliance with the
subcommittee allocation under section 302(b)(1) of the Budget
Act.
Bill Highlights
atomic energy defense activities
The amount recommended in the bill includes $15,088,547,000
for atomic energy defense activities. Major programs and
activities include:
Weapon activities....................................... $6,062,891,000
Defense nuclear nonproliferation........................ 880,500,000
Naval reactors.......................................... 688,045,000
Other defense activities................................ 564,168,000
Defense waste management and environmental restoration.. 5,389,868,000
Defense facilities closure projects..................... 1,080,538,000
Defense environmental privatization..................... 157,537,000
energy supply
The bill recommended by the Committee provides a total of
$741,139,000 for energy research programs including:
Renewable energy resources.............................. $435,600,000
Nuclear energy.......................................... 264,069,000
nondefense environmental management
An appropriation of $228,553,000 is recommended for
nondefense environmental management activities of the
Department of Energy.
science
The Committee recommendation also provides a net
appropriation of $3,268,816,000 for general science and
research activities in life sciences, high energy physics, and
nuclear physics. Major programs are:
High energy physics research............................ $725,100,000
Nuclear physics......................................... 373,000,000
Basic energy sciences................................... 1,040,705,000
Biological and environmental R&D........................ 490,000,000
Fusion energy sciences.................................. 248,495,000
Other energy research................................... 391,516,000
regulatory and other independent agencies
Also recommended in the bill is $192,010,000 for various
regulatory and independent agencies of the Federal Government.
Major programs include:
Appalachian Regional Commission......................... $66,290,000
Delta Regional Authority................................ 20,000,000
Denali Commission....................................... 40,000,000
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.................... 181,155,000
Nuclear Regulatory Commission........................... 506,900,000
water resources development
Corps of Engineers:
General Investigations.............................. $152,402,000
Construction, General............................... 1,570,798,000
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries.... 328,011,000
Operation and Maintenance, General.................. 1,833,263,000
Regulatory Program.................................. 128,000,000
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program..... 140,000,000
General Expenses.................................... 153,000,000
Central Utah Project Completion Account................. 36,228,000
Bureau of Reclamation:
Water and Related resources......................... 732,496,000
Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account.......... 7,495,000
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund............. 55,039,000
Policy and Administration........................... 52,968,000
The Committee has recommended appropriations totaling
approximately $5,050,000,000 for Federal water resource
development programs. This includes projects and related
activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Civil and the
Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior. The
Federal water resource development program provides lasting
benefits to the Nation in the area of flood control, municipal
and industrial water supply, irrigation of agricultural lands,
water conservation, commercial navigation, hydroelectric power,
recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement.
Water is our Nation's most precious and valuable resource.
It is evident that water supply in the near future will be as
important, if not more so, than energy. There is only so much
water available. Water cannot be manufactured. Our Nation
cannot survive without water, and economic prosperity cannot
occur without a plentiful supply.
While many areas of the country suffer from severe
shortages of water, others suffer from the other extreme--an
excess of water which threatens both rural and urban areas with
floods. Because water is a national asset, and because the
availability and control of water affect and benefit all States
and jurisdictions, the Federal Government has historically
assumed much of the responsibility for financing of water
resource development.
The existing national water resource infrastructure in
America is an impressive system of dams, locks, harbors,
canals, irrigation systems, reservoirs, and recreation sites
with a central purpose--to serve the public's needs.
Our waterways and harbors are an essential part of our
national transportation system--providing clean, efficient, and
economical transportation of fuels for energy generation and
agricultural production, and making possible residential and
industrial development to provide homes and jobs for the
American people.
Reservoir projects provide hydroelectric power production
and downstream flood protection, make available recreational
opportunities for thousands of urban residents, enhance fish
and wildlife habitat, and provide our communities and
industries with abundant and clean water supplies which are
essential not only to life itself, but also to help maintain a
high standard of living for the American people.
When projects are completed, they make enormous
contributions to America. The benefits derived from completed
projects, in many instances, vastly exceed those contemplated
during project development. Flood control projects prevent an
average $22,000,000,000 per year in damages, and U.S. ports and
harbors annually handle about $600,000,000,000 in international
cargo generating over $14,500,000,000 in tax revenues, nearly
$515,000,000,000 in personal income, contributing
$783,000,000,000 to the Nation's gross domestic product, and
$1,600,000,000,000 in business sales.
subcommittee hearings
The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the
Committee on Appropriations held four sessions in connection
with the fiscal year 2002 appropriation bill. Witnesses
included officials and representatives of the Federal agencies
under the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
In addition, the subcommittee received numerous statements
and letters from Members of the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives, Governors, State and local officials and
representatives, and hundreds of private citizens of all walks
of life throughout the United States. Information, both for and
against many items, was presented to the subcommittee. The
recommendations for fiscal year 2002 therefore, have been
developed after careful consideration of available data.
votes in the committee
By a vote of 29 to 0 the Committee on July 12, 2001,
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the
Senate.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
introduction
In the past year, the Corps has received a considerable
amount of criticism over the conduct of its studies.
Whistleblower allegations and the findings of the Army's
Inspector General, regarding the Corps' conduct of an ongoing
study of the need to expand the navigation capacity of the
upper Mississippi River and the Illinois Waterway, have been
widely cited in the press. The Committee notes that the
Inspector General found no criminal violations by any member of
the Corps.
The Committee is satisfied that the Corps has responded
professionally to the issues raised and is taking the concerns
with all due seriousness. The Committee believes that the Corps
is a unique national resource for managing the competing
concerns involved in the development and protection of national
water resources and infrastructure and has faith in the
ultimate Corps findings and recommendations arising from the
various studies that the Corps is authorized and directed to
undertake. The Committee commends the Corps for its
responsiveness to the American people in developing needed
flood control and navigation infrastructure while keeping a
delicate balance with the concerns of the environment.
The Committee remains concerned about the huge and
increasing backlog of infrastructure development, maintenance,
and repair over which the Corps has jurisdiction. The proposed
budget causes the backlog of unconstructed projects to increase
from $38,000,000,000 to $40,000,000,000 and ignores an
accelerating critical maintenance backlog which nearly doubles
from $450,000,000 to $864,000,000. This maintenance backlog
will soon become entirely unmanageable under the weight of an
aging and crumbling inventory.
Even though the Administration has mounted an initiative to
reduce the recreation infrastructure backlog for the Department
of the Interior, the Corps' water recreation program, the
Nation's largest, is left to deteriorate. Proposing no new
study or construction starts, underfunding on-going projects,
and providing minimal O&M funding for completed projects leads
the Committee to believe that the budget preparation may have
been influenced by those seeking to capitalize on the recent
controversy surrounding the Corps. The situation that the
proposed budget poses to the Nation's economy and quality of
life leave the Committee no option but to step forward in
support of these vital projects.
The Committee recommendation for the Corps of Engineers
totals $4,305,474,000. This is $405,474,000 above the budget
request for fiscal year 2002, but is $235,591,000 below the
appropriation for the current year.
budget constraints
The budget allocation for non-Defense discretionary
programs contained in the Energy and Water Development bill for
fiscal year 2002 are constrained below what is necessary for a
robust, balanced national water resources program. Faced with
these budget realities, the Committee has had to make tough
decisions and choices in the development of the Corps of
Engineers' budget request for fiscal year 2002. However, while
the budget resources for non-Defense discretionary programs
have remained flat or have declined, the number of requests of
the Committee continue to increase. This year the Committee
received nearly 1,000 requests for funding for water projects
within the Corps' Civil Works program. Many supported the
funding level in the budget request, but a majority of the
requests made of the Committee sought increases over the
budgeted amounts or new items not contained in the President's
budget for fiscal year 2002.
To compound pressures on the budget this year, the
Committee was faced with the recently enacted Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 and 2000. Both acts authorized the
construction of many new projects, extended credit and
reimbursement authorities, and significantly expanded new
missions and responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers into
areas which historically have been a State and local
responsibility. The best example of this is the environmental
and other infrastructure authorities which the Committee
estimates will cost over $1,200,000,000. It should also be
pointed out that the backlog of authorized but unfunded
projects is in excess of $40,000,000,000.
basis of committee recommendation
Specifically, in development of the fiscal year 2002
funding recommendation for the Corps of Engineers, the
Committee is not able to include any new construction starts,
and has recommended only a limited number of new study starts
in an effort to restore balance to the water resource program
of the Corps, and to address high priority requests made to the
Committee. The limited resources available have been focused on
on-going projects where the Corps has contractual commitments.
While the Committee has not been able to fund all projects at
the optimum level, it has endeavored to provide sufficient
funding on each project to mitigate delays and increased costs,
to the greatest extent possible, across the entire Corps' Civil
Works program.
Finally, the Committee received numerous requests to
include project authorizations in the energy and water
development appropriations bill. In an effort to support and
honor congressional authorizing committees jurisdiction, the
Committee has not included new project authorizations.
general investigations
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $160,584,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 130,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 152,402,000
This appropriation includes funds for surveys,
preconstruction engineering and design, data collection, inter-
agency coordination and research activities to determine the
need, engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the
environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and
related land resource problems.
The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance
are shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Budget estimate Committee recommendation
Type of Project title Federal Allocated ---------------------------------------------------------
project cost to date Investigations Planning Investigations Planning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
(N)ALABAMA RIVER BELOW CLAIBORNE LOCK AND DAM, AL 2,617 890 300 ........... 300 ...........
(SP)BALDWIN COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION, AL 1,100 100 100 ........... 100 ...........
(FDP)BALDWIN COUNTY WATERSHEDS, AL 750 234 50 ........... 50 ...........
(N)BAYOU LA BATRE, AL 600 100 50 ........... 50 ...........
(N)BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL 15,030 642 300 ........... .............. ...........
(FDP)BREWTON AND EAST BREWTON, AL 750 100 50 ........... 50 ...........
(SPE)CAHABA RIVER WATERSHED, AL 1,373 310 160 ........... 160 ...........
(N)DOG RIVER, AL 1,651 1,106 250 ........... 250 ...........
(SPE)VILLAGE CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM WATERSHED) 1,463 680 250 ........... 250 ...........
ALASKA
(N)AKUTAN HARBOR, AK 9,600 ........... .............. 100 .............. 100
ANIAK HARBOR, AK ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(N)ANCHOR POINT HARBOR, AK 870 270 50 ........... 50 ...........
(N)ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK 1,188 290 100 ........... 500 ...........
(FDP)BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, AK 1,140 212 100 ........... 250 ...........
(E)CHANDALAR RIVER WATERSHED, VENETIE INDIAN, AK 550 137 50 ........... 50 ...........
(E)CHENA RIVER WATERSHED, AK 786 486 100 ........... 100 100
(N)CRAIG HARBOR, AK 600 75 50 ........... 50 ...........
(N)DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR, AK 3,000 2,115 200 ........... 500 ...........
(N)DOUGLAS HARBOR EXPANSION, AK 4,000 37 .............. 100 .............. 100
(N)FALSE PASS HARBOR, AK 4,800 187 .............. 100 .............. 313
FIRE ISLAND CAUSEWAY, AK ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(N)HAINES HARBOR, AK 315 150 150 ........... 165 ...........
(E)HARDING LAKE WATERSHED, AK 350 50 50 ........... 100 ...........
KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION, AK ........... ........... .............. ........... 500 ...........
(N)KETCHIKAN HARBOR, AK 560 150 50 ........... 100 ...........
(N)KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, AK 512 112 50 ........... 100 ...........
(N)LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK 900 56 50 ........... 150 ...........
(N)MEKORYUK HARBOR, AK 600 75 50 ........... 100 ...........
MATANUSKA EROSION CONTROL, AK ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(N)PERRYVILLE HARBOR, AK 800 60 40 ........... 150 ...........
(N)PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK 435 215 96 ........... 150 ...........
(N)QUINHAGAK HARBOR, AK 290 17 50 ........... 50 ...........
(N)SAINT GEORGE NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, AK 650 150 50 ........... 150 ...........
(E)SHIP CREEK WATERSHED, AK 504 190 50 ........... 50 100
(N)SITKA HARBOR, AK 900 75 50 ........... 200 ...........
(N)SKAGWAY HARBOR MODIFICATION, AK 500 161 138 ........... 138 ...........
SKAGWAY RIVER FLOOD CONTROL, AK ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(N)UNALAKLEET HARBOR, AK 400 55 50 ........... 50 ...........
(N)UNALASKA HARBOR, AK 9,000 ........... .............. 226 .............. 226
(N)VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK 17,550 ........... .............. 150 .............. 150
(N)WHITTIER BREAKWATER, AK 527 127 150 ........... 150 ...........
AMERICAN SAMOA
(N)TUTUILA HARBOR, AS 430 206 124 ........... 124 ...........
ARIZONA
COLONIAS ALONG THE US-MEXICO BORDER, AZ ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
(FDP)GILA RIVER, NORTHEAST PHOENIX DRAINAGE AREA, AZ 1,985 1,842 143 ........... 143 ...........
(SPE)LITTLE COLORADO RIVER, AZ 1,724 249 100 ........... 100 ...........
(E)PIMA COUNTY, AZ 1,125 246 400 ........... 400 ...........
(E)RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ 950 150 200 ........... 200 ...........
(FC)RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ 18,200 281 .............. 230 .............. 230
(E)RIO SALADO ESTE, AZ 800 110 100 ........... 100 ...........
(E)RIO SALADO OESTE, SALT RIVER, AZ 800 375 300 ........... 300 ...........
(FDP)SANTA CRUZ RIVER, GRANT RD TO FT LOWELL RD, AZ 1,350 390 100 ........... 100 ...........
(E)SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, AZ 1,115 516 300 ........... 300 ...........
(E)TRES RIOS, AZ 62,800 543 .............. 270 .............. 270
(FC)TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ 19,400 1,199 .............. 208 .............. 208
(E)VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT, AZ 2,100 75 100 ........... 100 ...........
ARKANSAS
(FC)ARKANSAS RIVER LEVEES, AR 10,000 1,135 .............. 187 .............. 187
(N)ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, AR AND OK 5,830 1,841 1,200 ........... 1,200 ...........
(FC)MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR 19,500 ........... .............. 200 .............. 200
(FC)NORTH LITTLE ROCK, DARK HOLLOW, AR 19,500 625 .............. 400 .............. 500
PINE MOUNTAIN DAM, AR ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 200
RED RIVER WATERWAY, AR, LA, OK, TX ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(N)RED RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS, AR 3,355 2,457 450 ........... 500 ...........
(COM)WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR AND MO 2,000 375 581 ........... 581 ...........
(E)WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS, AR 850 637 213 ........... 363 ...........
WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION, AR ........... ........... .............. ........... 169 ...........
CALIFORNIA
(E)ALISO CREEK MAINSTEM, CA 1,100 200 50 ........... 200 ...........
(FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA 329,300 21,650 .............. 2,000 .............. 2,600
(FC)ARROYO PASAJERO, CA 159,600 ........... .............. 20 .............. 20
(FDP)ARROYO PASAJERO, CA 5,565 5,247 318 ........... 480 ...........
ARROYO SECO WATERSHED, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
(E)BOLINAS LAGOON ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA 11,250 50 .............. 300 .............. 750
COYOTE DAM, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
(FDP)CITY OF WESTMINSTER FLOOD CONTROL DRAINAGE STUDY, CA 1,100 75 100 ........... .............. ...........
COAST OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 400 ...........
GRAYSON AND MURDERER'S CREEK, WALNUT CREEK, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
HUNTINGTON BEACH COASTAL BLUFF EROSION, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 400
(E)LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA 1,975 350 200 ........... 200 ...........
(FC)LLAGAS CREEK, CA 19,000 990 .............. 250 .............. 250
(SPE)LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA 1,100 200 200 ........... 350 ...........
(N)LOS ANGELES HARBOR MAIN CHANNEL DEEPENING, CA 60,000 750 .............. 600 .............. 2,600
(SPE)LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERCOURSE IMPROVEMENT, CA 950 850 100 ........... 100 ...........
(FC)LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA 10,000 68 .............. 150 .............. 150
(E)MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA 1,150 304 200 ........... 200 ...........
(FDP)MARIN COUNTY SHORELINE, SAN CLEMENTE CREEK, CA 1,350 1,275 50 ........... 250 ...........
(N)MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA CREEK, CA 3,075 2,045 169 ........... 400 ...........
(SPE)MATILIJA DAM, CA 2,000 200 400 ........... 523 ...........
(E)MIDDLE CREEK, CA 16,250 ........... .............. 300 .............. 300
(SPE)MOJAVE RIVER FORKS DAM, CA 1,135 285 200 ........... 200 ...........
(E)MORRO BAY ESTUARY, CA 900 300 150 ........... 300 ...........
(E)MUGU LAGOON, CA 700 450 250 ........... 250 ...........
(FC)MURRIETA CREEK, CA 25,600 748 .............. 250 .............. 500
(FDP)N CA STREAMS, DRY CREEK, MIDDLETOWN, CA 410 157 150 ........... 150 ...........
(FDP)N CA STREAMS, LOWER CACHE CRK, YOLO CNTY, WOODLAND AND V 1,961 1,393 568 ........... 568 100
(E)N CA STREAMS, LOWER SACRAMENTO RVR RIPARIAN REVEGETATI 1,970 1,022 100 ........... 100 ...........
(E)NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA 1,777 1,202 300 ........... 300 ...........
(E)NAPA VALLEY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA 2,850 200 250 ........... 250 ...........
(E)NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA 21,109 257 .............. 280 .............. 500
NEWPORT BAY (LA--3 SITE DESIGNATION STUDY), CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 300 ...........
(E)NEWPORT BAY/SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED, CA 1,220 618 300 ........... 300 ...........
(E)ORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA 1,200 184 200 ........... 200 ...........
ORANGE COUNTY COAST BEACH EROSION, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 400 ...........
ORANGE COUNTY SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 139 ...........
(FC)PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE, CA 9,300 3,469 .............. 750 .............. 750
(E)PAJARO RIVER BASIN STUDY, CA 1,100 100 50 ........... 50 ...........
PENINSULA BEACH CITY OF LONG BEACH), CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(E)PINE FLAT DAM, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION, 22,000 ........... .............. 400 .............. 400
PORT OF STOCKTON, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 200 ...........
(FDP)POSO CREEK, CA 1,450 250 200 ........... 200 ...........
(FC)RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 17,836 ........... .............. 100 .............. 100
REGIONAL CONSERVATION/CONJUNCTIVE USE PROJECT, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 1,000 ...........
ROCK CREEK-KEEFER SLOUGH, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 200
(E)RUSSIAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA 3,677 662 300 ........... 300 ...........
(SPE)SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CA 5,940 5,354 300 ........... 300 ...........
(E)SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN STUDY, 19,500 13,396 4,479 ........... 5,000 ...........
(FDP)SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA 1,125 175 200 ........... 200 ...........
(SP)SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CA 950 250 100 ........... 100 ...........
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 500 ...........
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHORELINE, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 1,000 ...........
(N)SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CA 1,990 821 300 ........... 300 ...........
SAN GABRIEL RIVER TO NEWPORT BAY, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
(FDP)SAN JACINTO RIVER, CA 1,000 110 300 ........... 300 ...........
(FC)SAN JOAQUIN R BASIN, STOCKTON METRO AREA, FARMINGTON D 9,750 ........... .............. 200 .............. 200
(E)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, CONSUMNES AND MOKELUMNE RIVERS, 1,175 150 350 ........... 350 ...........
(FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, FRAZIER CREEK, CA 1,600 100 25 ........... 100 ...........
(FC)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA, C ........... ........... .............. 100 .............. 100
(FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA, C 1,611 1,561 50 ........... 50 ...........
(FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, TUOLUMNE RIVER, CA 1,600 125 200 ........... 350 ...........
(FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, CA 847 687 160 ........... 300 ...........
(FDP)SAN JUAN CREEK, SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY, CA 1,100 50 100 ........... 100 ...........
(FDP)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 875 150 100 ........... 100 ...........
(E)SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA 2,800 938 300 ........... 300 ...........
SANTA ANA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BIG BEAR LAKE, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
SANTA BARBARA AND VENTURA COUNTY SHORELINE, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(E)SANTA ROSA CREEK WATERSHED, CA 1,216 656 300 ........... 300 ...........
(E)SANTA YNEZ RIVER, CA 600 75 100 ........... 100 ...........
SOLONO BEACH-ENCINITAS, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 500 ...........
(E)SONOMA CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CA 2,350 300 300 ........... .............. ...........
(FC)SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA 46,100 2,813 .............. 100 .............. 100
(FDP)STRONG AND CHICKEN RANCH SLOUGHS, CA 467 392 75 ........... 75 ...........
(FDP)SUTTER COUNTY, CA 1,308 307 300 ........... 300 ...........
(SPE)TIJUANA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA 1,250 250 200 ........... 200 ...........
(FC)TULE RIVER, CA 14,000 355 .............. 400 .............. 400
(FC)UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA 55,000 1,666 .............. 300 .............. 300
(FDP)UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA 1,845 986 300 ........... 400 ...........
(E)UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSHED, CA 3,400 160 200 ........... 200 ...........
(N)VENTURA HARBOR SAND BYPASS, CA 1,300 497 250 ........... 400 ...........
WESTMINSTER, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 300 ...........
(FC)WESTSIDE TRIBUTARIES TO YOLO BYPASS, CA ........... ........... .............. 50 .............. 50
(FDP)WHITE RIVER AND DEER CREEK, CA 650 50 25 ........... 25 ...........
WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 500
(FC)YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA 19,500 570 .............. 780 .............. 780
COLORADO
(RCP)CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS, CO 1,350 773 250 ........... 250 ...........
FOUNTAIN CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CO 2,100 100 .............. ........... 175 ...........
(E)ZUNI AND SUN VALLEY REACHES, SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, CO 719 162 200 ........... 400 ...........
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
(N)ROTA HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI 800 ........... 25 ........... 25 ...........
(N)TINIAN HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI 800 ........... 25 ........... 25 ...........
DELAWARE
CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHEAD, DE ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
DELAWARE
COAST FROM CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 200
FLORIDA
(FDP)BISCAYNE BAY, FL 3,420 1,360 240 ........... 240 ...........
EGMONT KEY SHORELINE, FL ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FL ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(FDP)HILLSBOROUGH RIVER, FL 1,443 185 300 ........... 375 ...........
(N)LAKE WORTH INLET, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL 600 146 100 ........... 100 ...........
(N)PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL 6,500 ........... .............. 300 .............. 300
(FDP)WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER, FL 1,565 185 300 ........... 300 ...........
GEORGIA
(E)ALLATOONA LAKE, GA 926 358 300 ........... 300 ...........
(E)ARABIA MOUNTAIN, GA 1,100 75 60 ........... 60 ...........
(FDP)AUGUSTA, GA 1,700 793 252 ........... 252 ...........
(E)INDIAN, SUGAR, ENTRENCHMENT AND FEDERAL PRISON CREEKS, 1,130 130 100 ........... 100 ...........
(E)LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA 1,100 100 100 ........... 100 ...........
(FDP)LUBBUB CREEK, GA 600 100 50 ........... 50 ...........
(E)METRO ATLANTA WATERSHED, GA 2,230 2,005 175 ........... 175 ...........
NEW SAVANNAH BLUFF LOCK AND DAM, GA ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 200
(E)SAVANNAH HARBOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, GA 1,690 855 350 ........... 350 ...........
(N)SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA 144,302 415 .............. 400 .............. 540
(COM)SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, GA AND SC 2,548 925 230 ........... 230 ...........
(E)UTOY, SANDY AND PROCTOR CREEKS, GA 1,100 100 150 ........... 150 ...........
HAWAII
(E)ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI 925 230 350 ........... 350 ...........
(N)BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI 23,200 130 .............. 100 .............. 100
(N)HONOLULU HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, OAHU, HI 750 568 101 ........... 101 ...........
(E)KAHUKU, HI 500 100 50 ........... 50 ...........
(N)KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, HAWAII, HI 900 130 225 ........... 225 ...........
(SP)KIHEI AREA EROSION, HI 600 100 50 ........... 160 ...........
NAWILIWILI HARBOR, KAUAI, HI ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(SP)WAIKIKI EROSION CONTROL, HI ........... ........... .............. 50 .............. 350
WAILUPE STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, OAHU, HI ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 100
IDAHO
(FDP)BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID 800 100 50 ........... 50 ...........
(FDP)GOOSE CREEK, OAKLEY, ID 800 75 150 ........... 150 ...........
(FDP)KOOTENAI RIVER AT BONNERS FERRY, ID 759 259 50 ........... 50 ...........
(FDP)LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, ID 473 217 256 ........... 256 ...........
(FDP)PAYETTE AND SNAKE RIVER, ID 800 75 150 ........... 150 ...........
ILLINOIS
(FDP)ALEXANDER AND PULASKI COUNTIES, IL 1,712 1,534 130 ........... 130 ...........
(FDP)DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II) 3,000 562 400 ........... 400 ...........
ILLINOIS BEACH STATE PARK (INTERIM 1), IL ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
(E)ILLINOIS RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, IL 2,725 652 825 ........... 825 ...........
(FDP)KANKAKEE RIVER BASIN, IL AND IN 1,770 1,593 177 ........... 177 ...........
(SPE)PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL 1,090 779 311 ........... 311 ...........
(E)PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL ........... ........... .............. 415 .............. 415
(E)ROCK RIVER, IL AND WI 1,555 683 300 ........... 300 ...........
(RCP)UPPER MISS AND ILLINOIS NAV STUDY, IL, IA, MN, MO AND WI 62,767 59,043 3,724 ........... 3,724 ...........
UPPER MISS RIVER COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, IL ........... ........... .............. ........... 500 ...........
(SPE)UPPER MISS RVR SYS FLOW FREQUENCY STUDY, IL, IA, MN, M 8,191 6,419 1,200 ........... 1,200 ...........
(N)WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL 12,302 215 .............. 160 .............. 160
(FC)WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL 18,750 405 .............. 341 .............. 341
INDIANA
(SPE)INDIANA HARBOR, IN 3,100 475 250 ........... 500 ...........
(N)JOHN T MYERS LOCKS AND DAM, IN AND KY 225,000 2,312 .............. 2,100 .............. 2,100
LONG LAKE, IN ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(E)WOLF LAKE, IN AND IL 550 100 100 ........... .............. ...........
IOWA
(FDP)DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA 1,620 889 450 ........... 450 ...........
FORT DODGE, IA ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
LOWER DES MOINES RIVER, IA AND MO ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
KANSAS
(RCP)TOPEKA, KS 1,287 1,020 133 ........... 133 ...........
(FC)TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO 25,600 1,163 .............. 122 .............. 400
(FDP)UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS 650 75 150 ........... 250 ...........
(E)WALNUT AND WHITEWATER RIVER WATERSHEDS, KS 545 186 200 ........... 200 ...........
KENTUCKY
(N)GREENUP LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND OH 241,300 1,322 .............. 2,372 .............. 2,372
(FDP)LICKING RIVER, CYNTHIANA, KY 850 598 252 ........... 252 ...........
(E)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY 850 175 325 ........... 325 ...........
(FDP)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, MILL CREEK BASIN, KY 850 326 264 ........... 264 ...........
(FDP)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, SOUTHWEST, KY 1,784 1,474 200 ........... 200 ...........
NORTH FORK LICKING RIVER, KY ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
(N)OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM SYSTEMS STUDY, KY, IL, IN, PA, WV 45,300 43,356 1,500 ........... 1,500 ...........
LOUISIANA
(E)AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA 2,100 300 300 ........... 300 ...........
(FDP)ASCENSION PARISH, LA 2,275 200 100 ........... 300 ...........
(N)ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L 1,750 250 100 ........... 300 ...........
(N)BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA 82,400 ........... .............. 300 .............. 300
(N)CALCASIEU LOCK, LA 3,190 532 400 ........... 500 ...........
(FDP)CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA 2,100 400 200 ........... 300 ...........
GULF INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY, BANK STABILIZATION AND ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA
(FDP)HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA 4,500 100 100 ........... 300 ...........
(FC)JEFFERSON PARISH, LA 39,000 68 .............. 50 .............. 50
(FC)LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA 52,000 ........... .............. 400 .............. 400
(E)LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA 17,500 3,174 1,072 ........... 1,072 ...........
(FC)ORLEANS PARISH, LA 61,800 ........... .............. 50 .............. 50
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, LA AND AR ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(FDP)PLAQUEMINES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA 2,100 100 100 ........... 300 ...........
PORT OF IBERIA, LA ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(FDP)ST BERNARD PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA 1,710 475 300 ........... 400 ...........
(FDP)ST CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA 2,200 100 100 ........... 300 ...........
ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
(FDP)WEST SHORE, LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA 1,850 1,653 197 ........... 197 ...........
MARYLAND
(E)ANACOSTIA RIVER FEDERAL WATERSHED IMPACT ASSESSMENT, M 3,000 2,542 458 ........... 458 ...........
(FDP)ANACOSTIA RIVER, PG COUNTY LEVEE, MD AND DC 1,453 1,134 240 ........... 240 ...........
(E)BALTIMORE METRO, GWYNNS FALLS, MD 4,953 ........... .............. 50 .............. 50
(FC)CUMBERLAND, MD 9,750 525 .............. 175 .............. 175
(E)EASTERN SHORE, MD 1,250 296 250 ........... 250 ...........
(E)LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, MATTAWOMAN, MD 460 323 87 ........... 87 ...........
(E)LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, ST MARY'S, MD 680 267 190 ........... 190 ...........
(E)SMITH ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, MD 5,655 75 .............. 300 .............. 300
MASSACHUSETTS
(E)BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, MA AND RI 1,797 1,050 100 ........... 100 ...........
(N)BOSTON HARBOR, MA (45-FOOT CHANNEL) 1,786 236 300 ........... 300 ...........
(E)COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MA 600 100 100 ........... 100 ...........
(FC)MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOSTON, MA 32,500 375 .............. 330 .............. 600
(E)SOMERSET AND SEARSBURG DAMS, DEERFIELD RIVER, MA AND VT 369 166 100 ........... 100 ...........
MICHIGAN
BELLE ISLAND SHORELINE, DETROIT, MI ........... ........... .............. ........... 150 ...........
CASS RIVER, VASSAR, MI ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
DETROIT RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, MI ........... ........... .............. ........... 200 ...........
DETROIT RIVER MASTER PLAN, MI 200 100 .............. ........... 100 ...........
(N)GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA 1,000 499 501 ........... 501 ...........
ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED, MI ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
(N)SAULT STE MARIE (REPLACEMENT LOCK), MI 130,600 2,602 .............. 1,530 .............. 1,530
ST CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST CLAIR, MI 400 200 .............. ........... 200 ...........
MINNESOTA
(E)LOWER ST ANTHONY FALLS RAPIDS RESTORATION, MN ........... 900 .............. 100 .............. 100
(E)RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN, ND, SD AND MANITOBA, C 8,210 200 500 ........... 500 ...........
(E)UPPER MISS RIVER WATERSHED MGMT, LAKE ITASCA TO L/D 2, 3,105 337 200 ........... 200 ...........
MISSISSIPPI
HANCOCK COUNTY, MS ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
MISSOURI
(FC)CHESTERFIELD, MO 37,759 134 .............. 605 .............. 605
(N)HANNIBAL HARBOR, MO 400 75 175 ........... 175 ...........
(FDP)KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS 3,750 1,272 580 ........... 900 ...........
(RCP)MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 AND R460-471, MO 1,570 1,214 180 ........... 180 ...........
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
(FC)RIVER DES PERES, MO 17,400 1,255 .............. 242 .............. 242
(FC)ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO 6,000 589 .............. 98 .............. 98
(N)ST LOUIS HARBOR, MO AND IL 15,524 3,410 .............. 284 .............. 284
ST LOUIS RIVERFRONT, MO AND IL ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(FC)SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO 6,500 38 .............. 150 .............. 150
WEARS CREEK, JEFFERSON, MO ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
MONTANA
(FC)LOWER YELLOWSTONE RIVER DIVERSION DAM, MT 6,500 75 .............. 25 .............. 25
(COM)YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT 2,175 200 325 ........... 325 ...........
NEBRASKA
(FC)ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE 1,014 614 .............. 400 .............. 400
(FDP)LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE 2,481 2,045 350 ........... 350 ...........
LOWER PLATTE RIVER WATERSHED, NE ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NE 17,586 469 .............. 656 .............. 656
(FC)WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NE 591 100 .............. 90 .............. 590
NEVADA
LAS VEGAS WASH, NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(E)LOWER LAS VEGAS WASH WETLANDS, NV 1,800 1,475 50 ........... 725 ...........
(FC)TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV 39,200 7,124 .............. 500 .............. 500
(E)WALKER RIVER BASIN, NV 1,325 350 200 ........... 200 ...........
NEW HAMPSHIRE
CONNECTICUT RIVER ECO SYSTEM RESTORATION, NH AND VT ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(COM)MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN, NH 3,850 374 300 ........... 500 ...........
NEW JERSEY
(E)BARNEGAT BAY, NJ 6,000 50 .............. 300 .............. 300
(SP)BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR, NJ 353,000 573 .............. 263 .............. 263
GOFFLE BROOK, BOROUGH OF HAWTHORNE, NJ ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
(SP)GREAT EGG INLET TO TOWNSEND INLET, NJ 13,600 112 .............. 69 .............. 150
(E)HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ 2,500 81 200 ........... 200 ...........
(E)LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ 2,600 100 75 ........... 200 ...........
(SP)MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ 10,350 112 .............. 68 .............. 200
(E)NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, ENV RESTORATION, NJ 6,000 ........... .............. 150 .............. 150
NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HERFORD/CAPE MAY INLET ........... ........... .............. ........... 200 ...........
NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE LONG-TERM NOURISHMENT ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
(FC)PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ ........... 525 .............. 100 .............. 200
(FDP)RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ 4,260 198 100 ........... 230 ...........
(SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ 1,750 86 50 ........... 300 ...........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, KEYPORT, NJ ........... ........... .............. ........... 350 ...........
(SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ 1,375 632 250 ........... 450 ...........
(SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, PORT MONMOUTH, NJ 18,900 272 .............. 100 .............. 300
(SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ 1,919 1,875 44 ........... 44 150
(FDP)SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ 1,500 190 50 ........... 250 ...........
(FC)SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ ........... ........... .............. 100 .............. 200
(E)STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ 1,500 190 100 ........... 250 ...........
(FDP)UPPER PASSAIC RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ 750 581 169 ........... 169 ...........
(FDP)UPPER ROCKAWAY RIVER, NJ 1,400 581 200 ........... 200 ...........
(FDP)WOODBRIDGE RIVER BASIN, NJ 1,330 198 100 ........... 250 ...........
NEW MEXICO
NAVAJO NATION, NM, AZ AND VT ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(COM)RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO AND TX 2,000 450 300 ........... 300 ...........
SANTA FE, NM ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY, NM ........... ........... .............. ........... 300 ...........
NEW YORK
(FDP)AUSABLE RIVER BASIN, ESSEX AND CLINTON COUNTIES, NY 800 144 50 ........... 50 ...........
(FDP)BOQUET RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ESSEX COUNTY, NY 800 142 50 ........... 50 ...........
(FDP)BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY 900 487 50 ........... 100 ...........
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, NY,NJ,DE,PA ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
(E)FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY 1,614 1,098 409 ........... 409 ...........
(N)FREEPORT CREEK, VILLAGE OF FREEPORT, NY 1,600 100 75 ........... 75 ...........
(E)HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS CANAL, NY AND NJ 2,500 81 400 ........... 400 ...........
(E)HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ 6,200 638 1,369 ........... 1,369 ...........
(SP)JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, ARVERNE, NY 1,000 37 50 ........... 50 ...........
(SP)JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY 2,510 1,910 400 ........... 400 ...........
(N)LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR,NY 1,400 575 100 ........... 200 ...........
(FDP)LINDENHURST, NY 800 149 50 ........... 50 ...........
(N)NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ 1,100,000 3,951 .............. 2,500 .............. 2,750
(N)NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE AREAS, NY 1,300 810 200 ........... 200 ...........
(SP)NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, NY 998 318 50 ........... 250 ...........
(SP)NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY 1,850 700 100 ........... 300 ...........
(SPE)ONONDAGA LAKE, NY 2,102 1,384 350 ........... 350 ...........
(E)SAW MILL RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NY 1,600 225 50 ........... 50 ...........
(E)SOUTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, NY 2,150 267 50 ........... 50 ...........
(SP)SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY 2,000 1,451 209 ........... 209 ...........
(E)UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NY 1,300 150 160 ........... 160 ...........
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, NY ........... ........... .............. ........... 250 ...........
NORTH CAROLINA
(SP)BOGUE BANKS, NC 1,735 350 400 ........... 400 ...........
(E)CURRITUCK SOUND, NC 1,100 75 200 ........... 200 ...........
(SP)DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC 5,397 2,837 100 ........... 600 ...........
(SP)DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC (BODIE ISLAND PORTION) 199,467 250 .............. 500 .............. 750
(E)LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC 1,470 142 83 ........... 83 ...........
(FDP)NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC 1,100 159 100 ........... 100 ...........
(SP)SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC 1,100 ........... 100 ........... 300 ...........
(E)TENNESSEE RIVER AND TRIBS, FRANKLIN, MACON COUNTY, NC 393 238 155 ........... 155 ...........
NORTH DAKOTA
(FC)DEVILS LAKE, ND ........... 6,000 .............. 1,700 .............. 1,700
(FC)GRAFTON, PARK RIVER, ND 19,500 940 .............. 60 .............. 60
OHIO
(E)ASHTABULA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH 21,130 249 .............. 583 .............. 583
BELPRE RIVERFRONT PARK, OH ........... ........... .............. ........... 200 ...........
(FDP)BUTLER COUNTY, OH 850 100 100 ........... 100 ...........
(E)HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, MONDAY CREEK, OH 556 378 178 ........... 178 ...........
(E)HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, SUNDAY CREEK, OH 700 200 200 ........... 200 ...........
(E)LOWER BIG DARBY CREEK BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, 1,425 100 370 ........... 370 ...........
MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, HOH ........... ........... .............. ........... 50 ...........
(E)MUSKINGUM BASIN SYSTEM STUDY, OH 2,061 175 400 ........... 400 ...........
OHIO RIVERFRONT STUDY, CINCINNATI, OH ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
OHIO RIVER FLOW COMMODITY STUDY, OH 800 200 .............. ........... .............. ...........
(FDP)RICHLAND COUNTY, OH 600 175 200 ........... 200 ...........
SANDUSKY RIVER, TIFFIN, OH 100 100 .............. ........... .............. ...........
STEUBENVILLE, OH 175 25 .............. ........... .............. ...........
(E)UPPER BIG DARBY CREEK BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, 375 310 65 ........... 65 ...........
WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
OKLAHOMA
(E)CIMARRON RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, OK, KS, NM AND CO 2,620 220 226 ........... 226 ...........
MIAMI AND VICINITY, OK ........... ........... .............. ........... 300 ...........
(E)SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE STUDY, OK 2,900 336 200 ........... ..............
(FDP)WARR ACRES, OK 360 186 174 ........... 174 ...........
WISTER LAKE WATERSHED, OK ........... ........... .............. ........... 375 ...........
OREGON
AMAZON CREEK, OR ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(E)LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA 3,200 75 135 ........... 135 ...........
(E)TILLAMOOK BAY AND ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR 1,860 1,174 500 ........... 500 ...........
WALLA WALLA WATERSHED, OR AND WA ........... ........... .............. ........... 600 ...........
(COM)WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR 2,284 1,908 130 ........... 130 ...........
(E)WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR 3,200 171 369 ........... 369 ...........
(E)WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR 1,590 225 170 ........... 170 ...........
PENNSYLVANIA
(FDP)BLOOMSBURG, PA 1,152 791 250 ........... 250 ...........
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, WISSAHICKON, PA ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
RHODE ISLAND
(N)QUONSET DAVISVILLE PORT, RI 1,600 100 150 ........... 150 ...........
(E)RHODE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, RI 1,200 290 50 ........... 50 ...........
(E)RHODE ISLAND SOUTH COAST, HABITAT REST AND STRM DMG REDU 6,825 ........... .............. 160 .............. 160
SOUTH CAROLINA
(RCP)ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC 4,722 1,835 655 ........... 655 ...........
(COM)BROAD RIVER BASIN, SC 975 100 125 ........... 125 ...........
(E)CHARLESTON ESTUARY, SC 1,677 157 50 ........... 50 ...........
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(SP)PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC 478 378 100 ........... 100 ...........
(SP)PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC 4,300 ........... .............. 25 .............. 25
REEDY RIVER, SC ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
SANTEE DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, SC ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(FDP)WACCAMAW RIVER, SC 600 55 195 ........... 195 ...........
(E)YADKIN--PEE DEE RIVER WATERSHED, SC AND NC 9,750 ........... .............. 50 .............. 50
SOUTH DAKOTA
(FDP)NIOBRARA RIVER AND MISSOURI RIVER, SD 350 75 25 ........... 225 ...........
TENNESSEE
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
(FDP)DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN 910 185 105 ........... 105 ...........
FORT DEFIANCE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CLARKSVILLE, TN ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(E)FRENCH BROAD WATERSHED, TN 706 355 280 ........... 280 ...........
TEXAS
(FDP)BOIS D'ARC CREEK, BONHAM, TX 770 130 200 ........... 200 ...........
BRAZORIA COUNTY, TX ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(FDP)BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, WHITE OAK BAYOU, TX 1,670 472 150 ........... 500 ...........
CEDAR BAYOU, TX ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 400
(E)COLONIAS-LWR RIO GRANDE BASIN ALONG TX AND MEXICO BORDER ........... 45 .............. 100 .............. 400
(N)CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, LAQUINTA CHANNEL, TX 1,120 742 378 ........... 378 ...........
(N)CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX 2,851 2,093 572 ........... 572 ...........
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(FDP)FREEPORT HURRICANE PROTECTION LEVEE, TX 4,380 75 100 ........... 100 ...........
(N)GIWW MODIFICATIONS, TX 8,810 219 400 ........... 150 ...........
(RCP)GIWW, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT O'CONNOR, TX 4,710 2,843 810 ........... 810 ...........
(N)GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX 50,000 ........... .............. 540 .............. 540
(N)GIWW, MATAGORDA BAY, TX 10,000 150 .............. 200 .............. 400
(RCP)GIWW, PORT O'CONNOR TO CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TX 4,660 2,003 600 ........... 600 ...........
(FC)GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX 171,294 6,568 .............. 190 .............. 377
(E)GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX 2,600 500 200 ........... 200 ...........
(E)LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX 10,395 1,639 950 ........... 950 ...........
(E)MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX 1,540 826 100 ........... 100 ...........
(E)NORTH BOSQUE RIVER, TX 6,600 ........... .............. 100 .............. 100
(E)NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 19,500 1,319 .............. 130 .............. 130
(FDP)NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX 975 590 250 ........... 250 ...........
(FC)RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX 80,850 311 .............. 50 .............. 250
(E)RESACAS AT BROWNSVILLE, TX 2,650 75 100 ........... 325 ...........
(N)SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX 3,715 1,064 650 ........... 650 ...........
(E)SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX 4,850 146 450 ........... 450 ...........
(FC)SOUTH MAIN CHANNEL, TX 153,700 7,495 .............. 380 .............. 600
SULPHUR RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, TX ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TX ........... ........... .............. ........... 250 ...........
(FDP)UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX 9,310 7,739 650 ........... 1,200 ...........
UTAH
PARK CITY, UT ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(FDP)PROVO AND VICINITY, UT 1,495 620 100 ........... 100 ...........
VIRGINIA
(N)AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA 22,168 150 .............. 475 .............. 475
(SP)CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, HAMPTON, VA 1,004 872 100 ........... 100 ...........
(N)ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA 37,200 ........... .............. 284 .............. 284
FOURMILE RUN, VA ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
GOSHEN DAM, VA ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
(N)JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA 9,795 376 .............. 295 .............. 295
(FDP)JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (SECTION 216) 1,650 286 400 ........... 400 ...........
(N)NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA 3,050 2,104 946 ........... 946 ...........
(E)POWELL RIVER WATERSHED, VA 1,477 1,065 100 ........... 100 ...........
WASHINGTON
(E)BELLINGHAM BAY, WA 601 125 200 ........... 300 ...........
(FC)CENTRALIA, WA 56,000 5,076 .............. 500 .............. 1,000
(E)CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA 700 100 250 ........... 250 ...........
COMMENCEMENT BAY, WA ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(E)DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA 92,740 166 .............. 250 .............. 375
(FC)HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA 61,192 5,618 .............. 500 .............. 1,250
(RCP)LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA 2,791 1,741 254 ........... 1,050 ...........
(SP)OCEAN SHORES, WA 896 100 50 ........... 50 ...........
(N)PUGET SOUND CONFINED DISPOSAL SITES, WA 2,124 1,537 225 ........... 225 ...........
(E)PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA 700 100 200 ........... 200 ...........
(FDP)SKAGIT RIVER, WA 2,547 1,497 200 ........... 200 ...........
(E)SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA 1,386 175 50 ........... 50 ...........
(E)STILLAGUAMISH RIVER BASIN, WA 20,825 50 .............. 50 .............. 50
WALLA WALLA WATERSHED, WA ........... ........... .............. ........... 1,000 ...........
WHITE RIVER BASIN, WA ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
WEST VIRGINIA
ERICKSON/WOOD COUNTY PUBLIC PORT, WV ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 600
(FC)ISLAND CREEK AT LOGAN, WV 12,718 2,067 .............. 483 .............. 983
LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(FC)MERCER COUNTY, WV ........... ........... .............. 100 .............. 100
(E)NEW RIVER BASIN, WV, NC AND VA 2,400 200 200 ........... 200 ...........
PARKERSBURG/VIENNA, WV ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 300
WEIRTON PORT, WV ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 400
WISCONSIN
(E)BARABOO RIVER, WI 2,650 100 240 ........... 240 ...........
WYOMING
(E)JACKSON HOLE RESTORATION, WY 8,000 225 .............. 175 .............. 175
MISCELLANEOUS
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION ........... ........... 2,200 ........... 3,200 ...........
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES ........... ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA ........... ........... 400 ........... 400 ...........
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES ........... ........... 8,200 ........... 9,500 ...........
GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION ........... ........... .............. ........... 200 ...........
GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (SEC. 401) ........... ........... .............. ........... 2,000 ...........
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES ........... ........... 500 ........... 500 ...........
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES ........... ........... 500 ........... 500 ...........
JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM ........... ........... .............. ........... 500 ...........
NATIONAL SHORELINE ........... ........... 300 ........... .............. ...........
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS ........... ........... 7,200 ........... 7,200 ...........
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES ........... ........... 6,500 ........... 6,500 ...........
PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE) ........... ........... 400 ........... 400 ...........
PROJECT MONITORING ........... ........... 100 ........... .............. ...........
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT ........... ........... 300 ........... 300 ...........
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ........... ........... 24,000 ........... 29,000 ...........
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS ........... ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY) ........... ........... 700 ........... 700 ...........
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ........... ........... 700 ........... 700 ...........
TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS TECHNOLOGY CENTER ........... ........... 650 ........... 650 ...........
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ........... ........... -24,050 ........... -50,059 ...........
=====================================================================================
TOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS ........... ........... 96,274 33,726 105,310 47,092
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPE OF PROJECT:
(N) NAVIGATION
(BE) BEACH EROSION CONTROL
(FC) FLOOD CONTROL
(MP) MULTIPURPOSE, INCLUDING POWER
(SP) SHORELINE PROTECTION
(FDP) FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
(RCP) REVIEW OF COMPLETED PROJECT
(RDP) REVIEW OF DEFERRED PROJECT
(COMP) COMPREHENSIVE
(SPEC) SPECIAL
Aniak Harbor, AK.--The Committee recommendation includes
$100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for Aniak Harbor,
AK.
False Pass, AK.--The Committee has provided $313,000 to
expedite completion of the plans and specifications for the
harbor project at False Pass, AK.
Kenai River Bluff Erosion, AK.--The Committee has provided
$500,000 for a special technical evaluation study of bank
stabilization needs along the Lower Kenai River.
Seward Harbor, AK.--Based on the findings of the Corps of
Engineers feasibility for navigation improvements to Seward
Harbor, Alaska, the Committee urges the Corps to proceed with
implementing this critical project within available funds.
Ship Creek Watershed, AK.--The Committee recommendation
includes $150,000 to complete feasibility studies and to
initiate preconstruction engineering and design for Ship Creek
Watershed, AK.
Red River Navigation Study, Southwest Arkansas, AR.--The
Committee has provided $500,000 for continuation of the cost-
shared navigation feasibility study. The Committee understands
that navigation in the Shreveport, Louisiana to Index, Arkansas
reach is an extension of the existing J. Bennett Johnston
Waterway, and as such, urges the Corps to perform an additional
analysis using the same discount rate and local cost-sharing
requirements as required for the existing waterway. This
analysis should be displayed as a part of the feasibility
report.
Red River Waterway, AR, LA, OK, & TX.--The Committee has
provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of the Index, AR
to Denison Dam reach of the Red River. The study is to examine
environmental restoration and other water resource needs of the
river corridor.
American River Watershed, CA.--The Committee recognizes the
serious flood threat that faces the Sacramento area and has
provided $2,600,000 to expedite completion of the
preconstruction engineering and design of this vital flood
control project.
Los Angeles Harbor Main Channel Deepening, Los Angeles,
CA.--The Committee has provided $2,600,000 to complete
preconstruction engineering and design for the Los Angeles
Harbor Main Channel Deepening, Los Angeles, CA.
Westminster, CA.--An amount of $300,000 is recommended by
the Committee to complete the reconnaissance study and initiate
the feasibility study for the East Garden Grove/Winterburg
Channel in Westminster, CA.
Wailupe Stream Flood Control Study, Oahu, HI.--The
Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate preconstruction
engineering and design activities for the Wailupe Stream flood
control study, in Oahu, HI.
Illinois Rivers, IL.--The Committee is aware of an
innovative restoration initiative in the Illinois River Basin
designed to enhance the waterway as a vital transportation
corridor, improve water quality, protect farmland and open
space, and promote important conservation and environmental
practices--Illinois Rivers 2020. The project was authorized in
Public Law 106-541. The Committee expects the Corps to continue
to work with the State of Illinois on this project and to
identify appropriate funding sources.
Upper Mississippi & Illinois Navigation Study, IL, IA, MN,
MO, & WI.--The Committee has provided $3,724,000 to continue
this study. The Committee recognizes that the controversy over
the past year has considerably slowed progress on completing
this important study. However, with the completion of the
various investigations and independent reviews, the Committee
believes that it is time for the Corps to finish this nearly
decade long study. The Corps should make every effort to bring
this study to a logical conclusion within 18 months of
enactment of this act. No funding shall be expended on
preconstruction engineering and design activities until the
feasibility study is completed.
Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Study, IL, IA, MO,
MN, and WI.--The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for
the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Study. The funding
will allow the Corps to initiate studies for the following:
development of an integrated strategy and implementation plan
for flood control and flood damage reduction, continued
maintenance and improvement of the navigation project, improved
management of nutrients and sediment, environmental
stewardship, and increased recreational opportunities for the
Upper Mississippi River above Cairo, IL and the entire Illinois
River.
Ouachita and Black Rivers, LA & AR.--The Committee
understands that there are critical erosion problems along the
Ouachita River in Arkansas and Louisiana. These erosion
problems are threatening Federal flood control levees and
hindering navigation, as well as causing damage to utilities,
roads, historic sites and private property. The Committee has
provided $100,000 for the Corps to assess bank caving locations
along the Ouachita River in Louisiana and Arkansas and to
prepare an evaluation report identifying and prioritizing the
most critical caving locations.
Belle Island Shoreline, Detroit, MI.--The Committee has
provided $150,000 to initiate the feasibility studies for
stabilization of the crumbling Bell Island Shoreline. The
Committee urges the Corps to examine the use of innovative
techniques for stabilization alternatives.
Sault Ste. Marie Lock, Sault Ste. Marie, MI.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,530,000 to complete the
preconstruction engineering and design of the replacement lock
at Sault Ste. Marie in Michigan.
Kansas Citys, MO & KS.--The Committee has provided $900,000
to continue flood damage reduction studies for the Kansas Citys
area of Missouri and Kansas.
Little Tallahatchie River, MS.--The Committee urges the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to examine a proposal by the
Friends of the Upper Sardis Wildlife Management Area to repair
and restore the Little Tallahatchie River located in Holly
Springs National Forest, Mississippi.
Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, NV.--The Committee has
provided $725,000 for feasibility studies of the environmental
restoration of the Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, Las Vegas,
NV.
Grafton, Park River, ND.--The Committee recommendation
includes $60,000 to complete the preconstruction engineering
and design of the Grafton, Park River, ND flood damage
reduction project.
Amazon Creek, OR.--The Committee has provided $100,000 to
initiate and complete a reconnaissance study of Amazon Creek in
the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan area.
Niobrara River and Missouri River, SD.--The Committee has
provided $225,000 to complete the reconnaissance study and to
initiate the feasibility study.
Upper Trinity River Basin, TX.--The Committee has provided
$1,200,000 to continue feasibility studies. The additional
amount provided will allow for completion of the Dallas
Floodway and Stemmons North Industrial Corridor Studies, for
continuation of studies on the Clear and West Forks of the
Trinity River and the Big Fossil Creek Watershed, and for
initiation of a new study.
North Padre Island, TX.--The Committee has included
$130,000 for the preconstruction engineering and design
portion, as well as continuing the environmental studies, for
the North Padre Island, Texas, flood control project.
Coastal Field Data Collection.--The Committee has provided
an additional $1,000,000 over the budget request for the
Southern California Beach Processes Study to help preserve the
California coastline from beach erosion.
Great Lakes Remedial Action Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the Great Lakes Remedial
Action Program. The funds will allow for the continuation of
development of remedial action plans identified in the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978.
Planning Assistance to States.--Within the funds provided
for Planning Assistance to States, the Committee urges the
Corps of Engineers to initiate an investigation of the
streambank erosion problems in the East Baton Rouge Parish
Canal in Baker, Louisiana, and desalinization efforts at
Tularosa Basin in Alamogordo, New Mexico.
Other Coordination Programs.--The Committee encourages the
Corps to use funds provided herein to support the Estuaries
Council in the development of a national strategy for estuary
habitat restoration programs.
Research and Development.--The Committee has provided
$29,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers R&D Program. Within the
amount provided, $800,000 is for the National Shoreline Erosion
Control Development and Demonstration Program at Allergan
County, Michigan.
construction, general
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $1,716,165,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 1,324,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,570,798,000
This appropriation includes funds for construction, major
rehabilitation and related activity for water resources
development projects having navigation, flood control, water
supply, hydroelectric, and other attendant benefits to the
Nation. The construction and major rehabilitation projects for
inland and costal waterways will derive one-half of the funding
from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. Funds to be derived from
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will be applied to cover the
Federal share of the Dredged Material Disposal Facilities
Program.
The appropriation provides funds for the Continuing
Authorities Program (projects which do not require specific
legislation), which includes projects for flood control
(Section 205), emergency streambank and shoreline protection
(Section 14), beach erosion control (Section 103), mitigation
of shore damages (Section 111), navigation projects (Section
107), snagging and clearing (Section 208), aquatic ecosystem
restoration (Section 206), beneficial uses of dredged material
(Section 204), and project modifications for improvement of the
environment (Section 1135).
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of Total Federal Allocated to Budget Committee
project Project title cost date estimate recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
(N)MOBILE HARBOR, AL 326,605 30,017 2,300 2,300
(MP)WALTER F GEORGE POWERHOUSE AND DAM, AL AND GA (MAJOR REH 43,700 1,357 12,325 11,325
(MP)WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA (MAJOR REHAB) 36,000 7,423 3,000 3,000
ALASKA
(N)CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK 6,500 1,751 3,300 3,300
(N)NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK 20,192 1,294 2,200 2,200
(N)ST PAUL HARBOR, AK 23,125 12,500 700 700
ARIZONA
(E)RIO SALADO, PHOENIX AND TEMPE REACHES, AZ 62,730 5,953 13,200 18,000
ARKANSAS
FOURCHE BAYOU BASIN, AR .............. .............. .............. 180
(N)MCCLELLAN--KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR 651,000 616,536 3,000 3,000
(N)MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR 242,000 158,064 18,000 24,000
RED RIVER WATERWAY, INDEX, AR TO DENISON DAM, TX 76,700 76,700 .............. 3,000
RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR .............. .............. .............. 4,500
RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, AR, LA, OK AND TX .............. .............. .............. 3,500
CALIFORNIA
(FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA 87,000 38,268 13,000 13,000
(FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS 97,500 5,752 4,500 4,500
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA .............. .............. .............. ..............
(FC)CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA 21,900 12,625 250 250
(FC)COYOTE AND BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA 43,300 33,331 600 600
(FC)GUADALUPE RIVER, CA 128,700 79,188 4,000 6,000
(E)HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA 47,400 1,589 1,000 4,000
HARBOR/SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING, CA .............. .............. .............. 4,500
(SP)IMPERIAL BEACH, SILVER STRAND SHORELINE, CA 15,300 3,654 500 500
(FC)KAWEAH RIVER, CA 19,700 6,660 3,000 4,000
(FC)LOWER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA 5,100 3,669 1,431 1,431
LOWER WALNUT CREEK, CA .............. .............. .............. 250
(FC)MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA 34,700 30,625 4,075 4,075
(FC)MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA 91,800 19,816 500 500
(FC)MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA 14,700 12,437 2,263 2,263
(FC)NAPA RIVER, CA 91,000 21,091 5,500 6,000
(N)OAKLAND HARBOR, CA (50 FOOT PROJECT) 144,000 7,142 2,000 12,000
PETALUMA RIVER, CA .............. .............. .............. 4,500
(FC)SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA 179,900 114,601 2,326 2,326
SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CA .............. .............. .............. 300
(FC)SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA 20,000 15,008 2,284 4,000
(N)SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA 173,000 66,850 250 250
SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION, CA .............. .............. .............. ..............
(FC)SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA 19,440 12,832 3,490 3,490
(FC)SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA 924,000 685,775 26,800 30,800
(N)SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA 5,450 410 100 100
(FC)SANTA PAULA CREEK, CA 36,000 19,805 1,700 1,700
(FC)STOCKTON METROPOLITIAN FLOOD CONTROL REIMBURSEMENT, CA 35,700 3,352 1,000 ..............
(FC)SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY) 30,900 2,054 1,000 1,000
(SP)SURFSIDE--SUNSET--NEWPORT BEACH, CA 8,300 700 300 300
(FC)UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA 5,810 4,347 1,463 1,463
(FC)WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 17,700 16,332 1,368 1,368
DELAWARE
(SP)DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE 12,600 5,597 270 353
(SP)DELAWARE COAST, REHOBOTH BEACH TO DEWEY BEACH, DE 64,900 3,237 100 100
FLORIDA
(SP)BREVARD COUNTY, FL 136,600 8,939 200 200
(SP)BROWARD COUNTY, FL (REIMBURSABLE) 90,200 21,422 200 200
(N)CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL 133,740 35,878 5,701 5,701
(E)CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL 2,219,000 560,018 95,278 95,278
(SP)DADE COUNTY, FL 182,400 70,613 8,000 8,000
DUVAL COUNTY, FL .............. .............. .............. ..............
(E)EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL 75,000 19,455 19,876 19,876
FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL .............. .............. .............. 500
(N)JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL 11,000 5,384 1,457 5,300
(MP)JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, FL AND GA (MAJOR R 29,800 22,037 4,300 4,300
(E)KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL 265,600 92,532 25,846 25,846
(N)MANATEE HARBOR, FL 26,485 7,149 1,000 1,000
MARTIN COUNTY, FL .............. .............. .............. ..............
(N)MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL 50,255 23,443 5,274 5,274
(SP)PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (REIMBURSEMENT) 85,000 12,840 200 200
(N)PALM VALLEY BRIDGE, FL 19,000 11,701 7,299 7,299
(N)PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL 25,747 2,832 1,215 1,215
PINELLAS COUNTY, FL .............. .............. .............. ..............
PORT EVERGLADES, FL .............. .............. .............. ..............
(SP)ST JOHN'S COUNTY, FL 184,700 5,458 300 1,000
ST LUCIE INLET, FL .............. .............. .............. ..............
(N)TAMPA HARBOR, FL 751 251 500 500
GEORGIA
(N)BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA 41,461 2,044 4,084 6,400
(MP)BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB) 27,200 7,319 3,000 3,000
(MP)HARTWELL LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB) 31,000 25,600 4,500 4,500
(N)LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA AND SC 3,167 1,124 1,300 1,300
(FC)OATES CREEK, RICHMOND COUNTY, GA (DEF CORR) 11,208 9,739 632 632
(MP)RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC 619,570 603,835 3,000 3,000
(MP)THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB) 69,700 29,265 6,500 6,500
HAWAII
HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT, HI .............. .............. .............. 200
(FC)IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF CORR) 15,004 1,224 400 400
KAUMALAPAU HARBOR, HI 11,700 3,000 .............. 1,300
(N)KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI 5,620 4,194 1,275 1,275
(N)MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI 11,883 3,983 325 325
ILLINOIS
(N)CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR) 24,756 3,895 3,617 3,617
(SP)CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL 174,188 67,459 24,000 25,000
(FC)EAST ST LOUIS, IL 37,861 30,642 1,000 1,000
EAST ST LOUIS INTERIOR FLOOD CONTROL, IL .............. .............. .............. ..............
(N)LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH 68,592 24,704 8,038 8,038
(FC)LOVES PARK, IL 21,000 13,862 1,600 1,600
(FC)MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL 501,100 35,678 10,000 17,000
(N)MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL AND MO 740,636 731,324 500 500
(N)OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY 1,052,000 511,482 34,000 41,000
(E)UPPER MISS RVR SYSTEM ENV MGMT PROGRAM, IL, IA, MN, MO 766,195 217,229 21,000 19,000
INDIANA
CALUMET REGION, IN .............. .............. .............. 1,500
(N)INDIANA HARBOR, IN (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY) 61,100 4,918 5,000 5,000
INDIANA SHORELINE EROSION, IN .............. .............. .............. 1,000
INDIANA POLIS CENTRAL WATERFRONT, IN .............. .............. .............. 5,000
(FC)INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN 12,806 1,576 3,600 3,600
(FC)LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN 139,000 77,977 4,000 4,000
(FC)MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB) 46,619 2,080 8,500 9,500
(FC)OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ACCESS, IN 17,500 3,209 2,400 2,400
IOWA
(N)LOCK AND DAM 12, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB) 15,000 5,464 4,906 4,906
(E)MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION, IA, NE, K 85,400 63,611 11,000 12,609
(FC)MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS AND MO 152,394 105,689 8,500 9,200
(FC)PERRY CREEK, IA 46,540 37,905 4,000 4,000
KANSAS
(FC)ARKANSAS CITY, KS 20,850 13,384 3,050 5,100
KENTUCKY
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY .............. .............. .............. ..............
(FC)DEWEY LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY) 17,000 10,808 2,900 2,900
(N)KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY 533,000 70,058 14,400 23,000
LOUISVILLE WATERFRONT, KY .............. .............. .............. ..............
(N)MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND IN 278,000 60,316 13,632 19,000
(FC)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, BEARGRASS CREEK, KY 7,951 1,270 2,575 2,575
(FC)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY 13,524 8,665 1,400 1,400
POND CREEK, KY .............. .............. .............. 425
SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY, KY .............. .............. .............. 2,500
LOUISIANA
(FC)COMITE RIVER, LA 106,000 11,361 500 4,000
GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LA .............. .............. .............. 200
(N)INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA 652,000 71,181 10,000 15,000
(N)J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA 1,895,807 1,732,172 16,555 20,000
(FC)LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE PROTECT 527,000 425,826 7,500 15,000
(FC)LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) 81,000 75,857 1,500 1,500
(N)MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, L 179,800 27,419 575 575
(N)MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA 92,189 81,184 500 500
(FC)NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) 173,000 146,736 2,000 2,000
OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, AR AND LA 30,417 24,516 .............. 1,500
(FC)SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA 450,000 233,067 51,908 62,000
(FC)WEST BANK AND VICINITY, NEW ORLEANS, LA 200,000 61,843 12,000 13,000
MARYLAND
ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD .............. .............. .............. ..............
(SP)ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD 25,800 2,095 10,000 10,000
(SP)ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD 189,000 34,951 2,300 5,000
(N)BALTIMORE HARBOR ANCHORAGES AND CHANNELS, MD AND VA 21,000 3,189 8,000 8,000
(E)CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA 27,000 6,454 1,500 3,000
(E)POPLAR ISLAND, MD 320,000 77,700 18,200 18,200
MASSACHUSETTS
(N)CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, MA (MAJOR REHAB) 31,800 8,375 12,500 12,500
(FC)WEST HILL DAM, MA (MAJOR REHAB) 13,200 1,000 9,000 9,000
MINNESOTA
(FC)CROOKSTON, MN 7,020 1,708 2,000 1,000
(N)LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN (MAJOR REHAB) 18,800 3,114 800 800
NORTHEASTERN, MN .............. .............. .............. ..............
(N)PINE RIVER DAM, CROSS LAKE, MN (DAM SAFETY) 10,200 9,570 630 630
STILLWATER, MN .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSISSIPPI
DESOTO COUNTY, MS .............. .............. .............. 5,000
(N)GULFPORT HARBOR, MS 32,948 26,083 100 100
(N)PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS 47,789 28,232 1,930 1,930
MISSOURI
(FC)BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO 13,500 1,662 675 675
(FC)BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO 220,000 175,497 8,400 10,400
BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, MO .............. .............. .............. 100
(FC)CAPE GIRARDEAU, JACKSON, MO 37,128 32,521 1,717 1,717
(FC)MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO 29,056 18,579 1,200 1,200
(N)MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO 269,273 198,687 4,000 4,000
ST LOUIS, MO .............. .............. .............. 2,000
(FC)STE GENEVIEVE, MO 34,710 29,598 850 850
(MP)TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR (DAM SAFETY) 60,200 20,510 5,900 5,900
MONTANA
FORT PECK DAM, MT 7,443 5,233 .............. 700
NEBRASKA
(FC)MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE AND SD 21,000 5,073 1,800 1,800
(FC)WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE 10,698 3,884 4,000 4,000
NEVADA
RURAL NEVADA, NV 25,000 3,332 .............. 9,000
(FC)TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV 214,800 109,010 22,000 30,000
NEW HAMPSHIRE
ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, LEBANON, NH .............. .............. .............. 2,000
NEW JERSEY
(SP)BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG INLET, NJ (ABSECON ISLAN 290,000 5,284 100 100
(SP)CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ 53,400 16,250 780 780
(N)DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA AND DE 231,000 30,555 10,000 8,000
(SP)GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ 241,500 36,630 130 130
(N)NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, PORT JERSEY CHANN 84,300 11,184 22,000 21,000
(FC)PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, N 19,700 4,605 5,400 5,400
PASSAIC RIVDR STREAMBANK RESTORATION, NJ .............. .............. .............. 2,000
(FC)RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, MAHWAH, NJ AND SUFFERN, NY 8,400 1,559 100 100
(FC)RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ 11,800 6,851 4,949 4,949
(SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ 343,000 1,126 100 400
(FC)RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ 314,400 33,827 10,000 8,000
(SP)SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ 698,200 120,495 5,000 5,000
(SP)TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ 163,000 4,702 2,000 2,000
NEW MEXICO
(FC)ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM 66,000 13,224 2,000 2,000
(FC)ALAMOGORDO, NM 41,400 8,039 3,500 3,500
CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM 25,000 2,514 .............. 6,000
(FC)MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELE 46,800 9,889 600 600
(FC)RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE, 62,300 5,138 300 300
NEW YORK
(N)ARTHUR KILL CHANNEL, HOWLAND HOOK MARINE TERMINAL, NY 230,400 8,452 15,000 18,000
(SP)ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, 76,500 15,761 300 900
(SP)EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET AND JAMAICA BAY, 55,000 43,982 1,230 1,230
(SP)FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY 119,300 36,374 4,700 4,700
(SP)FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY 403,400 59,858 2,275 2,275
(N)KILL VAN KULL AND NEWARK BAY CHANNEL, NY AND NJ 580,200 282,643 44,000 42,000
NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NY .............. .............. .............. 2,000
ONONDAGA LAKE, NY .............. .............. .............. 4,000
NORTH CAROLINA
(SP)BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, OCEAN ISLE BEACH PORTION, NC 96,600 9,277 300 800
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC .............. .............. .............. 300
(SP)WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET, NC 112,300 699 300 700
(N)WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC 248,100 58,068 43,159 46,000
(SP)WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC 26,500 4,609 550 550
NORTH DAKOTA
(FC)BUFORD--TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION, 34,000 17,279 3,000 5,000
(MP)GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB) 44,318 19,813 7,000 7,000
(FC)GRAND FORKS, ND--EAST GRAND FORKS, MN 178,800 26,741 25,954 31,000
(FC)HOMME LAKE, ND (DAM SAFETY) 12,400 8,712 2,400 2,400
(FC)SHEYENNE RIVER, ND 55,807 28,998 2,000 2,000
OHIO
LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, OH .............. .............. .............. 1,000
(FC)METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH 32,123 5,347 2,700 2,700
(FC)MILL CREEK, OH 163,000 102,661 2,000 3,000
OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OH .............. .............. .............. 1,000
OTTAWA RIVER, OH .............. .............. .............. 300
(FC)WEST COLUMBUS, OH 97,000 77,754 7,200 10,000
OKLAHOMA
(FC)SKIATOOK LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) 10,000 1,228 1,800 1,800
(MP)TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) 39,300 16,315 3,700 3,700
OREGON
(MP)BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR AND WA (MAJOR REHAB) 110,800 60,036 10,000 10,000
(MP)COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA 79,760 39,970 5,000 5,000
(FC)ELK CREEK LAKE, OR 179,400 110,273 2,000 2,000
(FC)LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN BANK PROTECTION, OR AND WA 28,000 21,693 100 100
(E)WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR 72,000 16,719 8,000 9,000
PENNSYLVANIA
(FC)JOHNSTOWN, PA (MAJOR REHAB) 32,500 29,418 3,082 3,082
(N)LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA 705,000 185,322 34,470 40,470
NANTY GLO, PA .............. .............. .............. 100
NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA, PA .............. .............. .............. 3,000
(SP)PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT) 64,785 17,716 392 392
(FC)SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA 13,374 6,437 4,138 4,138
SCHUYLKILL RIVER PARK, PA .............. .............. .............. 500
SOUTH CENTRAL PENN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .............. .............. .............. 5,000
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, PA 5,000 276 .............. ..............
(FC)WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING) 131,000 63,293 19,000 19,000
PUERTO RICO
(FC)ARECIBO RIVER, PR 14,400 3,199 500 500
(FC)PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR 430,300 395,516 5,409 5,409
(FC)RIO DE LA PLATA, PR 66,700 7,340 500 500
(FC)RIO GRANDE DE LOIZA, PR 155,300 3,342 500 500
(FC)RIO GRANDE DE MANATI, PR 1,500 .............. 1,500 1,500
(FC)RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR 331,000 75,163 9,000 9,000
SOUTH CAROLINA
(N)CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (DEEPENING AND WIDENING) 98,444 66,766 6,365 10,865
FOLLY BEACH, SC .............. .............. .............. ..............
(MP)HARTWELL LK,CLEMSON UPPER AND LOWER DIVERSION, SC (DAM S 8,741 400 2,500 2,500
LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SC 15,000 3,352 .............. 11,648
SOUTH DAKOTA
(FC)BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD 30,450 7,103 6,000 6,000
(E)CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD 107,000 6,252 3,000 7,000
(MP)PIERRE, SD 35,000 12,868 6,000 6,000
TENNESSEE
BLACK FOX, MURFREE AND OAKLANDS SPRINGS WETLANDS, TN .............. .............. .............. 2,000
TEXAS
BOSQUE AND LEON RIVERS, TX .............. .............. .............. ..............
(FC)BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX 312,485 23,751 4,066 4,066
(N)CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX 28,391 22,826 5,565 5,565
(FC)CLEAR CREEK, TX 94,115 24,154 1,200 1,200
(FC)DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER PROJECT, TX 95,826 10,698 2,000 10,000
(FC)EL PASO, TX 116,300 111,907 3,400 3,400
(N)HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX 475,468 159,576 28,785 24,785
(FC)JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX 13,630 5,724 2,900 5,000
MOUTH OF COLORADO RIVER, TX .............. .............. .............. ..............
(N)NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER BARRIER, TX 45,375 15,364 8,068 10,000
RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX AND OK .............. .............. .............. 2,100
RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, TX,AR,LA .............. .............. .............. 2,500
(FC)SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX 155,300 153,632 866 866
(FC)SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX 225,752 90,058 9,000 9,000
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX .............. .............. .............. 2,617
UTAH
(FC)UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UT 9,660 2,429 500 500
VIRGINIA
(N)AIWW BRIDGE AT GREAT BRIDGE, VA 24,054 14,755 7,000 7,000
(MP)JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (MAJOR REHAB) 61,800 4,553 4,800 4,800
LYNCHBURG COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW, VA .............. .............. .............. ..............
(N)NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (DEEPENING), VA 137,400 23,916 486 486
RICHMOND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW, VA .............. .............. .............. ..............
(FC)ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA 31,000 7,304 3,000 3,000
(SP)SANDBRIDGE BEACH, VA 193,050 3,734 3,380 3,380
(SP)VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) 273,624 72,084 9,000 9,000
VIRGINA BEACH, VA (REIMBURSEMENT) .............. .............. .............. ..............
WASHINGTON
(E)COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR AND ID 1,506,330 706,416 81,000 83,000
(N)GRAYS HARBOR, WA 28,170 18,170 325 325
(E)LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR 261,000 230,612 2,555 2,555
(FC)MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA 199,500 116,476 545 545
(FC)MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY) 93,720 81,944 3,300 3,300
(MP)THE DALLES POWERHOUSE (UNITS 1-14), WA AND OR (MAJOR REH 102,900 25,728 7,000 7,000
WEST VIRGINIA
(FC)BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY) 112,300 11,463 8,000 12,000
CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA, WV .............. .............. .............. 3,000
GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV .............. .............. .............. 1,200
(FC)LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V 1,931,287 760,170 16,700 41,100
(N)LONDON LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV (MAJOR REHAB) 22,200 3,596 4,300 8,700
LOWER MUD RIVER, WV .............. .............. .............. 750
(N)MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV 313,000 46,358 6,200 28,100
(N)ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV AND OH 369,474 362,290 1,300 3,500
SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA, WV .............. .............. .............. 3,000
(FC)TYGART LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY) 9,500 8,039 1,461 1,461
WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL, WV AND PA .............. .............. .............. 2,300
(N)WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV 235,500 227,344 600 2,700
WISCONSIN
(FC)LAFARGE LAKE, WI 17,000 7,472 5,150 5,150
MISCELLANEOUS
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206) .............. .............. 15,000 20,000
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM .............. .............. 3,000 5,000
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204) .............. .............. 1,500 4,000
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM .............. .............. 5,000 9,000
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM .............. .............. 9,000 9,000
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SEC. 14) .............. .............. 7,000 9,000
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION .............. .............. 20,000 20,000
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) .............. .............. 30,000 40,000
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD EXPENSE .............. .............. 45 45
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE .............. .............. 185 185
NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111) .............. .............. 500 1,000
NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107) .............. .............. 7,000 10,000
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONME .............. .............. 21,000 25,000
SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 103) .............. .............. 5,000 5,000
SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECT (SECTION 208) .............. .............. 1,000 1,000
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .............. .............. -156,580 -262,793
=================================================================
TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL .............. .............. 1,324,000 1,570,798
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPE OF PROJECT:
(N) NAVIGATION
(BE) BEACH EROSION CONTROL
(FC) FLOOD CONTROL
(MP) MULTIPURPOSE, INCLUDING POWER
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, AR.--An appropriation of
$24,000,000 is provided. While this is a significant increase
over the budget request of $18,000,000, it is still far below
the amount needed to fund the project at an optimum level.
Red River Emergency Bank Protection, AR, LA, OK, TX.--The
Committee recommendation includes $4,500,000 to continue bank
stabilization along the Red River in Arkansas.
Red River Below Denison Dam, AR, LA, OK, TX.--The Committee
recommendation includes $3,500,000 to continue the project
along the Red River in Arkansas.
Guadalupe River, CA.--An amount of $6,000,000 is
recommended for the Guadalupe River, CA flood damage reduction
project.
Sacramento area flood control.--Sacramento California
remains perhaps the most flood threatened major urban area in
the country with upwards of 400,000 people and up to
$30,000,000,000 in property at risk, $16,000,000,000 of that in
the 100-year flood plain. Flood control improvements authorized
in 1996 and 1999 will provide a doubling of flood protection
but still leave the city exposed to an unreasonable risk of
flooding. The Corps should make every effort to move forward
with the authorized improvements as quickly as possible and the
Committee has included funding for initiation of the South
Sacramento Streams Group project, the American River Common
Elements project and the Folsom Modifications project.
The Committee directs that, in carrying out the work on the
Common Elements project, as modified by section 366 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999, the Corps should
consider necessary adjustments to the project to pass the
existing design emergency release from Folsom Dam for
communities along both banks of the levees along the American
River and to provide a uniform level of protection consistent
with the other authorized work along the Sacramento River.
Delaware Coast, Rehoboth Beach to Dewey Beach, DE.--An
appropriation of $100,000, the Corps' full capability, is
provided to continue construction of the shoreline protection
project.
Kaumalapau Harbor, HI.--The Bill includes $1,300,000 to
continue construction of the Kaumalapau Harbor, Hawaii project.
McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, IL.--An appropriation of
$17,000,000 is provided. While this is a significant increase
over the budget request of $10,000,000, it is still far below
the amount needed to fund the project at an optimum level.
Olmsted Locks and Dam, IL & KY.--An appropriation of
$41,000,000 is provided. While this is a significant increase
over the budget request of $34,000,000, it is still far below
the amount needed to fund the project at an optimum level. No
funds are included for reimbursement of the Claims and
Judgement Fund.
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation, IA, NE, KS, &
MO.--The full capability of $12,609,000 is provided for project
mitigation. Funds provided above the budget request are to
complete the Lower Hamburg Site in Missouri and the Kansas Bend
Site in Nebraska.
Missouri River Levee System, IA, NE, KS, MO.--The Committee
recommendation is $9,200,000. Funds provided above the budget
request are to accelerate the first contract for the Unit L15
levee project.
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, LA.--An appropriation
of $15,000,000 is provided. While this is a significant
increase over the budget request of $10,000,000, it is still
far below the amount needed to fund the project at an optimum
level. The Committee expects the Corps to continue to work
closely with community leaders to implement the mitigation
plan.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--An appropriation of
$20,000,000 has been provided to continue necessary navigation
channel refinements, mitigation of project impacts, and
construction of project recreation elements.
Southeast Louisiana, LA.--An appropriation of $62,000,000
is provided. While this is a significant increase over the
budget request of $51,908,000, it is still far below the amount
needed to fund the project at an optimum level.
DeSoto County, MS.--The Committee has included $5,000,000
to continue DeSoto County, Mississippi wastewater treatment
project, as authorized under Section 502 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999.
Blue River Channel, Kansas City, MO.--The Committee has
provided $10,400,000 for the Corps to expedite work on the Blue
River Channel, Kansas City, Missouri flood control project.
Grand Forks, ND-East Grand Forks, MN.--An appropriation of
$31,000,000 is provided. While this is an increase over the
budget request of $25,954,000, it is still far below the amount
needed to fund the project at an optimum level.
Fort Peck Dam, MT.--The Committee has provided $700,000 to
continue construction of facilities at Fort Peck Dam.
Central New Mexico, NM.--The Committee recommendation
includes $6,000,000 for the Central New Mexico project. Within
funds provided, the Corps' attention is directed to projects
located in Belen, Los Lunas, Bosque Farms, Bernalillo,
Corrales, Bernalillo County, and the City of Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
Rural Nevada, NV.--The Committee has provided $9,000,000 to
continue the Rural Nevada project. Within funds provided, the
Corps is directed to give consideration to projects at
Mesquite, Silver Springs, Lawton-Verdi, Moapa, and Elko County,
Nevada.
Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV.--The Committee has
provided $30,000,000 for the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes
project in Nevada to advance completion of this important flood
control project. The Committee recommendation includes
$8,000,000 for reimbursement of work performed by the project
non-Federal sponsor in accordance with Section 211 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996.
Wilmington Harbor, NC.--An appropriation of $46,000,000 is
provided. While this is an increase over the budget request of
$43,159,000, it is still far below the amount needed to fund
the project at an optimum level.
Mill Creek, OH.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for
the General Reevaluation Report and to complete the plans and
specifications of the Mill Creek, Ohio project.
Willamette River Temperature Control, OR.--The Committee
recommendation includes $9,000,000. The increase over the
budget request of $8,000,000, is to expedite the project
modifications necessary to improve downstream water
temperatures for fish and wildlife habitat.
Locks and Dams 2, 3, & 4, Monongahela River, PA.--An
appropriation of $40,470,000 is provided. While this is a
significant increase over the budget request of $34,470,000, it
is still far below the amount needed to fund the project at an
optimum level.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.--The
Committee notes that Title VI of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999, as amended, authorizes funding to pay
administrative expenses, implementation of terrestrial wildlife
restoration plans, activities associated with land transferred
or to be transferred, and annual expenses for operating
recreational areas. Within the funds provided, the Committee
directs that not more than $1,000,000 shall be provided for
administrative expenses, and that the Corps is to distribute
remaining funds as directed by Title VI to the State of South
Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe.
Colonias-Lower Rio Grande Basin along Texas & Mexico
border.--The Committee has provided $400,000 for the Corps of
Engineers to continue their work in the Texas colonias, and
directs that of this amount $100,000 be used to conduct a
reconnaissance study in the Sparks Colonia in El Paso County,
Texas.
Virginia Beach, Hurricane Protection, VA.--The Committee
recommendation includes $9,000,000. The Committee understands
that these funds complete the project providing needed flood
damage protection to the Virginia Beach area.
Columbia River Fish Mitigation, WA, OR, & ID.--An
appropriation of $83,000,000 is provided to continue the
Columbia River Fish Mitigation project. This increased level of
funding is intended to assist in implementing the
recommendations of the recently issued biological opinion.
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper
Cumberland River, West Virginia, and Kentucky.--The Committee
recommendation includes a total of $41,100,000 for the Levisa
and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River
project. The amount provided includes: $4,500,000 for the
Clover Fork, Kentucky, element of the project; $1,000,000 for
the City of Cumberland, Kentucky, element of the project;
$1,650,000 for the town of Martin, Kentucky, element of the
project; $2,100,000 for the Pike County, Kentucky, element of
the project, including $1,100,000 for additional studies along
the tributaries of the Tug Fork and continuation of a Detailed
Project Report for the Levisa Fork; $3,850,000 for the Martin
County, Kentucky, element of the project; $950,000 for the
Floyd County, Kentucky, element of the project; $600,000 for
the Harlan County element of the project; and $800,000 for
additional studies along tributaries of the Cumberland River in
Bell County, Kentucky.
The Committee has also provided $18,600,000 for the Corps
of Engineers to continue work on the Grundy, Virginia, element
of the project; $450,000 to complete the Buchanan County,
Virginia, Detailed Project Report; and $700,000 to continue the
Dickenson County, Detailed Project Report. The Committee
directs the Corps of Engineers to continue the Dickenson County
Detailed Project Report as generally defined in Plan 4 of the
Huntington District Engineer's Draft Supplement to the Section
202 General Plan for Flood Damage Reduction dated April 1997,
including all Russell Fork tributary streams within the County
and special considerations, as may be appropriate, to address
the unique relocations and resettlement needs for the flood-
prone communities within the County.
In addition, the Committee has also provided $1,500,000 for
the Lower Mingo County, West Virginia, element of the project;
$600,000 for the Upper Mingo County, West Virginia, element of
the project; $600,000 for the Wayne County, West Virginia,
element of the project; and $3,200,000 for the McDowell County
element of the project.
Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, WV.--The Committee has provided
$28,100,000 for continued construction of the replacement lock
and dam.
Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, Ohio River, WV & OH.--An
appropriation of $3,500,000 is provided. No funds are included
for reimbursement of the Claims and Judgement Fund.
Aquatic Plant Control.--The Committee has provided
$5,000,000 for the Aquatic Plant Control Program. While this is
an increase over the budget amount of $3,000,000, it is far
less funding than is needed for this national program. Within
the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $500,000 to
eradicate Eurasian Watermilfoil on Houghton Lake, Michigan;
$80,000 to study the problem of Eurasian Watermilfoil at
Clearwater Lake, Michigan; $250,000 for South Carolina, to be
matched by an equal amount by the State for aquatic plant
control activities in that State; $400,000 for aquatic weed
control at Lake Champlain, Vermont; and $300,000 for the
removal of aquatic weeds in the Lavaca and Navidad Rivers,
Texas.
Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program.--The
Committee recommendation includes $9,000,000 for the Dam Safety
and Seepage/Stability Correction Program. Within this amount,
$4,000,000 is provided for the Corps of Engineers to continue
critical dam safety repairs to Waterbury Dam in Vermont.
Continuing Authorities Program
The continuing project authorities listed below, allow the
Corps great flexibility to respond to various, limited-scope,
water resource problems facing communities throughout the
Nation. This program has proven to be remarkably successful in
providing a quick response to serious local problems. These
problems range from flood control and navigation to bank
stabilization and environmental restoration. The Committee has
provided funds in excess of the budget request for virtually
all of these accounts. As a general rule, once a project has
received funds for the initial phases of any of these
authorities, the project will continue to be funded as long as
it proves to be environmentally sound, technically feasible,
and economically justified, as applicable. With this in mind,
the Committee has chosen to limit explicit direction of these
project authorities.
The Committee is aware that there are funding requirements
for ongoing, continuing authorities projects that may not be
accommodated within the funds provided for each program. It is
not the Committee's intent that ongoing projects be terminated.
If additional funds are needed to keep ongoing work in any
program on schedule, the Committee urges the Corps to reprogram
the necessary funds.
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).--The
Committee has provided $20,000,000 for the Section 206 Program.
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes:
$105,000 to complete the ecosystem restoration report for the
Agua Caliente Wash, Pima County, AZ, project; $500,000 for
completion of engineering and design and initiation of
construction for the Arkansas River Fisheries Habitat
Restoration, Pueblo, CO, project; $175,000 for feasibility
studies for the Mill River, Stamford, CT, project; $150,000 to
initiate feasibility studies on the Wabash River, West
Lafayette, IN, project; $329,000 for the Iowa River and Clear
Creek, Johnson, IA, project; $700,000 for plans and
specifications and to initiate construction for the Whitebreast
Creek, IA, project; $208,000 to initiate plans and
specifications for the Hay Creek, MN, project; $400,000 for the
Lawrence Gateway, MA, restoration project; $100,000 to continue
the Carson River, NV project; $150,000 to continue the
Steamboat Creek, Washoe County, NV, project; $125,000 to
continue the Bottomless Lakes State Park, NM, project; $100,000
to continue the Jemez River, NM, project; $1,000,000 for plans
and specifications and to initiate construction for the
Springfield Millrace, OR, project; $332,000 is provided to
continue the City Creek, UT, project; $350,000 for completion
of plans and specifications for the Jordan River Meander
environmental restoration in Utah; $430,000 for the completion
of plans and specifications for the Upper Jordan River
ecosystem restoration in Utah; $700,000 for the Salmon Creek,
WA, project; and $117,000 to complete design and initiate
construction of the Brodhead Dam Fish Passage, WI, project.
Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has
provided $10,000,000 for the Section 107 Program. Within the
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $250,000 to
complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of
the Russellville Slackwater Harbor, AR; $500,000 to complete
the feasibility studies and initiate the plans and
specifications for the Blytheville Harbor, AR; $100,000 is
provided for feasibility studies of repairing or replacing the
existing wave attenuator for Lubec Harbor, Lubec, ME; $827,000
for construction of the Pemiscot County Harbor, MO; $45,000 to
initiate the feasibility studies for Fairport Harbor, OH; and
$100,000 to initiate feasibility studies at Saxon Harbor, WI.
Navigation Mitigation Projects (Section 111).--The
Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Section 111 Program.
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes:
$100,000 to initiate studies of shoreline damages attributable
to the Federal jetties at Moss Landing Harbor, CA; $150,000 to
initiate studies for the Wells Harbor, Wells, Maine, project;
$350,000 for completion of plans and specifications,
environmental documentation, and design for the estimated
$3,500,000 project at Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach, Maine to
mitigate shoreline damages caused by the Federal navigation
project; and 100,000 to initiate studies for the Puget Island
Shoreline, WA & OR, project.
Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment
(Section 1135).--The Committee has provided $25,000,000 for the
Section 1135 Program. Within the amount provided, the
recommendation includes: $150,000 to initiate feasibility
studies for Horseshoe Lake, AR; $2,000,000 to continue
construction of the Colfax Reach, South Platte River, Denver,
CO, project; $190,000 to initiate plans and specifications for
Spunky Bottoms, Brown County, IL; $100,000 to initiate studies
on Nahunt Marsh, Davenport, IA; $500,000 to initiate and
complete design and to initiate construction of the Brush
Creek-Lake of the Enshriners, MO, project; $150,000 for the
feasibility study for Duck Creek, Stoodard County, MO; $500,000
to complete the plans and specifications and initiate
construction of the Kansas City Riverfront, MO, habitat
restoration project; $200,000 for the Albuquerque Biopark, NM,
wetlands restoration project; $2,000,000 for the Pueblo Santa
Ana, NM, riparian and wetland restoration project; $530,000 for
the Eagleland environmental restoration project located along
the San Antonio River in Texas; $281,000 is provided to conduct
the feasibility study and to initiate the plans and
specifications for the Chamna Area Shoreline, WA, project; and
$500,000 to complete the feasibility study and to initiate and
complete the design of the Pasco County Shoreline, WA, project.
Emergency Streambank & Shoreline Protection Projects
(Section 14).--The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the
Section 14 Program. Within the amount provided, the
recommendation includes: $800,000 could be used to initiate and
complete the Little Rock Slack Water Harbor, AR, bank
stabilization project; $75,000 to initiate and complete the
planning and design analysis and initiate plans and
specifications for the Powers Boulevard at East Fork of Sand
Creek, Colorado Springs, CO, project; $260,000 for construction
of the Iowa River, Sac & Fox Settlement, Tama County, IA,
project; $40,000 for the planning and design analysis for the
Penobscot River, Brewer, ME, project; $100,000 to continue the
planning and design analysis for the Belle Isle South Shore,
Detroit, MI, project; $100,000 to continue the planning and
design analysis of the Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, MI;
$700,000 is provided to continue the I-40, Rio Pierco, Gallup,
NM, project; $150,000 is provided to continue the Paseo Del
Norte, NM, project; $415,000 is provided to continue the
Unnamed Arroyo, Hwy 371 near Crown Point, NM, project; $130,000
for construction of the Heathcott Road, Lauderdale County, TN,
project; $146,000 for construction of the Dresden, TN, project;
$100,000 to complete the planning and design analysis and
initiate construction of the Bogachiel River near La Push,
Clallam County, WA, project; and $40,000 for the planning and
design analysis of the Kenosha Harbor, Retaining Wall, Kenosha,
WI.
Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--The Committee has
provided $40,000,000 for the Section 205 Program. Within the
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $100,000 to
initiate the plans and specifications for the Sugar Creek,
Piggott, AR, project; $100,000 to initiate the detailed project
report for Galindo Creek, CA; $100,000 for the feasibility
study for the Ocmulgee River Levee, Macon, GA; $150,000 is for
the Corps of Engineers to address flooding problems of the
Snake River at Jensen Grove Lake in Blackfoot, ID; $50,000 to
complete feasibility studies for the Mosquito Creek, Council
Bluffs, IA, project; $200,000 for the Banklick Creek, Kenton
County, Kentucky flood control project; $275,000 to initiate
the plans and specifications for the Granite Fall, MN, project;
$350,000 to initiate the plans and specifications for the
Montevideo, MN project; $86,000 to complete the feasibility
study and to initiate plans and specification for the Little
River Diversion, Dutchtown, MO, project; $100,000 for flood
control studies for Grant Creek, Missouli, Montana; $100,000 to
continue the Arroyo de La Manteca, Las Vegas, NM, project;
$750,000 to continue the Little Puerco Wash, Gallup, NM,
project; $100,000 to initiate the Taos, NM, project; $1,500,000
for construction of the Wahpeton, ND, project; $100,000 to
initiate feasibility studies of the Lafayette Township, OH,
project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility study and to
initiate the plans and specifications for the Erwin, TN,
project; $75,000 to complete the feasibility study for the
Oliver Creek, TN, project; $75,000 to complete the feasibility
study for the Covington, TN, project; and $200,000 to initiate
studies of the Jamestown Island Seawall, VA.
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries Arkansas, Illinois,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $350,458,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 280,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 328,011,000
This appropriation funds planning, construction, and
operation and maintenance activities associated with water
resource projects located in the lower Mississippi River Valley
from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of Total Federal Allocated to Current year Committee
project Project title cost date allocation Budget estimate recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
SURVEYS:
GENERAL STUDIES:
(FDP) ALEXANDRIA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO 3,150 810 710 500 500
(FC) BAYOU METO BASIN 14,417 11,844 6,158 ............... 1,500
(FDP) DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA 4,000 1,543 1,043 700 700
(SPE) SPRING BAYOU, LA 2,850 350 150 500 500
(FDP) COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS 1,350 95 95 200 200
HORN LAKE CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, MS .............. ............... ............... ............... ..............
(FDP) OLIVE BRANCH, MS 1,500 200 200 300 100
(COM) MEMPHIS METRO AREA, TN AND MS 2,075 253 253 394 394
(FC) MORGANZA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO 442,000 2,309 1,895 4,000 4,000
(FC) SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR 4,962 38,741 803 ............... 600
(FC) WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN 6,350 205 205 205 205
TENSAS RIVER BASIN, LA .............. ............... ............... ............... 100
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA .............. ............... ............... 615 615
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS .............. ............... ............... 7,414 9,414
====================================================================================
CONSTRUCTION
(FC)CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN 3,863,000 2,602,600 36,866 43,405 45,405
(FC)FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH (EIGHT MILE CREEK), AR 9,270 5,981 2,000 915 915
(FC)GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR 208,000 38,741 19,234 ............... 16,300
(FC)HELENA AND VICINITY, AR 8,590 6,910 2,321 1,675 1,675
(FC)MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN 2,106,000 936,548 40,911 43,457 49,457
(FC)ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO 401,600 373,335 4,374 3,230 4,230
(FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA 176,000 91,288 11,475 7,160 8,060
(FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA 1,790,000 890,470 21,635 23,400 27,400
(FC)LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE, LA 19,500 14,690 3,712 3,022 3,022
(FC)MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, LA AND MS 71,300 8,035 95 25 100
(FC)MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA 99,800 92,720 6,738 1,600 2,900
(FC)TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA 169,195 132,342 5,804 2,628 3,653
YAZOO BASIN (1,135,920) (445,080) (17,163) (8,550) (28,499)
(FC) BACKWATER PUMP, MS 195,400 11,912 733 500 4,000
(FC) BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS 110,000 97,236 3,264 1,000 1,500
(FC) DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL, MS 288,427 273,427 142,127 ............... 9,500
(FC) MAIN STEM, MS 205,112 34,629 24 25 25
(FC) REFORMULATION UNIT, MS 32,408 29,434 469 25 25
(FC) TRIBUTARIES, MS 250,000 107,713 356 200 200
(FC) UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS 343,000 164,156 12,317 6,800 10,749
(FC)ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO 61,400 9,794 987 150 150
(FC)NONCONNAH CREEK, FLOOD CONTROL FEATURE, TN AND MS 17,900 14,736 1,895 1,300 1,300
(FC)WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN 153,300 54,186 224 25 25
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION .............. ............... ............... 140,542 190,591
====================================================================================
MAINTENANCE
(FC)CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN .............. ............... ............... 61,462 61,462
(N)HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR .............. ............... ............... 434 434
(FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR .............. ............... ............... 480 480
(FC)LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR .............. ............... ............... 419 419
(FC)LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR .............. ............... ............... 10 10
(FC)MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN .............. ............... ............... 7,650 9,000
(FC)ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO .............. ............... ............... 6,678 8,423
(FC)TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND LA .............. ............... ............... 2,000 4,500
(FC)WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR .............. ............... ............... 1,102 1,102
(FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL .............. ............... ............... 43 43
(FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY .............. ............... ............... 29 29
(FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA .............. ............... ............... 2,065 2,065
(FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA .............. ............... ............... 10,661 12,471
(N)BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA .............. ............... ............... 216 216
(FC)BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA .............. ............... ............... 56 56
(FC)BONNET CARRE, LA .............. ............... ............... 1,854 1,854
(FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA .............. ............... ............... 422 422
(FC)LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA .............. ............... ............... 6,239 6,239
(FC)MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA .............. ............... ............... 916 916
(FC)OLD RIVER, LA .............. ............... ............... 6,116 6,116
(FC)TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA .............. ............... ............... 2,500 2,500
(N)GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS .............. ............... ............... 645 645
(FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS .............. ............... ............... 249 249
(N)VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS .............. ............... ............... 494 494
YAZOO BASIN .............. ............... ............... (21,260) (23,260)
(FC) ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS .............. ............... ............... 4,500 4,500
(FC) BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS .............. ............... ............... 1,000 3,000
(FC) ENID LAKE, MS .............. ............... ............... 3,500 3,500
(FC) GREENWOOD, MS .............. ............... ............... 250 250
(FC) GRENADA LAKE, MS .............. ............... ............... 4,500 4,500
(FC) MAIN STEM, MS .............. ............... ............... 275 275
(FC) SARDIS LAKE, MS .............. ............... ............... 6,500 6,500
(FC) TRIBUTARIES, MS .............. ............... ............... 350 350
(FC) WILL M WHITTINGTON AUXILIARY CHANNEL, MS .............. ............... ............... 55 55
(FC) YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS .............. ............... ............... 180 180
(FC) YAZOO CITY, MS .............. ............... ............... 150 150
(FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO .............. ............... ............... 143 143
(FC)WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO .............. ............... ............... 8,000 8,000
(FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN .............. ............... ............... 86 86
(N)MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN .............. ............... ............... 1,118 1,118
(FC)MAPPING .............. ............... ............... 1,097 1,097
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, MAINTENANCE .............. ............... ............... 144,444 153,849
====================================================================================
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .............. ............... ............... -12,400 -25,843
====================================================================================
TOTAL, FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND .............. ............... ............... 280,000 328,011
TRIBUTARIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPE OF PROJECT:
(N) NAVIGATION
(FC) FLOOD CONTROL
The Committee believes that it is essential to provide
adequate resources and funding to the Mississippi River and
Tributaries program in order to protect the large investment in
flood control facilities. Although much progress has been made,
considerable work remains to be done for the protection and
economic development of the rich national resources in the
Valley. The Committee expects the additional funds to be used
to advance ongoing studies, initiate new studies, and advance
important construction and maintenance work. In conjunction
with efforts to optimize use of the additional funding
provided, the Committee expects the Corps to make the necessary
adjustments in lower priority activities and non-critical work
in order to maximize the public benefit within the Mississippi
River and Tributaries program.
Construction
Grand Prairie Region, AR.--The Committee recommendation
includes $16,300,000 to continue construction of the project,
including construction of features designed to withdraw water
from the White River.
Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, & TN.--An
appropriation of $49,457,000 is provided for continued
construction of this vital levee project. While this is an
increase over the budget request of $43,457,000, it is still
far below the amount needed to fund the project at an optimum
level.
St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, MO.--The Committee
has provided $150,000 to complete preconstruction engineering
and design for the St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway
project.
Yazoo Basin, Mississippi Demonstration Erosion Control.--
The Committee has provided $9,500,000 for the Demonstration
Erosion Control Project, a continuation of a joint effort by
the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service in the Yazoo Basin of Mississippi. The work to date has
demonstrated positive results in the reduction of flood
damages, decreased erosion and sediments. Funds provided for
fiscal year 2002 will continue to design for future work,
monitor results for all watersheds as required for completion
of the total program and award continuing contracts.
Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater Area, LA.--The Committee
recommendation includes $3,653,000 to complete construction of
the Sicily Island Area Levee project.
Upper Yazoo Projects, MS.--The Committee has provided
$10,749,000 for the Upper Yazoo Projects, $3,949,000 more than
the Administration's request for fiscal year 2002.
Maintenance
Atchafalaya Basin, LA.--An appropriation of $12,471,000 is
provided. Additional funds provided over the budget request are
for major lock repairs at Berwick Lock.
Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower River, MS.--The Committee
recommendation includes $3,000,000 to continue the maintenance
project for the Big Sunflower River to restore the project's
flood control channel capacities.
operation and maintenance, general
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $1,897,775,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 1,745,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,833,263,000
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
ALABAMA-COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, 219 219
AL.....................................
ALABAMA-COOSA RIVER, AL................. 1,555 4,710
BAYOU CODEN, AL......................... .............. 500
BAYOU LA BATRE, AL...................... 50 200
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL.. 21,100 21,100
BON SECOUR RIVER, AL.................... 20 20
DAUPHIN ISLAND BAY, AL.................. 250 600
DOG AND FOWL RIVERS, AL................. 450 450
FLY CREEK, AL........................... 200 200
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL.......... 5,000 5,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL....... 100 1,133
MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM 4,900 7,200
``BILL'' DANNELLY LA...................
MOBILE AREA DIGITAL MAPPING, AL......... .............. ..............
MOBILE HARBOR, AL....................... 18,900 20,900
PERDIDO PASS CHANNEL, AL................ 1,000 1,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL........... 350 350
ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL......... 5,000 5,600
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL..... 80 80
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS. 23,800 23,800
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WILDLIFE MITIGATION, .............. ..............
AL.....................................
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA. 6,565 6,565
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK.................... 1,788 2,788
BETHEL HARBOR, AK....................... 416 416
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK................... 1,659 1,659
COOK INLET SHOALS, AK................... 2,200 2,200
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK................... 384 384
HOMER HARBOR, AK........................ 181 181
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK....... 35 35
KETCHIKAN HARBOR, BAR POINT, AK......... 160 160
KODIAK HARBOR, AK....................... .............. 750
NAKNEK RIVER, AK........................ .............. 1,000
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK.................... 173 173
NOME HARBOR, AK......................... 1,458 1,458
PELICAN HARBOR, AK...................... .............. 600
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK........... 527 527
ARIZONA
ALAMO LAKE, AZ.......................... 1,306 1,306
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ....... 86 86
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ.................... 1,310 1,310
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ..... 32 32
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ................... 184 184
ARKANSAS
BEAVER LAKE, AR......................... 4,343 4,343
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR....... 4,734 4,734
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR.................. 1,148 1,148
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR.................... 4,402 4,402
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR............. 5,337 5,337
DEGRAY LAKE, AR......................... 4,235 4,235
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR........................ 947 947
DIERKS LAKE, AR......................... 946 946
GILLHAM LAKE, AR........................ 841 841
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR................... 4,873 4,873
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR...... .............. 340
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR....... 308 308
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION 22,338 21,338
SYSTEM, AR.............................
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR....................... 1,559 1,559
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR........... 3,308 3,308
NIMROD LAKE, AR......................... 1,319 1,319
NORFORK LAKE, AR........................ 3,255 3,255
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR...................... .............. 610
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA.... 7,127 7,127
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR...... 3,912 3,912
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR........... 10 10
WHITE RIVER, AR......................... 195 195
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR.................... .............. 150
CALIFORNIA
BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA.................... 1,952 1,952
BODEGA BAY, CA.......................... .............. 1,800
BUCHANAN DAM, H V EASTMAN LAKE, CA...... 1,725 1,725
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA.............. 40 40
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA... 3,537 3,537
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND 4,604 4,604
CHANNEL, CA............................
FARMINGTON DAM, CA...................... 299 299
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA............ 1,687 1,687
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA............. 3,516 3,516
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA....... 1,171 1,171
ISABELLA LAKE, CA....................... 836 1,476
LOS ANGELES--LONG BEACH HARBOR MODEL, CA 170 170
LOS ANGELES--LONG BEACH HARBORS, CA..... 200 2,200
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA.... 4,691 4,691
MARINA DEL REY, CA...................... 40 40
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA............... 314 314
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA.................... 273 273
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA.................... 3,860 3,860
MOSS LANDING HARBOR, CA................. .............. 2,000
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA...................... 1,922 1,922
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA 1,573 1,573
NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA.................. 40 40
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA...................... 10,127 10,127
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA.................... 1,270 1,270
PETALUMA RIVER, CA...................... .............. 2,500
PILLAR POINT HARBOR, CA................. .............. ..............
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA...................... 2,443 2,443
PORT HUENEME, CA........................ 40 40
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA........... 1,224 1,224
REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA................. .............. 2,000
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA..................... 4,389 4,389
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA.. 1,964 1,964
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS 1,766 1,766
CONTROL), CA...........................
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, 132 132
CA.....................................
SAN DIEGO HARBOR, CA.................... 140 140
SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY, CA..... 40 40
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL 1,700 1,700
STRUCTURE, CA..........................
SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM MANAGEMENT .............. 200
STRATEGY, CA...........................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY (DRIFT 2,366 2,366
REMOVAL), CA...........................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA................ 2,501 2,700
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA................... 998 3,000
SAN RAFAEL CREEK, CA.................... .............. 1,800
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA............... 3,537 3,537
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA................ 2,020 2,020
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA..... 1,504 1,504
SUCCESS LAKE, CA........................ 1,969 1,969
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA.................. 1,635 1,635
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA........... 1,747 1,747
VENTURA HARBOR, CA...................... 2,980 2,980
YUBA RIVER, CA.......................... 102 102
COLORADO
BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO..................... 420 420
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO...................... 797 1,197
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO................... 525 925
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO....... 70 70
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO............... 3,454 3,454
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO..... 249 249
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO....................... 733 1,133
CONNECTICUT
BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT..................... 490 490
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT................ 454 454
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT.................. 221 221
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT...................... 979 979
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT............... 424 424
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT............... 294 294
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT.......... 485 485
THOMASTON DAM, CT....................... 516 516
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT.................. 711 711
DELAWARE
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO 12,223 13,500
CHESAPEAKE BAY, D......................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO 888 888
DELAWARE BAY, D........................
MISPILLION RIVER, DE.................... 140 140
MURDERKILL RIVER, DE.................... 140 140
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE................... 2,985 2,985
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS (DRIFT 928 928
REMOVAL), DC...........................
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC................... 48 48
FLORIDA
APALACHICOLA BAY, FL.................... 300 300
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL.................... 3,966 3,966
CARRABELLA BAY HARBOR, FL............... .............. ..............
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL........ 11,591 11,591
CLEARWATER PASS, FL..................... .............. 500
EAST PASS CHANNEL, FL................... 700 700
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL................... 3,037 3,037
FORT PIERCE HARBOR, FL.................. 49 1,000
HORSESHOE COVE, FL...................... 520 520
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL....... 100 100
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO 2,173 2,173
MIAMI, FL..............................
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL................. 4,040 4,040
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE 5,719 5,719
SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA................
MANATEE HARBOR, FL...................... 20 20
MIAMI HARBOR, FL........................ 3,700 3,700
MIAMI RIVER, FL......................... .............. 2,000
NEW PASS CHANNEL, FL.................... .............. ..............
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL................. 2,520 2,520
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL................... 3,253 3,253
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL.................. 1,000 1,000
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL.................... 500 500
PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL................. 2,032 2,032
PORT ST JOE HARBOR, FL.................. 500 500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL........... 600 600
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL........... 3,634 3,634
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL..... 50 50
SUWANEE RIVER, FL....................... .............. ..............
TAMPA HARBOR, FL........................ 4,163 4,163
WITHLACOOCHIE RIVER, FL................. 34 34
GEORGIA
ALLATOONA LAKE, GA...................... 5,427 5,427
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT 1,237 8,173
RIVERS, GA, AL &.......................
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA...... 2,172 2,172
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA.................... 3,902 3,902
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA... 7,525 7,525
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA................ 7,600 7,600
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC................ 11,876 11,876
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA....... 41 41
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC........ 10,325 10,325
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND 6,564 6,564
SC.....................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA..................... 12,911 12,911
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA........ 215 215
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL...... 4,865 4,865
HAWAII
BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI................ 344 344
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI....... 122 122
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI........... 508 508
IDAHO
ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID.................... 1,475 1,475
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID.......... 4,002 4,002
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID....... 75 75
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID..................... 1,526 1,526
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID..... 342 342
ILLINOIS
CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN..... 3,709 3,709
CARLYLE LAKE, IL........................ 4,962 4,962
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL...................... 2,662 2,662
CHICAGO RIVER, IL....................... 362 362
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL............... 170 170
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND 21,881 20,881
IN.....................................
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND 1,610 1,610
IN.....................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL....... 758 758
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL.......... 1,159 1,650
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL............. 1,037 1,037
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL.................... 6,071 6,071
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS 42,431 42,431
(MVR PORTION)..........................
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS 13,897 13,897
(MVS PORTION)..........................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL........... 43 43
REND LAKE, IL........................... 4,760 4,760
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 97 97
WATERS, IL.............................
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL..................... 770 770
INDIANA
BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN..................... 792 792
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN............... 3,977 3,977
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN.................... 674 674
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN................. 829 829
INDIANA HARBOR, IN...................... 64 64
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN....... 102 102
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN................. 690 690
MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN................ 1,495 1,495
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN................... 803 803
MONROE LAKE, IN......................... 819 819
PATOKA LAKE, IN......................... 757 757
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN........... 42 42
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN...................... 710 710
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 90 90
WATERS, IN.............................
IOWA
CORALVILLE LAKE, IA..................... 2,735 2,735
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA....... 812 812
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE TO 148 148
SIOUX CITY, IA.........................
MISSOURI RIVER--RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, 3,270 6,880
KS AND MO..............................
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA 2,263 2,263
AND NE.................................
RATHBUN LAKE, IA........................ 2,195 2,195
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA...... 3,356 5,182
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA.................... 3,887 3,887
KANSAS
CLINTON LAKE, KS........................ 2,201 2,201
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS.................. 1,116 1,116
EL DORADO LAKE, KS...................... 478 478
ELK CITY LAKE, KS....................... 526 526
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS..................... 973 973
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS...................... 1,014 1,014
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS....... 45 45
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS...... 1,100 1,100
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS...................... 1,507 1,507
MARION LAKE, KS......................... 1,422 1,422
MELVERN LAKE, KS........................ 2,006 2,006
MILFORD LAKE, KS........................ 1,997 1,997
PEARSON--SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS...... 898 898
PERRY LAKE, KS.......................... 2,055 2,055
POMONA LAKE, KS......................... 2,130 2,130
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS..... 185 185
TORONTO LAKE, KS........................ 456 456
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS................... 2,004 2,004
WILSON LAKE, KS......................... 2,069 2,069
KENTUCKY
BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN. 6,896 6,896
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY................... 1,900 1,900
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY.................... 1,099 1,099
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY....................... 1,440 1,440
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY..................... 1,656 1,656
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY....................... 834 834
DEWEY LAKE, KY.......................... 1,371 1,371
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR............ .............. 460
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY....................... 2,095 2,095
GRAYSON LAKE, KY........................ 1,332 1,332
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY............. 1,079 1,079
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY.................... 2,107 2,107
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY....... 87 87
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY...................... 913 913
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY................... 1,311 1,311
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY................... 617 617
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY.. 106 106
NOLIN LAKE, KY.......................... 1,808 1,808
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN 28,572 27,572
AND OH.................................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN 5,180 5,180
AND OH.................................
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY.................... 1,178 1,178
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY.................... 2,069 2,069
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY................... 993 993
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY..... 5,407 5,407
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY..................... 1,136 1,136
LOUISIANA
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, 13,181 13,181
BOEUF AND BLACK, L.....................
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA.............. .............. 1,000
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA.............. 652 652
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP 730 730
WATERWAY, LA...........................
BAYOU PIERRE, LA........................ 28 28
BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA............. .............. 740
BAYOU TECHE, LA......................... .............. 1,000
CADDO LAKE, LA.......................... 92 92
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA............ 12,773 12,773
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA.................... 1,595 3,595
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA.......... 18,195 19,500
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA.............. 3,343 3,343
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA....... 549 549
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA......... 8,477 11,477
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA.............. .............. 592
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA................. .............. 120
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA..................... 933 1,258
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA. 1,937 1,937
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE 55,831 53,331
GULF OF MEXICO,........................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA...... 13,111 15,111
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA........... 80 80
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA........... 2,000 2,000
WALLACE LAKE, LA........................ 154 154
WATERWAY FROM IWW TO BAYOU DULAC, LA.... .............. 500
MAINE
PENOBSCOT HARBOR, ME.................... .............. 275
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME........... 1,130 1,130
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 17 17
WATERS, ME.............................
UNION RIVER, ME......................... 230 230
MARYLAND
BALTIMORE HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), MD.... 464 464
BALTIMORE HARBOR (PREVENTION OF 650 650
OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS),.................
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), 22,568 21,568
MD.....................................
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV......... 157 157
HERRING BAY AND ROCKHOLD CREEK, MD...... .............. 500
HONGA RIVER AND TAR BAY--BACK CREEK, MD. .............. 300
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD....... 330 330
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV....... 2,074 2,174
NANTICOKE HARBOR, MD.................... .............. 700
NANTICOKE RIVER NORTHWEST FORK, MD...... 865 865
NEALE SOUND, CHARLES COUNTY, MD......... .............. 677
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND 2,798 2,798
SINEPUXENT BAY, MD.....................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD........... 459 459
RHODES POINT TO TYLERTON, MD............ 736 736
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD..... 142 142
TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, MD.................. 1,901 1,901
TWITCH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE RIVER, MD. 742 742
WICOMICO RIVER, MD...................... 450 450
MASSACHUSETTS
ANDREWS RIVER, MA....................... .............. 130
AUNT LYDIA'S COVE, MA................... .............. 300
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA..................... 489 489
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA...................... 511 511
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA.................... 427 427
CAPE COD CANAL, MA...................... 10,150 10,150
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE 294 294
AREA, MA...............................
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA................... 234 234
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA................. 325 325
GREEN HARBOR, MA........................ 378 378
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA.................. 416 416
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA....... 125 125
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA..................... 648 648
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA.................... 476 476
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET 358 358
HURRICANE BARRIER,.....................
PLYMOUTH HARBOR, MA..................... 3,356 3,356
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA........... 3,536 3,536
SCITUATE HARBOR, MA..................... .............. 1,500
TULLY LAKE, MA.......................... 665 665
WEST HILL DAM, MA....................... 607 607
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA...................... 397 397
MICHIGAN
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI........... 118 118
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI................... 122 122
DETROIT RIVER, MI....................... 3,692 3,692
FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI.................... 47 47
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI.................. 2,239 2,239
GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MI................. .............. 200
GRAND TRAVERSE BAY HARBOR, MI........... 10 10
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI...................... 554 554
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI....... 205 205
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI................... 804 804
LELAND HARBOR, MI....................... 191 191
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI.................... 103 103
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI..................... 42 42
MARQUETTE HARBOR, MI.................... 239 239
MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND WI............. 104 104
MONROE HARBOR, MI....................... 52 52
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI..................... 451 451
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI.................... 1,544 1,544
PENTWATER HARBOR, MI.................... 185 185
PORTAGE LAKE HARBOR, MI................. 2,518 2,518
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI........... 275 275
ROUGE RIVER, MI......................... 87 87
SAGINAW RIVER, MI....................... 1,587 1,587
SAUGATUCK HARBOR, MI.................... 1,231 1,231
SEBEWAING RIVER (ICE JAM REMOVAL), MI... 10 10
SOUTH HAVEN HARBOR, MI.................. 1,563 1,563
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI...................... 759 759
ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI.................... 638 638
ST MARYS RIVER, MI...................... 17,418 17,418
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 3,295 3,295
WATERS, MI.............................
MINNESOTA
BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD 217 217
DULUTH--SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI...... 2,692 2,692
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN....... 101 101
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN 573 573
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN..................... 130 130
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS 45,329 43,329
(MVP PORTION)..........................
ORWELL LAKE, MN......................... 337 337
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN........... 7 7
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN.................. 146 146
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI 3,552 3,552
RIVER, MN..............................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 94 94
WATERS, MN.............................
MISSISSIPPI
BILOXI HARBOR, MS....................... 30 30
CLAIRBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS.............. .............. 122
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS.......... 170 170
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS..................... 2,100 2,100
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS....... 126 126
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS...................... 1,584 1,584
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS................... 4,200 4,200
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA.................. 250 250
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS..................... .............. 661
YAZOO RIVER, MS......................... .............. 115
MISSOURI
CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO............... .............. 240
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, 6,196 6,196
MO.....................................
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO..................... 2,184 3,819
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO.... 8,215 8,215
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO....... 142 142
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO............. 800 800
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO.................... 876 876
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS 13,068 13,068
(REG WORKS), MO........................
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO................... .............. 290
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO................. 2,204 2,204
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO........... 10 10
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO..................... 1,128 1,128
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI .............. 400
RIVER..................................
STOCKTON LAKE, MO....................... 4,065 4,065
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO..................... 6,826 8,826
UNION LAKE, MO.......................... 10 10
MONTANA
FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT................ 4,342 4,342
LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT........... 1,791 1,791
NEBRASKA
GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, 6,495 6,745
NE AND SD..............................
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE.................. 2,019 2,019
MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE .............. 275
MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL, 500 500
NE, IA, KS, MO,........................
MISSOURI RIVER BASIN COLLABORATIVE WATER 80 80
PLANNING (NWK..........................
MISSOURI RIVER BASIN COLLABORATIVE WATER 125 125
PLANNING (NWO..........................
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, 611 611
NE.....................................
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE.......... 847 847
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NE..... 329 329
NEVADA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV....... 43 43
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA............ 576 576
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV...... 210 210
NEW HAMPSHIRE
BLACKWATER DAM, NH...................... 607 607
COCHECO RIVER........................... .............. 300
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH............... 460 460
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH.................. 1,104 1,104
HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH............. 1,412 1,412
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH.................... 781 781
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, 287 287
NH.....................................
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH................. 749 749
NEW JERSEY
BARNEGAT INLET, NJ...................... 1,400 3,200
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ................... 410 410
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ............ 19 19
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, 17,105 19,105
NJ, PA AND DE..........................
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO 3,465 3,465
TRENTON, NJ............................
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ.... 2,800 2,800
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC 2,900 2,900
RIVERS, NJ.............................
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ. 425 425
SHARK RIVER, NJ......................... 100 100
SHREWSBURY RIVER, MAIN CHANNEL, NJ...... .............. ..............
NEW MEXICO
ABIQUIU DAM, NM......................... 1,556 3,056
COCHITI LAKE, NM........................ 2,209 2,209
CONCHAS LAKE, NM........................ 1,932 1,932
GALISTEO DAM, NM........................ 368 468
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM....... 80 80
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM.................... 541 541
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM............. 1,049 1,229
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM..... 130 130
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM...................... 328 328
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL. .............. 1,500
NEW YORK
ALMOND LAKE, NY......................... 463 463
ARKPORT DAM, NY......................... 252 252
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, 2,795 2,795
NY.....................................
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY...................... 515 515
DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY...................... 280 280
EAST RIVER, NY.......................... 600 600
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY................. 250 250
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY.................... 513 513
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY.... 2,300 2,300
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY.............. 3,000 3,000
GREAT KILLS HARBOR, NY.................. .............. ..............
GREAT SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY.............. 50 50
GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY..................... 100 100
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT)................ 2,525 2,525
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C).................. 1,340 1,340
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY....... 509 509
JAMAICA BAY, NY......................... 250 250
JONES INLET, NY......................... 100 100
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY................. 80 80
LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY............. 50 50
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY... 70 70
MORICHES INLET, NY...................... 80 80
MT MORRIS LAKE, NY...................... 2,616 2,616
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY.... 4,250 4,250
NEW YORK HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), NY AND 5,030 5,030
NJ.....................................
NEW YORK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF 750 750
OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS),.................
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY..................... 5,570 5,570
OSWEGO HARBOR, NY....................... 20 20
PLATTSBURGH HARBOR, NY.................. .............. ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY........... 2,563 2,563
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY.................... 35 35
RONDOUT HARBOR, NY...................... 475 475
SAG HARBOR, NY.......................... 925 925
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY.................... 100 100
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL 750 750
PROJECTS, NY...........................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 479 479
WATERS, NY.............................
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY.................. 564 564
NORTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC...... 2,391 4,000
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC....... 3,065 3,065
BEAUFORT HARBOR, NC..................... 35 35
BOGUE INLET AND CHANNEL, NC............. 1,267 1,267
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC.... 486 486
CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC................ 1,060 1,060
FALLS LAKE, NC.......................... 1,516 1,516
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC....... 22 22
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC............... 895 1,895
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC............. 4,863 4,863
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, 2,245 2,245
NC.....................................
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC................ 4,450 4,450
NEW RIVER INLET, NC..................... 1,235 1,235
NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING 940 940
CHANNELS, NC...........................
PAMLICO AND TAR RIVERS, NC.............. 139 139
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC........... 64 64
ROANOKE RIVER, NC....................... 100 100
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC...... 2,253 2,253
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC................... 5,105 5,105
NORTH DAKOTA
BOWMAN-HALEY LAKE, ND................... 210 210
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND........ 9,111 9,911
HOMME LAKE, ND.......................... 164 164
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND....... 52 52
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND..... 1,264 1,264
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND....................... 402 402
SOURIS RIVER, ND........................ 385 385
OHIO
ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH..................... 799 799
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH.................... 2,051 2,051
BERLIN LAKE, OH......................... 1,872 1,872
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH................... 1,142 1,142
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH................ 723 723
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH.................... 3,700 3,700
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH..................... 30 30
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH..................... 903 903
DELAWARE LAKE, OH....................... 642 642
DILLON LAKE, OH......................... 527 527
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH..................... 1,235 1,235
HURON HARBOR, OH........................ 1,040 1,040
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH....... 166 166
LORAIN HARBOR, OH....................... 1,100 1,100
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.. 25 25
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH.. 809 809
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH................. 1,054 1,054
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH............... 6,284 6,284
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH.... 358 358
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH.................... 680 680
PORT CLINTON HARBOR, OH................. 1,080 1,080
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH........... 85 85
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.. 30 30
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH..................... 950 950
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 190 190
WATERS, OH.............................
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH....................... 3,211 3,211
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH..................... 229 229
TOUSSAINT RIVER, OH..................... 10 10
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH........ 476 476
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH............... 816 816
OKLAHOMA
ARCADIA LAKE, OK........................ 429 429
BIRCH LAKE, OK.......................... 572 572
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK..................... 1,549 1,549
CANDY LAKE, OK.......................... 18 18
CANTON LAKE, OK......................... 3,012 3,012
COPAN LAKE, OK.......................... 824 824
EUFAULA LAKE, OK........................ 6,277 6,277
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK.................... 4,144 4,144
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK.................... 879 879
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK.............. 234 234
HEYBURN LAKE, OK........................ 572 572
HUGO LAKE, OK........................... 1,670 1,800
HULAH LAKE, OK.......................... 406 406
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK....... 91 91
KAW LAKE, OK............................ 1,840 1,840
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK....................... 5,553 5,553
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION 3,025 3,025
SYSTEM, OK.............................
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK........................ 1,843 1,843
OPTIMA LAKE, OK......................... 56 56
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE 32 32
CHEROKEES, OK..........................
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK..................... 1,170 1,170
ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND 5,130 5,130
RESERVOIRS, OK.........................
SARDIS LAKE, OK......................... 913 913
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK..... 370 370
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK....................... 893 893
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK................ 3,228 3,228
WAURIKA LAKE, OK........................ 1,426 1,426
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK.......... 3,557 3,557
WISTER LAKE, OK......................... 602 672
OREGON
APPLEGATE LAKE, OR...................... 720 720
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR..................... 260 260
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA...... 5,430 5,880
CHETCO RIVER, OR........................ 402 402
COLUMBIA AND LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW 13,042 15,042
VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLA...............
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA.. 7,818 8,018
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND 352 352
THE DALLES, O..........................
COOS BAY, OR............................ 4,692 4,692
COQUILLE RIVER, OR...................... 193 193
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR.................. 981 981
COUGAR LAKE, OR......................... 752 752
DEPOE BAY, OR........................... 3 3
DETROIT LAKE, OR........................ 584 584
DORENA LAKE, OR......................... 649 649
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR..................... 722 722
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR..................... 952 952
GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR............ 1,196 1,196
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR.................... 377 377
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR....... 176 176
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA........ 4,056 4,356
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR.................. 1,818 1,818
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR..................... 3,049 3,049
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA.......... 3,650 3,650
PORT ORFORD, OR......................... 631 631
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR........... 200 200
ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR........... 674 674
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR..... 69 69
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR....................... 781 781
SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR.................... 161 161
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 134 134
WATERS, OR.............................
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR............... 14 214
UMPQUA RIVER, OR........................ 834 834
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR 291 291
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR.... 68 68
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR................... 830 830
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR.............. 2,354 2,454
PENNSYLVANIA
ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA..................... 6,015 6,015
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA.................... 622 622
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA............... 229 229
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA..................... 1,355 1,355
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA..................... 2,285 2,285
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA................ 945 945
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA..................... 1,887 1,887
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA.................. 2,001 2,001
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA................... 676 676
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA...... 1,322 1,322
ERIE HARBOR, PA......................... 70 70
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA............ 729 729
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA................ 797 1,097
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, 365 365
PA.....................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA....... 95 95
JOHNSTOWN, PA........................... 1,115 1,115
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA.. 1,189 1,189
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA..................... 977 977
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA................. 1,093 1,093
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA................... 14,203 14,203
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH AND WV 19,321 19,321
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH AND 58 58
WV.....................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA........... 88 88
PROMPTON LAKE, PA....................... 482 482
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA........................ 15 15
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA....................... 3,902 3,902
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA.................... 1,315 1,315
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA................. 2,252 2,252
STILLWATER LAKE, PA..................... 350 350
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 65 65
WATERS, PA.............................
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA................. 2,501 2,501
TIONESTA LAKE, PA....................... 2,262 2,262
UNION CITY LAKE, PA..................... 221 221
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA................. 761 761
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA................ 547 547
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD...... 1,871 1,871
RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, RI......... 2,110 2,110
SOUTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC...... 1,575 2,000
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC................... 5,171 5,171
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC..... 3,201 3,201
FOLLY RIVER, SC......................... 748 748
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC................... 5,738 5,738
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC....... 26 26
MURRELLS INLET, SC...................... .............. 200
PORT ROYAL HARBOR, SC................... 169 500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC........... 45 45
SHIPYARD RIVER, SC...................... 486 486
TOWN CREEK, SC.......................... 305 305
SOUTH DAKOTA
BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD........... 6,136 6,386
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD..................... 433 433
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD............. 197 197
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD. 8,044 8,294
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN................ 531 531
MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND 625 625
GAVINS PT, SD, MT......................
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND.......... 9,480 9,730
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD..... 306 306
TENNESSEE
CENTER HILL LAKE, TN.................... 4,757 4,757
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN............... 4,217 4,217
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN.................... 2,315 2,315
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN...... 3,910 3,910
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN.................... 4,217 4,217
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN....... 97 97
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN.... 3,222 3,222
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN............ 5,981 5,981
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN........... 19 19
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN..................... 16,422 16,422
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN................... .............. 450
TEXAS
AQUILLA LAKE, TX........................ 708 708
ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE 1,267 1,267
CONTROL--AREA VI.......................
BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX............ 577 577
BARDWELL LAKE, TX....................... 1,499 1,499
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX................ 2,275 2,275
BELTON LAKE, TX......................... 2,578 2,578
BENBROOK LAKE, TX....................... 2,290 2,290
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX................ 1,222 1,222
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX....... 2,977 2,977
CANYON LAKE, TX......................... 2,743 2,743
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX......... 5,399 5,399
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX............ 5,532 5,532
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, 5 5
TX.....................................
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, 2,554 2,554
TX.....................................
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX..................... 6,950 6,950
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX........ 130 130
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX........... 585 585
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX................ 1,535 1,535
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX...................... 2,478 2,478
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX.......... 19,994 19,994
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX.................... 1,190 1,190
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX................ 7,555 7,555
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX....... 452 452
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX.................... 1,189 1,189
JOE POOL LAKE, TX....................... 784 784
LAKE KEMP, TX........................... 143 143
LAVON LAKE, TX.......................... 2,485 2,485
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX...................... 3,253 3,253
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX.............. 1,665 1,665
MOUTH OF THE COLORADO RIVER, TX......... 2,480 2,480
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX.................. 1,596 1,596
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE 1,748 1,748
GEORGETOWN, TX.........................
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX............. 893 893
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX...................... 976 976
PROCTOR LAKE, TX........................ 1,659 1,659
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX........... 15 15
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX.................... 821 821
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX.............. 14,272 14,272
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX....... 4,417 4,417
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX..... 243 243
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX..................... 2,555 2,555
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX............... 1,719 1,719
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX... 1,500 1,500
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX. 1,748 1,748
TRINITY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX....... 1,000 1,000
WACO LAKE, TX........................... 2,412 2,412
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX.................... 1,320 1,320
WHITNEY LAKE, TX........................ 4,227 4,800
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX.......... 2,611 2,611
UTAH
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT....... 75 75
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT..... 390 390
VERMONT
BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT.................. 743 743
BURLINGTON HARBOR BREAKWATER, VT........ 250 2,000
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY.... 95 95
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT................. 635 635
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT.............. 700 700
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT...................... 764 764
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT................... 506 651
VIRGINIA
APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA.................... 749 749
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA. 1,795 1,795
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA. 835 835
CHINCOTEAGUE BAY CHANNEL, VA............ 430 430
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA.................. 898 898
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA....... 1,535 1,535
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS 1,095 1,095
HBR, VA (DRIFT REM.....................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA....... 59 59
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA................. 3,680 3,680
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA AND NC............. 10,013 10,013
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA.. 1,387 1,387
LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA..................... 916 916
NORFOLK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF 215 215
OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS), V...............
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA...................... 6,439 6,439
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA...... 328 328
PAGAN RIVER, VA......................... 145 145
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA....................... 3,865 3,865
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA........... 630 630
RUDEE INLET, VA......................... 1,053 1,053
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA... 1,190 1,190
WINTER HARBOR, VA....................... .............. 1,000
YORK RIVER, VA.......................... 155 155
WASHINGTON
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA.................... 848 848
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA AND OR.. 28 28
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND SAND 36 36
ISLAND, WA.............................
EDIZ HOOK, WA........................... 718 718
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA.. 1,345 1,345
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA..... 11,275 15,075
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA................... 1,739 1,739
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA............. 3,249 3,249
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA....... 243 243
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA.......... 7,200 7,200
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA........... 1,290 1,590
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA.......... 6,114 6,114
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA....... 2,230 2,230
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA..................... 3,016 3,016
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA....... 319 319
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA.................... 2,319 2,819
NEAH BAY, WA............................ 30 30
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA........... 253 253
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA.... 938 938
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA.................... 1,760 1,760
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA..... 427 427
SEATTLE HARBOR, EAST WATERWAY CHANNEL 300 300
DEEPENING, WA..........................
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA...................... 620 620
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA................. 240 240
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 58 58
WATERS, WA.............................
SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA................... 515 515
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA.............. 123 123
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR...... 2,961 3,261
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA............ 435 885
WEST VIRGINIA
BEECH FORK LAKE, WV..................... 1,074 1,074
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV...................... 1,231 6,661
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV..................... 1,783 1,783
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV...................... 1,687 1,687
ELKINS, WV.............................. 18 18
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV....... 211 211
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV........ 6,799 6,799
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY AND OH 16,738 20,053
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY AND 2,407 2,407
OH.....................................
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV..................... 1,582 1,582
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV.............. 888 888
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV................... 1,458 1,458
SUTTON LAKE, WV......................... 2,016 2,016
TYGART LAKE, WV......................... 3,223 3,223
WHEELING CREEK, VA...................... .............. 2,000
WISCONSIN
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI................ 736 736
FOX RIVER, WI........................... 4,004 9,004
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI.................... 1,641 1,641
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI....... 17 17
KENOSHA HARBOR, WI...................... 1,122 1,122
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI..................... 210 210
LAFARGE LAKE, WI........................ 56 56
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI.................... 249 249
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI.................... 603 603
PENSAUKEE HARBOR, WI.................... 488 488
PORT WING HARBOR, WI.................... 260 260
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI........... 8 8
SHEBOYGAN HARBOR, WI.................... 46 46
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN 2,625 2,625
SHIP CANAL, WI.........................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 42 42
WATERS, WI.............................
TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI................... 1,102 1,102
WYOMING
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY................. 1,198 1,198
MISCELLANEOUS
AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH....... 700 700
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM.......... 2,750 2,750
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION).... 1,500 1,500
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE............ 8,000 8,000
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE 1,000 1,000
MONITORING SYSTEM......................
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL 7,000 7,000
RESEARCH (DOER)........................
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT 1,500 1,500
(DOTS) PROGRAM.........................
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS PROGRAM FOR BUILDINGS 500 500
AND LIFELINES..........................
GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELS... 500 1,000
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION.. 575 575
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS....... .............. ..............
MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR O&M................ 500 500
MONITORING OF COASTAL NAVIGATION 1,700 1,700
PROJECTS...............................
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM............. 40 40
NATIONAL DAM SECURITY PROGRAM........... 25 25
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS 4,000 4,000
(NEPP).................................
NATIONAL LEWIS AND CLARK COMMEMORATION 300 300
COORDINATOR............................
PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT 415 415
PROGRAM................................
PROTECTING, CLEARING AND STRAIGHTENING 50 50
CHANNELS(SEC 3)........................
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM 1,500 1,500
(RMSP).................................
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT SEDIMENT 1,500 1,500
DEMO PROGRAM...........................
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR 675 675
REHABILITATION.........................
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS............... 500 500
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT 700 700
(WOTS) PROGRAM.........................
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS.......... 4,000 4,000
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND -16,457 -33,634
SLIPPAGE...............................
===============================
TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.. 1,745,000 1,833,263
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee continues to believe that it is essential to
provide adequate resources and attention to operation and
maintenance requirements in order to protect the large Federal
investment. Yet, current and projected budgetary constraints
require the Committee to limit the amount of work that can be
accomplished in the fiscal year. In order to cope with the
current situation, the Corps has had to defer or delay
scheduled maintenance activities.
Maintenance backlogs continue to grow, with much of the
backlog being essential maintenance dredging needed to keep the
Nation's ports, harbors, and waterways open and able to
efficiently handle important national and international trade
activities. Yet, the Committee is aware that out-year budget
planning guidance for the Corps of Engineers projects that the
current appropriations for their critical operation and
maintenance activities will continue to decline for the
foreseeable future. If additional resources are not made
available, the Committee will be forced to cut back on
services, and begin to terminate and close many projects and
activities.
The Committee is aware of the Corps' efforts to stretch the
limited resources to cover all of its projects and to effect
savings through a variety of means. With an increasing number
of projects entering the inventory, and budgetary constraints
increasing, it is clear that the Corps will have to find
innovative ways of accomplishing required maintenance work,
while reducing operational and other costs. Adjustments in
lower-priority programs and noncritical work should optimize
limited resources while maximizing the public benefit.
The Committee agrees that centralized management of project
funds is efficient and is allowed under current guidelines for
multi-project-related activities. These activities include, but
are not limited to, the program development system known as the
Automated Budget System (WinABS) and certain activities such as
the National Recreation Reservation Service; the provision of
uniforms for those required to wear them; Volunteer
Clearinghouse; the Water Safety Program; and the Sign Standards
Program. However, the Committee expects the Chief of Engineers
to properly account and disclose the costs of these activities.
The Committee is concerned about efforts to place the
dredge McFARLAND directly into active ready reserve status. In
addition, the Committee is concerned about efforts preventing
the McFARLAND from being scheduled to work outside the Delaware
River in other navigation channels (especially the Mississippi
River) as it has successfully done. Though the private dredging
industry has constructed one new hopper dredge and has another
in construction, it is not known if these two vessels can
provide sufficient additional private industry equipment
capacity to execute an average year of dredging. Hopper
dredging requirements over the last 2 years have been below
average. The Committee believes that, given the policy
implications, the future status of the dredge McFARLAND or the
recommendation of placing another dredge in ready reserve
should be carefully reviewed and authorized by the appropriate
authorizing committees of the Congress.
The inland waterways infrastructure is an investment that
tangibly benefits the nation's economy and all consumers. Based
on analyses by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the use of
inland waterway transportation nationally saves an estimated
average of $10.69 per ton over alternative modes (based on 1997
waterborne commerce data). This represents a savings to
American shippers, consumers and exporters of $7,000,000,000
annually, or a 14 to 1 return on the $500,000,000 investment of
Federal dollars in operating, maintaining and improving the
inland waterways.
Inland and intracoastal navigation operates as a system,
much like highways. The Mississippi, Ohio, Illinois, Tennessee
and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway are like interstates--the main
arteries that carry most of the system traffic. Smaller
tributary waterways act as secondary roads, or neighborhood
streets, allowing commerce to feed on and off the main routes,
and providing access to more remote communities and regions.
These tributary waterways naturally carry far less traffic than
the mainstem waterways, but, like neighborhood streets, they
play a vital role in linking communities to the system as a
whole. This allows shippers and consumers in communities on
tributary waterways to take advantage of the huge economies of
scale offered by large barge tows on the mainstem, resulting in
lower transportation costs. It also allows millions of tons of
cargo to remain on barges much closer to its final destination,
rather than moving longer distances by highway or rail and
adding to existing congestion.
The tributary waterways naturally do not enjoy the same
level of relative efficiencies as the mainstem waterways. The
Mississippi and Ohio handle tremendous volumes of traffic over
long distances and so generate impressive ton-mile statistics.
Tributaries by nature provide generally short, smaller channels
with lower traffic densities. Consequently, ``ton-mile''
statistics for tributary waterways are dwarfed by statistics
for the mainstem waterways. But it is important to recognize
that the commerce on the tributaries is usually only a small
part of a total journey between producer and consumer.
Tributary traffic joins the mainstem traffic and becomes a part
of the impressive ton-mile statistics realized by the
``interstates'' of waterways.
Because of their very nature and function as tributaries,
these waterways have much higher operation and maintenance
costs per ton-mile than the mainstem waterways. However, as a
return on investment, most tributary waterways in fact appear
to ``pay their way''. Therefore, the Committee has restored
funding to most of the low use waterways and port projects not
included in the budget request. The Committee believes that
cutting low-use waterway funding does a serious disservice to
the public.
Alabama-Coosa River, AL.--The Committee has included
$4,710,000 for the Alabama-Coosa River navigation channel.
Funds provided over the budget request are for annual
maintenance dredging of the waterway.
Naknek River, AK.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 to
prepare plans and specifications and to initiate a contract to
remove obstructive boulders causing hazardous navigation
conditions.
Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbors, CA.--$2,200,000 has been
provided to perform maintenance activities at the harbor
project.
Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Lakes, CO.--An
appropriation of $1,200,000 has been provided above the budget
request of $2,055,000 for these three lakes. Frequent
inundation of recreation areas are causing health and safety
concerns requiring repair or replacement of the facilities. It
is the Committee's understanding that the State of Colorado has
agreed to cost share in this project on a 50-50 basis. It is
also the understanding of the Committee that the Secretary is
not to assume, nor share in the future cost of the operation
and maintenance of these recreation facilities. This action in
no way is intended to alter the Corps of Engineers' lease and
property accountability policies.
Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay,
Delaware and Maryland.--The Committee recommendation is
$13,500,000. A portion of the additional funds provided over
the budget request of $12,223,000, are to be utilized to
immediately reimburse the State of Delaware for normal
operation and maintenance costs incurred by the State for the
SR1 Bridge, from station 58+00 to station 293+00, between May
12, 1997, and September 30, 2001. The reimbursable costs
include electric lighting and associated late fees, power
sweeping, drainage cleaning, snow removal, surface deicing, and
periodic bridge inspections. Further, funds are provided to
reimburse the State for costs associated with normal operation
and maintenance of the SR1 Bridge for the period October 1,
2001, through September 30, 2002. Reimbursable costs include
electric lighting, power sweeping, drainage cleaning, snow
removal, surface deicing, and periodic bridge inspections. The
Corps shall initiate necessary repairs to the SR1 Bridge once
repair recommendations from the bridge inspection are received.
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, GA, FL, &
AL.--An appropriation of $8,173,000 is provided. Funds are to
be used as follows: $1,237,000 for operation of the George W.
Andrews Lock; $3,000,000 for system-wide annual maintenance
dredging; $1,000,000 for maintenance of the disposal site;
$600,000 to develop and implement a dredge material management
plan; $1,200,000 to dredge spot shoals; $365,000 to perform
annual lock maintenance; $231,000 to reestablish survey control
points; and $540,000 to restore hydrologic connections and
habitat values in three slough/tributary sites within the
Apalachicola River System.
Calumet Harbor and River, IL & IN.--The Committee
recommendation includes $3,709,000 for the Calumet Harbor and
River, IL & IN.
Missouri River-Rulo to the Mouth, IA, NE, KS, & MO.--The
Committee recommendation includes $6,880,000. In addition to
maintenance activities included in the budget request,
additional funding is provided for restoration of shallow water
habitat and maintenance and repair of dike and revetment
structures.
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA.--An appropriation of
$19,500,000 is provided. Funds over the budget amount are for
major repairs at Harvey Lock, painting emergency stoplogs at
the INHC, and painting stiffleg derricks at Algiers Lock.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--The Committee
recommendation includes $11,477,000 to continue operation of
the locks and dams and dredging within the waterway. Further,
funds provided above the budget request are to be used to
perform revetment repairs, lock and dam repairs, and to
maintain the hydraulic connections to the oxbow lakes.
Wolf and Jordan River, MS.--The Committee is aware that the
authorized 7 foot deep and 100 foot wide Jordan River Channel
is currently subject to draft restrictions due to shoaling, and
has, therefore, directed the Corps of Enginers, within
available funds, to perform maintenance dredging, or such
activity as the Corps determines most effective, to ensure that
project depth is maintained.
Honga and Tar Bay-Back Creek, MD.--The Committee
recommendation includes $300,000 for dredging the navigation
channel.
Missouri River Master Water Control Manual, NE, IA, KS, MO,
MT, & ND.--The Committee recognizes that this continues to be a
very contentious issue among all parties involved. Further, the
Committee understands that the Corps is complying with
provisions contained in the National Environmental Policy Act
concerning development of reasonable and prudent alternatives
to the biological opinion of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Therefore, the Committee has provided $1,000,000 to accomplish
additional measures to complete the final EIS.
Cocheco River, NH.--An appropriation of $300,000 is
provided to continue coordination with the State and Federal
agencies for an upland disposal site.
Abiquiu Dam, NM.--The Committee has provided $3,056,000 for
stabilization of the fractured rock walls on the north abutment
of the dam which are threatening facilities and cause a hazard
to project personnel.
Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model, NM.--The Committee
has provided $1,500,000 continued development of the Upper Rio
Grande Water Operations Model.
Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, ND.--The Committee has
provided $9,911,000, an increase of $800,000 over the budget.
The additional funds are provided for repair of damaged
facilities and mosquito control activities.
Wister Lake, OK.--The Committee has provided $70,000 above
the budget request for land transfers on the Wister Lake,
Oklahoma, project.
Colombia River at the Mouth, OR & WA.--The Committee has
provided $200,000 over the budget request for the Corps to
study the impacts of alternate dredged material disposal
methods. Specifically, the Corps is urged to examine the
impacts of disposing of dredged material at Benson Beach. The
Corps should report back to the Committee by September 30,
2002, with its recommendations as to whether this alternative
is technically sound, environmentally acceptable and cost
effective.
Tillamook Bay and Bar, OR.--The Committee recommendation
contains $200,000 above the budget request for initiation of a
major maintenance report for repairing the north and south
jetties.
Providence River and Harbor, RI.--The Committee has
provided $2,110,000, the same as the budget request. These
funds will be used for normal maintenance activities as well as
necessary activities to develop both the interim and long-term
dredge material disposal areas.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, SC.--The Committee
recommendation includes $2,000,000 to continue maintenance
activities along the waterway from Little River, South
Carolina, to Port Royal Sound.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.--The
Committee notes that Title VI of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999, as amended, requires that funding to
inventory and stabilize cultural and historic sites along the
Missouri River in South Dakota, and to carry out the
terrestrial wildlife habitat programs, shall be provided from
the Operations and Maintenance account. The Committee has
provided $1,000,000 under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin
Program (Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point Dams)
for this purpose, and in compliance with the requirements of
Title VI, directs the Corps to contract with or reimburse the
State of South Dakota and affected tribes to carry out these
duties.
Texas Water Allocation, TX.--The Committee has included
$1,500,000, as proposed in the budget request, for the ongoing
Corps' effort to determine the optimum allocation of existing
water resources in Federal reservoirs in Texas.
Burlington Harbor Breakwater, VT.--The Committee has
provided $2,000,000 for normal O&M activities and to repair the
south breakwater.
North Springfield Lake and Union Village Dam, VT.--$145,000
has been provided above the budget request for these two
projects to update the project master plans.
Little Goose Lock and Dam, WA, and The Dalles Lock and Dam,
OR & WA.--$600,000 is provided above the budget request for
these two projects to fund new requirements implementing the
Federal Columbia River Power System biological opinion.
Willapa River and Harbor, WA.--An additional $450,000 is
provided to resume the navigation study.
Bluestone Lake, WV.--The Committee recommendation includes
$6,661,000. This is $5,430,000 above the budget request. The
additional funds are for continued construction of the multi-
level release tower, the public awareness program, and to
initiate the downstream clean-up.
Wheeling Creek, WV.--The Bill includes $2,000,000 to
continue the project.
Fox River, WI.--The Committee has provided $5,000,000 above
the budget request to transfer the navigation portion of the
Federal project to the State of Wisconsin.
regulatory program
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $124,725,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 128,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 128,000,000
An appropriation of $128,000,000 is recommended for the
regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers.
This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred
administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters,
including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
The appropriation helps maintain program performance,
protects important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships
with States and local communities through watershed planning
efforts.
formerly utilized sites remedial action program
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $139,692,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 140,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 140,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000
to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) in fiscal year 2002.
The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was
transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the Fiscal Year
1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Public
Law 105-62.
FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program
was established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic
Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup
of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the
Department of Energy through existing appropriation accounts.
In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy.
The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies.
The Committee always intended for the Corps' expertise be used
in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under
FUSRAP. The Committee expects the Corps to continue programming
and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers--
Civil program.INSERT 78A
The Committee notes that significant radiological
contamination has been discovered in the past year that the
former nuclear weapons facility at the Iowa Army Ammunition
Plant in Middletown, Iowa, and understands that the Corps is
currently conducting a Preliminary Assessment of the site for
inclusion under FUSRAP. The Committee is disappointed that the
Preliminary Assessment is not yet done. The Committee directs
the Corps, in consultation with the State of Iowa, to report
back to the Committee, by December 1, 2001, on their
recommendations regarding a radiological survey of the entire
plant site and to take all appropriate actions in accordance
with rules and procedures governing the program.
general expenses
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $151,666,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 153,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 153,000,000
This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office,
Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research
and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers.
Executive direction and management.--The Office of the
Chief of Engineers and 8 division offices supervise work in 37
district offices.
Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.--This support
center provides administrative services for the Office of the
Chief of Engineers and other separate field operating
activities, to include personnel, logistics, and finance and
accounting.
Institute for Water Resources.--This institute performs
studies and analyses for meeting national objectives. It
develops planning techniques for comprehensive management and
development of the Nation's water resources.
United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.--This
center was established in 1996 in Memphis, Tennessee, to
centralize Corps finance and accounting sites.
The Committee is concerned that the Army's Centralized
personnel management system for worldwide military service and
combat operations may not be meeting the Corps of Engineers
hiring needs. The Committee urges the Army to evaluate the
merits of extending this centralized system to an organization
of distinctly regional civilian field operating agencies.
The Committee reminds the Corps that the General Expenses
Account is to be used exclusively for executive oversight and
management of the Civil Works Program.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $153,000,000.
General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil
Language included under Section 101 restates language
contained in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2000, Public Law 106-60 which places a limit on credits
and reimbursements allowable per project and annually.
The bill includes language in Section 102 which directs
that none of the funds made available in fiscal year 2002 may
be used to carry out any activity relating to closure or
removal of the St. Georges Bridge across the Intracoastal
Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and
Maryland.
Language is included in Section 103 that directs that the
Secretary of the Army may not accelerate the schedule to
finalize the Record of Decision for the revision of the
Missouri River Master Water Control Manual and any related
changes to the Missouri River Annual Operating Plan. The Corps
of Engineers is undergoing an extensive process to revise the
Missouri River Master Water Control Manual and the annual
operating plan with regard to the Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Opinion and other views. The Corps' schedule calls
for more than a 15 month period between the Secretary's release
of the Implementation Plan, which has not yet occurred, and the
finalization of the Record of Decision. So, under this
provision and in accordance with this schedule, the Record of
Decision will not occur in fiscal year 2002.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project Completion Account
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $39,862,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 36,228,000
Committee recommendation................................ 36,228,000
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2002 to carry
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act
totals $36,228,000. An appropriation of $24,169,000 has been
provided for Central Utah project construction; $10,749,000 for
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation.
The Committee recommendation provides $1,310,000 for program
administration and oversight.
The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II-VI of
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the central
Utah project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.
The Act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish,
wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes
an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and
of other contributions for mitigation and conservation
activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account.
The Act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the
Act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation
of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.
The Committee notes that the requirement under the
Completion Act to make an annual Federal contribution of
$5,000,000 to the principal of the Utah Reclamation Mitigation
and Conservation Account ended in 2001.
It is the intent of the Committee that funds previously
appropriated for the Uinta Basin Replacement Project, which was
authorized by Section 203 of the Central Utah Project
Completion Act (Public Law 102-575), shall be immediately
available to proceed with construction of the Project as
described in the 2001 Feasibility Study and Environmental
Assessment.
Bureau of Reclamation
Water and Related Resources
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $678,953,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 647,997,000
Committee recommendation................................ 732,496,000
An appropriation of $732,496,000 is recommended by the
Committee for general investigations of the Bureau of
Reclamation. The water and related resources account supports
the development, management, and restoration of water and
related natural resources in the 17 Western States. The account
includes funds for operating and maintaining existing
facilities to obtain the greatest overall level of benefits, to
protect public safety, and to conduct studies on ways to
improve the use of water and related natural resources. Work
will be done in partnership and cooperation with non-Federal
entities and other Federal agencies.
The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the
following table along with the budget request.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Committee recommendation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Facility Facility
Project title Total Allocated to Resource operations, Resource operations,
Federal cost date management maintenance, management maintenance,
and and and and
development rehabilitation development rehabilitation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIZONA
AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT..................... ............ ............ ............ 6,282 ............ 6,282
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER BASIN................... 4,359,206 3,437,832 31,392 50 31,392 50
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I.......... 449,596 411,038 725 9,355 725 9,355
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM...................... 147,873 102,490 3,103 .............. 3,103 ..............
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM......................... ............ ............ 575 .............. 575 ..............
PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT........................ 20,000 475 250 .............. 250 ..............
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT............ 64,983 24,424 4,055 .............. 4,055 ..............
SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................... ............ ............ 685 .............. 685 ..............
TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION................................ 6,040 4,788 200 .............. 200 ..............
TUCSON AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE STUDY................... 1,000 759 100 .............. 100 ..............
YUMA AREA PROJECTS.............................................. ............ ............ 1,658 18,037 1,658 18,037
CALIFORNIA
CACHUMA PROJECT................................................. 36,605 36,605 640 426 640 426
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............................... ............ ............ 1,000 .............. 1,000 ..............
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PLANT.............. 20,000 2,272 1,800 .............. 1,800 ..............
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:
AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION..................................... 202,014 165,661 2,387 10,996 2,387 10,996
AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT.................................... 2,723,655 376,856 1,947 .............. 1,947 ..............
DELTA DIVISION.............................................. 425,681 227,531 12,182 5,053 27,432 5,053
EAST SIDE DIVISION.......................................... ............ ............ 604 3,630 604 3,630
FRIANT DIVISION............................................. 519 400 2,103 2,923 4,603 2,923
MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS.............................. 745,537 402,932 12,637 879 28,387 879
REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINT............ ............ ............ ............ 11,000 ............ 11,000
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION................................... 520,329 405,241 4,071 1,682 5,071 1,682
SAN FELIPE DIVISION......................................... 362,463 311,500 447 .............. 697 ..............
SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION........................................ 530,566 98,531 1,280 .............. 1,280 ..............
SHASTA DIVISION............................................. 301,019 292,284 2,456 7,025 7,706 7,025
TRINITY RIVER DIVISION...................................... 355,515 332,404 7,751 5,380 7,751 5,380
WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS.................................. ............ ............ 900 7,322 900 7,322
WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT.................... 1,599,810 585,638 4,735 6,417 4,735 6,417
YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION............................. ............ ............ 1,500 .............. 1,500 ..............
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT........................ ............ ............ 200 .............. 2,000 ..............
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT............. 15,411 3,396 1,800 .............. 1,800 ..............
LONG BEACH DESALINATION PROJECT................................. ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ ..............
LOS ANGELES AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT............ ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ ..............
MISSION BASIN BRACKISH GROUNDWATER DESALTING DEMO............... ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ ..............
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT............. 20,000 6,140 1,800 .............. 1,800 ..............
NORTH SONOMA COUNTY WATER REUSE STUDY........................... ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ ..............
GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM................................ 20,000 3,396 1,800 .............. 1,800 ..............
ORLAND PROJECT.................................................. ............ ............ ............ 410 ............ 410
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT..................................... 13,675 8,665 800 .............. 800 ..............
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVERSION STUDY................................ ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ ..............
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM.......................... 172,590 57,534 6,000 .............. 6,000 ..............
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT....................................... 38,090 26,714 1,800 .............. 1,800 ..............
SAN JOSE WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM.................... 109,959 19,117 2,500 .............. 2,500 ..............
SOLANO PROJECT.................................................. ............ ............ 1,210 1,149 1,210 1,149
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...................... ............ ............ 875 .............. 875 ..............
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT, CASITAS DAM.............................. ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ ..............
COLORADO
ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP SECTION 5 AND 8................... ............ 79,178 12,000 .............. 16,000 ..............
COLLBRAN PROJECT................................................ ............ ............ 127 1,202 127 1,202
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................................. ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ ..............
COLORADO--BIG THOMPSON PROJECT.................................. ............ ............ 49 7,913 49 7,913
COLORADO--BIG THOMPSON PROJECT--HORSETOOTH DAM.................. 90,606 10,000 ............ 26,000 ............ 26,000
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT........................................ ............ ............ 74 17 74 17
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT...................................... ............ ............ 9 4,472 9 4,472
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II............................. ............ ............ 427 573 427 573
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT....................... ............ ............ 421 1,787 421 1,787
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..................... ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ ..............
LOWER GUNNISON BASIN UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II..................... ............ ............ ............ 332 ............ 332
MANCOS PROJECT.................................................. ............ ............ 49 23 49 23
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II........................... ............ ............ ............ 2,119 ............ 2,119
PINE RIVER PROJECT.............................................. ............ ............ 88 62 88 62
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT......................................... ............ ............ 326 4,021 326 4,021
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT............................................. ............ ............ 368 27 368 27
HAWAII
HAWAII WATER RESOURCES STUDY, HI................................ ............ ............ ............ .............. 300 ..............
IDAHO
BOISE AREA PROJECTS............................................. ............ ............ 1,526 6,071 1,526 6,071
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT................ ............ 53,040 11,000 .............. 11,000 ..............
DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, BOISE PROJECT..................... 1,073 723 165 .............. 165 ..............
FORT HALL EROSION CONTROL STUDY................................. ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ ..............
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................................... ............ ............ 509 .............. 509 ..............
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS.......................................... ............ ............ 1,968 3,272 1,968 3,272
MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM............... 1,830 768 262 .............. 262 ..............
KANSAS
KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................................... ............ ............ 594 .............. 594 ..............
WICHITA PROJECT................................................. ............ ............ ............ 269 ............ 269
MONTANA
FORT PECK DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM........................ ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ ..............
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT............................................ ............ ............ ............ 294 ............ 294
MILK RIVER PROJECT.............................................. ............ ............ 440 541 440 541
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS.......................................... ............ ............ 321 .............. 321 ..............
ROCKY BOYS INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT....................... ............ ............ 8,000 .............. 8,000 ..............
NEBRASKA
MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT............................................ ............ ............ 23 32 23 32
NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................................. ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ ..............
NEVADA
HALFWAY WASH, NV................................................ ............ ............ ............ .............. 120 ..............
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT.......................................... ............ ............ 6,347 2,089 6,347 2,089
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM................................ ............ ............ 1,000 .............. 1,400 ..............
NEWLANDS PROJECT WATER RIGHTS FUND.............................. 7,000 3,200 ............ .............. 2,000 ..............
SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT......................... ............ ............ ............ .............. 1,500 ..............
STEAMBOAT CREEK RENO, NV........................................ ............ ............ ............ .............. 100 ..............
WALKER RIVER BASIN PROJECT...................................... ............ ............ ............ .............. 200 ..............
NEW MEXICO
ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE.............. ............ ............ ............ .............. 7,500 ..............
CARLSBAD PROJECT................................................ ............ ............ 1,689 742 1,689 742
EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY................................. ............ ............ ............ .............. 250 ..............
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT....................................... ............ ............ 2,684 8,967 14,884 8,967
NAVAJO GALLUP WATER SUPPLY...................................... 2,000 909 300 .............. 500 ..............
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT......................... ............ ............ ............ 50 ............ 50
RIO GRANDE PROJECT.............................................. ............ ............ 1,001 2,591 1,001 2,591
RIO JEMEZ (ABOUSELMAN) INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT........... 1,200 ............ ............ .............. 1,200 ..............
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..................... ............ ............ 214 .............. 214 ..............
SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........... ............ ............ 200 .............. 200 ..............
TUCUMCARI PROJECT............................................... ............ ............ 26 .............. 26 ..............
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................... ............ ............ 217 .............. 217 ..............
NORTH DAKOTA
DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................................. ............ ............ 354 .............. 354 ..............
DAKOTAS TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........................... ............ ............ 250 .............. 250 ..............
GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT......................................... 1,484,000 675,205 21,011 4,228 24,000 4,228
OKLAHOMA
ARBUCKLE PROJECT................................................ ............ ............ ............ 186 ............ 186
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT............................................. ............ ............ ............ 569 ............ 569
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT........................................... ............ ............ ............ 276 ............ 276
NORMAN PROJECT.................................................. ............ ............ ............ 183 ............ 183
OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................................. ............ ............ 263 .............. 263 ..............
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT........................................... ............ ............ ............ 731 ............ 731
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT............................................. ............ ............ ............ 280 ............ 280
OREGON
BEND FEED CANAL PIPELINE PROJECT................................ ............ ............ ............ .............. 300 ..............
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT........................................... ............ ............ 278 418 278 418
DESCHUTES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT......................... 15,000 2,285 500 .............. 500 ..............
DESCHUTES PROJECT............................................... ............ ............ 360 138 360 138
DESCHUTES PROJECT--WICKUP DAM................................... 38,279 11,500 ............ 12,000 ............ 12,000
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS......................................... ............ ............ 340 267 340 267
GRANDE RONDE WATER OPTIMIZATION STUDY........................... 1,871 1,271 150 .............. 150 ..............
KLAMATH PROJECT................................................. ............ ............ 12,277 483 17,777 483
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................................... ............ ............ 457 .............. 457 ..............
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION...................... ............ ............ 317 162 317 162
TUALATIN PROJECT................................................ ............ ............ 149 107 149 107
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY.................. 275 100 100 .............. 100 ..............
UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT, PHASE III STUDY......................... 804 704 50 .............. 50 ..............
UMATILLA PROJECT................................................ ............ ............ 409 2,227 409 2,227
SOUTH DAKOTA
CROW CREEK TRIBE RESERVATION WIDE M AND I WATER SUPPLY.......... ............ ............ ............ .............. 100 ..............
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM.............................. 213,888 1,534 ............ .............. 2,000 ..............
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT.................................. 136,325 70,424 10,000 40 15,500 40
MNI WICONI PROJECT.............................................. 372,640 178,923 20,511 7,489 26,000 7,489
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM............................. ............ ............ ............ 30 ............ 30
TEXAS
BALMORHEA PROJECT............................................... ............ ............ 30 .............. 30 ..............
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT.......................................... ............ ............ ............ 104 ............ 104
EL PASO WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE............................. ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ ..............
HASKELL STREET RECLAIMED WATER PROJECT, TX...................... 8,328 6,232 ............ .............. ............ ..............
NAVAJO GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT.............................. ............ ............ 300 .............. 300 ..............
NUECES RIVER.................................................... ............ ............ ............ 421 ............ 421
PALMETTO BEND PROJECT........................................... ............ ............ ............ 688 ............ 688
SAN ANGELO PROJECT.............................................. ............ ............ ............ 335 ............ 335
TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................................... ............ ............ 197 .............. 197 ..............
UTAH
HYRUM PROJECT................................................... ............ ............ 310 8 310 8
MOON LAKE PROJECT............................................... ............ ............ 39 6 39 6
NAVAJO SANDSTONE AQUIFER RECHARGE STUDY......................... 875 524 250 .............. 250 ..............
NEWTON PROJECT.................................................. ............ ............ 46 7 46 7
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............................ ............ ............ 305 .............. 305 ..............
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT............................................. ............ ............ 111 51 111 51
PROVO RIVER PROJECT............................................. ............ ............ 465 363 465 363
SCOFIELD PROJECT................................................ ............ ............ 56 25 56 25
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............................ ............ ............ 300 .............. 300 ..............
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT....................................... ............ ............ 82 7 82 7
WEBER BASIN PROJECT............................................. 19,639 16,593 1,704 290 1,704 290
WEBER RIVER PROJECT............................................. ............ ............ 356 32 356 32
WASHINGTON
COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT.......................................... ............ ............ 4,044 9,119 4,044 9,119
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............................... ............ ............ 425 .............. 425 ..............
YAKIMA PROJECT.................................................. ............ ............ 516 6,753 516 6,753
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.................... 194,034 25,234 10,600 .............. 10,600 ..............
WYOMING
KENDRICK PROJECT................................................ ............ ............ 8 4,654 8 4,654
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT............................................ ............ ............ 40 1,412 40 1,412
SHOSHONE PROJECT................................................ ............ ............ 54 925 54 925
WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................................. ............ ............ 55 .............. 55 ..............
VARIOUS
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE II: PROGRAM AND 175,000 46,793 10,929 .............. 10,929 ..............
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT.......................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 5....................... ............ ............ 5,349 1,821 5,349 1,821
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 8, R&F&WL............... 103,876 55,633 4,677 61 4,677 61
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM................ 60,000 40,905 150 .............. 150 ..............
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:
DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM............................... ............ ............ ............ 1,700 ............ 1,700
INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION.............................. ............ ............ ............ 16,400 ............ 16,400
SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS.......................... ............ ............ ............ 17,900 ............ 17,900
SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION STUDIES.................... ............ ............ ............ 624 ............ 624
DEPARTMENTAL IRRIGATION DRAINAGE PROGRAM........................ ............ ............ 2,620 .............. 2,620 ..............
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE.................................... ............ ............ 582 .............. 582 ..............
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM................................... ............ ............ 3,738 .............. 3,738 ..............
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM................ ............ ............ ............ 330 ............ 330
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION...................... ............ ............ 13,522 .............. 13,522 ..............
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION............................ ............ ............ 1,882 .............. 1,882 ..............
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ACTIVITIES........... ............ ............ 1,661 .............. 1,661 ..............
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES.............................. ............ ............ 32 5,110 32 5,110
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM......................... ............ ............ ............ 950 ............ 950
GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES........................................ ............ ............ 1,861 .............. 1,861 ..............
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM............................... ............ ............ 7,690 .............. 7,690 ..............
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM.............................. ............ ............ 2,000 .............. ............ ..............
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM......................... ............ ............ 13,103 .............. 13,103 ..............
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS.......................... ............ ............ ............ 509 ............ 509
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION........................... ............ ............ 1,000 .............. 1,000 ..............
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM................................. ............ ............ 8,400 .............. 8,400 ..............
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING............... ............ ............ 1,709 .............. 1,709 ..............
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................... ............ ............ 180 950 180 950
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN--OTHER PROJECTS....................... ............ ............ 3,183 29,747 3,183 29,747
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES.......................................... ............ ............ 590 345 590 345
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM................................ ............ ............ 463 .............. 463 ..............
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION.................................. ............ ............ 5,130 .............. 5,130 ..............
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT--TITLE XXVIII................. ............ ............ 1,922 .............. 1,922 ..............
RECREATION & FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION........... ............ ............ 2,694 .............. 2,694 ..............
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY:
ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT DESALINATION PROGRAM............... ............ ............ 1,150 .............. 1,150 ..............
APPLIED SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT.................. ............ ............ 3,290 .............. 3,290 ..............
DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM............... ............ ............ 300 .............. 5,000 ..............
HYDROELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION/ENHANCEMEN.......... ............ ............ 660 .............. 660 ..............
TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT...................................... ............ ............ 300 .............. 300 ..............
WATERSHED/RIVER SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.................. ............ ............ 940 .............. 940 ..............
SITE SECURITY................................................... ............ ............ ............ 1,755 ............ 1,755
SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION.................................. ............ ............ 314 .............. 314 ..............
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES.................................. ............ ............ 1,894 .............. 1,894 ..............
TITLE XVI, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM.................. ............ ............ 1,650 .............. 1,650 ..............
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--TECHNICAL SUPPORT........... ............ ............ 70 .............. 70 ..............
WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM....................... ............ ............ 7,507 .............. 7,507 ..............
WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT............................................ ............ ............ 3,836 .............. 3,836 ..............
UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON ANTICIPATED DELAYS............. ............ ............ -33,840 .............. -45,989 ..............
=======================================================================================
TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES........................ ............ ............ 343,599 304,698 427,798 304,698
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Valley Project, CA.--Additional funding for this
project is included over the budget request for activities in
support of the Bay Delta Restoration. These activities are
described more fully under the heading for the California Bay
Delta Restoration.
Lake Tahoe Regional Wetlands Development, California.--The
Committee has provided $2,000,000 to continue the environmental
restoration project for the Upper Truckee River in the vicinity
of the airport at South Lake Tahoe, California.
Animas LaPlata Project, Colorado.--The bill contains
$16,000,000 for the Animas LaPlata, Colorado Project. While
this is $4,000,000 over the budget request, the Committee
recognizes that with constrained resources it will be difficult
to maintain the schedule established by the Colorado Ute
Settlement Act Amendments of 2000.
Halfway Wash, NV.--The Committee recommendation has
provided $120,000 for prefeasibility studies of Halfway Wash in
Mesquite, County, NV.
Steamboat Creek, Reno, NV.--An appropriation of $100,000
has been provided for the Bureau to initiate feasibility
studies for flood control and environmental restoration
improvements for Steamboat Creek.
Middle Rio Grande Project, NM.--The Committee recommends
$12,200,000 in additional funding for the Bureau of Reclamation
to continue the efforts of the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative
Program Workgroup and its support activities to water users and
species along the Middle Rio Grande. These efforts are intended
to promote long and short term activities to benefit species
and water users along the Middle Rio Grande, pursuant to a
Memorandum of Understanding signed among the relevant agencies
and interested parties. Funded activities will include:
$4,700,000 for modifications to river habitat; $2,180,000 for
silvery minnow population management; $1,100,000 for monitoring
of stream effects on the silvery minnow; $120,000 to combat
non-native species; $640,000 for Bureau of Reclamation's
repayment obligations; $950,000 for water quality studies and
improvements; and $2,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation's
purchase of water. The Committee directs the Bureau of
Reclamation to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
on the silvery minnow monitoring and habitat efforts. In
addition, the Bureau of Reclamation is directed to collaborate
with Universities in geographical proximity to the silvery
minnow and possessing established experience and expertise in
working with the silvery minnow. Finally, the Committee has
included statutory language which requires the Bureau to submit
a report on the status and results of fiscal year 2001 funding
and, to submit to the Committee for approval, a detailed
spending plan for fiscal year 2002 within 60 days of enactment
of this Act.
Garrison Diversion Unit, ND.--The Committee recommendation
includes $24,000,000. While this is an increase over the budget
request of $21,011,000, it is still far below the amount needed
to fund the project at an optimum level.
Klamath Project, OR.--The Committee recommendation includes
$17,777,000, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request.
The additional funds are for continued construction of the A-
Canal.
Mni Wiconi Project, SD.--The Committee has provided
$26,000,000 for the Mni Wiconi Project. While this is an
increase over the budget request of $20,511,000, it is still
far below the amount needed to fund the project at an optimal
level.
Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.--The
Committee supports the WateReuse Research Foundation program to
provide important research into the science and technological
aspects of water reclamation. The Committee further notes that
the Foundation has secured its cost shared portion for this
program as directed in last year's spending bill. Accordingly,
the Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation, within available
funds, to continue support of the Foundation's research
program.
Science and Technology, Desalination Research and
Development Program.--Within the funds provided $500,000 is for
research of brine disposal alternatives in ``land locked''
areas such as Phoenix, Arizona, and Las Vegas, Nevada and
$1,000,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation to complete a study to
determine the most effective and efficient manner of, and to
develop a technology progress plan to be used in, the
development of a desalination research and development facility
in the Tularosa Basin in New Mexico. The Committee recognizes
that effective desalination cost reduction is the key to wider
use of desalination for improving the quality of life in water-
scarce regions. The Secretary of the Interior shall consult
with the Secretary of Energy and the Director of the Sandia
National Laboratories in the development of the technology and
implementation plan and will submit a report by the end of
fiscal year 2002 to the Senate Committee on Appropriations
outlining the development of desalination technology for the
basin.
Within available funds, the Committee directs the Bureau to
work with other Federal and State agencies, including the
National Academy of Sciences, universities, and non-government
entities to act as a national clearinghouse for desalination
technologies. The Bureau shall establish a peer review process
to validate the efficacy of the multitude of desalination
techniques available.
Budget Limitations and Reductions
Constrained spending limits imposed by the Congressional
Budget Resolution have made it difficult for the Committee to
formulate a balanced Energy and Water Development
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. In order to adhere to
the subcommittee's allocations, address the critical ongoing
activities, correct program imbalances contained in the
President's fiscal year 2002 budget, and respond to the
numerous requests of the Members, the Committee finds it
necessary to recommend numerous adjustments to funding levels
proposed in the budget. Finally, the Committee regrets that
many worthwhile projects could not be recommended for funding
because of the lack of authorization and the shortfall in
resources.
The Committee received numerous requests to include project
authorizations in the Energy and Water Development
appropriations bill. However, in an effort to support and honor
the congressional authorizing committees' jurisdiction, the
Committee has not included new project authorizations.
bureau of reclamation loan program account
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $9,348,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 7,495,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,495,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,495,000,
the same as the budget request, for the small reclamation
program of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Under the Small Reclamation Projects Act (43 U.S.C. 422a-
422l), loans and/or grants can be made to non-Federal
organizations for construction or rehabilitation and betterment
of small water resource projects.
As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this
loan program account records the subsidy costs associated with
the direct loans obligated in 1992 and beyond, as well as
administrative expenses of this program. The subsidy amounts
are estimated on a present value basis; the administrative
expenses are estimated on a cash basis.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--LOAN PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Project title Federal Allocated Budget Committee
cost to date estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOAN PROGRAM
CALIFORNIA
CASTROVILLE IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY PROJECT.............. 14,403 13,164 1,239 1,239
SALINAS VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION......................... 9,401 9,000 401 401
SAN SAVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT.......................... 28,100 22,525 5,575 5,575
VARIOUS
LOAN ADMINISTRATION...................................... ........... ........... 280 280
------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, LOAN PROGRAM................................ ........... ........... 7,495 7,495
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
central valley project restoration fund
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $38,360,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 55,039,000
Committee recommendation................................ 55,039,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $55,039,000,
the same as the budget request for the Central Valley Project
Restoration Fund.
The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of
Public Law 102-575. This fund was established to provide
funding from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration,
improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife
restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of
California. Revenues are derived from payments by project
beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project
beneficiaries include several required by the Act (Friant
Division surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to
non-CVP users, and tiered water prices) and, to the extent
required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation
and restoration payments.
California bay-delta ecosystem restoration
Appropriations, 2001....................................................
Budget estimate, 2002................................... $20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
The CALFED Program was established in May 1995, for the
purpose of developing a comprehensive, long-term solution to
the complex and inter-related problems in the San Francisco
Bay-Delta area of California. The program's focus is on the
health of the ecosystem and improving water management. In
addition, this program addresses the issues of uncertain water
supplies, aging levees, and threatened water quality.
The Committee has consistently expressed concern regarding
the duplication and overlap of CALFED activities with Central
Valley Project Improvement Act programs and other activities
funded under various other programs within the Bureau of
Reclamation. In addition the Committee believes that the
appropriate authorizing committees of Congress should
thoroughly review and specifically reauthorize the CALFED
program. The committees of jurisdiction in these complicated
matters should have the opportunity to develop legislation to
address these issues.
The Committee is aware that legislation has been introduced
in the House and Senate to reauthorize the comprehensive
program. Absent this legislation, the Committee has recommended
no funding under the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration
Project. In order to support the efforts of the State of
California to provide a safe, clean water supply and improve
the environment, the Committee has provided funds for
previously authorized studies under the Central Valley Project.
These studies will support and further the goals of the overall
CALFED Program until such time as the California Bay-Delta
Ecosystem Restoration Project is reauthorized.
The Committee has provided an additional $40,000,000 over
the budget request for the Central Valley Project. Additional
funds to support the goals of CALFED are provided as follows:
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL WATER ACCOUNT
Miscellaneous Project Programs.--$14,250,000 to acquire
water and ground water storage and conduct NEPA analysis.
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Delta Division Oversight.--$7,500,000 to continue
coordination, administration, planning, performance tracking
and science activities in coordination with CALFED Program
Implementation Plan.
STORAGE
Shasta Division.--$5,250,000 to continue evaluating the
potential impacts of the proposed Shasta raise.
Delta Division.--$250,000 to continue evaluations of the
Delta Wetlands project and other in-delta storage proposals.
$1,000,000 for Reclamation to continue participating in
planning activities associated with enlarging Los Vaqueros
reservoir.
Friant Division.--$2,500,000 to continue developing a plan
of study for a feasibility level investigation for storage in
the Upper San Joaquin Watershed.
Sacramento River Division.--$500,000 to continue planning
activities as agreed to in the Sites MOU.
CONVEYANCE
Delta Division.--$250,000 for the DMC Intertie with the
California Aqueduct to continue evaluation studies on systems
and environmental impacts. $250,000 to evaluate operations
alternatives for the Delta Cross Channel Reoperation.
WATER USE EFFICIENCY
Miscellaneous Project Programs.--$1,000,000 for pilot
studies.
WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM
Miscellaneous Project Programs.--$500,000 to conduct NEPA
analysis and operate clearinghouse.
CONVEYANCE
Delta Division.--$6,000,000 to construct the Tracy Test
Fish Facility.
Sacramento River Division.--$500,000 to continue
engineering and design work for the Red Bluff Diversion Dam
Fish Passage Improvement Project.
San Felipe Division.--$250,000 to provide technical
assistance to Santa Clara Valley Water District in conducting
operational appraisal studies.
policy and administration
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $50,114,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 52,968,000
Committee recommendation................................ 52,968,000
The Committee recommendation for general administrative
expenses is $52,968,000. This is the same as the budget
request.
The policy and administrative expenses program provides for
the executive direction and management of all reclamation
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in
Washington, DC, Denver, CO, and five regional offices. The
Denver office and regional offices charge individual projects
or activities for direct beneficial services and related
administrative and technical costs. These charges are covered
under other appropriations.
General Provisions--Department of the Interior
Section 201 of the Bill includes language that States
requirements for purchase or lease of water from the Middle Rio
Grande or Carlsbad Projects, New Mexico.
Section 202 of the Bill includes language concerning
Drought Emergency Assistance.
Section 203 of the Bill includes language concerning
refunds of fees assessed for failure to file certain
certification or reporting forms under the Reclamation Act.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Title III provides for the Department of Energy's defense
and nondefense functions, the power marketing administrations,
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
contractor travel
The Committee believes that earlier statutory restrictions
on contractor travel established new appreciation by
contractors for propriety and cost effectiveness in their
travel expenditures. For fiscal year 2002, no statutory travel
restrictions are included. Nevertheless, the Committee directs
the Department to maintain contractor travel summaries adequate
for periodic reviews of programmatic relevance and costs of
contractor travel.
laboratory directed research and development
The Committee believes that Laboratory Directed Research
and Development (LDRD) is essential to maintaining scientific
and engineering excellence in the technical areas of effort
undertaken by the laboratories in support of the Department's
missions. The Committee therefore directs that no more than 6
percent of funding to the laboratories be made available for
LDRD.
In fiscal year 2001, the Committee established at the
nuclear weapons production plants a program analogous to the
LDRD program at the laboratories. This provision for the
production plants is provided to attract and retain the highest
quality work force through investments in new production and
design concepts and the establishment of intern and cooperative
student programs. The Committee recognizes the value derived
from this activity and directs the Department to permit similar
investment for the future by the Nevada Test Site. All of these
efforts will be critical to maintaining the Department's most
valuable assets--its people.
Energy Supply
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $659,918,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 544,245,000
Committee recommendation................................ 741,139,000
renewable energy resources
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $375,785,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 276,653,000
Committee recommendation................................ 435,600,000
The Committee recommendation provides $435,600,000, for
renewable energy resources, an increase of $59,815,000 over the
current year appropriation, and $158,947,000 over the
administration's request.
The recommendation for Renewable Energy Resources reflects
the Committee's strong belief that only a balanced portfolio of
production and distribution technologies and strategies will
fulfill our Nation's long-term needs and goals for both energy
and the environment. For that reason, the Committee
recommendation includes substantial investments in renewable
energy resources above the Administration's request. While the
Administration's Report of the National Energy Policy
Development Group recognized the importance of a clean and
diverse portfolio of renewable domestic energy supplies, the
Administration's budget, even as amended, provides inadequate
resources to accomplish these goals.
The Committee agrees that the Secretaries of Energy and
Interior need to re-evaluate access limitations to Federal
lands in order to increase renewable energy production, such as
geothermal, solar, wind, and biomass. The Committee is
encouraged by the interdepartmental cooperation demonstrated by
these Departments in facilitating the privately-funded large
wind turbine project at the Nevada Test Site. Our Nation's vast
holdings of public land are, in many cases, ideally suited to
the deployment of renewable technologies. The Administration is
encouraged to enhance these opportunities.
The Committee has modified the request for low emission
energy technologies; including hydro, renewable, and nuclear,
with the view toward post 2010 application of new technologies.
As a result, with few exceptions, the Committee recommends
basic research that will provide significant improvements over
existing technologies. The Committee is well aware of the
proposition that appropriated funds can demonstrate the
reliable operation of low emission technologies before they
become commercially attractive. In a few cases, the Committee
has provided funds for just such demonstrations. However, in
general, the Committee expects non-Federal financing to support
the final stages of product development and all stages of
market development.
Solar building technology research.--The Committee
recommends $7,000,000 to fund solar building technology
development.
Photovoltaic energy systems.--The Committee recommends
$70,000,000 for photovoltaic energy systems. The Committee
recommendation includes $3,000,000 for continuation of the
Million Solar Roofs program at current year levels and
$2,500,000 for the Southeast and Southwest photovoltaic
experiments stations. Additionally, the Committee recommends
$3,000,000 for the Navajo electrification project.
Concentrating solar power.--The Committee recommends
$15,300,000 for concentrating solar power. Within these amounts
the Department is directed to continue with deployment of the
1.0 MW dish engine and to continue activities associated with
the 25 kW dish system. Additionally, the Committee directs the
Department to develop and scope out an initiative to fulfill
the goal of having 1,000 MW of new solar capacity supplying the
Southwestern United States by the year 2006. A report is due to
the House and Senate Committees by March 1, 2002.
Biomass/biofuels--power systems.--The Committee recommends
$53,000,000 for biomass/bio-fuels--power systems.
The Iowa switch grass project is funded at $4,000,000 in
fiscal year 2002.
The recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the McNeil
biomass plant in Burlington, Vermont, and $1,000,000 for the
for methane energy and agriculture development project in
Tillamook Bay, Oregon.
Biomass/biofuels--transportation.--The Committee
recommendation includes $50,000,000 for biomass/biofuels
transportation. Within available funds, $300,000 is provided
for the continuation and expansion of the on-going
demonstration of the oxygenated diesel fuel particulate matter
emission reduction project in Clark County, Nevada; $3,000,000
for the Michigan Biotechnogy Initiative; $3,000,000 for the
Prime LLC, of South Dakota integrated ethanol complex,
including an ethanol unit, waste treatment system, and enclosed
cattle feed lot; $300,000 for the Biomass Energy Resource
Center project in Vermont; $2,000,000 to continue the Sealaska
ethanol project (subject to a non-federal match) at the fiscal
year 2001 level; $3,000,000 for the Biomass Gasification
Research Center in Birmingham, Alabama; and $3,000,000 for the
Winona, Mississippi, biomass project. Additionally, the
Committee directs the Department to continue funding for the
Energy and Environment Research Center at last year's level.
Biomass demonstration projects may be funded from within
the totals available under biomass/biofuels energy systems
account. The Committee recommendation includes $18,000,000 to
continue the Integrated Biomass Research and Development
Program.
Wind.--The Committee recommendation includes $45,000,000
for wind. Within this amount, $500,000 is provided for the
Turtle Mountain Community College project in North Dakota;
$1,000,000 is provided for the Kotzebue project in Alaska;
$250,000 is provided to the Wind Technology Center for a
feasibility study for a wind power generation facility to serve
St. Paul and Unalaska, Alaska. The Wind Powering America
initiative is to be continued at last year's funding level. The
Committee continues to recognize the need for a set-aside for
small wind programs, such as the one being developed by the
Vermont Department of Public Service and the Department, in the
Federal wind energy research and development budget. The
Committee recommends $500,000 for this project.
Renewable energy production incentive.--The Committee
recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the renewable energy
production incentive.
Renewable program support.--The Committee recommendation
includes $3,000,000 for technical analysis and assistance
within renewable program support.
Departmental Energy Management.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,000,000 for departmental energy
management. The Committee directs the Department to provide a
report by January 1, 2002, detailing the potential energy
savings to be derived from this program, if fully implemented.
International renewable programs.--The Committee strongly
supports the U.S. international joint implementation program
funded in this account and recommends $3,000,000 for that
purpose. The Committee supports efforts to increase
international market opportunities for the export and
deployment of advanced clean energy technologies--end-use
efficiency, fossil, renewable, and nuclear energy technologies.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.--The Committee
recommendation includes $12,000,000, for capital equipment and
general plant projects at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. Of this amount, $1,000,000 is provided to reduce
the maintenance backlog. The Committee recommendation includes
$5,000,000 for technical analysis, technical assistance, and
the harmonization of multi-program activities that address the
resource opportunities and electric power needs in the
Southwest United States. The expertise of the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is to be made available
through a site office in Nevada. NREL will provide expertise
through a virtual laboratory concept, serving as a portal for
electronic communications, information sharing, data
warehousing, and partnerships among universities, researchers,
technology developers, and those interested in deployment.
Geothermal.--The Committee recommends $32,000,000 for
geothermal technology development, including $2,500,000 for
GeoPowering the West. The Committee is concerned that the
Department appears to be cutting funds for these important
research efforts prematurely. The Committee has provided a
substantial increase and expects the Department to use the
additional funds, in part, to foster university research and
public private partnerships. Within available funds, the
Committee provides $1,000,000 for the UNR Geothermal Energy
Center's demonstration project.
Hydrogen research.--The Committee strongly supports
research and development of hydrogen technology and recognizes
it to be a highly promising and cost effective energy carrier.
The Committee recommends $35,000,000. The recommendation
includes $350,000 for the Montana Trade Port Authority in
Billings, MT to continue the ongoing resource inventory,
feasibility study, and development of a Solid Waste Hydrogen
Fuel Cell manufacturing capability, $1,000,000 for the
gasification of Iowa switch grass and its use in fuel cells,
$1,500,000 for the ITM Syngas project, $1,500,000 for the fuel
cell installation project at Gallatin County, Montana, and
$2,000,000 for continued demonstration of the hydrogen
locomotive and front-end loader projects.
The Committee continues to encourage demonstration of a
dedicated fleet of vehicles, including buses, powered by
hydrogen.
Hydropower.--The Committee recommends $9,300,000 for
hydropower. The Committee commends the Department of Energy for
recognizing the benefits of and developing advanced ``fish-
friendly'' turbines for hydro-electric generation. The
Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000 for that effort.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $400,000 to
plan a hydroelectric power generation facility at Gustavus,
Alaska, subject to a local match for construction.
Additionally, the Committee recommends $1,900,000 for the
completion of the Power Creek hydroelectric project in Alaska.
No additional funds will be made available for this project.
Renewable Indian energy resources.--The Committee
recommendation includes $4,000,000 for Indian renewable energy
resource development. The Committee expects these funds to be
administered as competitively awarded grants to federally-
recognized tribes throughout the United States.
Electric energy systems and storage.--The Committee
recommendation includes $71,000,000 for electric energy systems
and storage.
This program provides funding for transmission reliability,
energy storage systems and high temperature superconductivity
research and development.
Within available funds under electric energy systems and
storage, the Committee recommends $1,000,000 to initiate
development of a bipolar wafer-cell nickel metal hydride
battery storage system; $2,000,000 for Glenallen power
generation upgrades, including extension of electricity to
residents of Lake Louise; and $2,000,000 for the Kachemak Bay
Power System to extend and upgrade marine power cabling to
provide power to the villages of Seldovia, Nanwalek, and Port
Graham, Alaska. The Committee also recommends $3,000,000 for
the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee electrical intertie pursuant to the
Southeast Alaska intertie authorization enacted into law last
year. Additionally, the Committee recommends $3,000,000 to
complete the Prince of Wales Island electrical intertie. The
Committee notes that $20,000,000 has been provided in State and
local funds and this Federal amount represents the final
installment needed to complete the project. The Committee
recommendation also includes $3,000,000, within available
funds, for NREL for research, development, and demonstration of
advanced thermal energy storage technology integrated with
renewable thermal energy technology.
In view of the Department's goal of obtaining a minimum of
20 percent of new generation through distributed generation
technologies by 2010, the Committee supports the joint effort
between New Mexico Tech and the Natural Energy Laboratory of
Hawaii to integrate, demonstrate, and ultimately deploy
distributed energy systems that make full use of conventional
and renewable technologies and recommends $1,000,000 for this
purpose.
The Committee urges the Department of expand its
partnership with and funding support to the University of
California-Irvine's Advanced Power and Energy Program (APEP),
the only nationally university-based public-private
collaborative involving major gas turbine, micro turbine, fuel
cell and renewable manufacturers, California utilities and
Federal, regional and State government agencies. APEP's energy
and information related technology demonstrations are
accelerating the deployment of affordable and reliable energy
products and systems, essential to helping the nation and
Western States respond to current and future energy
requirements.
Renewable program direction.--The Committee recommendation
includes $21,000,000 for program direction within this account.
nuclear energy programs
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $259,925,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 223,122,000
Committee recommendation................................ 264,069,000
The Committee recommendation provides $264,069,000 for
nuclear energy, an increase of $4,144,000 from the current year
appropriation.
Nuclear energy presently contributes about 21 percent of
our nation's electrical power and emits no atmospheric
pollutants. The United States has not yet determined how to
handle spent nuclear fuel, and the Committee does not
underestimate the technical and social challenges entailed in
this challenge. Although geologic repository characterization
activities continue at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, this ``bury and
forget'' concept for dealing with spent nuclear fuel continues
to encounter obstacles to its implementation, both domestically
and internationally. While the Committee supports continued
nuclear power research and development activities as part of a
balanced approach to meeting our Nation's energy needs,
industry and the Department are strongly encouraged to focus
their research efforts on a broader array of disposal options,
including reprocessing, transmutation, and dry cask storage,
all of which reduce or eliminate the need for a geologic
repository.
Advanced radioisotope power systems.--The Committee
recommends $29,094,000 for advanced radioisotope power systems.
Isotopes.--The Committee recommends $24,683,000 for isotope
support and production. Within this amount, the Committee
recommends an additional $1,000,000 for medical applications.
Additionally, the Committee recommends $2,494,000 for the
Isotope Production Facility at LANSCE. The amount recommended
is reduced by offsetting collections of $9,000,000 to be
received in fiscal year 2002, resulting in a net recommended
appropriation of $18,177,000.
University reactor fuel assistance and support.--The
Committee recommends a total of $19,000,000, an increase of
$7,206,000 over the budget request, for university reactor fuel
assistance and support. University nuclear engineering programs
and university research reactors represent a fundamental and
key capability in supporting our national policy goals in
health care, materials science and energy technology.
The Committee strongly supports both the University Reactor
Fuel Assistance and Support program's efforts to provide
fellowships, scholarships, and grants to students enrolled in
science and engineering programs at U.S. universities, as well
as efforts to provide fuel assistance and reactor upgrade
funding for university-owned research reactors, such as the
TRIGA reactor at Oregon State University.
The Committee is very concerned about the long-term
viability of nuclear engineering programs in the United States
and the continued loss of university research reactors. In
1988, the United States had 40 university reactors. Today, only
27 exist, and of those, several are under consideration for
closing. To address this growing problem, the additional
resources shall be used to initiate the establishment of (1)
geographically distributed regional university research reactor
user facilities, and (2) geographically distributed training
and education reactor facilities in a manner consistent with
the Final Report of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory
Committee University Research Reactor Task Force. The program
should also include substantial financial support from the
nuclear industry.
Nuclear energy plant optimization.--The Committee
recommends a total of $9,000,000, an increase of $4,500,000
over the budget request. The Department is encouraged to expand
this cost-shared research and development program to improve
the reliability, availability, and productivity of existing
nuclear power plants.
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.--The Committee
recommends a total of $38,000,000, an increase of $19,921,000
over the budget request and $3,000,000 over the current year
enacted level. The Department's budget request would only
marginally support existing NERI projects and would not allow
for any new projects in the coming year. The proposed increase
is necessary to grow the scope of the technology and the people
for a growing nuclear industry. The recommendation includes
$4,000,000 for the Department to pursue reactor-based
transmutation in coordination with studies of accelerator-based
transmutation.
Nuclear Energy Technologies.--The Committee recommends a
total of $14,000,000, an increase of $9,500,000 over the budget
request and $6,500,000 over the current year level. The
Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for completion of
the Generation IV Technology Roadmap; $7,000,000 for advanced
reactor development consistent with the longer term
recommendations of the Generation IV Technology Roadmap and to
continue research begun in the current fiscal year on small,
modular nuclear reactors; and $3,000,000 to support, on a cost-
shared basis, the generic/industry-wide proposals from the
report of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee's
Near-Term Deployment Group.
Infrastructure.--The Committee recommendation includes
$81,279,000 for infrastructure, the amount of the request.
ANL-West Operations.--The Committee recommendation includes
$34,107,000, the amount of the request and $5,043,000 less than
the current year, for ANL-West operations.
Fast flux test facility.--The Committee has provided the
budget request of $38,439,000 for the FFTF. Since the FFTF was
shut down in 1992, the Department has spent a total of
$473,700,000 to begin deactivation and then to maintain it in a
safe standby condition while seeking other missions. Had this
amount of funding been spent to decontaminate and decommission
(D&D) the reactor, the job would have been finished.
In April, the Secretary of Energy granted a 90-day delay in
shutdown for yet another review of possible missions. The
Committee is not optimistic that the results of this review
will be any different than previous reviews. If the review
determines that the reactor should be shut down, the Department
is directed to immediately submit to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations a plan detailing how the
Department intends to shut down and begin the decommissioning
and decontamination of the FFTF. If the review determines that
the reactor should be restarted, the Department must submit a
detailed project plan with a validated baseline cost, scope and
schedule for restart to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations. No funds may be obligated for restart
activities until 60 days after submission of this report and
approval by the Committees on Appropriations.
Nuclear facilities management.--The Committee
recommendation includes $30,457,000 for nuclear facilities
management, the amount of the request. Within this amount, the
Committee directs that $4,200,000 be used to complete
deactivation of EBR-II.
Program direction.--The Committee recommendation includes
$25,062,000 for program direction, the amount of the request.
environment, safety, and health
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $35,998,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 35,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 33,500,000
The Committee recommendation includes $33,500,000 for non-
defense environment, safety, and health which includes
$19,527,000 for program direction.
energy support activities
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $8,600,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 8,970,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,970,000
Technical information management.--The Committee
recommendation for the technical information management program
is $1,600,000.
Program direction.--The Committee recommendation for
program direction is $6,370,000.
General reduction.--The Committee recommendation includes a
general reduction of $5,000,000, to be applied uniformly across
Nuclear Energy.
Environmental Management
(nondefense)
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $277,200,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 228,553,000
Committee recommendation................................ 228,553,000
The Committee recommendation provides $228,553,000 for non-
defense environmental management.
The non-defense environmental management program is
responsible for managing and addressing the environmental
legacy resulting from nuclear energy and civilian energy
research programs, primarily the Office of Science within the
Department of Energy. Research and development activities of
DOE and predecessor agencies generated waste and other
contaminants which pose unique problems, including
unprecedented volumes of contaminated soils, water and
facilities. The funding requested and provided here supports
the Department's goal of cleaning up as many of its
contaminated sites as possible by 2006 in a safe and cost-
effective manner. The Committee is concerned that a growing
number of projects within the closure account will not, in
fact, be closed out by 2006. The closure accounts were created
to focus attention and resources on clean-up projects that were
considered the most likely candidates for timely closure. To
the extent that several projects now appear likely to miss the
2006 deadline, the Department should consider moving them back
to the post-2006 list. The Committee directs the Department to
provide to the Committee by March 1, 2002, a report that aligns
projects appropriately among site closure, site completion, and
post-2006 completion.
Site Closure.--The Committee recommendation provides
$43,000,000 for site closure.
Site completion.--The Committee recommendation provides
$64,119,000 for site completion. Within available funds, the
Committee recommends $1,800,000 to support accelerating clean-
up along the Columbia River in Hanford's 300 Area.
Post 2006 completion.--The Committee recommendation
provides $120,053,000, the amount of the request.
Excess Facilities.--The Committee recommendation provides
$1,381,000 for the transfer of excess facilities at the
Brookhaven National Laboratory and Oak Ridge from other DOE
organizations.
Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $392,502,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 363,425,000
Committee recommendation................................ 408,725,000
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning.--
The Committee recommendation provides $286,941,000 for the
uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund, an
increase of $45,300,000 above the requested level. Of this
amount, $14,300,000 is provided for continued critical soil
remediations at East Tennessee Technology Park and $30,000,000
is provided for continued clean-up at Paducah, Kentucky. Within
the amount provided to Paducah, the Committee directs that
$3,000,000 be set aside for the purpose of depleted uranium
cylinder yard contruction. Total funding for Paducah under the
Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account for
fiscal year 2002 is $102,982,000.
The Committee directs the Secretary to provide a detailed
accounting of the $373,000,000 fund created under Public Law
105-204 and reserved exclusively for DUF6 activities. The
report is due to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on or before January 31, 2002, and should cover
all activities since the fund's inception in 1998. The uranium
enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund was
established in accordance with title XI of Public Law 102-486,
the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. The funds provided for
the environmental cleanup of the Department's uranium
enrichment plants, two of which are currently leased to the
USEC, and the cleanup of uranium mill tailings and thorium
piles resulting from production and sales to the Federal
Government for the Manhattan Project and other national
security purposes.
The Committee remains concerned by the growing backlog and
gap between the amount of claims approved for payment and the
funding requested by the Department to pay those claims. Since
these payments go to reimburse operating uranium and thorium
licensees for their costs of cleanup related to Federal
activities, the Committee continues to believe the Department
should be doing more to ensure additional funds are available
to make timely payments for approved claims.
Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends
$800,000 for the Secretary to contract with the nation's sole
remaining uranium converter for the purpose of performing
research and development to improve the environmental and
economic performance of U.S. uranium conversion operations. The
Committee is aware of a December 2000 report to Congress--
``Report to Congress on Maintenance of Viable Domestic Uranium,
Conversion and Enrichment Industries''--that documents the
negative impact of the privatization of the U.S. Enrichment
Corporation on the U.S. conversion industry. Although the
Department recommended a more ambitious proposal to assist the
industry involving price supports, the Committee finds a modest
research and development program to be more appropriate at this
time.
Other Uranium Activities.--The Committee recommends
$120,784,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget
request. The additional funds reflect the transfer of
DUF6 activities from the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund subaccount to the
Other Uranium Activities subaccount.
Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $190,654,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 134,979,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,000,000
The Committee recommendation includes $275,000,000 for
nuclear waste disposal. Of that amount, $25,000,000 is derived
from the nuclear waste fund, and $250,000,000 shall be
available from the ``Defense nuclear waste disposal'' account.
The Committee is concerned about the failure of the
Nation's nuclear waste policy to define an acceptable solution
to the problem of disposing of the growing inventories of spent
nuclear fuel and other high level radioactive waste. More than
two decades ago, the Nation determined that permanent disposal
in a geologic repository was the only acceptable path. That
decision was based, in part, on another policy that prohibited
the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel into its constituent
materials, each of which represents different hazardous
properties and raises nuclear non-proliferation issues. The
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, further
restricted disposal options by prohibiting the characterization
of any potential repository site other than Yucca Mountain,
Nevada, because the technical investigation was more costly
than anticipated.
These efforts to accelerate the disposal of spent nuclear
fuel and high level radioactive waste appear to have
accomplished just the opposite. The decision to prohibit the
consideration of any sites other than Yucca Mountain, Nevada,
engendered strong and unified opposition by the State of Nevada
and its citizens, with obvious consequence. The decision to
pursue only a ``bury it all and forget it'' policy at a single
site closed off many avenues of investigation and research into
alternative disposal concepts that might better serve our
Nation's needs.
Since the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the
Department has spent $8,000,000,000 on investigating a geologic
repository for the nation's nuclear waste. However, the
Department still has not demonstrated that the proposed site at
Yucca Mountain will be suitable. There are still many
significant unresolved technical and socioeconomic issues that
may prevent the site from being developed as a repository. The
Committee expects the Department to focus all its resources on
resolving the remaining technical issues prior to site
recommendation and initiating any actions on performance
confirmation or license application.
The Committee is also concerned with what is apparently
unwarranted confidence on the part of the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management that its current concept for the
repository will stand the tests of time and inquiry. For
example, surface water was assumed to take thousands of years
to penetrate to the repository level, assuring a ``dry and non-
corrosive'' environment for repository canisters containing
millions of tons of spent nuclear fuel. The earliest studies
making use of the excavated test facility disproved this
assumption. Subsequently, it was assumed that radioactivity
that escaped the canisters because of the corrosive effects of
water would be ``immobilized'' within the rock, would not
penetrate to the ground water, and even if it did, would move
with excruciating slowness through the ground water matrix.
Observations of migration of radioactive contaminants from
underground nuclear test cavities disproved these assumptions.
Until quite recently, the repository operational concept
entailed backfilling and sealing chambers within the repository
that had been filled with waste canisters. The concept relied
on the assumption that the heat generated by radioactive decay
would prevent surface water from entering the repository level.
Subsequent studies suggested that the repository levels could
become wet as the radioactivity (heat) decreased over time. So
the latest current concept is to ventilate the repository to
prevent the accumulation of liquid water as the waste decays.
Presently, the repository concept appears to be a ``monitored,
retrievable'' storage site with the possibility of transition
to a sealed permanent repository some time in the future. Such
significant variance with founding assumptions of geologic
disposal is damaging to public confidence in site
characterization findings, especially when these changes are
made so close to the expected decision on site suitability.
The Department has an ambitious schedule to complete action
this year on the site suitability determination. The Committee
is concerned that work which should be completed as part of the
site characterization of Yucca Mountain is being postponed for
the performance confirmation period between site recommendation
and closure. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the
Department to apply for a license within 90 days of the
finalization of site recommendation. The expectation is that
the Department will have all necessary science and technical
information for the license application. To guide the program,
the Department has agreed on nine Key Technical Issues that
must be addressed or planned to be addressed to ensure the
completeness of the Department's license application. To
restore confidence in the site characterization process, the
Committee recommends that the Department fulfill commitments
pursuant to all Key Technical Issue agreements prior to a
decision about site suitability.
Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that the
performance assessment, the Total System Performance
Assessment, used by the Department suffers from poor quality
assurance. An independent review of the program by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission found technical errors and/or
inconsistencies. Since the performance assessment will provide
important information for a decision about site suitability,
the Committee recommends the Department place a greater
emphasis on identifying and fixing these problems. The
Committee recommends the Department review the Quality
Assurance Requirements Description document and its
implementing procedures. The Committee recommends including the
results of this review with the material the Secretary prepares
for a decision about site suitability.
The Committee is concerned the Department intends to
finalize proposed changes to the regulations that prescribe the
criteria for a decision about site suitability. The Nuclear
Waste Policy Act directs the Department to establish these
criteria in the Site Characterization Plan developed pursuant
to section 112(a) of the Act. The proposed rule changes would
eliminate the specific factors to qualify or disqualify the
site contrary to the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy
and replace them with a single performance evaluation. The
Committee is concerned that the Department has no statutory
authority for modifying these regulations. In addition, these
changes would place a greater emphasis on the expected
performance of engineered barriers over the natural barriers.
The Committee notes that the existing regulations allow for a
performance assessment in addition to the other qualifying and
disqualifying factors. With significant site characterization
activities remaining to be completed and budget resources
limited, the Committee recommends the Department use existing
regulations to determine site suitability.
The Committee is concerned that the program suffers from
poor management and as a result has had significant cost
overruns and has postponed necessary site characterization
work. The Committee understands the General Accounting Office
is investigating allegations of waste, fraud and abuse in the
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management made in an
anonymous letter to the Inspector General. The Committee
expects to receive the results of the GAO investigation later
this year and intends to reexamination the allocation for the
Office in light of the findings of that investigation.
The draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the
Department indicates thousands of shipments of commercial spent
nuclear fuel and Department of Defense waste would be made to
the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. The Committee is
concerned that communities in at least 43 States would be near
the transportation routes. The Committee recommends the
Department determine the specific shipment methods and routes,
make that information available to the communities along those
routes, and holds hearings in the affected communities. These
hearings should allow a reasonable period for public comment
for the affected communities. The comments should be included
in the information the Secretary provides to the President for
a decision about site suitability.
The Committee also believes the massive interstate
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive
waste constitutes a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment for purposes of
the National Environmental Policy Act. According to the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act, the final environmental impact statement and
any associated comments must be included with the Secretary's
determination of site recommendation. The Committee is
concerned that the Department has not dedicated sufficient
resources to address this issue. Furthermore, the Committee is
concerned that a failure to incorporate this information into a
possible decision about site suitability will lead to
additional delays and cost overruns in the Yucca Mountain site
characterization program. The Committee recommends the
Department allocate appropriate funds to complete the
environment impact statement on transportation of nuclear
waste.
Finally, the Committee is concerned that the costs of the
repository, which have clearly escalated, are still not well
understood by the Department. To say the least, it is
disturbing that overall costs have nearly doubled (from
$30,000,000,000 to $58,000,000,000) since the early 1990's.
More troubling is the $12,000,000,000 increase in costs during
just the last 3 years. It is difficult, for example, to
understand the implications to design, licensing, construction,
and operational costs of such dramatic differences in concepts
as represented by the change from a sealed repository to a
monitored, retrievable storage facility. The Department is
encouraged to maintain current construction and operational
cost assessments for the proposed repository that provide
comparable costs of the design and operational concepts that
remain viable options as the site characterization and
performance assessments proceed.
The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the State of
Nevada and $6,000,000 for affected units of local government in
accordance with the statutory restrictions contained in the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Science
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $3,180,341,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 3,159,890,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,268,116,000
The Committee recognizes that the relatively small funding
increases provided to the Office of Science are inadequate.
While most programs are funded above the Administration's
request, the severe non-defense spending constraints that the
Committee operates under have made it impossible to to do
justice to many of these outstanding programs and initiatives.
Unlike the Administration's request, the Committee
recommendation is sufficient to avoid any staff reductions at
labs or universities.
high energy physics
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $726,130,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 716,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 725,100,000
The Committee recommendation includes $725,100,000 for high
energy physics, an increase of $9,000,000 over the request.
Within the amounts provided, the Committee recommends
$2,000,000 for materials development of low temperature
superconductors to support future high energy physics
requirements; and an additional $7,000,000 for university
support. Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$1,000,000 for research, development, and initial demonstration
in support of an experiment, to be conducted underground at the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, to evaluate the mass of the
neutrino through study of double beta decay of xenon-136. These
funds may be used for extraction of the xenon-136 in a Russian
nuclear city in coordination with the NNSA/Non-Proliferation
programs.
nuclear physics
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $369,890,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 360,510,000
Committee recommendation................................ 373,000,000
The Committee recommends $373,000,000 for nuclear physics,
an increase of $12,490,000 above the request and an increase of
$3,110,000 above current year levels. The Committee recommends
that the additional funds be used to enhance operation of the
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National
Laboratory and the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator
Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
in Virginia.
biological and environmental research
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $501,260,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 442,970,000
Committee recommendation................................ 490,000,000
The Committee recommendation includes $490,000,000 for
biological and environmental research, including $10,000,000
for construction of the laboratory for Comparative and
Functional Genomics at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The
recommendation includes an additional $16,000,000 above the
requested level for the Genomes to Life program and $10,000,000
in additional funding above the requested level for the low
dose effects program. Within the recommended amount, the
Committee also recommends $7,000,000 in additional funding for
computer upgrades and capital equipment costs at the
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL); $11,500,000
to complete the positron emission tomography facility at West
Virginia University; and funding to continue the following on-
going projects: the Natural Energy Laboratory in Hawaii, and
the biological effects of exposure to low-level radioactivity.
The recommendation also continues the free air carbon dioxide
experiments at the current year level.
basic energy sciences
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $1,013,370,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 1,004,705,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,040,705,000
The Committee recommendation includes $1,040,705,000, an
increase of $36,000,000 above the request and an increase of
$27,335,000 over current year levels. For purposes of
reprogramming in fiscal year 2002, the Department may allocate
funding among all operating accounts within basic energy
sciences upon written notice to the appropriate Congressional
Committees.
The Committee recommendation includes $12,000,000 for the
Department's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research and $4,000,000 for programmatic activities at the
National Center of Excellence in Photonics and Microsystems.
The Committee's recommendation also includes $8,300,000 for the
SPEAR 3 upgrade at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation
Laboratory.
Additionally, the Committee recommends that the additional
funds be used to support the following important activities:
facility operations user support; completion of the Nanoscience
Research Center project engineering and design; and additional
work in computational sciences in materials and chemistry.
Nanoscale Science Research Centers.--The Committee
recommendation includes $4,000,000 for project engineering
design work for three of five planned user centers for
nanoscale science, engineering, and technology research. The
Committee strongly supports this new initiative.
Construction.--The Committee recommendation includes
$291,000,000 to continue the Spallation Neutron Source,
including $276,300,000 for construction (under Project 99-E-
334) and $15,100,000 for other activities related to the
project. The amount represents a $23,000,000 increase over
current year funding. The Committee recommends $4,000,000 in
project engineering and design funding at various locations
(under Project 02-SC-002). The Committee also authorizes
construction of the Nanoscience Research Center upon completion
of the project engineering and design.
The Committee recognizes the importance the SNS offers in
advancing the frontiers of science and technology and the
opportunities it will provide for future scientific and
industrial research and development for the United States. The
design and construction of this next-generation, accelerator-
based, neutron scattering facility, located at the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, is a collaborative effort involving six
DOE national laboratories (Argonne, Brookhaven, Jefferson,
Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge).
Safeguards and Security
The Committee recommendation provides $49,818,000 for
safeguards and security. This is the amount of the current year
level and $5,594,000 less than the Administration's request.
The Committee remains unconvinced that such a large 1-year
increase is warranted.
Science Program Direction
The Committee recommendation provides $142,385,000 for
science program direction, the amount of the request and
$3,140,000 above the current year.
other energy research programs
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $171,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 164,050,000
Committee recommendation................................ 163,050,000
The Committee recommendation provides $163,050,000 for
other energy research programs, an increase of $18,050,000 over
the current year appropriation.
Advanced Scientific Computing Research.--The Committee
recommendation provides $163,050,000 for advanced scientific
computing research. This amount is the amount of the request.
The Committee directs that $15,000,000 of available funds be
used to support the Scientific Discovery Through Advanced
Computing (SciDAC) program and that $10,000,000 of available
funds be used for terascale operating systems development.
MULTI-PROGRAM ENERGY LABORATORIES FACILITIES SUPPORT
The Committee recommends $30,175,000, the amount of the
request, for multi-program energy laboratories facilities
support. The amount recommended is $3,755,000 less than the
current year. The program supports infrastructure activities at
the five national labs under the direction of the Office of
Science.
The recommendation includes construction funding for two
projects, 02-SC-001 and MEL-001, at the level of the request.
fusion energy sciences
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $255,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 248,495,000
Committee recommendation................................ 248,495,000
The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is
$248,495,000, the amount of the request.
Departmental Administration
(gross)
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $225,942,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 221,618,000
Committee recommendation................................ 208,948,000
(miscellaneous revenues)
Appropriations, 2001.................................... -$151,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... -137,810,000
Committee recommendation................................ -137,810,000
The Department recommends $208,948,000 for departmental
administration, a decrease of $12,670,000 from the
Administration's request.
Inspector General
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $31,430,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 31,430,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,000,000
The Committee has provided $30,000,000 for the Office of
the Inspector General.
recommendation summary
Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in
the table at the end of this title.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Atomic energy defense activities of the Department of
Energy are provided for in two categories--the National Nuclear
Security Administration and Other Defense Related Activities.
Appropriation accounts under the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) are weapons activities, defense nuclear
non-proliferation, naval reactors, and the Office of the
Administrator. Other defense related activities include
appropriation accounts for defense environmental restoration
and waste management, defense facilities closure projects,
defense environmental management privatization, other defense
activities and defense nuclear waste disposal.
National Nuclear Security Administration
Weapons Activities
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $5,006,153,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 5,300,025,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,062,891,000
Weapons activities provide for the continuing assurance of
safety, reliability, and security of the nuclear weapons in our
enduring nuclear weapons stockpile while adhering to the terms
of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Necessary ingredients for
success in this important mission include a highly skilled and
motivated workforce, advanced experimental and computational
facilities and equipment, adequately invested and maintained
physical plants and supporting infrastructure, and
exceptionally focused and dedicated management.
The Committee is concerned about several of these necessary
ingredients for success. Whereas significant progress can be
cited with respect to the development of advanced experimental
and computational capabilities, the Committee notes that the
capability to certify the safety and reliability of new
components for our aging nuclear weapons stockpile is still
many years in the future. Moreover, the initial emphasis on
developing these new computational and experimental
capabilities has contributed to an unacceptable decline in the
physical plants and supporting infrastructure of the nuclear
weapons enterprise. Finally, the Committee is deeply concerned
with the lack of progress toward the definition and
establishment of an enduring production complex capable of
providing cost-effective, scalable production of all necessary
nuclear weapon components. In response to the Committee's
concerns, recommended appropriations in many categories exceed
the amounts requested by the President.
directed stockpile work
An appropriation of $1,081,337,000 is recommended for
directed stockpile work of the NNSA, an increase of $37,546,000
over the budget request.
Directed stockpile work encompasses all activities that
directly support specific weapons in the nuclear stockpile as
directed by the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan. These
activities include current maintenance and day-to-day care of
the stockpile as well as planned refurbishments as outlined by
the stockpile life extension program (SLEP). This category also
includes research, development and certification activities in
direct support of each weapon system, and long-term future-
oriented research and development to solve either current or
projected stockpile problems.
Stockpile research and development.--The Committee
recommends $365,145,000, an increase of $59,685,000 over the
request, providing for assessment, certification, surveillance
and maintenance research and development for systems comprising
our enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. The increased
appropriation above the requested amount is meant to support
acceleration in stockpile life extension research and
development activities for the W80 and W76 weapons systems, and
necessary additional sub-critical experiments at the Nevada
Test Site.
Stockpile maintenance.--The Committee recommends
$367,223,000, an increase of $4,730,000 over the request, to
provide for stockpile maintenance and production and exchange
of limited life components in the enduring stockpile, as well
as major refurbishment activities to extend the stockpile life
of the W87, W76, W80, and B61 weapons systems.
Stockpile evaluation.--The Committee recommends
$178,589,000, a reduction of $2,245,000 over the request, to
support the implementation of changes recommended by the 150-
day study, reduction of the surveillance backlogs at the
Savannah River Site and the Y-12 Plant, and reinstatement of
the shelf life program at the Pantex and Y-12 Plants.
Dismantlement/disposal.--The Committee recommends
$29,066,000, a decrease of $6,348,000 below the request. From
the funds provided, a single combined line at the Pantex Plant
servicing dismantlement of the W56 and W79 weapons systems will
be expanded to one full line for the W56 and two full lines for
the W79.
Production Support.--The Committee recommends $134,896,000,
a decrease of $17,994,000 from the request, for production
support.
campaigns
An appropriation of $2,259,505,000 is recommended for the
campaigns of the NNSA, an increase of $263,092,000 over the
budget request.
The stockpile stewardship campaigns program establishes and
applies a number of highly focused and integrated scientific
and technical capabilities to maintain indefinitely the safety,
security, and reliability of the Nation's nuclear weapons
stockpile without nuclear testing. The present structure of the
campaigns program reflects the current investment in developing
advanced facilities and capabilities while simultaneously
applying existing and developing capabilities to important
stewardship tasks.
Primary certification.--The Committee recommends
$52,661,000, a decrease of $2,869,000 from the request, to
support sub-critical experiments and other activities necessary
to support the required delivery date for a certified pit.
Dynamic materials properties.--The Committee recommends
$93,644,000, a decrease of $4,166,000 above the request. Within
the available funds, the Administration is directed to make
full use of existing and developing capabilities for materials
properties studies, including the Joint Actinide Shock Physics
Experimental Research facility at the Nevada Test Site, and the
High Pressure Collaborative Access Team facility at the
synchrotron light source at Argonne National Laboratory.
Advanced radiography.--The Committee recommends
$85,803,000, an increase of $25,293,000 over the request. The
recommendation includes $25,000,000 to continue research,
development, and conceptual design for an advanced hydrodynamic
test facility, including further development and evaluation of
proton radiography techniques. It is the intent of the
Committee to continue this important effort even though any
decision on whether to proceed to construction is still several
years away. Additional funds are provided to fund other
experiments that might be conducted in the Contained Firing
Facility, the U1-A tunnel complex, or other appropriate
experimental facilities.
Secondary certification and nuclear systems margins.--The
Committee recommends $44,524,000, a decrease of $2,746,000 over
the budget request for radiation source development, radiation
case dynamics studies, radiation transport and the effects of
aging and refurbishment on secondary performance. From the
funds available, the Administration is encouraged to continue,
and expand as appropriate, its investments in high energy
density physics research through university grants and
partnerships.
Enhanced surety.--The Committee recommends $39,298,000, an
increase of $4,501,000 over the request, to develop and
demonstrate advanced initiation concepts and enhanced use
denial concepts, and to enhance efforts to establish high
precision, micro system technologies for enhanced surety of
future weapon systems.
Weapons systems engineering certification.--The Committee
recommends $26,665,000, an increase of $2,622,000 over the
request, to accelerate the acquisition of experimental data
necessary to validate new models and simulation tools being
developed in the Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign.
Nuclear survivability.--The Committee recommends
$23,694,000, an increase of $4,644,000 over the request, to
develop and validate tools to simulate nuclear environments for
survivability assessments and certification; restore the
capability to provide nuclear-hardened microelectronics and
microsystem components for the enduring stockpile; and
accelerate the qualification and certification of the neutron
generator and the arming, fusing and firing system for the
refurbished W76.
ICF ignition and high yield, Project 96-D-111 National
Ignition Facility.--The Committee recommends $492,443,000, an
increase of $24,500,000 over the budget request.
Within the available funds, the Committee provides
$59,259,000 for ICF/NIF Experimental Support Activities, an
increase of $24,500,000 over the budget request. Of this
increase, $10,000,000 is provided to enhance NIF diagnostics
and cryogenic target activities; and $7,000,000 is provided to
supplement the base program.
The Committee understands that a ``National Petawatt Laser
Strategic Plan'' has been commissioned by the Administration.
The Administrator is encouraged to pursue this initiative,
including, within the strategic planning, the research and
development of supporting technologies necessary to ensure that
the Nation retains and maintains its leadership in ultra-short
pulse laser technology. Guided by the strategic plan, and from
available funds within the ICF/NIF Experimental Support
Activities, $3,000,000 is provided for conceptual and
preliminary engineering design studies for the realization of a
petawatt-class laser at the Sandia National Laboratory's Z-
Machine, and $2,000,000 is provided to initiate development of
critical short-pulse laser technologies, like damage resistant
gratings.
The Committee recommendation provides $7,886,000 for
University Grants/Other ICF Support, an increase of $2,500,000
above the budget request, to complete the transfer and initiate
operations of a petawatt laser or high-power, short-pulse laser
at the University of Nevada-Reno. The Committee believes that
early access to an operating petawatt-class laser will provide
valuable opportunities for exploring technology options for
incorporation in the next generation of petawatt lasers.
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department to complete
this primary activity before undertaking next-generation
petawatt laser development at other universities.
The Committee is aware of interest in next-generation
short-pulse laser technology expresssed by the University of
Rochester and the University of Texas. Within available funds,
the Committee recommends the support of conceptual and
engineering design studies of the capabilities proposed by the
University of Rochester and the University of Texas. Finally,
the Administrator is encouraged to promote and facilitate
access by university scientists and others to short-pulse laser
facilities for research and exploration of high density physics
phenomena.
The Committee recommendation includes $33,450,000, the
amount of the budget request, for the Omega laser at the
University of Rochester and $10,000,000 for the Naval Research
Laboratory.
The Committee recommendation provides $245,000,000 for NIF
construction, Project 96-D-111, the same as the budget request.
While the Administrator has certified continued fidelity with
the re-structured cost and deliverable schedule, the Committee
notes that a high level of vigilance and extraordinary
management attention is warranted to maintain confidence in
satisfactory progress of this important project. The Committee
agrees with a recent General Accounting Office review that
highlighted, among other things, persistent DOE oversight
problems. The Committee continues to be concerned that the same
individuals who have performed oversight of NIF since 1999,
when costs and schedules grew unnoticed, continue to have that
role.
Advanced simulation and computing.--The Committee
recommends $711,185,000, the amount of the budget request. The
Committee recommends the following amounts for ASCI
construction projects:
Project 01-D-101 Distributed information systems
laboratory, SNL, Livermore, CA.--The Committee recommends
$12,400,000, an increase of $7,000,000 over the request.
Project 00-D-103 Terascale simulation facility, LLNL,
Livermore, CA.--The Committee recommends $22,000,000, an
increase of $17,000,000 over the request.
Project 00-D-107 Joint computational engineering
laboratory, SNL, Albuquerque, NM.--The Committee recommends
$15,377,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the request.
Pit manufacturing and certification.--The Committee
recommends $237,713,000, an increase of $109,168,000 over the
budget request, to fully fund all activities necessary for
engineering certification and subcritical experiments that
maintain the revised certification schedule.
The Committee notes that the Administration's schedule of
accomplishments proposed under the recommended increase would
delay the availability of a certified pit until fiscal year
2009. Circumstances make such a delay unacceptable. The
Administrator shall carefully reconsider his pit-manufacturing
plan to reestablish the full capability to manufacture all pit
types before successful certification of a manufactured pit
validates the manufacturing process.
The Committee notes that in spite of repeated encouragement
to accelerate the acquisition of essential certification data
by making use of subcritical experiments at the Nevada Test
Site, the originally promised average of 4 subcritical
experiments per year has never been achieved. The Administrator
shall direct his new pit manufacturing and certification
oversight office to ensure that the most productive and cost
effective means are emphasized as the program attempts to
reduce the intervening period between pit manufacturing
capability and pit certification.
High explosives manufacturing and weapons assembly/
disassembly readiness.--The Committee recommends $6,846,000, an
increase of $2,886,000 above the request, to establish
production-scale high explosives manufacturing and
qualification; to deploy and validate technologies and
facilities for production re-qualification; and, to demonstrate
and validate Enterprise Integration and Collaborative
Manufacturing.
Non-nuclear readiness.--The Committee recommends
$18,187,000, an increase of $5,983,000 above the request, to
deploy commercial products and processes for components
supporting the B61, W80, and W76 stockpile life extension
programs; to modify existing tritium loading and cleaning
facilities to support stockpile life extension programs; and,
to support neutron target loading and detonator production.
Materials readiness.--The Committee recommends $1,209,000,
the same as the budget request.
Secondary Readiness.--The Committee recommends $68,445,000,
an increase of $45,276,000 over the request, to support
modernization of secondary manufacturing facilities and
infrastructure at Y-12 and to ensure readiness to meet near-
term stockpile life extension requirements.
Tritium readiness.--The Committee recommends $138,475,000,
an increase of $14,000,000 above the request, to provide
funding required for establishing commercial light water
reactor production of tritium, construction of the Tritium
Extraction Facility at Savannah River Site, and to complete the
APT demonstration and design preparatory to its close out. The
Committee recommends $42,350,000 for tritium readiness and
$81,125,000 for construction of the tritium extraction facility
at Savannah River.
Cooperative agreements.--The Committee recognizes that
cooperative agreements with universities are important
resources for developing essential technical data for stockpile
stewardship. Additionally, such long-term relationships with
universities allow considerable opportunity for promoting
advanced studies and recruiting the future workforce in
technical areas that are critical to the continuing stewardship
enterprise. The Committee understands that the NNSA is
establishing a new office to be responsible for administering
university partnerships, cooperative agreements and/or other
long-term university relationships. The Committee applauds this
initiative and encourages the Administrator to review the
benefits to the program and the Department of delegating much
of the day-to-day management and administration to offices in
the regions containing the participating universities.
readiness in technical base and facilities
An appropriation of $1,607,716,000 is recommended for
readiness in technical base and facilities, an increase of
$160,728,000 over the original budget request. Readiness in
technical base and facilities encompasses efforts to provide
for the physical infrastructure and operational readiness
required to conduct the directed stockpile work and campaign
activities at the laboratories, the test site and the
production plants.
Operations of facilities.--The Committee recommends
$939,479,000, an increase of $109,052,000 over the budget
request, to maintain warm standby readiness for all RTBF
facilities with some allowance for inflation. The
recommendation includes an additional $10,000,000 for the
operation of pulsed-power facilities at Sandia National
Laboratory and an additional $10,000,000 for the Z machine
refurbishment.
Technology transfer and industrial partnerships.--The
Committee recognizes that partnerships with industry may enable
the weapons complex to accomplish its mission more efficiently.
Such partnership can provide access to new technologies,
processes and expertise that improve NNSA's mission
capabilities. One of the most successful technology transfer
and commercialization efforts in the Department of Energy has
occurred around Sandia National Laboratories, resulting in over
30 start-up ventures and thousands of jobs created. The
Committee has included an additional $3,000,000 and directs the
NNSA to follow this successful public/private partnership model
at the other NNSA laboratories and the Nevada Test Site.
Uranium 233.--The Committee commends the Department for
issuing a draft Request for Proposal to process Uranium 233
stored in building 3019 in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to obtain
Thorium-229 needed for cancer treatment and recommends a total
program funding of $21,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. This should
fully support the scope necessary to meet the quality, cost,
and schedule requirements associated with providing for the
medical use of the extremely short half-life Actinium-225 and
includes $6,000,000 to address necessary security at building
3019. The Department should limit the scope of the Request for
Proposal to the processing of U-233 already in Oak Ridge, or
provide additional resources for expanded scope. The Committee
recommends that the Department assign responsibility as soon as
possible for Actinium-25 production to a contractor clearly
capable of achieving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
required Good Manufacturers Practice (GMP). The Committee
further recommends that the expanded scope of the Request for
Proposal include the shutdown of building 3019 making it read
for decontamination by the Department.
Program readiness.--The Committee recommends $197,220,000,
an increase of $9,094,000 above the budget request, to enhance
Nevada Test Site readiness and maintain materials processing
and component manufacturing readiness.
Special projects.--The Committee recommends $60,385,000, a
decrease of $4,108,000 over the request.
Within funds available from the appropriation: $2,000,000
is provided to the Remote Sensing Laboratory to enhance pilot
proficiency, aircraft safety, and to enhance aviation support
elements that have experienced greater operational demands than
earlier expected; $1,000,000 is provided for improvements to
the Tumor Registry in the State of Nevada to improve the
accuracy and completeness of health records of a population
with significant potential radiation exposure; $2,500,000 to
implement Departmental strategy to preserve the history of the
Manhattan Project at sites to be determined by the Secretary in
consultation with the Federal Preservation Office within the
Department; and, $2,000,000 for the installation of exhibits at
the Atomic Testing History Institute.
Material recycle and recovery.--The Committee recommends
$90,310,000, a decrease of $11,001,000 below the budget
request.
Nuclear weapons incident response.--The Committee
recommends $88,923,000, a decrease of $202,000 below the
request, to enhance the state of response readiness at various
locations. Within the available funds, the Administrator is
directed to conduct a study and report to the Committee by
March 1, 2002, on the status of planning for remediation and
disposition of a weapon in various states of disrepair that
could result from credible accidents or incidents.
Construction projects.--The Committee recommends an
appropriation of $212,557,000, an increase of $57,893,000, for
construction projects under Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities.
The following list details changes in appropriations for
construction projects under Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities:
Project 02-D-101 Microsystems and engineering science
applications, SNL.--The Committee recommends $67,000,000, an
increase of $65,000,000 above the budget request.
Project 02-D-103 Project engineering and design, various
locations.--The Committee recommends $31,130,000, an increase
of $21,950,000 above the budget request. Of this amount,
$4,000,000 is provided for architecture and engineering
services (Title I and Title II) for modernization of the
surface support facilities for the U1A complex.
Project 02-D-105 Engineering technology complex upgrade,
LLNL.--The Committee recommends $4,750,000, an increase of
$4,750,000 above the budget request.
Project 02-D-107 Electrical power systems safety,
communications, and bus upgrades, NV.--The Committee recommends
$6,200,000, and increase of $2,693,000 above the budget
request.
Project 01-D-103 Preliminary project engineering and
design, various locations.--The Committee recommends
$16,379,000, a decrease of $29,000,000 below the budget
request.
Project 99-D-108 Renovate existing roadways, Nevada Test
Site.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000, an increase of
$2,000,000 above the budget request.
Facilities and infrastructure
The Committee recommends $300,000,000, an increase of
$300,000,000 above the request, to establish a new program line
dedicated to re-capitalization of existing operational
facilities to halt their deterioration and restore the robust
and enduring mission readiness that relies on them.
The Committee is aware of the need for funding a facilities
and infrastructure program, but is concerned the Administration
has not established a facilities management structure adequate
to ensure the funds are used to address those items that will
be most effective in reducing long-term costs and risk. The
Committee directs the Administrator to provide a semi-annual
report to the Committee on the status of the facilities and
infrastructure program. The report should include the current
priority list of proposed facilities and infrastructure
projects, including cost and schedule requirements. For each
site, the report should include: a current 10-year site plan
that demonstrates the reconfiguration of its facilities and
infrastructure to meet its missions and to address its long-
term operational costs and return on investment; the current
budget for all facilities and infrastructure funding in this
program as well as all funding for maintenance and
infrastructure upgrades funded through other parts of the
budget; and the current status of each facilities and
infrastructure project compared to the original baseline cost,
schedule, and scope.
Secure transportation asset
The Committee recommends $123,300,000, an increase of
$1,500,000 over the budget request. Of the amount appropriated,
$79,071,000 is provided for operations and equipment, and
$44,229,000 is provided for program direction.
Safeguards and security
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $448,881,000,
an increase of $71,285,000 over the current year enacted level.
The security budget request has increased dramatically over
the last several years and again this year. The Committee
recommendation includes $364,323,000 for physical security, an
increase of $33,783,000 over the current year enacted level;
$58,000,000 for cyber security, an increase of $29,156,000 over
the current year enacted level; and $16,958,000 for personnel
security, an increase of $2,338,00 over the current year
enacted level.
The Committee has provided the full budget request but
remains very concerned about the safeguards and security
operations at the NNSA and the relevant imbalance of physical
verses cyber security. The Committee strongly urges the
Administrator to find more efficient and effective ways to
conduct physical security operations in order to free-up
resources to address the evolving cyber security threats.
The Congress provided $20,000,000 in supplemental
appropriations in fiscal year 2000 for the NNSA to perform
planning, analysis, testing and evaluation necessary to develop
the highest value alternatives for improving cyber security
throughout the nuclear weapons complex. Congress further
directed that NNSA should submit to Congress by January 15,
2001, a detailed plan with an estimated cost and schedules for
a reasonable program that defends the highest value targets. On
February 22, the Integrated Cyber Security Initiative plan was
submitted to Congress. The plan did not have an estimated cost
but indicated that the cost estimates for each of the 4 years
in the implementation phase would be developed and validated by
a panel of cyber security and network experts. The Committee
looks forward to receiving this information and considering a
request in the future for resources to support the initiative.
PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $271,137,000
for program direction, the amount of the budget request.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $872,273,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 773,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 880,500,000
The Committee recommendation provides $880,500,000, an
increase of $106,800,000 over the original budget request.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities of the NNSA are
directed to reducing the serious global danger of weapons of
mass destruction (WMD). The NNSA utilizes the highly
specialized scientific, technical, analytical, and operational
capabilities of the NNSA and its national laboratories as well
as other Department of Energy laboratories. Its mission is to
prevent the spread of WMD materials, technology and expertise;
detect the proliferation of WMD worldwide; reverse the
proliferation of nuclear weapons capabilities; dispose of
surplus materials in accordance with terms set forth in
agreements between the United States and Russia; and store
surplus fissile materials in a safe manner pending disposition.
The Committee continues to strongly support these important
national security programs.
The Committee is concerned that the proposed budget would
seriously erode progress made at great expense to assure the
Nation's capability to detect and mitigate global proliferation
activities. Accordingly, the Committee recommends restoration
of much of the funds, especially in the accounts supporting
research and development, arms control activities, and
materials protection and accountability. The Committee supports
the proposed increases in surplus nuclear materials disposition
and safe storage.
Nonproliferation and verification research and
development.--The Committee recommends $222,355,000, an
increase of $52,059,000 over the original budget request.
The recommended increase is provided to continue the
important remote sensing and verification technology research,
development and deployment, and to continue to invest in the
development of essential technologies for responding to the
growing threat of chemical or biological terrorism.
The Nonproliferation and Verification, Research and
Development program is essential for stable long-term research
and the development of unique science and technology
competencies needed for the increasing demands of arms control,
nonproliferation, domestic nuclear safeguards and security,
energy security, and emergency management. Within available
funds, $5,000,000 is provided to establish the Remote Systems
Test and Engineering Center at the Remote Sensing Laboratory
(RSL) to provide Department-wide support for prototype
engineering design, development, test, and evaluation of remote
sensing and data acquisition missions of the Department. The
Committee recommends $2,500,000 in support for the 3-year
research effort by the Caucasus Seismic Information Network.
The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the
Incorporate Research Institutions for Seismology PASSCAL
Instrument Center.
Project 00-D-192 Nonproliferation and international
security center (NISC), Los Alamos National laboratory.--The
Committee recommends $35,806,000, the same as the budget
request.
Arms Control.--The Committee recommends $138,000,000 for
arms control and nonproliferation, an increase of $36,500,000
over the original budget request.
The Arms Control and Nonproliferation program is the focal
point within the Department of Energy which supports the U.S.
arms control and nonproliferation policies, and provides
leadership and representation within the Department in the
international arms control and nonproliferation community. The
goal is to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation by
integrating the Department's assets and efforts, including
those of the national laboratories and contractors, to provide
technical support to the U.S. Government's foreign policy and
national security objectives.
The increase recommended by the Committee is meant to
continue important activities that would be curtailed or
significantly reduced under the budget request. From within the
additional funds recommended, the Committee restores
$14,500,000 for the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI),
$15,000,000 for Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP),
$7,000,000 for continuing the efforts for disposition of spent
nuclear fuel in Kazakhstan, and $1,000,000 to continue
activities in support of spent nuclear fuel storage and a
geologic repository in Russia. The Committee directs that a
portion of the additional resources recommended for IPP be
expended in projects within the Russian nuclear cities in
coordination with the Nuclear Cities Initiative.
International materials protection, control, and
accounting.--The recommendation provides $143,800,000 for
international material protection, control, and accounting
[MPC&A] activities, an increase of $5,000,000 over the original
budget request. The Committee continues to consider these
activities extremely important to reducing the threat created
by the breakup of the former Soviet Union. The increased
funding will allow for additional material consolidation and
control work, an expanded program of MPC&A at several Russian
Navy sites, and expanded MPC&A efforts within defense-related
and important civilian and regulatory sites in Russia. The
Committee continues to believe that these activities are
critical elements of the United States non-proliferation
efforts.
HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) Transparency
Implementation.--The Committee recommendation includes
$13,950,000, the amount of the budget request for the HEU
Transparency Implementation program of the Department of
Energy. This program is responsible for ensuring that the non-
proliferation aspects of the February 1993 agreement between
the United States and the Russian Federation are met. This
Agreement covers the purchase over 20 years of low enriched
uranium [LEU] derived from at least 500 metric tons of HEU
removed from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons. Under the
Agreement, conversion of the HEU components into LEU is
performed in Russian facilities. The purpose of this program is
to put into place those measures agreed to by both sides, that
permit the United States to have confidence that the Russian
side is abiding by the Agreement.
International nuclear safety.--The Committee recommends
$19,500,000, and increase of $5,700,000 above the budget
request, to implement permanent improvements in Russian nuclear
safety culture as well as improvements in the regulatory
framework for Soviet-design reactor operations in nine former
Soviet Union countries.
Fissile materials disposition.--The Committee recommends
$299,089,000, an increase of $9,000,000 above the budget
request, to maintain operations in the United States and in
Russia according to the plan under the budget request. Planned
construction projects are slowed to accommodate the shortfall
in the disposition account.
Excess weapons grade plutonium in Russia is a clear and
present danger to the security of the United States because of
the possibility that it will fall into the hands of non-Russian
entities or provide Russia with the ability to rebuild its
nuclear arsenal at a rate the United States may be unable to
equal. For that reason, the Committee considers the
Department's material disposition program of comparable
importance to weapons activities; both are integral components
of our national effort to reduce any threat posed to the United
States and to deter the threat that remains.
The Committee recommendation includes $130,089,000 for U.S.
surplus materials disposition, the same as the original budget
request.
The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 to
support the joint United States-Russian program to develop an
advanced reactor to consume large quantities of excess weapons
plutonium. The primary purpose of the joint United States-
Russian program for the development of an advanced reactor is
the design and eventual construction of a demonstration reactor
in Russia for the purpose of surplus weapons plutonium
disposition. However, the United States must take full
advantage of the development of this attractive technology for
a possible next generation nuclear power reactor for United
States and foreign markets. Therefore, the Committee directs
the Department to explore opportunities to develop and exploit
this technology for commercial purposes.
program direction
The Committee recommendation includes $50,000,000 for
program direction within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, a
decrease of $1,459,000 below the budget request
Naval Reactors
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $688,645,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... $688,045,000
Committee recommendation................................ $688,045,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
The Naval Reactors Program within the NNSA provides for the
design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval
nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores having long fuel
life, high reliability, improved performances, and simplified
operating and maintenance requirements. The nuclear propulsion
plants and cores cover a wide range of configurations and power
ratings suitable for installation in naval combat vessels
varying in size from small submarines to large surface ships.
The Committee recommendation is $688,045,000, the amount of the
budget request.
Office of the Administrator
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $9,978,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 15,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,000,000
The Committee has included $15,000,000 to cover the
expenses of the Office of the Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
recommendation summaries
Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in
the table at the end of this title.
OTHER DEFENSE RELATED ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $4,963,533,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 4,548,708,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,389,868,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,389,868,000
for Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
programs for fiscal year 2002. This is $841,160,000 over the
budget request.
The Department's environmental management program is
responsible for identifying and reducing health and safety
risks, and managing waste at sites where the Department carried
out defense nuclear energy or weapons research and production
activities which resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed
waste contamination. The environmental management program goals
are to eliminate and manage the urgent risk in the system;
emphasize health and safety for workers and the public;
establish a system that increases managerial and financial
control; and establish a stronger partnership between DOE and
its stakeholders. The ``Defense environmental restoration and
waste management'' appropriation is organized into two program
accounts, site/project completion and post-2006 completion to
reflect the emphasis on project completion and site closures.
Fiscal year 1999 budget request was the first fiscal year
that the environmental management program structure was aligned
with DOE's 2006 plan. All activities have been organized into
projects, which have more defined scopes, schedules, and costs
that support a defined end state at each specific site. In
addition, the environmental management budget is organized into
program decision units that focus on the end-date of the
project. Those decision units are site closure, site/project
completion, post-2006 completion; science and technology; and
program direction.
The Committee believes that the environmental management
program of the Department of Energy is beginning to turn the
corner in the cleanup effort. Leadership within the Department
has put in place initiatives which have produced greater
efficiencies, reduced cost growth on many projects, and
resulted in moving the program from the study phase to the
cleanup of facilities. The Committee believes that the program
recommended for fiscal year 2002 is within the acceptable range
and will meet all legal requirements and other agreements.
Budget constraints will check future large increases and
additional efficiencies will be required. However, even with
these constraints, tremendous progress continues to be made
both in tangible, on-the-ground results and in the business
practices within the program. The Committee expects the
Department to continue to seek every opportunity to bring about
more efficiencies and tough businesslike approaches to program
execution. The Department should continue the critical review
of the need and requirement for each individual support service
contract, and duplicative and overlapping organizational
arrangements and functions.
While it is imperative that the Department's cleanup costs
be brought down, there are instances where relatively small
amounts of additional funding invested in the near-term offer
the potential for significant reductions in long-term budgetary
requirements. The Committee continues to be concerned with
growing landlord costs required to maintain buildings and
facilities that are ready for demolition, and the high costs
associated with temporarily storing and monitoring wastes that
are ready for permanent disposal. In order to reduce these
costs in the future, it is important that the Department
expedite demolition work, waste shipments, and permanent
storage whenever possible.
Finally, the Committee notes that the Department's budget
request is not sufficient to satisfy both the existing State-
imposed legal requirements in place at several sites and
maintain prompt and efficient cleanup at other sites not
subject to such requirements. The effect of these budget
shortcomings will be to force States to seek legally binding
agreements with the Department. The Department should recognize
that these legal agreements, while negotiated with the best
information available to all parties at the time of their
finalization, may lock the Department into cleanup paths that
are not optimized as further information and technologies
become available. For this reason, it is strongly in the
Government's interest to avoid imposition of additional legal
requirements by States. The Committee strongly urges the
Department to request budget levels that maintain significant
annual progress at each site and thus avoid the need for States
to seek new legal requirements to ensure that sites within
their borders are adequately considered in budget requests.
Site and Project Completion
An appropriation of $1,003,646,000 is recommended for site
and project completion activities, including $979,480,000 for
operation and maintenance, and $24,166,000 for construction.
This account will provide funding for projects that will be
completed by fiscal year 2006 at sites or facilities where a
DOE mission (for example, environmental management, nuclear
weapons stockpile stewardship, or scientific research) will
continue beyond 2006. These activities are focused on
completing projects by 2006 and distinguishes these projects
from the long-term projects or activities at the sites, such as
high level waste vitrification or the Department's other
enduring missions. The largest amount of funding requested is
for activities at the Hanford, WA, Savannah River, SC, and
Idaho sites. A significant amount of work is expected to be
completed at these sites by 2006, although environmental
management and other stewardship activities will continue
beyond 2006.
For construction, the Committee recommendation includes all
requested projects except for Project 92-D-140, the F and H
canyon exhaust upgrades at Savannah River. The Committee
reduces the recommendation for this project by $15,790,000 due
to the Department's decision to eliminate some activities and
defer others.
The Committee recommendation includes additional funding
for the following activities above the level of the
Administration's request: $34,300,000 for clean-up activities
at Hanford; $20,000,000 in additional funding at Idaho to
ensure Settlement Agreement and legal requirements for the
shipping of waste out-of-state are met; $28,500,000 in
additional funding for clean-up activities at Savannah River;
$10,000,000 in enhanced funding for remediation at South
Valley, Kansas City, Pantex, and Sandia; and $5,100,000 in
enhanced funding for remediation at ETEC and Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory.
The Committee is aware that the Department provides
approximately $500,000 per year to the State of Oregon each
year to cover costs of its clean-up effort, including emergency
drills, planning activities, technical review of DOE's waste
management and clean-up plans, participation in the Hanford
Advisory Board meetings and other meetings at Hanford. The
Committee recommends that this DOE contribution be increased to
$1,000,000 to pay for increased costs.
The Committee is aware of a pending MOU between the
University of Georgia and the University of South Carolina with
respect to the Savannah River Ecology Lab and expects the
Department of Energy to provide adequate funding to support
this long-term partnership. Within available funds, the
Committee also recommends that the Department's on-going
relationship with the University of South Carolina's Center for
Water Resources be continued at $800,000, an increase of
$50,000 over last year's level.
The Committee understands the Department is prepared to
transfer up to 2,000 acres for the use of Pueble of San
Ildefonso and approximately 100 acres to the County of Los
Alamos. The Committee recommendation includes an additional
$9,000,000 to expedite the remediation and conveyance of the
land consistent with the direction of section 632 of Public Law
105-119.
Post-2006 Completion
The Committee recommendation for post-2006 completion
activities is $3,574,001,000, which includes $2,133,779,000 in
operating expenses for post-2006 completion, $1,033,468,000 in
operating expenses for the Office of River Protection, a
$420,000,000 contribution to the UED&D fund, and $705,317,000
for construction.
The Post-2006 completion request supports projects that are
projected to continue well beyond 2006. As cleanup is
completed, it will be necessary for environmental management to
maintain a presence at most sites to monitor, maintain, and
provide information on the continued residual contamination.
These activities are required to ensure the reduction in risk
to human health is maintained.
Post-2006 construction.--The Committee recommends the
amount of the Administration's request.
Post-2006 operation and maintenance.--The Committee
recommendation includes additional funding for the following
activities above the level of the Administration's request:
$125,200,000 for clean-up activities at Hanford; $146,500,000
for clean-up activities at Savannah River; $100,000,000 for
clean-up activities at Idaho; $4,400,000 in restored funding
for the Nevada Test Site; $4,000,000 to continue the
Underground Test Area groundwater flow characterization
drilling program at an accelerated pace; $14,300,000 to
continue remediation, waste management, and nuclear materials
stewardship activities at Los Alamos National Lab in New
Mexico; $14,000,000 to continue remediation, waste management,
and nuclear materials stewardship at Lawrence Livermore
National Lab in California. Within available funds, the
Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program and the HAMMER program
are to be funded at current year levels.
The Committee expects that portions of the additional
$105,200,000 for Hanford will support the River Corridor
Initiative, including the continued cocooning of the four
former plutonium production reactors and the removal and
disposal of hazardous and radiologically contaminated soil
along the shoreline of the Hanford Reach portion of the
Columbia River.
Additionally, the Committee expects that, within the
additional $100,000,000 provided for Idaho, $15,000,000 will be
used to initiate activities associated with the demonstration
of waste retrieval at the subsurface disposal area at the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
The Committee recommends that the current cooperative
agreement with the Waste-management Education and Research
Consortium be extended for a 5 year period at a level of
$2,500,000 annually to continue its support for environmental
education and technology development.
Carlsbad Field Office.--The Committee recommendation
includes $201,170,000, an increase of $36,600,000 above the
budget request and $10,284,000 above the current year level.
The recommendation includes and additional $21,600,000 for
operations of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The
additional resources are required in order increase the
transportation capabilities required to meet the Department's
commitments at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site
and to correct for unjustified regulatory assumptions used in
the development of the Department's budget request. The
recommendation includes an additional $5,000,000 to continue
the U.S. Mexico Border Health Commission/Materials Corridor
Partnership Initiative. The Committee recommendation includes
$10,000,000 to begin implementing program-wide best practices
to optimize waste processing, developing new technology
solutions, and developing a mobile/modular approach for small
quantity sites.
Regulatory requirements dictate that characterization data
for each drum of waste shipped to WIPP must be reviewed
multiple times to insure compliance. The Committee recognizes
that the process could be streamlined and improved with more
comprehensive and timely data review and reporting. The
Committee encourages the Department to work through the
Carlsbad Field Office to implement a standardized, automated
program for TRU waste characterization throughout the DOE
complex using a secure web-based system that allows user access
and regulatory transparency without regard to the location of
the user, and includes interfaces between all existing site
operation databases.
Office of River Protection.--The Committee recommendation
includes additional funding for the following activities above
the level of the President's request: $165,000,000 for the
Hanford Waste Treatment Plant and $56,000,000 for tank farm
operations. Total recommended fiscal year 2002 funding for the
waste treatment plant construction is $665,000,000. The
Department is expected to continue making PILT payments to
counties that have the Hanford reservation within their
boundaries at last year's level.
Science and Technology
An appropriation of $271,700,000 is recommended for science
and technology activities related to the environmental waste
cleanup program, an increase of $75,700,000 over the original
budget request.
The Science and Technology Program provides new or improved
technologies and research results that reduce risks to workers,
the public and the environment; reduce cleanup costs; and/or
provide solutions to environmental problems that currently have
no solutions. New and improved technologies have the potential
to reduce environmental restoration and cleanup costs by an
estimated several billion dollars. The Committee continues to
be impressed with the ability of the Department's Deactivation
and Decommisioning Focus Area Program to deploy cost effective
new technologies that both help to reduce the overall D&D
mortgage and protect workers, communities, and the environment.
The Committee provides $27,100,000 in total funding to the D&D
focus area program, the same as the current year. The Committee
also provides total funding of $33,800,000 for the Industry and
University programs managed by the National Energy Technology
Laboratory.
The Committee recommendation includes additional funding
for the following activities above the level of the
Administration's request: $20,000,000 for Idaho Environmental
Systems research and analysis; $5,000,000 for work within the
University Involvement in Science and Technology program;
$7,000,000 for the Western Environmental Technology Office;
$4,000,000 for new basic science awards; and $6,000,000 for new
research and development projects; $6,000,000 to continue
evaluation, development, and demonstration of the Advanced
Vitrification System; $3,000,000 to continue the engineering,
development, and deployment of prototypical monitoring systems
and microsensor systems for the remote monitoring of the
Underground Test Area; $5,000,000 for the Diagnostic
Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory (DIAL); and $4,350,000
for the university robotics research program.
Within available funds, $4,000,000 is provided for the
Subsurface Science Research Institute, operated by the Inland
Northwest Research Alliance and the Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory. Within available funds, $350,000
above the level of the Administration's request is provided to
complete the conceptual design of the Subsurface Geosciences
Laboratory in Idaho.
EXCESS FACILITIES
The Committee recommendation for excess facilities is
$1,300,000, which is the same as the budget request. These
funds are provided to manage the transfer for the final
disposition of excess contaminated physical facilities leading
to significant risk and cost reductions. In fiscal year 2002
these funds are to be used for the transfer of excess
facilities at the Pantex Plant, Savannah River Site, and the Y-
12 Plant from other DOE organizations.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommendation for safeguards and security is
$205,621,000, which is the same as the budget request.
Program Direction
The Committee recommendation for program direction totals
$355,761,000, which is the same as the budget request.
Program direction provides the overall direction and
administrative support for the environmental management
programs of the Department of Energy.
Defense Facility Closure Projects
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $1,080,331,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 1,050,538,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,080,538,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,080,538,000
for the site closure program, an increase of $30,000,000 over
the request.
The ``Site closure'' account includes funding for sites
where the environmental management program has established a
goal of completing the cleanup mission by the end of fiscal
year 2006. After the cleanup mission is complete at a site, no
further DOE mission is envisioned, except for limited long-term
surveillance and maintenance. This account provides funding to
cleanup the Rocky Flats, Fernald, Mound, Ashtabula, and
Battelle Columbus sites. The additional $30,000,000 is provided
for clean-up activities at the Fernald, Ashtabula, and Columbus
sites.
The Committee continues to believe that a closure fund,
which targets funding at specific facilities whose accelerated
closure in the near-term results in significantly reduced out-
year costs, is important in freeing up budgetary resources in
the longer term. However, the Committee remains concerned that
several projects in both the defense and non-defense closure
accounts are in danger of not meeting 2006 closure goals. Once
it becomes clear that a closure deadline cannot be met prior to
2006, the Department should propose moving the project into a
post-2006 account. Such a move would ensure adequate attention
and resources for the projects that remain in the closure
account.
Defense Environmental Management Privatization
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $65,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 141,537,000
Committee recommendation................................ 157,537,000
An appropriation of $157,537,000 is recommended for the
environmental management privatization initiative. The
Committee recommendation includes $10,826,000 for a
construction contingency fund for the Transuranic Waste
Treatment Facility at Oak Ridge in Tennessee; $49,332,000 for
Spent Nuclear Fuel Dry Storage in Idaho; $26,050,000 for
environmental/waste management at Oak Ridge in Tennessee;
$13,329,000 for the privatization of the Paducah Disposal
Facility in Kentucky; and $2,000,000 for the on-site disposal
cell at Portsmouth, Ohio.
The Committee recommendation also includes $56,000,000 for
the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project, an increase of
$16,000,000 over the budget request. This recommended amount,
together with the expected fiscal year 2001 supplemental
appropriation of $29,600,000, is sufficient to cover the
Department's obligations on this project in fiscal year 2002.
The Committee notes the existence of an ongoing Defense
Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit to review the project
contractor's cost management to date and whether the Department
is meeting its obligation requirements. If the DCAA audit
indicates the Department is not meeting its obligation
responsibilities, the Committee will expect an appropriate
supplemental appropriation request in fiscal year 2002.
recommendation summaries
Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in
the table at the end of this title.
Other Defense Activities
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $582,466,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 527,614,000
Committee recommendation................................ 564,168,000
Intelligence
The Committee recommendation totals $40,844,000, an
increase of $4,785,000 over the current year appropriation.
The Office of Intelligence provides information and
technical analysis on international arms proliferation, foreign
nuclear programs, and other energy-related matters to
policymakers in the NNSA, the Department and other U.S.
Government agencies. The focus of the Department's intelligence
analysis and reporting is on emerging proliferant nations,
nuclear technology transfers, foreign nuclear materials
production, and proliferation implications of the breakup of
the former Soviet Union.
security and emergency operations
The Committee recommendation for security and emergency
operations is $247,565,000, a decrease of $21,685,000 from the
current year appropriation.
Nuclear Safeguards.--The Committee recommendation provides
$121,188,000 for nuclear safeguards, an increase of $4,779,000
from the current year appropriation.
Security Investigations.--The Committee recommendation
provides $44,927,000, the amount of the budget request.
Corporate Management Information Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes no funding for the corporate management
information program. If the Department wishes to undertake the
activities envisioned for this program in fiscal year 2002, the
Committee directs that they be paid for using available funds
within the Departmental Administration account or from program
direction accounts of beneficiary programs. The Committee sees
no apparent connection to the specific mission of the Security
and Emergency Operations program or even the broader mission of
Other Defense Activities. The Committee is concerned that the
Department is attempting to disguise large increases in
departmental administration costs by dispersing department-wide
activities to individual program offices.
Self-Protecting Data.--The Committee is aware of self-
protecting data software that allows for the encryption,
control and management of any electronic document, web page or
e-mail message even after distribution. The Committee strongly
urges the Department to use available funds in fiscal year 2002
to review such capabilities and incorporate them into the
Department's cyber security activities.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation provides
$81,450,000 for program direction, a decrease of $1,685,000
from the budget request.
independent oversight and performance assurance
The Committee recommendation provides $14,904,000 for
independent oversight and performance assurance, the amount of
the budget request.
The independent oversight and performance assurance program
provides independent evaluation and oversight of safeguards,
security, emergency management and cyber security for the
Department at the Secretary's direction.
Counterintelligence
An appropriation of $46,389,000, the amount of the request,
is provided for the counterintelligence activities of the
Department of Energy. This is an increase of $1,189,000 over
the current years appropriation.
The Counterintelligence program has the mission of
enhancing the protection of sensitive technologies,
information, and expertise against foreign intelligence,
industrial intelligence, and terrorist attempts to acquire
nuclear weapons information or advanced technologies from the
National Laboratories.
Advanced accelerator applications
The Committee recommendation includes a total of
$70,000,000 for Advanced Accelerator Applications, including
$15,000,000 provided in Project 98-D-126 Accelerator Production
of Tritium. The recommended amount includes $6,000,000 for
research and development of technologies for economic and
environmentally-sound refinement of spent nuclear fuel at the
University of Nevada-Las Vegas; and $2,000,000 for the Idaho
Accelerator Center.
The Department provided the Report to Congress: The
Advanced Accelerator Applications Program Plan as required by
House Report 106-988 accompanying the Fiscal Year 2001 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act. This Report outlined
a program plan to build an Accelerator-Driven Test Facility
(ADTF) as part of achieving four central objectives: (1)
providing proof-of-principle demonstration of an accelerator-
driven sub-critical multiplier; (2) conducting research on the
viability of transmutation for waste and spent fuel management;
(3) enhancing the Nation's nuclear science and technology
education infrastructure; and (4) providing a more robust back-
up tritium production capability for national security. The
cost estimate for the ADTF, plus additional information now
available to the Committee, leads to the Committee's
recommendation that the Advanced Accelerator Applications
program should not move towards construction of the ADTF in the
near future.
The Committee directs the Department to instead broaden the
program's research efforts into optimized waste management
strategies leading towards combination of reprocessing with
transmutation and energy extraction involving both a new
generation of reactors (either liquid-metal or helium cooled)
with safety features comparable to Generation IV reactors and
an accelerator-based system. The Department is directed to
explore research and development for comprehensive spent fuel
management strategies, which emphasize avoidance of
proliferation issues and have minimal environmental impact,
along with reasonable economic projections that include
efficient utilization of the energy resource of the spent fuel.
The Department should develop goals for the overall program
that combine these attributes with final waste forms that
significantly decrease the long-term toxicity to levels far
below that of spent fuel. As part of the program, the
Department should evaluate the benefits and costs realized from
only reprocessing as well as each additional treatment step.
Finally, the Department is directed to close-out the
Accelerator Production of Tritium project in fiscal year 2002
and document all information pertinent to its utility as a
back-up source of tritium for the stockpile.
The Department is directed to utilize existing facilities
to accomplish short-term research and demonstrations. The
Committee anticipates that test facilities added to the LANSCE
facility and/or the Fast Flux Test Facility may provide
opportunities for the most rapid progress, and is encouraged to
consider such facilities. In addition, the Department is
directed to seek out and utilize cooperation with international
partners who share common goals. Utilization of international
research facilities is encouraged where it advances program
goals.
The Department is directed to prepare a report for Congress
by March 1, 2003, outlining a long-term program plan which may
include construction of new facilities required by the program.
The Committee is encouraged by the possibilities for
leveraging the work accomplished thus far in the accelerator
production of tritium (APT) program to accomplish a wide range
of science and technology missions. Importantly, advanced,
high-energy accelerators could be central to a future strategy
to transmute spent nuclear fuel into less toxic, shorter-lived
materials, thereby ensuring greater public confidence in a
national strategy to manage spent nuclear fuel of a nuclear
waste repository.
In order to pursue these important technology opportunities
while still completing necessary design work for a facility
capable of producing tritium to meet possible future defense
requirements, the Committee directs the Department to establish
an Office of Advanced Accelerator Applications (AAA) within the
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. The mission
of the AAA program shall include conducting scientific,
engineering research, development and demonstrations on: (1)
accelerator production of tritium as a back-up technology; (2)
transmutation of spent nuclear fuel and waste; (3) material
science; and (4) other advanced accelerator applications. The
Committee further directs that the Department transfer the APT
program from the Office of Defense Programs within the NNSA to
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology for
integration into the AAA office. The AAA program shall assure
the accelerator-based back-up capability of producing tritium
for the Nation's nuclear stockpile, based on requirements
defined by the Office of Defense Programs. The Committee
encourages the participation of international collaborators,
industrial partners, and support for new graduate engineering
and science students and professors at U.S. universities.
environment, safety and health
The Committee recommendation provided $122,285,000 for
Environmental, Safety and Health activities including
$23,293,000 for program direction. The mission of the Office of
Environmental, Safety and Health is to protect the health and
safety of Department of Energy workers, the public, and the
environment and is to be the Department's independent advocate
for safety, health and the environment.
The Committee notes that the effective management, storage,
retrieval, and integration of environmental, scientific and
medical records is important to ensuring public health and
safety throughout the Department of Energy complex. Current
Department record keeping is managed at local offices using a
variety of methods and formats. Furthermore, current approaches
to digitization contain overlapping functions, are not
standardized, and may result in records with a very short
useful life. Integrated management of these records would
ensure data preservation and access, and may result in
substantial savings through reduced information technology
operations and maintenance costs. Therefore, the Committee
recommendation includes $6,000,000 to establish a program at
the University of Nevada-Las Vegas for Department-wide
management of electronic records.
The Committee is concerned that the Department's current
program of medical screening and education at the gaseous
diffusion plants will not be sufficient to complete all
necessary screening and evaluation under the current contract
period. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to
ensure that all necessary screening and evaluation of workers,
both current and former, is adequate and that those workers
with an elevated risk of lung cancer will receive a lung scan.
The Committee recommendation also provides $2,500,000 for the
University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky to
undertake epidemiological studies of workers to identify
exposure pathways; and $1,000,000 to provide medical screening
for workers employed at the Amchitka Nuclear Weapons Test Site;
and not less than $1,000,000 for health studies of workers at
the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant.
Energy Employees Compensation Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $15,000,000, the amount of the request,
for the Energy Employees Compensation Initiative. Title 36 of
the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-
398) established the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program to provide benefits to DOE contractor
workers made ill as a result of exposures from nuclear weapons
production. The Department is responsible for establishing
procedures to assist workers in filing compensation claims.
Worker and Community Transition
The Committee has provided an appropriation of $20,000,000
for these activities for fiscal year 2002. This is the same as
the budget request.
The Worker and Community Transition budget provides funding
for activities associated with enhanced benefits beyond those
required by contract, existing company policy or collective
bargaining agreements at defense nuclear facilities. The goals
of the program are to mitigate the impacts on workers and
communities from contractor work force restructuring, and to
assist community planning for all site conversions, while
managing the transition to the reduced work force that will
better meet ongoing mission requirements through the
application of best business practices.
The Committee urges the Department to improve the manner in
which it deals with the communities the Worker and Community
Transition program serves. The Committee reminds the Department
that the communities and community re-use organizations that
rely on these funds are generally small. Slow release of funds
or, worse, reneging on previously promised funding, can be
devastating to these communities and organizations.
NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 for
national security programs administrative support. This is the
amount of the request and the same as the current year. This
fund pays for departmental services that are provided in
support of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Office of Hearings and Appeals
An appropriation of $2,893,000 is recommended for the
Office of Hearings and Appeals. The Office of Hearings and
Appeals conduct all of the Department's adjudicative process
and provides various administrative remedies as may be
required. The goal is to promote successful and uninterrupted
DOE operations through the deliberate, expeditious and
equitable resolution of all claims of adverse impact emanating
from the operations of the Department.
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 310,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 250,000,000
The Committee recommends $250,000,000 for defense nuclear
waste disposal.
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES
Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in
the table at the end of this title.
Power Marketing Administrations
Public Law 95-91 transferred to the Department of Energy
the power marketing functions under section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 and all other functions of the Department
of the Interior with respect to the Bonneville Power
Administration, Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern
Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the
Bureau of Reclamation, now included in the Western Area Power
Administration.
All power marketing administrations except Bonneville are
funded annually with appropriations, and related receipts are
deposited in the Treasury. Bonneville operations are self-
financed under authority of Public Law 93-454, the Federal
Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974, which
authorizes Bonneville to use its revenues to finance operating
costs, maintenance and capital construction, and sell bonds to
the Treasury if necessary to finance any remaining capital
program requirements.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request provides authority for
the use of offsetting collections from the sale of electricity
to finance purchase of power and wheeling expenses previously
funded by direct appropriations.
bonneville power administration fund
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is the Federal
electric power marketing agency in the Pacific Northwest, a
300,000-square-mile service area that encompasses Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and small portions of
adjacent Western States in the Columbia River drainage basin.
Bonneville markets hydroelectric power from 31 Corps of
Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation projects, as well as
thermal energy from non-Federal generating facilities in the
region. Bonneville also markets and exchanges surplus electric
power interregionally over the Pacific Northwest-Pacific
Southwest Intertie with California, and in Canada over
interconnections with utilities in British Columbia.
Bonneville constructs, operates, and maintains the Nation's
largest high-voltage transmission system, consisting of over
15,000 circuit-miles of transmission line and 324 substations
with an installed capacity of 21,500 megawatts. BPA is the
largest power wholesaler in the northwest and provides about 46
percent of the region's electric energy supply and about three-
fourths of the region's electric power transmission capacity.
Public Law 93-454, the Federal Columbia River Transmission
System Act of 1974, placed Bonneville on a self-financed basis.
With the passage in 1980 of Public Law 96-501, the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act,
Bonneville's responsibilities were expanded to include meeting
the net firm load growth of the region, investing in cost-
effective, regionwide energy conservation, and acquiring
generating resources to meet these requirements.
The Committee is aware that BPA and many of its
transmission customers have agreed to form a technical review
committee to assure that BPA's transmission investments are
prioritized to ensure cost-effective and reliable service for
the consumers of the Northwest. The Committee fully supports
the formation of this committee.
Borrowing authority.--A total of $3,750,000,000 has been
made available to Bonneville as permanent borrowing authority.
Each year the Committee reviews the budgeted amounts Bonneville
plans to use of this total and reports a recommendation on
these borrowing requirements. For fiscal year 2002, the
Committee recommends an additional increment of $374,500,000 in
new borrowing authority, the same as the budget request, for
transmission system construction, system replacement, energy
resources, fish and wildlife, and capital equipment programs.
The Committee recommendation includes language that
provides Bonneville with a $2,000,000,000 increase in borrowing
authority to address critical infrastructure needs arising from
anticipated increases in generation within Bonneville's service
area. Bonneville is not permitted to obligate any funds from
this additional obligation authority in fiscal year 2002 and,
as previously noted, may not obligate more than $374,500,000 of
its permanent borrowing authority in fiscal year 2002.
Limitation on direct loans.--The Committee recommends that
no new direct loans be made in fiscal year 2002.
Budget revisions and notification.--The Committee expects
Bonneville to adhere to the borrowing authority estimates
recommended by the Congress and promptly inform the Committee
of any exceptional circumstances which would necessitate the
need for Bonneville to obligate borrowing authority in excess
of such amounts.
operation and maintenance, southeastern power administration
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $3,891,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 4,891,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,891,000
The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric
power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11
Southeastern States. There are 23 projects now in operation
with an installed capacity of 3,092 megawatts. Southeastern
does not own or operate any transmission facilities and carries
out its marketing program by utilizing the existing
transmission systems of the power utilities in the area. This
is accomplished through transmission arrangements between
Southeastern and each of the area utilities with transmission
lines connected to the projects. The utility agrees to deliver
specified amounts of Federal power to customers of the
Government, and Southeastern agrees to compensate the utility
for the wheeling service performed.
The Committee concurs with the financing of purchased power
and wheeling costs as proposed in the fiscal year 2002 budget
request.
operation and maintenance, southwestern power administration
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $28,038,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 28,038,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,038,000
The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing
agent for the power generated at Corps of Engineers'
hydroelectric plants in the six-State area of Kansas, Oklahoma,
Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana with a total installed
capacity of 2,158 megawatts. It operates and maintains some
1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating projects, and
24 substations, and sells its power at wholesale primarily to
publicly and cooperatively owned electric distribution
utilities.
The Committee concurs with the financing of purchased power
and wheeling costs as proposed in the fiscal year 2002 budget
request.
construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance western area
power administration
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $165,465,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 169,465,000
Committee recommendation................................ 169,465,000
The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for
marketing electric power generated by the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International
Boundary and Water Commission which operate hydropower
generating plants in 15 Central and Western States encompassing
a 1.3-million-square-mile geographic area. Western is also
responsible for the operation and maintenance of almost 17,000
miles of high-voltage transmission lines with 258 substations.
Western distributes power generated by 55 plants with a maximum
operating capacity of 10,576 megawatts.
Western, through its power marketing program, must secure
revenues sufficient to meet the annual costs of operation and
maintenance of the generating and transmission facilities,
purchased power, wheeling, and other expenses, in order to
repay all of the power investment with interest, and to repay
that portion of the Government's irrigation and other nonpower
investments which are beyond the water users' repayment
capability. Under the Colorado River Basin power marketing
fund, which encompasses the Colorado River Basin, Fort Peck,
and Colorado River storage facilities, all operation and
maintenance and power marketing expenses are financed from
revenues.
Of the total resources available to the Western Power
Administration, $6,092,000 shall be transferred to the Utah
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission.
The Committee concurs with the financing of purchased power
and wheeling costs as proposed in the fiscal year 2002 budget
request.
falcon and amistad operating and maintenance fund
Creation of the Falcon and Amistad operating and
maintenance fund was directed by the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, fiscal years 1994-95. This legislation also
directed that the fund be administered by the Administrator of
the Western Area Power Administration for use by the
Commissioner of the United States Section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission to defray operation, maintenance,
and emergency costs for the hydroelectric facilities at the
Falcon and Amistad Dams in Texas.
The Committee recommendation is $2,663,000, the same as the
budget request.
recommendation summaries
Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in
the table at the end of this title.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $175,200,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 181,155,000
Committee recommendation................................ 181,155,000
salaries and expenses--revenues applied
Appropriations, 2001.................................... -$175,200,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... -181,155,000
Committee recommendation................................ -181,155,000
The Committee recommendation provides $181,155,000, the
amount of the budget request, for the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). Revenues are established at a rate equal to
the amount provided for program activities, resulting in a net
appropriation of zero.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates key
interstate aspects of the electric power, natural gas, oil
pipeline, and hydroelectric industries.
committee recommendation
The Committee's detailed funding recommendation for
programs in Title III, Department of Energy, are contained in
the following table.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee recommendation
compared to--
Project title Current year Budget Committee -------------------------------
enacted estimate recommendation Current year Budget
enacted estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY SUPPLY
RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
Renewable energy technologies:
Biomass/biofuels energy systems:
Power systems................................................... 40,800 37,754 53,000 +12,200 +15,246
Transportation.................................................. 46,160 44,201 50,000 +3,840 +5,799
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Biomass/biofuels energy systems..................... 86,960 81,955 103,000 +16,040 +21,045
Geothermal technology development................................... 27,000 13,900 32,000 +5,000 +18,100
Hydrogen research................................................... 27,000 26,881 35,000 +8,000 +8,119
Hydropower.......................................................... 5,000 4,989 9,300 +4,300 +4,311
Solar energy:
Concentrating solar power....................................... 13,800 1,932 15,300 +1,500 +13,368
Photovoltaic energy systems..................................... 75,775 39,000 70,000 -5,775 +31,000
Solar building technology research.............................. 3,950 2,000 7,000 +3,050 +5,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Solar energy........................................ 93,525 42,932 92,300 -1,225 +49,368
Wind energy systems................................................. 40,000 20,500 45,000 +5,000 +24,500
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Renewable energy technologies.............................. 279,485 191,157 316,600 +37,115 +125,443
===============================================================================
Electric energy systems and storage:
High temperature superconducting R&D................................ 37,000 36,819 43,000 +6,000 +6,181
Energy storage systems.............................................. 6,000 5,987 12,000 +6,000 +6,013
Transmission reliability............................................ 9,000 8,940 16,000 +7,000 +7,060
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Electric energy systems and storage........................ 52,000 51,746 71,000 +19,000 +19,254
===============================================================================
Renewable support and implementation:
Departmental energy management...................................... 2,000 1,000 1,000 -1,000 ..............
International renewable energy program.............................. 5,000 2,500 3,000 -2,000 +500
Renewable energy production incentive program....................... 4,000 3,991 4,000 .............. +9
Renewable Indian energy resources................................... 6,600 .............. 4,000 -2,600 +4,000
Renewable program support........................................... 4,000 2,059 3,000 -1,000 +941
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Renewable support and implementation....................... 21,600 9,550 15,000 -6,600 +5,450
===============================================================================
National renewable energy laboratory.................................... 4,000 5,000 12,000 +8,000 +7,000
Program direction....................................................... 18,700 19,200 21,000 +2,300 +1,800
===============================================================================
TOTAL, RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES................................. 375,785 276,653 435,600 +59,815 +158,947
===============================================================================
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Advanced radioisotope power system...................................... 32,200 29,094 29,094 -3,106 ..............
===============================================================================
Isotopes: Isotope support and production................................ 24,715 24,683 24,683 -32 ..............
Construction: 99-E-201 Isotope production facility (LANL)........... 2,500 2,494 2,494 -6 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Isotope support and production.......................... 27,215 27,177 27,177 -38 ..............
Offsetting collections.............................................. -8,000 -9,000 -9,000 -1,000 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Isotopes................................................... 19,215 18,177 18,177 -1,038 ..............
===============================================================================
University reactor fuel assistance and support.......................... 12,000 11,974 19,000 +7,000 +7,026
===============================================================================
Research and development:
Nuclear energy plant optimization................................... 5,000 4,500 9,000 +4,000 +4,500
Nuclear energy research initiative.................................. 35,000 18,079 38,000 +3,000 +19,921
Nuclear energy technologies......................................... 7,500 4,500 14,000 +6,500 +9,500
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Research and development................................... 47,500 27,079 61,000 +13,500 +33,921
===============================================================================
Infrastructure:
ANL-West operations................................................. 39,150 34,107 34,107 -5,043 ..............
Fast flux test facility (FFTF)...................................... 44,010 38,439 38,439 -5,571 ..............
Test reactor area landlord.......................................... 7,575 7,283 7,283 -292 ..............
Construction:
99-E-200 Test reactor area electrical utility upgrade, Idaho 925 950 950 +25 ..............
National Engineering Laboratory, ID........................
95-E-201 Test reactor area fire and life safety 500 500 500 .............. ..............
improvements, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, ID...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.................................. 1,425 1,450 1,450 +25 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Test reactor area landlord.................... 9,000 8,733 8,733 -267 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Infrastructure................................... 92,160 81,279 81,279 -10,881 ..............
===============================================================================
Nuclear facilities management:
EBR-II shutdown..................................................... 8,800 4,200 4,200 -4,600 ..............
Disposition of spent fuel and legacy materials...................... 16,200 16,267 16,267 +67 ..............
Disposition technology activities................................... 9,850 9,990 9,990 +140 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Nuclear facilities management.............................. 34,850 30,457 30,457 -4,393 ..............
===============================================================================
Program direction....................................................... 22,000 25,062 25,062 +3,062 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY............................................. 259,925 223,122 264,069 +4,144 +40,947
===============================================================================
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH
Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense).................. 16,000 14,973 13,973 -2,027 -1,000
Program direction....................................................... 19,998 20,527 19,527 -471 -1,000
===============================================================================
TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH............................. 35,998 35,500 33,500 -2,498 -2,000
===============================================================================
ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
Technical information management program................................ 1,600 1,600 1,600 .............. ..............
Program direction....................................................... 7,000 7,370 6,370 -630 -1,000
===============================================================================
TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.................................. 8,600 8,970 7,970 -630 -1,000
===============================================================================
Subtotal, Energy supply........................................... 680,308 544,245 741,139 +60,831 +196,894
===============================================================================
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554)................. -1,456 .............. .............. +1,456 ..............
General reduction....................................................... .............. .............. -5,000 -5,000 -5,000
Offset from nuclear energy royalties.................................... -2,352 .............. .............. +2,352 ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security................................... -16,582 .............. .............. +16,582 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY.............................................. 659,918 544,245 736,139 +76,221 +191,894
===============================================================================
NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Site closure............................................................ 81,636 43,000 43,000 -38,636 ..............
===============================================================================
Site/project completion................................................. 61,621 64,119 64,119 +2,498 ..............
Post 2006 completion.................................................... 137,744 120,053 120,053 -17,691 ..............
Excess facilities....................................................... .............. 1,381 1,381 +1,381 ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554)................. -612 .............. .............. +612 ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security................................... -3,189 .............. .............. +3,189 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT....................... 277,200 228,553 228,553 -48,647 ..............
===============================================================================
URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund:
Decontamination and decommissioning................................. 273,038 241,641 286,941 +13,903 +45,300
Uranium/thorium reimbursement....................................... 72,000 1,000 1,000 -71,000 ..............
Depleted UF6 conversion project..................................... .............. 10,000 .............. .............. -10,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Uranium enrichment D&D fund................................ 345,038 252,641 287,941 -57,097 +35,300
===============================================================================
Other Uranium Activities:
Maintenance of facilities and inventories........................... 29,193 99,000 99,000 +69,807 ..............
Pre-existing liabilities............................................ 11,330 11,784 11,784 +454 ..............
Depleted UF6 conversion project..................................... 21,877 .............. 10,000 -11,877 +10,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Other uranium activities................................... 62,400 110,784 120,784 +58,384 +10,000
===============================================================================
Reduction for safeguards and security................................... -14,071 .............. .............. +14,071 ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554)................. -865 .............. .............. +865 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION............. 392,502 363,425 408,725 +16,223 +45,300
===============================================================================
SCIENCE
High energy physics:
Research and technology............................................. 234,720 247,870 256,870 +22,150 +9,000
Facility operations................................................. 459,010 456,830 456,830 -2,180 ..............
Construction:
00-G-307 SLAC office building................................... 5,200 .............. .............. -5,200 ..............
99-G-306 Wilson hall safety improvements, Fermilab.............. 4,200 .............. .............. -4,200 ..............
98-G-304 Neutrinos at the main injector, Fermilab............... 23,000 11,400 11,400 -11,600 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction........................................ 32,400 11,400 11,400 -21,000 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Facility operations................................. 491,410 468,230 468,230 -23,180 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, High energy physics.................................... 726,130 716,100 725,100 -1,030 +9,000
===============================================================================
Nuclear physics......................................................... 369,890 360,510 373,000 +3,110 +12,490
===============================================================================
Biological and environmental research................................... 498,760 432,970 480,000 -18,760 +47,030
Construction: 01-E-300 Laboratory for Comparative and Functional 2,500 10,000 10,000 +7,500 ..............
Genomics, ORNL.....................................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Biological and environmental research...................... 501,260 442,970 490,000 -11,260 +47,030
===============================================================================
Basic energy sciences program:
Materials sciences.................................................. 456,111 434,353 454,353 -1,758 +20,000
Chemical sciences................................................... 223,229 218,714 228,714 +5,485 +10,000
Engineering and geosciences......................................... 40,816 38,938 42,938 +2,122 +4,000
Energy biosciences.................................................. 33,714 32,400 34,400 +686 +2,000
Construction:
02-SC-002 Project engineering and design (VL)................... .............. 4,000 4,000 +4,000 ..............
99-E-334 Spallation neutron source (ORNL)....................... 259,500 276,300 276,300 +16,800 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction........................................ 259,500 280,300 280,300 +20,800 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Basic energy sciences.................................. 1,013,370 1,004,705 1,040,705 +27,335 +36,000
===============================================================================
Advanced scientific computing research.................................. 170,000 163,050 163,050 -6,950 ..............
Energy research analyses................................................ 1,000 1,000 1,000 .............. ..............
===============================================================================
Multiprogram energy labs--facility support:
Infrastructure support.............................................. 1,160 1,020 1,020 -140 ..............
Oak Ridge landlord.................................................. 10,711 7,359 7,359 -3,352 ..............
Construction:
MEL-001 Multiprogram energy laboratory infrastructure projects, 22,059 18,613 18,613 -3,446 ..............
various locations..............................................
02-SC-001 Multiprogram energy laboratories, project engineering .............. 3,183 3,183 +3,183 ..............
design, various locations......................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction........................................ 22,059 21,796 21,796 -263 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Multiprogram energy labs--fac. support................. 33,930 30,175 30,175 -3,755 ..............
===============================================================================
Fusion energy sciences program.......................................... 255,000 248,495 248,495 -6,505 ..............
Facilities and infrastructure........................................... .............. .............. 10,000 +10,000 +10,000
Safeguards and security................................................. 49,818 55,412 49,818 .............. -5,594
===============================================================================
Program direction:
Field offices....................................................... 83,307 64,400 63,000 -20,307 -1,400
Headquarters........................................................ 51,438 73,525 74,385 +22,947 +860
Science education................................................... 4,500 4,460 5,000 +500 +540
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Program direction.......................................... 139,245 142,385 142,385 +3,140 ..............
===============================================================================
Subtotal, Science................................................. 3,259,643 3,164,802 3,273,728 +14,085 +108,926
===============================================================================
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554)................. -7,011 .............. .............. +7,011 ..............
General reduction....................................................... -34,047 .............. .............. +34,047 ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security................................... -38,244 .............. .............. +38,244 ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable work.............................. .............. -4,912 -4,912 -4,912 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, SCIENCE.................................................... 3,180,341 3,159,890 3,268,816 +88,475 +108,926
===============================================================================
NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
Repository program...................................................... 135,200 70,577 15,000 -120,200 -55,577
Program direction....................................................... 62,800 64,402 10,000 -52,800 -54,402
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554)................. -420 .............. .............. +420 ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security................................... -6,926 .............. .............. +6,926 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL..................................... 190,654 134,979 25,000 -165,654 -109,979
===============================================================================
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
Administrative operations:
Salaries and expenses:
Office of the Secretary......................................... 5,000 4,700 4,700 -300 ..............
Board of Contract Appeals....................................... 878 911 911 +33 ..............
Chief financial officer......................................... 32,148 36,464 34,000 +1,852 -2,464
Contract reform and privatization............................... 2,500 .............. .............. -2,500 ..............
Engineering and project management.............................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Congressional and intergovernmental affairs..................... 5,000 5,478 4,500 -500 -978
Economic impact and diversity................................... 5,126 5,230 5,000 -126 -230
General counsel................................................. 22,724 23,058 22,000 -724 -1,058
International affairs........................................... 8,500 8,481 8,500 .............. +19
Management and administration................................... 77,800 76,392 69,000 -8,800 -7,392
Policy office................................................... 6,600 6,649 6,600 .............. -49
Public affairs.................................................. 3,900 4,581 4,000 +100 -581
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Salaries and expenses............................... 170,176 171,944 159,211 -10,965 -12,733
Program support:
Minority economic impact........................................ 1,500 1,498 1,500 .............. +2
Policy analysis and system studies.............................. 422 420 400 -22 -20
Environmental policy studies.................................... 1,000 919 1,000 .............. +81
Corporate management information program........................ 12,000 .............. .............. -12,000 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Program support..................................... 14,922 2,837 2,900 -12,022 +63
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative operations.............................. 185,098 174,781 162,111 -22,987 -12,670
===============================================================================
Cost of work for others................................................. 74,027 71,837 71,837 -2,190 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Departmental Administration............................. 259,125 246,618 233,948 -25,177 -12,670
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554)................. -165 .............. .............. +165 ..............
Use of prior year balances and other adjustments........................ -8,000 .............. .............. +8,000 ..............
Funding from other defense activities................................... -25,000 -25,000 -25,000 .............. ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security................................... -18 .............. .............. +18 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental administration (gross)........................ 225,942 221,618 208,948 -16,994 -12,670
Miscellaneous revenues.................................................. -151,000 -137,810 -137,810 +13,190 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net).......................... 74,942 83,808 71,138 -3,804 -12,670
===============================================================================
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Office of Inspector General............................................. 31,500 31,430 30,000 -1,500 -1,430
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554)................. -70 .............. .............. +70 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL................................ 31,430 31,430 30,000 -1,430 -1,430
===============================================================================
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
Directed stockpile work:
Stockpile research and development.................................. 272,300 305,460 365,145 +92,845 +59,685
Stockpile maintenance............................................... 279,994 362,493 367,223 +87,229 +4,730
Stockpile evaluation................................................ 174,710 180,834 178,589 +3,879 -2,245
Dismantlement/disposal.............................................. 29,260 35,414 29,066 -194 -6,348
Production support.................................................. 149,939 152,890 134,896 -15,043 -17,994
Field engineering, training and manuals............................. 4,400 6,700 6,418 +2,018 -282
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Directed stockpile work.................................... 910,603 1,043,791 1,081,337 +170,734 +37,546
===============================================================================
Campaigns:
Primary certification............................................... 41,400 55,530 52,661 +11,261 -2,869
Dynamic materials properties........................................ 74,408 97,810 93,644 +19,236 -4,166
Advanced radiography................................................ 58,000 60,510 85,803 +27,803 +25,293
Construction: 97-D-102 Dual-axis radiographic hydrotest facility 35,232 .............. .............. -35,232 ..............
(LANL), Los Alamos, NM.........................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Advanced radiography................................ 93,232 60,510 85,803 -7,429 +25,293
Secondary certification and nuclear systems margins................. 52,964 47,270 44,524 -8,440 -2,746
Enhanced surety..................................................... 40,600 34,797 39,298 -1,302 +4,501
Weapons system engineering certification............................ 16,300 24,043 26,665 +10,365 +2,622
Nuclear survivability............................................... 15,400 19,050 23,694 +8,294 +4,644
Enhanced surveillance............................................... 106,651 82,333 82,333 -24,318 ..............
Advanced design and production technologies......................... 75,735 75,533 75,533 -202 ..............
Inertial confinement fusion and high yield.......................... 250,500 222,943 247,443 -3,057 +24,500
Construction: 96-D-111 National ignition facility, LLNL......... 199,100 245,000 245,000 +45,900 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Inertial confinement fusion......................... 449,600 467,943 492,443 +42,843 +24,500
Advanced simulation and computing................................... 716,175 711,185 711,185 -4,990 ..............
Construction:
01-D-101 Distributed information systems laboratory, SNL, 2,300 5,400 12,400 +10,100 +7,000
Livermore, CA..............................................
00-D-103, Terascale simulation facility, LLNL, Livermore, CA 5,000 5,000 22,000 +17,000 +17,000
00-D-105 Strategic computing complex, LANL, Los Alamos, NM.. 56,000 11,070 11,070 -44,930 ..............
00-D-107 Joint computational engineering laboratory, SNL, 6,700 5,377 15,377 +8,677 +10,000
Albuquerque, NM............................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.................................... 70,000 26,847 60,847 -9,153 +34,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Advanced simulation and computing............... 786,175 738,032 772,032 -14,143 +34,000
Pit manufacturing and certification................................. 125,038 128,545 237,713 +112,675 +109,168
Secondary readiness................................................. 20,000 23,169 68,445 +48,445 +45,276
High explosives manufacturing and weapons assembly/disassembly .............. 3,960 6,846 +6,846 +2,886
readiness..........................................................
Non-nuclear readiness............................................... .............. 12,204 18,187 +18,187 +5,983
Materials readiness................................................. 40,511 1,209 1,209 -39,302 ..............
Tritium readiness................................................... 77,000 43,350 42,350 -34,650 -1,000
Construction:
98-D-125 Tritium extraction facility, SR.................... 75,000 81,125 81,125 +6,125 ..............
98-D-126 Accelerator production of Tritium, various 15,000 .............. 15,000 .............. +15,000
locations..................................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.................................... 90,000 81,125 96,125 +6,125 +15,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Tritium readiness............................... 167,000 124,475 138,475 -28,525 +14,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Campaigns.......................................... 2,105,014 1,996,413 2,259,505 +154,491 +263,092
===============================================================================
Readiness in technical base and facilities:
Operations of facilities............................................ 1,252,232 830,427 939,479 -312,753 +109,052
Program readiness................................................... 74,500 188,126 197,220 +122,720 +9,094
Special projects.................................................... 48,297 64,493 60,385 +12,088 -4,108
Material recycle and recovery....................................... 30,018 101,311 90,310 +60,292 -11,001
Containers.......................................................... 11,876 8,199 8,199 -3,677 ..............
Storage............................................................. 9,075 10,643 10,643 +1,568 ..............
Nuclear weapons incident response................................... 56,289 89,125 88,923 +32,634 -202
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and fac..................... 1,482,287 1,292,324 1,395,159 -87,128 +102,835
Construction:
02-D-101 Microsystem and engineering science applications .............. 2,000 67,000 +67,000 +65,000
(MESA), SNL....................................................
02-D-103 Project engineering and design, various locations...... .............. 9,180 31,130 +31,130 +21,950
02-D-105 ETCU upgrade, LLNL..................................... .............. .............. 4,750 +4,750 +4,750
02-D-107 Electrical power systems safety communications and bus .............. 3,507 6,200 +6,200 +2,693
upgrades, NV...................................................
01-D-103 Preliminary project engineering and design (PE&D), 35,500 45,379 16,379 -19,121 -29,000
various locations..............................................
01-D-124 HEU storage facility, Y-12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN........ 17,800 9,500 .............. -17,800 -9,500
01-D-126 Weapons Evaluation Test Laboratory Pantex Plant, 3,000 7,700 7,700 +4,700 ..............
Amarillo, TX...................................................
01-D-800 Sensitive compartmented information facility, LLNL..... 2,000 12,993 12,993 +10,993 ..............
99-D-103 Isotope sciences facilities, LLNL, Livermore, CA....... 5,000 4,400 4,400 -600 ..............
99-D-104 Protection of real property (roof reconstruction-Phase 2,800 2,800 2,800 .............. ..............
II), LLNL, Livermore, CA.......................................
99-D-106 Model validation and system certification center, SNL, 5,200 4,955 4,955 -245 ..............
Albuquerque, NM................................................
99-D-108 Renovate existing roadways, Nevada Test Site, NV....... 2,000 .............. 2,000 .............. +2,000
99-D-125 Replace boilers and controls, Kansas City plant, Kansas 13,000 300 300 -12,700 ..............
City, MO.......................................................
99-D-127 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Kansas 23,765 22,200 22,200 -1,565 ..............
City plant, Kansas City, MO....................................
99-D-128 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Pantex 4,998 3,300 3,300 -1,698 ..............
consolidation, Amarillo, TX....................................
98-D-123 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Tritium 30,767 13,700 13,700 -17,067 ..............
factory modernization and consolidation, Savannah River, SC....
98-D-124 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Y-12 .............. 6,850 6,850 +6,850 ..............
consolidation, Oak Ridge, TN...................................
97-D-123 Structural upgrades, Kansas City plant, Kansas City, KS 2,918 3,000 3,000 +82 ..............
96-D-102 Stockpile stewardship facilities revitalization (Phase .............. 2,900 2,900 +2,900 ..............
VI), various locations.........................................
95-D-102 Chemistry and metallurgy research (CMR) upgrades 13,337 .............. .............. -13,337 ..............
project (LANL).................................................
93-d-122 Life saftey upgrades, Y-12............................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
88-D-125 HE Machining facility, Panter.......................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
88-D-122 FCAP................................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction........................................ 162,085 154,664 212,557 +50,472 +57,893
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities............. 1,644,372 1,446,988 1,607,716 -36,656 +160,728
===============================================================================
Facilities and infrastructure........................................... .............. .............. 300,000 +300,000 +300,000
===============================================================================
Secure transportation asset:
Operations and equipment............................................ 79,357 77,571 79,071 -286 +1,500
Program direction................................................... 36,316 44,229 44,229 +7,913 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Secure transportation asset................................ 115,673 121,800 123,300 +7,627 +1,500
===============================================================================
Safeguards and security................................................. 356,840 439,281 439,281 +82,441 ..............
Construction:
99-D-132 SMRI nuclear material safeguards and security upgrade 18,043 9,600 9,600 -8,443 ..............
project (LANL), Los Alamos, NM.................................
88-D-123 Security enhancements, Pantex plant, Amarillo, TX...... 2,713 .............. .............. -2,713 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction........................................ 20,756 9,600 9,600 -11,156 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Safeguards and security................................ 377,596 448,881 448,881 +71,285 ..............
===============================================================================
Program direction....................................................... 224,071 271,137 271,137 +47,066 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons activities...................................... 5,377,329 5,329,010 6,091,876 +714,547 +762,866
===============================================================================
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) Public Law 106-554).................. -11,033 .............. .............. +11,033 ..............
Use of prior year balances.............................................. -13,647 .............. .............. +13,647 ..............
General reduction....................................................... -35,700 .............. .............. +35,700 ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security................................... -310,796 .............. .............. +310,796 ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable work.............................. .............. -28,985 -28,985 -28,985 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES......................................... 5,006,153 5,300,025 6,062,891 +1,056,738 +762,866
===============================================================================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Nonproliferation and verification, R&D.................................. 235,990 170,296 222,355 -13,635 +52,059
Construction: 00-D-192 Nonproliferation and international security 17,000 35,806 35,806 +18,806 ..............
center (NISC), LANL................................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Nonproliferation and verification, R&D..................... 252,990 206,102 258,161 +5,171 +52,059
===============================================================================
Arms control............................................................ 152,014 101,500 138,000 -14,014 +36,500
===============================================================================
Nonproliferation programs with Russia:
International materials protection, control, and accounting......... 173,856 138,800 143,800 -30,056 +5,000
Russian transition assistance....................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
HEU transparency implementation..................................... 15,190 13,950 13,950 -1,240 ..............
International nuclear safety........................................ 20,000 13,800 19,500 -500 +5,700
Fissile materials disposition:
U.S. surplus materials disposition.............................. 139,517 130,089 130,089 -9,428 ..............
Russian surplus materials disposition........................... 40,000 57,000 66,000 +26,000 +9,000
Construction:
01-D-407 Highly enriched uranium (HEU) blend dow Savannah 20,932 24,000 24,000 +3,068 ..............
River, SC..................................................
01-D-142 Immobilization and associated processin facility, 3,000 .............. .............. -3,000 ..............
various locations..........................................
99-D-141 Pit disassembly and conversion facility various 20,000 16,000 16,000 -4,000 ..............
locations..................................................
99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility various 26,000 63,000 63,000 +37,000 ..............
locations..................................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.................................... 69,932 103,000 103,000 +33,068 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fissile materials disposition................... 249,449 290,089 299,089 +49,640 +9,000
===============================================================================
Total, Nonproliferation programs with Russia.............. 458,495 456,639 476,339 +17,844 +19,700
===============================================================================
Program direction....................................................... 51,468 51,459 50,000 -1,468 -1,459
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense nuclear nonproliferation........................ 914,967 815,700 922,500 +7,533 +106,800
===============================================================================
Use of prior year balances.............................................. -526 -42,000 -42,000 -41,474 ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) Public Law 106-554).................. -1,923 .............. .............. +1,923 ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security................................... -40,245 .............. .............. +40,245 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION........................... 872,273 773,700 880,500 +8,227 +106,800
===============================================================================
NAVAL REACTORS
Naval reactors development.............................................. 644,500 652,245 652,245 +7,745 ..............
Construction:
GPN-101 General plant projects, various locations............... 11,400 .............. .............. -11,400 ..............
01-D-200 Major office replacement building, Schenectady, NY..... 1,300 9,000 9,000 +7,700 ..............
90-N-102 Expended core facility dry cell project, Naval Reactors 16,000 4,200 4,200 -11,800 ..............
Facility, ID...................................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction........................................ 28,700 13,200 13,200 -15,500 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Naval reactors development............................. 673,200 665,445 665,445 -7,755 ..............
===============================================================================
Program direction....................................................... 21,400 22,600 22,600 +1,200 ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security................................... -4,437 .............. .............. +4,437 ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554)................. -1,518 .............. .............. +1,518 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS............................................. 688,645 688,045 688,045 -600 ..............
===============================================================================
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
Office of the Administrator............................................. 10,000 15,000 15,000 +5,000 ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554)................. -22 .............. .............. +22 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR................................ 9,978 15,000 15,000 +5,022 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION................... 6,577,049 6,776,770 7,646,436 +1,069,387 +869,666
===============================================================================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT.
Site/project completion:
Operation and maintenance........................................... 919,167 872,030 979,480 +60,313 +107,450
Construction:
02-D-402 Intec cathodic protection system expansion project, .............. 3,256 3,256 +3,256 ..............
INEEL, Idaho Falls, ID.........................................
01-D-414 Preliminary project, engineering and design (PE&D), 17,300 6,254 6,254 -11,046 ..............
various locations..............................................
01-D-415 235-F packaging and stabilization project, Savannah 4,000 .............. .............. -4,000 ..............
River, SC......................................................
99-D-402 Tank farm support services, F&H area, Savannah River 7,714 5,040 5,040 -2,674 ..............
site, Aiken, SC................................................
99-D-404 Health physics instrumentation laboratory (INEL), ID... 4,300 2,700 2,700 -1,600 ..............
98-D-453 Plutonium stabilization and handling system for PFP, 1,690 1,910 1,910 +220 ..............
Richland, WA...................................................
97-D-470 Regulatory monitoring and bioassay laboratory, Savannah 3,949 .............. .............. -3,949 ..............
River site, Aiken, SC..........................................
96-D-471 CFC HVAC/chiller retrofit, Savannah River site, Aiken, 12,512 4,244 4,244 -8,268 ..............
SC.............................................................
92-D-140 F&H canyon exhaust upgrades, Savannah River, SC........ 8,879 15,790 .............. -8,879 -15,790
86-D-103 Decontamination and waste treatment facility (LLNL), 2,000 762 762 -1,238 ..............
Livermore, CA..................................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction........................................ 62,344 39,956 24,166 -38,178 -15,790
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Site/project completion................................ 981,511 911,986 1,003,646 +22,135 +91,660
===============================================================================
Post 2006 completion:
Operation and maintenance........................................... 2,251,514 1,680,979 2,133,779 -117,735 +452,800
Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution............................ 420,000 420,000 420,000 .............. ..............
Construction: 93-D-187 High-level waste removal from filled waste 27,212 6,754 6,754 -20,458 ..............
tanks, Savannah River, SC..........................................
Office of River Protection:
Operation and maintenance....................................... 309,619 272,151 328,151 +18,532 +56,000
Construction:
01-D-416 Hanford waste treatment plant, Richland, WA........ 377,000 500,000 665,000 +288,000 +165,000
99-D-403 Infrastructure support, Richland, WA............... 7,812 .............. .............. -7,812 ..............
97-D-402 Tank farm restoration and safe operations, 46,023 33,473 33,473 -12,550 ..............
Richland, WA and 94-D-407 Initial tank retrieval systems...
94-D-407 Initial tank retrieval systems, Richland, WA....... 17,385 6,844 6,844 -10,541 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.................................... 448,220 540,317 705,317 +257,097 +165,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of River Protection...................... 757,839 812,468 1,033,468 +275,629 +221,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Post 2006 completion............................... 3,456,565 2,920,201 3,594,001 +137,436 +673,800
===============================================================================
Science and technology.................................................. 256,898 196,000 271,700 +14,802 +75,700
Excess facilities....................................................... .............. 1,300 1,300 +1,300 ..............
Safeguards and security................................................. 203,748 205,621 205,621 +1,873 ..............
Program direction....................................................... 363,988 355,761 355,761 -8,227 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense environmental management........................ 5,262,710 4,590,869 5,432,029 +169,319 +841,160
===============================================================================
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554)................. -10,943 .............. .............. +10,943 ..............
Use of prior year balances.............................................. -34,317 -36,770 -36,770 -2,453 ..............
Pension refund.......................................................... -50,000 .............. .............. +50,000 ..............
General reduction....................................................... -10,700 .............. .............. +10,700 ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security................................... -193,217 .............. .............. +193,217 ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable work.............................. .............. -5,391 -5,391 -5,391 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRON. RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT................ 4,963,533 4,548,708 5,389,868 +426,335 +841,160
===============================================================================
DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS
Site closure............................................................ 1,027,942 1,004,636 1,034,636 +6,694 +30,000
Safeguards and security................................................. 54,772 45,902 45,902 -8,870 ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554)................. -2,383 .............. .............. +2,383 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS........................ 1,080,331 1,050,538 1,080,538 +207 +30,000
===============================================================================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION
Privatization initiatives, various locations............................ 90,092 141,537 157,537 +67,445 +16,000
Use of prior year balances.............................................. -25,092 .............. .............. +25,092 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. PRIVATIZATION.................. 65,000 141,537 157,537 +92,537 +16,000
===============================================================================
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT........................... 6,108,864 5,740,783 6,627,943 +519,079 +887,160
===============================================================================
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Other national security programs:
Security and emergency operations:
Nuclear safeguards and security................................. 116,409 121,188 121,188 +4,779 ..............
Security investigations......................................... 33,000 44,927 44,927 +11,927 ..............
Corporate management information program........................ .............. 20,000 .............. .............. -20,000
Emergency management............................................ 33,711 .............. .............. -33,711 ..............
Program direction............................................... 92,967 83,135 81,450 -11,517 -1,685
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Security and emergency operations................... 276,087 269,250 247,565 -28,522 -21,685
Intelligence........................................................ 36,059 40,844 40,844 +4,785 ..............
Counterintelligence................................................. 45,200 46,389 46,389 +1,189 ..............
Advanced accelerator applications................................... 34,000 .............. 55,000 +21,000 +55,000
Independent oversight and performance assurance Program direction... 14,937 14,904 14,904 -33 ..............
Environment, safety and health (Defense)............................ 102,963 91,307 98,992 -3,971 +7,685
Program direction--EH........................................... 22,604 23,293 23,293 +689 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Environment, safety and health (Defense)............ 125,567 114,600 122,285 -3,282 +7,685
Worker and community transition..................................... 21,500 21,246 18,000 -3,500 -3,246
Program direction--WT........................................... 3,000 3,200 2,000 -1,000 -1,200
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Worker and community transition..................... 24,500 24,446 20,000 -4,500 -4,446
National Security programs administrative support................... 25,000 25,000 25,000 .............. ..............
Office of Hearings and Appeals...................................... 3,000 2,893 2,893 -107 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Other defense activities................................ 584,350 538,326 574,880 -9,470 +36,554
===============================================================================
Use of prior year balances.............................................. .............. -10,000 -10,000 -10,000 ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security................................... -595 .............. .............. +595 ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554)................. -1,289 .............. .............. +1,289 ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable work.............................. .............. -712 -712 -712 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES................................... 582,466 527,614 564,168 -18,298 +36,554
===============================================================================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
Defense nuclear waste disposal.......................................... 200,000 310,000 250,000 +50,000 -60,000
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554)................. -275 .............. .............. +275 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........................... 13,468,104 13,355,167 15,088,547 +1,620,443 +1,733,380
===============================================================================
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Purchase power and wheeling......................................... 34,463 34,463 34,463 .............. ..............
Program direction................................................... 5,000 4,891 4,891 -109 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance............................... 39,463 39,354 39,354 -109 ..............
Offsetting collections.................................................. -34,463 -34,463 -34,463 .............. ..............
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106-377)............................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554)................. -9 .............. .............. +9 ..............
Use of prior year balances.............................................. -1,100 .............. .............. +1,100 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION.......................... 3,891 4,891 4,891 +1,000 ..............
===============================================================================
SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Operating expenses.................................................. 3,795 3,339 3,339 -456 ..............
Purchase power and wheeling......................................... 288 1,800 1,800 +1,512 ..............
Program direction................................................... 18,388 18,668 18,668 +280 ..............
Construction........................................................ 6,817 6,031 6,031 -786 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance............................... 29,288 29,838 29,838 +550 ..............
Offsetting collections.................................................. -288 -1,800 -1,800 -1,512 ..............
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106-377)............................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554)................. -62 .............. .............. +62 ..............
Use of prior year balances.............................................. -900 .............. .............. +900 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION.......................... 28,038 28,038 28,038 .............. ..............
===============================================================================
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Construction and rehabilitation..................................... 23,115 16,064 16,064 -7,051 ..............
System operation and maintenance.................................... 36,104 37,796 37,796 +1,692 ..............
Purchase power and wheeling......................................... 65,224 186,124 186,124 +120,900 ..............
Program direction................................................... 106,644 114,378 114,378 +7,734 ..............
Utah mitigation and conservation.................................... 5,950 1,227 6,092 +142 +4,865
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance............................... 237,037 355,589 360,454 +123,417 +4,865
Offsetting collections.................................................. -65,224 -186,124 -190,989 -125,765 -4,865
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106-377)............................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) Public Law 106-554).................. -365 .............. .............. +365 ..............
Use of prior year balances.............................................. -5,983 .............. .............. +5,983 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION.......................... 165,465 169,465 169,465 +4,000 ..............
===============================================================================
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND
Operation and maintenance............................................... 2,670 2,663 2,663 -7 ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554)................. -7 .............. .............. +7 ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING FUND.......................... 2,663 2,663 2,663 .............. ..............
===============================================================================
TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS............................ 200,057 205,057 205,057 +5,000 ..............
===============================================================================
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.................................... 175,200 181,155 181,155 +5,955 ..............
FERC revenues........................................................... -175,200 -181,155 -181,155 -5,955 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
===============================================================================
Defense nuclear waste disposal (rescission)............................. -75,000 .............. .............. +75,000 ..............
Defense environmental privatization (rescission)........................ -97,000 .............. .............. +97,000 ..............
===============================================================================
GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY................................. 18,303,148 18,106,554 20,061,975 +1,758,827 +1,955,421
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The following list of general provisions are recommended by
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions
which have been included in previous Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:
Language under section 301 prohibits the use of funds to
award, amend or modify a contract in a manner that deviates
from the Federal Acquisition Regulations unless on a case-by-
case basis, a waiver is granted by the Secretary of Energy or
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration. Similar language was contained in last year's
Energy and Water Development Act, Public Law 106-377. The
recommendation contained herein, provides waiver authority for
Atomic Energy Defense Activities of the National Nuclear
Security Administration to the Administrator. Waiver authority
for all other programs shall be provided by the Secretary of
Energy.
Language is included under section 302 which prohibits the
use of funds in this Act to develop or implement a workforce
restructuring plan or enhanced severance payments and other
benefits for Federal employees of the Department of Energy
under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of
Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 484. A similar provision was
contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2000, Public
Law 106-377.
Language is included under section 303 which prohibits the
use of funds for severance payments under the worker and
community transition program.
Language is included under section 304 which prohibits the
use of funds in this Act to initiate requests for proposals or
expression of interest for new programs which have not yet been
presented to Congress in the annual budget submission, and
which have not yet been approved and funded by Congress. A
similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water
Development Act, 2000, Public Law 106-377.
Language is included under section 305 which permits the
transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this
bill. A similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water
Development Act, 2000, Public Law 106-377.
Language is included under section 306 which provides that
up to 6 percent of funds appropriated in this Act, including
Environmental Management programs, may be used for Laboratory
Directed Research and Development. A similar provision was
contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2000, Public
Law 106-377.
Language is included under section 307 which provides that
none of the funds in this Act may be used to dispose of
transuranic waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant which
contains concentrations of plutonium in excess of 20 percent by
weight for the aggregate of any material category on the date
of enactment of this Act, or generated after such date. A
similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water
Development Act, 2001, Public Law 106-377.
Language is included under section 308 which provides that
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration may authorize 2 percent of the amount allocated
to a nuclear weapons production plant for the production plant
to engage in research, development, and demonstration
activities with respect to the Engineering and manufacturing
capabilities of the plant in order to maintain and enhance such
capabilities at the plant. A similar provision was contained in
the Energy and Water Development Act, 2001, Public Law 106-377.
Language is included under section 309 which allows the
Power Marketing Administrations to engage in activities and
solicit, undertake and review studies and proposals relating to
the formation and operation of a regional transmission
organization.
Language is included under section 310 which provides that
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration may authorize 2 percent of the amount allocated
for national security operations at the Nevada Test Site for
investment in innovative research, development, and
demonstration activities with respect to the development, test,
and evaluation capabilities necessary for operations and
readiness of the Nevada Test Site.
Language is included under section 311 to extend the
authorization for withdrawals from the United States Enrichment
Corporation Fund from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2005.
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $66,254,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 66,290,000
Committee recommendation................................ 66,290,000
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional
economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed
of the Governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a Federal
cochairman who is appointed by the President.
The Committee recommendation for the Appalachian Regional
Commission totals $66,290,000, the amount of the request.
Consistent with the administration's budget request, the
Committee recommendation does not include funding for ARC
highways. Funding for ARC development highways will be provided
through the highway trust fund beginning in fiscal year 1999
through 2004 consistent with provision contained in the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and
investment opportunities to the Appalachian region, and is
encouraged by a preliminary trade report determining that
Appalachian firms might find significant trade and investment
opportunities, particularly in the energy, high technology, and
transportation sectors, in the Republic of Turkey and the
surrounding region. In this regard, the Committee supports the
Appalachian-Turkish Trade Project (ATTP), a project to promote
opportunities to expand trade, encourage business interests,
stimulate foreign studies, and to build a lasting and mutually
meaningful relationship between the Appalachian States and the
Republic of Turkey, as well as the neighboring regions, such as
Greece. The Committee commends the ARC for its leadership role
in helping to implement the mission of the ATTP, and for the
expertise it provided in implementing the ATTP Conference that
was held in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, on March 23, 2001.
The Committee expects the ARC to continue to be a prominent
ATTP sponsor.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $18,459,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 18,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 18,500,000
An appropriation of $18,500,000, the amount of the request,
is recommended for fiscal year 2002. This is the same as the
budget request.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by
the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The
Board, composed of five members appointed by the President,
provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy
regarding public health and safety issues at the Department's
defense nuclear facilities. The Board is also responsible for
investigating any event or practice at a defense nuclear
facility which has or may adversely affect public health and
safety. The Board is responsible for reviewing and evaluating
the content and implementation of the standards relating to the
design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of defense
nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy.
Delta Regional Authority
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $19,956,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 19,992,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000
The Delta Regional Authority (DRA), authorized by Public
Law 106-554, was established to assist an eight-state, 236-
county region of demonstrated distress in obtaining
transportation and basic public infrastructure, skills
training, and opportunities for economic development essential
to strong local economies.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,000,000
for the Delta Regional Authority. The recommended
appropriations will be used to carry out the activities of
Authority during fiscal year 2002.
Denali Commission
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $29,934,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 29,939,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,000,000
The Denali Commission is a regional economic development
agency established in 1998 for the intended purpose of
delivering basic utilities, including affordable power, and
other essential infrastructure to the nation's most
geographically isolated communities. The Committee is
encouraged by the progress of the Denali Commission in
assisting distressed communities throughout Alaska, and urges
continued work among local and State agencies, non-profit
organizations and other participants in meeting the most
pressing infrastructure needs.
The Committee recommendation includes $40,000,000 for the
Denali Commission. The Committee has provided $10,000,000 above
the President's request for the Denali Commission. Within this
amount, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 to improve basic
infrastructure and community facilities for community residents
without running water or sewer systems.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
salaries and expenses
gross appropriation
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $481,825,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 506,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 506,900,000
revenues
Appropriations, 2001.................................... -$447,958,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... -463,248,000
Committee recommendation................................ -463,248,000
net appropriation
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $33,867,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 43,652,000
Committee recommendation................................ 43,652,000
The Committee recommendation includes $506,900,000, the
same amount as the request, for the Commission, and includes a
single year extension of the NRC's user fee collection
authority.
The Committee directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission not
to expend any funds to implement or enforce the revisions to 10
C.F.R. Part 35 which contains regulations concerning the
medical use of isotopes that were adopted by the Commission on
October 23, 2000. The Committee has taken this action becuase
it believes that the Commission has failed to adequately
consider, as it has repeatedly promised, adopting regulations
which properly reflect the very low risk posed by the use of
diagnostic nuclear medicine procedures.
The Committee agrees with the Administration's National
Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by the Vice President,
in its recommendation supporting the expansion of nuclear
energy in the United States. The Committee has strongly
supported nuclear power in the past and believes that new
nuclear plants offer emission-free power sources, help maintain
diversity of fuel supply, enhance energy security, meet growing
electricity demand, and protect consumers against volatility in
the electricity and natural gas markets. As such, the Committee
recognizes the possibility that several entities are
considering possible applications to the Commission for an
Early Site Permit, a Combined Operating License, and/or a
Design Certificate for new nuclear power plants. Should this
occur, the Committee would expect that the Commission's
consideration would be both thorough and adhere to a
predictable schedule. Because this is the first time 10 CFR 52,
which was enacted in 1992, may be used by the Commission, the
Committee recommends that the cost of the activities for these
initial reviews should be shared between the Federal Government
and the nuclear industry. To achieve this type of cost sharing,
a reduction in fees payable by the nuclear industry to the
Commission is appropriate. To this end, the Committee
recommendation includes an appropriation for an additional
$10,000,000, of which $5,000,000 will be appropriated from the
general fund of the Treasury and $5,000,000 will be recovered
through fees assessed to NRC licensees and applicants. Of the
amount appropriated, $3,000,000 may be available for supporting
studies at national laboratories for fuel testing, code
verification and validation, and materials testing.
Office of Inspector General
gross appropriation
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $5,500,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 6,180,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,500,000
revenues
Appropriations, 2001.................................... -$5,390,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... -5,432,000
Committee recommendation................................ -5,432,000
This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee
recommends an appropriation of $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2002.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Appropriations, 2001.................................... $2,894,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 3,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,500,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,500,000 for
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act of 1987 directed the Board to evaluate
the technical and scientific validity of the activities of the
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The
Board must report its findings not less than two times a year
to the Congress and the Secretary of Energy.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The following list of general provisions are recommended by
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions
which have been included in previous Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Acts:
Language is included under section 501 which provides that
none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used in any
way, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action
on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before
Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as
described in section 1913 of Title 18, United States Code. A
similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water
Development Act, 2000, Public Law 106-60.
Language is included under section 502 which requires that
American-made equipment and goods be purchased to the greatest
extent practicable. A similar provision was contained in the
Energy and Water Development Act, 2000, Public Law 106-60.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.''
The recommended appropriations in title III, Department of
Energy, generally are subject to annual authorization. However,
the Congress has not enacted an annual Department of Energy
authorization bill for several years, with the exception of the
programs funded within the atomic energy defense activities
which are authorized in annual defense authorization acts. The
authorization for the atomic energy defense activities,
contained in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal
Year 2001, is currently being considered by the Senate.
Also, contained in title III, Department of Energy, in
connection with the appropriation under the heading ``Nuclear
Waste Disposal Fund,'' the recommended item of appropriation is
brought to the attention of the Senate.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee
ordered reported, en bloc, S. 1171, an original fiscal year
2002 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill, S. 1172,
an original fiscal year 2002 Legislative Branch appropriations
bill, and an original fiscal year 2002 Transportation and
related agencies appropriations bill, each subject to amendment
and each subject to its budget allocations, by a recorded vote
of 29-0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Mrs. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law
proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing
law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is
printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman.
RECLAMATION STATES EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF ACT OF 1991, PUBLIC LAW
102-250
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Except as otherwise provided in section 303 of this Act
(relating to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam,
California), there is authorized to be appropriated not more
the $90,000,000 in total for fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994,
1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, [and 2001] 2001, and 2002.
* * * * * * *
PUBLIC LAW 105-204
An Act
To require the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a plan to
ensure that all amounts accrued on the books of the United States
Enrichment Corporation for the disposition of depleted uranium
hexafluoride will be used to treat and recycle depleted uranium
hexafluoride.
* * * * * * *
SECTION 1. UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION.
(a) * * *
(b) Limitation.--Notwithstanding the privatization of the
United Sates Enrichment Corporation and notwithstanding any
other provision of law (including the repeal of chapters 22
through 26 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297 et
seq.) made by section 3116(a)(1) of the United States
Enrichment Corporation Privatization Act (104 Stat. 1321-349),
except as provided in subsection (c), no amounts described in
subsection (a) shall be withdrawn from the United States
Enrichment Corporation Fund established by section 1308 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297b-7) or the Working
Capital Account established under section 1316 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297b-15) until the date that is
1 year after the date on which the President submits to
Congress the budget request for [fiscal year 2002] fiscal year
2005.
* * * * * * *
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent
Resolution for 2002: Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development:
General purpose, defense................................ 15,247 15,247 NA NA
General purpose, non-defense............................ 9,713 ........... NA NA
General purpose, total.................................. 24,960 15,247 24,916 \1\ 24,690
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2002.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 16,182
2003.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 7,577
2004.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 1,159
2005.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 30
2006 and future years................................... ........... ........... ........... 19
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2002 NA 109 NA 34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG
nuclear waste fund
I am providing additional views with respect to both the
funding level for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management and the Committee report recommendations regarding
the Yucca Mountain project. The funding level of $275,000,000
represents an unwarranted cut from the Department of Energy's
request of $445,000,000 and jeopardizes the ultimate success of
the project. Furthermore, this blow to the Yucca Mountain
project comes just months before the President is expected to
make a decision about whether to move forward with Yucca
Mountain's development as a geologic repository for spent
nuclear fuel and high-level waste from commercial reactors and
defense activities. His decision will be based on the many
volumes of data compiled during over two decades of scientific
study of the site.
A central repository for spent nuclear fuel is vital to
maintain nuclear energy's role as our Nation's largest source
of non-emitting electricity generation. Although spent nuclear
fuel and high-level waste is currently being safely stored at
approximately 150 locations around the country, those sites
were never intended to be permanent storage facilities. The
Department of Energy has a legal obligation to begin managing
the fuel as of January 31, 1998. The urgent need for a
permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel is why the Yucca
Mountain site has been subjected to extensive scientific study
over a period of years.
The Committee report, in my view, misrepresents the ongoing
process of scientific investigation at Yucca Mountain and adds
redundant and contradictory processes to those already in place
to determine if the site is suitable.
The Committee report asserts that our Nation's reluctance
to reprocess used nuclear fuel made a geologic repository our
only option. Such an assertion ignores the recommendations of
the National Academy of Sciences and ignores the international
consensus for deep geologic disposal. The fact is that
reprocessing does not eliminate the need for a repository.
Every time spent fuel is reprocessed, there are radioactive
byproducts that require disposal. In fact, 16 nations are
studying geologic repositories, including every nation that
currently reprocesses its spent nuclear fuel.
The cost of continued technical investigation of other
potential sites did not make Yucca Mountain the designated
repository site by default. A total of nine sites were studied
between 1982 and 1987. A comparison of the sites pointed
clearly to Yucca Mountain as the best repository site, which is
why scientific attention has been focused on Yucca Mountain
since then.
Opponents of Yucca Mountain have also mischaracterized
national policy toward used nuclear fuel as ``bury it all and
forget it.'' The fact is that provisions are in place for
continual study of Yucca Mountain for 50 to 300 years after
spent fuel disposal commences, and future generations have the
freedom to opt for further study.
The report mischaracterizes the ongoing, scientific studies
of Yucca Mountain by stating that the Department of Energy
``has not demonstrated that the proposed site at Yucca Mountain
is suitable.'' This assertion contradicts the numerous
scientific studies that have already been released nearly all
of which indicate that Yucca Mountain will be suitable, based
on the evidence to date.
The Committee report decries changes in the repository's
operational concept from a sealed and backfilled approach to a
monitored and retrievable approach by saying the changes
undermine public confidence in the safety of the repository.
Precisely the opposite is true. Having a repository that is
more easily monitored can only strengthen public confidence in
Yucca Mountain, because the public can have more assurance that
rigorous scientific inquiry can easily and regularly be applied
to the site.
The Committee report recommendations place an onerous
burden on Yucca Mountain by upholding contradictory positions
and mandating redundant processes on top of those already in
place. The report language calls upon the Department of Energy
to ``use existing regulations to determine site suitability,''
even though those regulations are contradictory to the
recommendation of scientific experts at the National Academy of
Sciences. Those same regulations are, in fact, being revised to
reflect the Environmental Protection Agency's recently issued
radiation protection standard.
Additionally, the comments call for mandating an extensive
process of public hearings in each of the 43 States through
which spent fuel could be transported to Yucca Mountain. An
extensive process for public hearings already exists, whereby
States, local communities, and emergency response authorities
can express concerns, have questions answered, and receive
appropriate training. It is not useful to conduct the training
and hearings now, when this program is at least a decade away
from transporting spent fuel to Yucca Mountain and the
Department of Energy has not yet selected transportation
routes. These routes must also be selected in accordance with
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Department of Transportation
regulations.
Proponents and opponents of the Yucca Mountain project
alike agree that the decision about the site's suitability as a
geologic repository should be based on sound and thorough
science. Unfortunately, both the funding level of $275,000,000
and the report language regarding this program frustrate a
scientifically-based approach to the decision in favor of an
attempt to starve the program with a lack of resources and
delay it with unnecessary or duplicative processes. Our
Nation's energy future, however, demands that we evaluate Yucca
Mountain on its scientific merits alone.
Larry E. Craig.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2002
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2001 Budget estimate Committee ---------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2001
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
General investigations............................................. 160,584 130,000 152,402 -8,182 +22,402
Construction, general.............................................. 1,716,165 1,324,000 1,570,798 -145,367 +246,798
Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, Arkansas, 350,458 280,000 328,011 -22,447 +48,011
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and
Tennessee.........................................................
Operation and maintenance, general................................. 1,897,775 1,745,000 1,833,263 -64,512 +88,263
Regulatory program................................................. 124,725 128,000 128,000 +3,275 ...............
FUSRAP............................................................. 139,692 140,000 140,000 +308 ...............
General expenses................................................... 151,666 153,000 153,000 +1,334 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, title I, Department of Defense--Civil................. 4,541,065 3,900,000 4,305,474 -235,591 +405,474
====================================================================================
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project Completion Account
Central Utah project construction.................................. 19,524 24,169 24,169 +4,645 ...............
Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation......... 14,136 10,749 10,749 -3,387 ...............
Utah reclamation mitigation and conservation account............... 4,989 ............... ............... -4,989 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 38,649 34,918 34,918 -3,731 ...............
Program oversight and administration............................... 1,213 1,310 1,310 +97 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Central Utah project completion account............... 39,862 36,228 36,228 -3,634 ...............
Bureau of Reclamation
Water and related resources........................................ 678,953 647,997 732,496 +53,543 +84,499
Loan program....................................................... 9,348 7,495 7,495 -1,853 ...............
(Limitation on direct loans)................................... (26,941) (26,000) (26,000) (-941) ...............
Central Valley project restoration fund............................ 38,360 55,039 55,039 +16,679 ...............
California Bay-Delta restoration................................... ............... 20,000 ............... ............... -20,000
Policy and administration.......................................... 50,114 52,968 52,968 +2,854 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Bureau of Reclamation................................. 776,775 783,499 847,998 +71,223 +64,499
====================================================================================
Total, title II, Department of the Interior.................. 816,637 819,727 884,226 +67,589 +64,499
====================================================================================
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Energy supply...................................................... 659,918 544,245 736,139 +76,221 +191,894
Non-defense environmental management............................... 277,200 228,553 228,553 -48,647 ...............
Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation..................... 392,502 363,425 408,725 +16,223 +45,300
Science............................................................ 3,180,341 3,159,890 3,268,816 +88,475 +108,926
Nuclear Waste Disposal............................................. 190,654 134,979 25,000 -165,654 -109,979
Departmental administration........................................ 225,942 221,618 208,948 -16,994 -12,670
Miscellaneous revenues......................................... -151,000 -137,810 -137,810 +13,190 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net appropriation 74,942 83,808 71,138 -3,804 -12,670
Office of the Inspector General.................................... 31,430 31,430 30,000 -1,430 -1,430
Environmental restoration and waste management:
Defense function............................................... (6,108,864) (5,740,783) (6,638,539) (+529,675) (+897,756)
Non-defense function........................................... (669,702) (591,978) (637,278) (-32,424) (+45,300)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ (6,778,566) (6,332,761) (7,275,817) (+497,251) (+943,056)
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons activities............................................. 5,006,153 5,300,025 6,062,891 +1,056,738 +762,866
Defense nuclear nonproliferation............................... 872,273 773,700 880,500 +8,227 +106,800
Naval reactors................................................. 688,645 688,045 688,045 -600 ...............
Office of the Administrator.................................... 9,978 15,000 15,000 +5,022 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration........... 6,577,049 6,776,770 7,646,436 +1,069,387 +869,666
Defense environmental restoration and waste management............. 4,963,533 4,548,708 5,389,868 +426,335 +841,160
Defense facilities closure projects................................ 1,080,331 1,050,538 1,080,538 +207 +30,000
Defense environmental management privatization..................... 65,000 141,537 157,537 +92,537 +16,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense environmental management................... 6,108,864 5,740,783 6,627,943 +519,079 +887,160
Other defense activities........................................... 582,466 527,614 564,168 -18,298 +36,554
Defense nuclear waste disposal..................................... 199,725 310,000 250,000 +50,275 -60,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities...................... 13,468,104 13,355,167 15,088,547 +1,620,443 +1,733,380
Power Marketing Administrations
Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration....... 3,891 4,891 4,891 +1,000 ...............
Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration....... 28,038 28,038 29,838 +1,800 +1,800
Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western 165,465 169,465 169,465 +4,000 ...............
Area Power Administration.........................................
Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund.................. 2,663 2,663 2,663 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Power Marketing Administrations....................... 200,057 205,057 206,857 +6,800 +1,800
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 175,200 181,155 181,155 +5,955 ...............
Revenues applied............................................... -175,200 -181,155 -181,155 -5,955 ...............
====================================================================================
Defense nuclear waste disposal (rescission)........................ -75,000 ............... ............... +75,000 ...............
Defense environmental privatization (rescission)................... -97,000 ............... ............... +97,000 ...............
====================================================================================
Total, title III, Department of Energy....................... 18,303,148 18,106,554 20,063,775 +1,760,627 +1,957,221
====================================================================================
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission.................................... 66,254 66,290 66,290 +36 ...............
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............................ 18,459 18,500 18,500 +41 ...............
Delta Regional Authority........................................... 19,956 19,992 20,000 +44 +8
Denali Commission.................................................. 29,934 29,939 40,000 +10,066 +10,061
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 481,825 506,900 516,900 +35,075 +10,000
Revenues....................................................... -447,958 -463,248 -468,248 -20,290 -5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 33,867 43,652 48,652 +14,785 +5,000
Office of Inspector General.................................... 5,500 6,180 5,500 ............... -680
Revenues....................................................... -5,390 -5,932 -5,432 -42 +500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 110 248 68 -42 -180
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 33,977 43,900 48,720 +14,743 +4,820
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board............................... 2,894 3,100 3,500 +606 +400
====================================================================================
Total, title IV, Independent agencies........................ 171,474 181,721 197,010 +25,536 +15,289
====================================================================================
TITLE V--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
Cerro Grande fire activities (contingent emergency appropriations). 203,012 ............... ............... -203,012 ...............
Appalachian Regional Commission (contingent emergency 10,976 ............... ............... -10,976 ...............
appropriations)...................................................
====================================================================================
Total, title V, Emergency Supplemental....................... 213,988 ............... ............... -213,988 ...............
====================================================================================
Grand total:
New budget (obligational) authority...................... 24,046,312 23,008,002 25,450,485 +1,404,173 +2,442,483
Appropriations....................................... (24,004,324) (23,008,002) (25,450,485) (+1,446,161) (+2,442,483)
Contingent emergency appropriations.................. (213,988) ............... ............... (-213,988) ...............
Rescissions.......................................... (-172,000) ............... ............... (+172,000) ...............
(By transfer)............................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------