Senate Report 109-84 - ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006

[Senate Report 109-84]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 130
109th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 109-84

======================================================================

ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006

_______

June 16, 2005.--Ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Domenici, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 2419]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2419)
making appropriations for energy and water development for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes,
favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. deg.
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and
for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2006

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $31,245,000,000
Amount of 2005 appropriations........................... 29,832,280,000
Amount of 2006 budget estimate.......................... 29,746,728,000
Amount of House allowance............................... 29,746,000,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2005 appropriations................................. +1,412,720,000
2006 budget estimate................................ +1,498,272,000
House allowance..................................... +1,499,000,000

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

Purpose.......................................................... 4
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations......................... 4
Title I--Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
Corps of Engineers--Civil:
General Investigations................................... 14
Construction, General.................................... 33
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries......... 52
Operation and Maintenance, General....................... 57
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies.................... 91
Regulatory Program....................................... 91
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.......... 91
General Expenses......................................... 92
General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil............ 93
Title II--Department of the Interior:
Central Utah Project Completion Account...................... 95
Bureau of Reclamation:
Water and Related Resources.............................. 95
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.................. 109
California Bay-Delta Restoration......................... 109
Policy and Administration................................ 110
General Provisions--Department of the Interior............... 110
Title III--Department of Energy:
Energy Supply and Conservation............................... 116
Office of Electricity Delivery Energy Reliability........ 125
Nuclear Energy Programs.................................. 127
Environment, Safety, and Health.......................... 132
Fossil Energy Research and Development................... 132
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves................... 134
Elk Hills School Lands Fund.............................. 135
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.............................. 135
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve....................... 135
Energy Information Administration........................ 136
Non-defense Environmental Cleanup............................ 137
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.. 138
Science...................................................... 139
High Energy Physics...................................... 141
Nuclear Physics.......................................... 141
Biological and Environmental Research.................... 142
Basic Energy Sciences.................................... 145
Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund.................................. 148
Departmental Administration.................................. 150
Inspector General............................................ 150
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons Activities................................... 152
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation..................... 166
Naval Reactors....................................... 170
Office of the Administrator.......................... 171
Environmental and Other Defense Activities:
Defense Environmental Cleanup........................ 172
Other Defense Activities............................. 175
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal....................... 177
Power Marketing Administrations:
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power
Administration................................. 179
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power
Administration................................. 179
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and
Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration. 179
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and
Expenses........................................... 180
General Provisions--Department of Energy..................... 208
Title IV--Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.............................. 210
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board...................... 210
Delta Regional Authority..................................... 211
Denali Commission............................................ 211
Nuclear Regulatory Commission................................ 211
Office of Inspector General.............................. 212
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board......................... 213
Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the Inspector General... 213
Title V--General Provisions...................................... 214
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 215
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the
Senate......................................................... 216
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 216
Budgetary Impact Statement....................................... 226

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for
the fiscal year 2006 beginning October 1, 2005, and ending
September 30, 2006, 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, 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 2006 budget estimates for the bill total
$31,245,000,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The
recommendation of the Committee totals $31,245,000,000. This is
$1,498,272,000 above the budget estimates and $1,412,720,000
over the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.

Subcommittee Hearings

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held
four sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2006
appropriation bill. Witnesses included officials and
representatives of the Federal agencies under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
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 2006 therefore, have been developed after
careful consideration of available data.

Votes in the Committee

By a vote of 28 to 0 the Committee on June 16, 2005,
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 1802, responding to the need for engineering talent to
support both the defense of the young United States and its
civilian infrastructure, President Thomas Jefferson proposed a
body of engineers within the U.S. Army, readily available to
tackle assignments of national importance. To train them, he
opened the first engineering school in the United States--the
U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY.
In the two centuries since, the expertise the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers has gained, especially in water resources,
has led administrations and Congress to assign it missions in
navigation, flood control, shore protection, hydropower, water
supply, recreation, and, most recently, environmental
stewardship, cleanup and restoration work. The public has also
relied on the Corps to respond rapidly with engineering
services when disaster strikes.
Still, the question has often arisen why the Army of today
carries out a Civil Works mission that appears, at first
glance, far removed from its primary mission of deterring and
winning wars. In fact, in the past 80 years there have been at
least eight proposals to transfer the Civil Works mission to
other Government agencies. All have been rejected after more
careful consideration.
The Army has traditionally relied on its Civil Works
mission to train combat engineers, and to complement and
augment its warfighting competencies, providing the capability
to respond to situations across the spectrum of conflict.
Specifically, Civil Works provides the Army:
--A force in being of about 24,000 engineers and other
professionals, familiar with the Army culture and
responsive to the chain of command. The program
provides attractive careers and professional challenges
to maintain this force. This is a no cost asset to the
Army until needed for warfighting.
--Established relationships with Federal, State and local
officials, and with the Nation's engineering and
construction industries--a force multiplier of hundreds
of thousands. ``On the shelf'' contracts are available
for emergencies.
--Deployability.--Corps members engaged in Civil Works
activities are available where needed. Today scores of
Civil Works personnel are deployed in Afghanistan and
Iraq. Specialists in such activities as real estate
were sent before the main force to secure needed
facilities. Meanwhile, Corps ``tele-engineering''
systems link combat commanders to Corps labs and other
stateside experts for immediate on-the-ground feedback.
--Support to Combat Forces.--Corps of Engineers knowledge of
beach dynamics helps determine sites for landings over
the shore, while expertise in soil mechanics determines
the best routes for armored vehicles with technologies
developed in the Civil Works program. Corps' work on
winter navigation helps the Army cross frozen rivers--
and was a major factor in its crossing of the Sava
River in Bosnia. Its experience with roller compacted
concrete for dams was used for runways and hardstands.
Civil Works experience with harbors allows the Army to
build ports to support U.S. forces in places such as
Somalia where facilities are primitive to non-existent.
--Expertise in natural and cultural resources, water quality,
flood plain management or toxic waste control, helping
the Army comply with more than 70 Federal environmental
statutes, and a breadth of experience and workload in
dozens of specialized fields that would not otherwise
be possible.
--A Power Projection Platform.--Nearly all military equipment
deployed overseas passes through ports maintained by
the Civil Works program. So do most Navy ships. Corps
flood control projects also play a role in force
projection by protecting key highway and rail links.
--International Goodwill.--Army Engineers experienced in
Civil Works play a major role in infrastructure in
developing nations. They help to improve economic
conditions and strengthen democratic institutions in
these nations; allow the Army a presence in politically
sensitive areas; and foster good will through contact
between governments and armed forces. Today Corps
personnel are working in more than 90 nations around
the world. In most of these nations, no other U.S.
forces are present.
Army management of the Nation's water resources, in turn,
benefits the program and the Nation in a number of ways:
--Responsiveness.--Corps members and contractors are
available to deploy, often within hours, wherever the
need arises. This was dramatically demonstrated in the
aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Civil
Works personnel were on the scene within hours. Corps
vessels operated a ferry service taking survivors to
New Jersey and bringing rescue workers into the city.
Corps personnel assisted with rescue and recovery
operations. Structural engineers evaluated which
buildings were safe for re-entry. The 249th Engineer
Battalion (Prime Power) provided the expertise
necessary to set up emergency generators that had New
York's financial district back in business the
following Monday. The Corps also developed the plan for
disposal of debris from ``Ground Zero'' and managed the
Staten Island disposal site so that 1.35 million tons
of material were safely disposed of months ahead of
schedule and $55,000,000 under budget.
--A Bias For Action.--A unique mix of Army officers with a
``can do'' attitude working alongside world class
engineering and scientific civilian expertise makes the
Corps arguably the most positive and proactive agency
in the Federal Government.
--National Security Consideration in Planning for
Infrastructure.--The Corps recently completed security
assessments for more than 300 of its key projects. It
also led the establishment in March 2002 of The
Infrastructure Security Partnership [TISP], bringing
together government and private organizations
representing about 1.6 million engineers and other
professionals to focus on securing the infrastructure
necessary to maintain normal American life. Corps
``hardening'' measures, meanwhile, were credited with
saving hundreds of lives in the 9/11 attack on the
Pentagon.
--Impartiality in Recommendations for Projects, Permits,
Etc.--Administrations and Congresses rely on the Corps
to base investment recommendations on the best
engineering, economic and environmental science
available, not political considerations.
--Concentration of Water Resources Expertise in One Agency.--
The Corps, with the great majority of its civil works
personnel located throughout the 50 States rather than
in Washington, DC, is unique in the world in that it
provides a common arena for water resources issues in
the United States to be debated and solutions vetted.
Governments of other countries study the Corps as they
begin to understand the need for integrated solutions
and seek to build the capability to achieve them by
combining previously separate agency responsibilities.
The Corps provides synergy among various uses of water,
balance among uses and geographic areas, and the
ability to plan water resources for watersheds as a
whole instead of single projects for specific
locations. Water resource planners and the public are
increasingly coming to understand that water problems
cannot be considered in isolation--the solution to one
problem often generates others. Uses and protection of
water resources cannot be separated, but require an
integrated, watershed approach. Having different
agencies in charge of water resource uses would
guarantee conflicts among uses, while having all uses
under the auspices of one agency is a major step in
creating a balanced, holistic approach to the Nation's
water needs--a step that was taken 200 years ago.

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET OVERVIEW

The fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Corps of
Engineers is composed of $4,332,000,000 in new budgetary
authority and $181,000,000 in offsetting collections from the
Power Marketing Authorities for a total program of
$4,513,000,000. The Committee is unable to take advantage of
the offsetting collections due to budgetary scoring impacts and
therefore rejects this proposal for the fourth year in a row.
The Committee recommends a total of $5,298,000,000 for the
Corps of Engineers, an increase of $612,452,000 from fiscal
year 2005 enacted levels (adjusted for one-time emergency
spending of $372,400,000). The Committee recommendation is
$966,000,000 above the request. The Committee recommendation
provides for a robust planning program as well as providing
significant increases to the construction and operation and
maintenance accounts. Unfortunately, even with this large
increase the Committee recommendation falls short of what is
actually needed to provide efficient levels of funding for all
on-going work.
The Corps' budget proposal is a departure from previous
years. This budget is the first to be developed as a full
business line program prioritization and then cross-walked to
the traditional accounts summary. Projects compete in each of
the three main mission areas (Flood Damage Reduction,
Navigation and Environmental Restoration) and are classified as
follows:
--Coastal Navigation,
--Inland Navigation,
--Flood Damage reduction,
--Storm Damage reduction,
--Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, and
--Other (including all major rehabilitation and Hydropower).
Categories 1-4 comprise 70 percent or more of the
Construction, General Program; Category 5 is 25 percent or
less; and Category 6 is 5 percent or more. Projects were ranked
on two performance criteria--Remaining Benefits to Remaining
Costs Ratio or effective use of resources to address
significant ecological problems. Lower ranking projects are
proposed for contract deferral, suspension or termination. The
budget proposed another new shore protection policy, the fourth
in 4 years. Additionally, the budget proposed repealing the
current continuing contract language and replacing it with new
multiple year contracting. Finally, the budget included a
proposal that $200,000,000 of the construction funds should be
contingent upon Congress accepting the administration's
budgetary prioritization criteria.
The Committee is disappointed that the administration has
included another ``new'' beach policy. Beaches are the leading
tourist destination in the United States. California beaches
alone receive nearly 600 million tourist visits annually. This
is more tourist visits than to all of the lands controlled by
the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management
combined. Beach tourists contribute $260,000,000,000 to the
U.S. economy and $60,000,000,000 in Federal taxes. Last year
Congress provided legislation that beach policies will not be
changed except by congressional direction. Congress has
repeatedly demonstrated that the current beach policy is
satisfactory. The Committee has attempted to provide sufficient
funding for a number of the most critical shore protection
projects.
The Committee has chosen to reject all of these budget
proposals. The Committee believes that this is no way to run a
robust national infrastructure program. The Corps needs to
seriously reexamine its ``business line'' budget model. The
Corps program has always been a ``big tent'' where all aspects
of water resource development were jointly discussed and
budgeted. The business line approach segregates these interests
and promotes discord among various water resource interests.
There is already evidence of some ``business lines'' attempting
to find ways to take funding from ``business lines'' with
smaller constituent bases. This lack of unity will further the
downward spiral of recent budget proposals.
The Committee believes that the budget proposal's blind
emphasis on remaining benefits to remaining costs ratios to
determine funding priorities is misplaced. The strict adherence
to the metric of Remaining Benefit to Remaining Cost Ratio to
the exclusion of all other possible metrics that could have
been utilized such as widespread project net benefits,
inclusion of system-wide values, acknowledgement of regional
benefits, recognition of a wider set of benefits over a longer
planning period than just 1 year, calculations using other
interest rates that are more in accordance with the projects
authorizations, as well as the GI metric of 3.0 RBRCR for the
PED projects, is indeed narrow.
Also, funding only the ``highest potential return'' studies
to the detriment of many other studies that provide a future
vision or address far-reaching problems while not yet showing
any BCR data, can also be considered ``penny wise and pound
foolish.'' These studies still add value and importance and
have a place in the problem solving needs of the overall
Nation's water community.
While this process may have led to a very focused
performance-based set of final projects to study, design and
construct, the metrics used led to a very skewed set of results
with a few strong regional winners and many losers.
Consideration of a more encompassing set of factors including
those mentioned above, as well as a number still under
development, would have provided a more comprehensive set of
projects, yet continuing to deliver needed, effective, national
water benefits.
These ratios provide a ``snapshot'' view of a project. They
tell you nothing of the relative value of one project to
another, projects in rural areas with fewer beneficiaries are
penalized and no consideration is given to the workforce.
Congress has repeatedly demonstrated that it desires to keep
the structure of the Corps of Engineers as it is currently
configured. Yet if the budget were enacted, there would be no
way to maintain this workforce, due to how the ratios skewed
the projects to certain areas of the country.
The program proposed in the budget is very unbalanced among
planning, construction and maintenance. The planning program is
decimated. The proposed program slows down the number of
projects reaching construction by limiting funding for new
study phases. The planning program is vital to a healthy Corps
of Engineers; without a steady supply of new studies,
eventually there will be no new construction projects, and then
the Corps would gradually become an operation and maintenance
organization with no real national capabilities. There is no
shortage of water resource needs in the country today, and the
Corps needs to maintain a robust planning program to be able to
continue to address these needs.
Continuing Contracts
The Corps needs flexibility to manage their program. Unlike
building a hospital or a barracks or a post office where the
site is relatively contained, flood free, and accessible, water
resource projects are constructed in physically challenging
locations. By their nature, these projects involve large
mobilization costs and great uncertainties. The Corps of
Engineers has been tasked with providing hundreds of water
infrastructure projects in challenging locations throughout the
country. Historically, the Corps has done an outstanding job of
managing these great water resource projects and has provided
the water infrastructure that has greatly contributed to our
economic security.
One of the greatest tools that the Corps of Engineers has
for managing its nationwide water resources infrastructure
program is the ability to award multiyear continuing contracts.
When an agency is managing, literally, hundreds of construction
projects throughout the country, problems are inevitable. These
can range from flood, to drought, to funding shortfalls, to
unanticipated hazardous wastes encountered in the construction
site, or discovery of unanticipated cultural resources. Any one
of these items can bring a project to a temporary halt or slow
construction. By the same token, projects can be accelerated
due to mild winters or below average flows on a river allowing
a longer construction season with more work to be done and more
funds to be utilized.
Water resources projects, because of the nature of the work
involved, are funded on an incremental annual basis. As far
back as 1922, the Congress recognized the need for flexibility
in management and execution of the Civil Works program and
provided the Army Corps of Engineers with legislation that
allowed the use of continuing contracts for specifically
authorized projects. In a 1977 decision, the Comptroller
General confirmed that the authority found in the 1922 law
constituted an exception to the Anti-deficiency Act.
Accordingly, the Corps has had the discretion to use continuing
contracts to execute any of its specifically authorized water
resources projects since at least 1977.
In the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C.
Sec. 2331), the Congress enacted another provision of law
relating to continuing contracts. This legislation requires the
Corps to award a continuing contract for a water resources
project for which initiation of construction has occurred, but
for which sufficient funds are not available to complete the
project. The statute defines initiation of construction as the
date of the enactment of an appropriations act in which the
project receives funds from either the Construction, General,
Operation and Maintenance, General or Flood Control,
Mississippi River and Tributaries lump sum appropriations.
Since Congress rarely appropriates sufficient funds for each
project, the practical effect of the statute is that it
requires the use of continuing contracts for the majority of
civil works water resource projects.
Continuing contracts allow the Corps to award large
construction elements of a project to take advantage of the
economies of scale available to construction contractors.
Allowing these large construction elements to be managed over
several years without requiring contracts to be fully funded
before construction begins affords the Corps the ability to
more efficiently manage multiple construction contracts.
Multiyear funding, and the ability to reprogram funds, are
tools that have allowed the Corps to maximize scarce resources
to try to do as much as possible with the resources available
to them; they also left the Corps open to charges that it has
put contractors in charge of managing its funds.
The Congress has expressed its concerns in the past that
Corps of Engineers construction projects may have used the
continuing contracts clause and the ability to reprogram funds
to award some construction contracts that may not have been
fiscally prudent in light of current budget realities. However,
many of these construction contracts were awarded when surplus
funds were available allowing reprogramming of funds to make up
for budget shortfalls. This process has resulted in most
surplus funds being expended, leaving the Corps with very
little flexibility to cover the financial obligations of the
construction contracts. As a result, an increased number of
reprogrammings are necessary to satisfy as many of the Corps'
financial obligations as possible.
In the Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 2005
Consolidated Appropriations Act (House Report 108-792), the
Congress expressed its belief that the Corps had made great
strides in resolving these financial issues by applying more
stringent controls on financial obligations allowed on
continuing contracts and allowed the Corps to continue to
resolve the situation. The Congress also cautioned the Corps
that it must regain control of all aspects of program execution
and execute the program which Congress appropriates. The
Committee believes that the Corps has made progress in
tightening controls on the use of continuing contracts. For
example, these types of contracts have traditionally been
executed at a district level. However, the decision has been
elevated to Corps headquarters on whether or not to award a
continuing contract. The Committee sees this as an appropriate
but temporary necessity and expects continuing contracts to
remain a generally available contracting tool for program
execution.
The continuing contract clause has adequate controls to
limit the future obligations of the Federal Government. The
Committee expects the Corps to utilize these controls to limit
Government exposure. The Committee expects the Corps to develop
specific execution guidance to control and manage the
implementation of continuing contracts, consistent with law and
prudent fiscal policy, and to carry out the Civil Works program
accordingly.
Reprogramming
The Committee expects the Corps to execute the Civil Works
program following congressional direction. This includes moving
individual projects forward in accordance with the funds
annually appropriated. However, the Committee realizes that
many factors outside the Corps' control may dictate the
progress of any given project or study. Therefore, the
Committee believes that it is imperative to allow the Corps
ample flexibility to manage the program and to utilize excess
funds as they become available on a particular project to move
the entire program forward. With this flexibility comes a
responsibility to insure that appropriated funds are available
for projects when necessary. The Committee expects the Corps to
develop specific execution guidance to control and manage the
reprogramming of funds, which is consistent with law and
prudent fiscal policy, and to carry out the Civil Works program
accordingly. As there were some ambiguities in the
reprogramming guidance provided with the fiscal year 2005
Omnibus Report, the Committee has elected to redraft that
guidance and present it here.
Reprogramming is also to be used in very benign, fiscally
responsible ways. The Corps financial management system uses
thousands of work item codes to supply funding for everything
from purchasing a screwdriver to ordering a computer to buying
a miter gate for a lock and dam. As the Government cannot fund
purchases in arrears, adequate funding estimates must be
supplied into these work items prior to purchases being made.
Rarely are these estimates an exact match for these purchases.
Often funding is left in these work items that must be cleaned
up at the end of the fiscal year. The remaining funds from
these accounts must be reprogrammed to other accounts in order
to be used. These remaining funds can range from a few pennies
to thousands of dollars. The same is true when a cost shared
project is completed with a local sponsor. A final accounting
must be made and all of the old work items must be cleaned out
in order to dispose of leftover project funding.
Reprogramming Guidance
A reprogramming action may not be used to eliminate or
initiate a program, project or activity.
General Investigations.--Reprogramming a cumulative total
of up to 25 percent of the total General Investigations
appropriation funding is permitted. Such reprogramming between
studies and programs within the preceding limitation are
permitted without approval of either House of Congress.
However, the Chief of Engineers shall provide a quarterly
report to both House and Senate Appropriations Committees of
all reprogrammings for individual studies or programs with
increases in excess of $250,000 but less than or equal to
$500,000. Approval of both House and Senate Appropriations
Committees is required for cumulative reprogramming increases
greater than $500,000. Restoration of all savings and slippage
shall not count toward the cumulative total. The Committee does
not object to reprogramming up to $50,000 to any continuing
study or program that did not receive an appropriation in the
current year. All funds used to source reprogrammings described
above should be surplus to current year needs for that effort.
For the purpose of this section, the cumulative total is
derived by summing the net increases of reprogrammings for only
the gaining projects or programs.
Construction, General.--Reprogramming a cumulative total of
up to 15 percent of the total Construction, General
appropriation funding is permitted. Such reprogramming between
projects and programs within the preceding limitation are
permitted without approval of either House of Congress.
However, the Chief of Engineers shall provide a quarterly
report to both House and Senate Appropriations Committees of
all reprogrammings for individual projects or programs with
increases in excess of $4,000,000 but less than or equal to
$7,000,000. Approval of both House and Senate Appropriations
Committees is required for cumulative reprogramming increases
greater than $7,000,000. Restoration of all savings and
slippage and prior year revocations shall not count toward the
cumulative total. The Committee does not object to the
restoration of prior year revocations or the additional
reprogramming of up to $500,000 to any continuing project or
program that did not receive an appropriation in the current
year. All funds used to source reprogrammings described above
should be surplus to current year needs for that effort. For
the purpose of this section, the cumulative total is derived by
summing the net increases of reprogrammings for only the
gaining projects or programs.
Operations and Maintenance.--Unlimited reprogramming
authority is granted in order for the Corps to be able to
respond to emergencies. The Chief of Engineers must notify the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees as soon as
practicable of these emergency situations. For all other
situations, reprogramming a cumulative total of up to 50
percent of the total Operations and Maintenance appropriation
funding is permitted. Such reprogramming between projects and
programs within the preceding limitation are permitted without
approval of either House of Congress. However, the Chief of
Engineers shall provide a quarterly report to both House and
Senate Appropriations Committees of all reprogrammings for
individual projects or programs with increases in excess of
$5,000,000 but less than or equal to $10,000,000. Approval of
both House and Senate Appropriations Committees is required for
cumulative reprogramming increases greater than $10,000,000.
All funds used to source reprogrammings described above should
be surplus to current year needs for that effort. For the
purpose of this section, the cumulative total is derived by
summing the net increases of reprogrammings for only the
gaining projects or programs.
Mississippi River and Tributaries.--The Corps should follow
the same reprogramming guidelines for the General
Investigations, Construction, and Operation and Maintenance
portions of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Account as
listed above.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.--The Corps
may reprogram up to 15 percent of the appropriated funding
level between FUSRAP projects without Committee approval.
Restoration of prior year reprogramming amounts shall not count
towards the cumulative total.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTION AND MANAGEMENT

The Committee is extremely disappointed in the general lack
of leadership being exhibited by the Chief of Engineers, the
Director of Civil Works and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works) in execution of the Civil Works program. The
Corps of Engineers has been provided clear guidance on program
execution in a number of Acts of Congress over the years and is
provided annual direction and guidance through the Energy and
Water Appropriations Act. The ASA[CW] provides the Chief of
Engineers advice about policy matters and is generally the
political spokesperson for the administration's policies;
however, the Chief of Engineers is responsible for carrying out
the program. The Chief of Engineers receives his orders from
the Army Chief of Staff and those orders flow through him to
the Director of Civil Works and through the rest of the Civil
Works hierarchy to carry out those orders. The Committee
expects the Chief of Engineers to prepare management and
execution plans in accordance with this guidance and to
aggressively carry out those plans. The Committee has twice
reminded the Chief of Engineers, in writing, of his obligations
to execute the program for fiscal year 2005 contained in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (Public Law 108-447).
The Committee also directed that all guidance provided by the
Congress should be adhered to in carrying out his
responsibilities. It is a simple matter to determine the
consensus judgments of the Congress as to how executive branch
programs should be administered. All one must do is look at the
law and the accompanying reports as enacted. Any other
congressional guidance should be viewed as suggestive and
weighed in context with guidance that the Congress provided.
The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers regain control and
leadership over the Corps of Engineers and the Civil Works
program immediately.

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2005....................................\1\ $143,344,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 95,000,000
House allowance......................................... 100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 180,000,000

\1\ Excludes emergency appropriations of $400,000.

This appropriation funds studies to determine the need,
engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the
environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and
related land resource problems; and for preconstruction
engineering and design work, data collection, and interagency
coordination and research activities.
The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance
are shown on the following table:

CORPS OF ENGINEERS--GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation
Project title -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations Planning Investigations Planning Investigations Planning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA

BREWTON AND EAST BREWTON, AL 189 .......... .............. .......... 189 ..........
VILLAGE CREEK, JEFFERSON 253 .......... .............. .......... 253 ..........
COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM
WATERSHED).................

ALASKA

AKUTAN HARBOR, AK........... .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 500
ATKA HARBOR, AK............. .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
ALASKA REGIONAL PORTS, AK... .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, .............. .......... .............. .......... 1,000 ..........
AK.........................
BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE .............. .......... .............. .......... 800 ..........
DEEPENING, AK..............
CRAIG HARBOR, AK............ .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR, AK.. .............. .......... .............. .......... 490 760
EKLUTNA WATERSHED, AK....... .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
HAINES HARBOR, AK........... .............. .......... .............. .......... 300 ..........
HOMER HARBOR MODIFICATION, .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
AK.........................
KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION,AK .............. .......... .............. .......... 500 ..........
KETCHIKAN HARBOR, AK........ .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
KLANOCK HARBOR, AK.......... .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
KNIK BRIDGE CROSSING, AK.... .............. .......... .............. .......... 1,000 ..........
KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, .............. .......... .............. .......... 500 ..........
AK.........................
LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK... .............. .......... .............. .......... 400 ..........
MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
AK.........................
MCGRATH, AK................. .............. .......... .............. .......... 300 ..........
MEKORYUK HARBOR, AK......... .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
PORT GRAHAM, AK............. .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK....... .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
SAINT GEORGE HARBOR .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
IMPROVEMENT, AK............
UNALAKLEET, AK.............. .............. .......... .............. .......... 500 ..........
UNALASKA, AK................ .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 500
VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK. .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
WHITTIER BREAKWATER,AK...... .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK.......... 300 .......... .............. .......... 300 ..........

ARIZONA

PIMA COUNTY, AZ............. 488 .......... 488 .......... 488 ..........
RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, .............. 618 .............. 618 .............. 618
AZ.........................
RIO SALADO OESTA, SALT .............. .......... .............. .......... 475 ..........
RIVER, AZ..................
SANTA CRUZ RIVER, GRANT RD 400 .......... 400 .......... 400 ..........
TO FT LOWELL RD, AZ........
SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 100
LAS IGLESIAS, AZ...........
VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER .............. 400 .............. 500 .............. 400
RESTORATION, AZ............

ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS CREEK, AR....... 200 .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
LITTLE RIVER COUNTY (OGDEN .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 100
LEVEE), AR.................
NORTH LITTLE ROCK, DARK .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 200
HOLLOW, AR.................
PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR...... .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 400
RED RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 400
SW ARKANSAS, AR............
SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS, AR...... .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
WHITE RIVER BASIN 1,000 .......... 900 .......... 1,000 ..........
COMPREHENSIVE, AR AND MO...
WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS, .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 100
AR.........................
WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 100
NEWPORT, AR................

CALIFORNIA

ALISO CREEK MAINSTEM, CA.... 350 .......... 450 .......... 350 ..........
ARANA GULCH WATERSHED, CA... 100 .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
ARROYO SECO WATERSHED, CA... .............. .......... .............. .......... 300 ..........
BALLONA CREEK ECOSYSTEM .............. .......... .............. .......... 450 ..........
RESTORATION, CA............
BOLINAS LAGOON, CA.......... .............. .......... 200 .......... 200 ..........
CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT 600 .......... 900 .......... 600 ..........
MASTER PLAN, CA............
CARPINTERIA SHORELINE STUDY, .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
CA.........................
CITY ON INGLEWOOD, CA....... .............. .......... .............. .......... 275 ..........
CITY OF NORWALK, CA......... .............. .......... .............. .......... 160 ..........
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA... .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
COAST OF CA, SOUTH COAST .............. .......... .............. .......... 300 ..........
REGION (LA COUNTY).........
COYOTE CREEK, CA............ 100 .......... 100 .......... 100 ..........
COYOTE DAM, CA.............. .............. .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........
DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA...... .............. .......... 200 .......... .............. ..........
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER .............. .......... 1,000 .......... .............. ..........
DISTRICT, CA...............
ESTUDILLO CANAL, CA......... 600 .......... 900 .......... 600 ..........
GRAYSON AND MURDERER'S .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
CREEK, CA..................
HAMILITON CITY, CA.......... .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 750
HUMBOLT BAY LONG TERM SHOAL .............. .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........
MGMT, CA...................
LAGUNA CREEK WATERSHED...... .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA.... 300 .......... 400 .......... 300 ..........
LAGUNA CREEK, CA............ .............. .......... .............. .......... 900 ..........
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE 600 .......... 1,300 .......... 600 ..........
AREA, CORNFIELDS, CA.......
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA...... 850 .......... 850 .......... 850 ..........
MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA.. 167 .......... .............. .......... 167 ..........
MATILIJA DAM, CA............ .............. 800 .............. 1,100 .............. 800
MORRO BAY ESTUARY........... .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 348
MUGU LAGOON, CA............. 82 .......... 82 .......... 82 ..........
NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH .............. .......... .............. 250 .............. ..........
RESTORATION, CA............
NAPA VALLEY WATERSHED 500 .......... 500 .......... .............. ..........
MANAGEMENT, CA.............
OCEAN BEACH, SANFRANCISCO, .............. .......... 350 .......... .............. ..........
CA.........................
ORANGE COUNTY SAMP.......... .............. .......... .............. .......... 169 ..........
PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE, .............. 477 .............. 1,000 .............. 477
CA.........................
PENINSULA BEACH, CA......... 308 .......... 308 .......... 308 ..........
REDWOOD CITY NAVIGATION .............. .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........
CHANNEL, CA................
RUSSIAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM 400 .......... 600 .......... 400 ..........
RESTORATION, CA............
SACRAMENTO--SAN JOAQUIN 200 .......... .............. .......... 900 ..........
DELTA, DELTA ISLANDS AND
LEVEES CA..................
SAN BERNARDO LAKES AND .............. .......... .............. 250 .............. ..........
STREAMS, CA................
SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CA.. 188 .......... 188 .......... 188 ..........
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHORELINE, .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
CA.........................
SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK, CA.. 200 .......... 300 .......... 200 ..........
SAN JACINTO RIVER, CA....... .............. .......... 50 .......... .............. ..........
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION, .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
CA.........................
SAN JUAN CREEK, SOUTH ORANGE .............. .......... 350 .......... 350 ..........
COUNTY, CA.................
SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA. 300 .......... 600 .......... 300 ..........
SANTA ANA RIVER AND 900 .......... 1,400 .......... 900 ..........
TRIBUTARIES, BIG BEAR LAKE,
CA.........................
SANTA CLARA RIVER WATERSHED, .............. .......... .............. .......... 500 ..........
CA.........................
SANTA ROSA CREEK ECOSYSTEM 400 .......... 400 .......... 400 ..........
RESTORATION, CA............
SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE, .............. .......... .............. 750 .............. ..........
CA.........................
SONOMA CREEK AND 300 .......... .............. .......... 300 ..........
TRIBUTARIES, CA............
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 600 .......... 600 .......... 800 ..........
SHORELINE, CA..............
SUN VALLEY WATERSHED, CA.... .............. .......... 100 .......... 250 ..........
SUTTER COUNTY, CA........... 361 .......... 361 .......... 361 ..........
TAHOE BASIN, CA AND NV...... .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 1,720
THE COYOTE CREEK--LOWER SAN 500 .......... 500 .......... 500 ..........
GABRIEL WATERSHED, CA......
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA.. 628 .......... 628 .......... 628 ..........
VENTURA AND SANTA BARBARA, .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
CA.........................
WESTMINSTER, EAST GARDEN 650 .......... 650 .......... 650 ..........
GROVE, CA..................
WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, .............. .......... 200 .......... .............. ..........
ORESTIMBA CREEK, CA........
WILDCAT AND SAN PABLO .............. .......... .............. .......... 150 ..........
CREEKS, CA.................
WILSON AND OAK GLEN CREEKS, .............. .......... 400 .......... .............. ..........
SAN BERNADINO COUNTY, CA...

COLORADO

ADAMS COUNTY, CO............ 300 .......... .............. .......... 300 ..........
CACHE LA POUDRE, CO......... 316 .......... .............. .......... 316 ..........
CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND 276 .......... .............. .......... 276 ..........
BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS, CO..
FOUNTAIN CREEK AND .............. .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........
TRIBUTARIES, CO............
SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, CO..... .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
ROARING FORK RIVER, BASALT, .............. .......... .............. .......... 50 ..........
CO.........................

CONNECTICUT

MYSTIC SEAPORT HARBOR, CT... .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........

DELAWARE

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN .............. .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........
COMPREHENSIVE, DE, NJ, NY,
PA.........................
DELAWARE CANAL ENVIRONMENTAL .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
RESTORATION, DE............

FLORIDA

DAYTONA BEACH SHORES, .............. .......... .............. .......... 325 ..........
VOLUSIA COUNTY, FL.........
EGMONT KEY SHORELINE .............. .......... 200 .......... .............. ..........
STABILIZATION, FL..........
LIDO KEY SARASOTA COUNTY, FL .............. .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........
MILE POINT, FL.............. .............. .......... 500 .......... 235 ..........
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL.. .............. .......... 125 .......... 250 ..........
ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL........ .............. .......... .............. .......... 225 ..........
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FL........ .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
ST. PETERSBURG HARBOR, FL... .............. .......... .............. 500 .............. ..........
WALTON COUNTY, FL........... .............. .......... 200 500 .............. ..........

GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA.......... 750 .......... .............. .......... 750 ..........
AUGUSTA, GA................. 200 .......... 200 100 200 ..........
INDIAN, SUGAR, ENTRENCHMENT 680 .......... .............. .......... 680 ..........
AND FEDERAL PRISON CREEKS..
LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS 676 .......... .............. .......... 676 ..........
CREEKS, GA.................
NORTH BEACH, GA............. .............. .......... 100 .......... .............. ..........
SAVANNAH HARBOR ECOSYSTEM 400 .......... .............. .......... 400 ..........
RESTORATION, GA............
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, .............. 800 .............. 800 .............. 800
GA.........................
TYBEE ISLAND NORTH BEACH .............. .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........
SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT,
GA.........................

GUAM

HAGATNA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL, 100 .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
GUAM.......................

HAWAII

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI..... 400 .......... 600 .......... 600 ..........
BARBERS POINT HARBOR .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
MODIFICATION, OAHU, HA.....
KAHUKU, HI.................. 250 .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........
KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR .............. .......... .............. .......... 225 ..........
MODIFICATIONS, HI..........
LAUPAHOEHOE HARBOR PROJECT, .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
HI.........................
MOANALUA STREAM FLOOD DAMAGE .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
REDUCTION, HI..............
NAWILIWILI HARBOR .............. .......... .............. .......... 225 ..........
MODIFICATION, KAUAI, HI....
WAILUPE STREAM, OAHU, HI.... .............. .......... .............. .......... 860 ..........
WEST MAUI WATERSHED .............. .......... .............. .......... 300 ..........
RESTORATION PROJECT, HI....

IDAHO

BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID...... .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........

IOWA

CLEAR LAKE WATERSHED, IA.... .............. .......... 400 .......... .............. ..........
DES MOINES AND RACCOON .............. .......... .............. 100 .............. 400
RIVERS, IA.................
FOURMILE CREEK WATERSHED, IA .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
GRAND RIVER BASIN COMP .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
STUDY, IA AND MO...........

ILLINOIS

DES PLAINES RIVER, ILLINOIS, .............. .......... 200 .......... .............. 1,200
PHASE 2, IL................
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN 1,160 .......... 1,160 .......... 1,160 ..........
RESTORATION, IL............
ILLINOIS RIVER ECOSYSTEM 350 .......... 350 .......... 350 ..........
RESTORATION, IL............
KEITH CREEK, ROCKFORD, IL... 2 .......... .............. .......... 2 ..........
UPPER MISSISSIPPI .............. .......... 200 .......... .............. ..........
COMPREHENSIVE, IL..........
PEORIA RIVERFRONT .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 250
DEVELOPMENT, IL............
UPPER MISS AND ILLINOIS NAV .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 20,000
IMPROVEMENTS, IL, IA, MN,
MO, WI.....................
UPPER MISS RVR COMP PLAN, .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 500
IL, IA MN, MO, AND WI......
WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL........ .............. .......... .............. 185 .............. ..........

INDIANA

INDIANA HARBOR, IN.......... 1,000 .......... 300 .......... 300 ..........
ROCKY RIPPLE, FLOOD DAMAGE .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
REDUCTION PROJECT, IN......

KANSAS

BRUSH CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO .............. .......... .............. .......... 175 ..........
MANHATTAN, KS............... .............. .......... .............. .......... 155 ..........
MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION .............. .......... .............. .......... 1,000 ..........
STUDY, KS AND MO...........
TOPEKA, KS.................. 100 .......... 100 .......... 100 ..........
UPPER ARKANSAS RIVER, KS.... .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS...... .............. .......... .............. .......... 300 ..........
WALNUT AND WHITEWATER RIVER 200 .......... 200 .......... 200 ..........
WATERSHEDS, KS.............

KENTUCKY

BARREN RIVER LAKE, GLASGOW, .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
KY.........................
GREENUP LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO .............. .......... .............. .......... 450 ..........
RIVER, KY AND OH...........
LICKING RIVER, KY........... .............. .......... 200 .......... .............. ..........
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, 130 .......... 130 .......... 130 ..........
JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY.......
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, 132 .......... 132 .......... 132 ..........
SOUTHWEST, KY..............
SALT LICK CREEK, KY......... .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........

LOUISIANA

AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES .............. .......... .............. .......... 425 ..........
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA..
AMITA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, .............. .......... .............. .......... 275 ..........
BAYOU MANCHAC, LA..........
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS 585 .......... .............. .......... 585 ..........
CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, LA.
BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA....... .............. 1,500 .............. 1,500 .............. 1,500
BOSSIER PARISH, LA.......... .............. .......... .............. .......... 150 ..........
CALCASIEU LOCK, LA.......... .............. .......... .............. .......... 450 ..........
CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA... 612 .......... .............. .......... 612 ..........
CALCASIEU RIVER PASS SHIP 700 .......... 700 .......... 700 ..........
CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT, LA....
CROSS LAKE WATER SUPPLY .............. .......... 200 .......... .............. ..........
ENHANCEMENT, LA............
GRAND BAYOU, PLAQUEMINES .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
PARISH, LA.................
HURRICANE PROTESCTION, LA... .............. .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
STUDY, LA..................
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA 5,000 .......... .............. .......... 5,000 ..........
ECOSYST REST, LA (SCIENCE
AND TEC....................
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA 15,000 .......... .............. .......... 15,000 ..........
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA..
PLAQUEMINES PARISH URBAN .............. .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........
FLOOD CONTROL, LA..........
PORT OF IBERIA.............. .............. .......... .............. .......... 750 ..........
ST. BERNARD PARISH URBAN 656 .......... .............. .......... 636 ..........
FLOOD CONTROL, LA..........
ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN .............. .......... .............. .......... 450 ..........
FLOOD CONTROL, LA..........
WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA. .............. .......... .............. .......... 150 ..........
WEST PEARL NAVIGATION, LA .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
AND MS.....................
WEST SHORE LAKE .............. .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........
PONCHARTRAIN, LA...........

MAINE

SEARSPORT HARBOR, ME........ .............. .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........

MARYLAND

ANACOSTIA RIVER AND .............. .......... 400 .......... .............. ..........
TRIBUTARIES, MD AND DC.....
ANACOSTIA RIVER AND 180 .......... .............. .......... 180 ..........
TRIBUTARIES, PG COUNTY
LEVEE, MD &................
BALTIMORE METRO WTR RES- .............. .......... .............. .......... 500 ..........
PATAPSCO AND BACK RIVERS,
MD.........................
CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
PLAN, MD...................
CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, 525 .......... 1,000 .......... 525 ..........
MARYLAND COASTAL MANAGEMENT
CHES BAY SHORELINE--SEDI .............. .......... .............. .......... 900 ..........
BUDG, MODEL................
EASTERN SHORE, MID 500 .......... 500 .......... 500 ..........
CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD..
MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER GREATER .............. .......... .............. .......... 500 ..........
SENECA/MUDDY BRANCH, MD....

MASSACHUSETTS

BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED 170 .......... .............. .......... 170 ..........
RESTORATION, MA AND RI.....
COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
ECOSYSTEM REST, MA.........
BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT 650 .......... .............. .......... 650 ..........
CHANNEL), MA...............

MICHIGAN

DETROIT RIVER MASTERPLAN, MI .............. .......... .............. .......... 150 ..........
DETROIT RIVER SEAWALL .............. .......... 200 .......... .............. ..........
IMPROVEMENTS, MI...........
GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, 315 .......... 2,400 .......... 315 ..........
MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA.
ROUGE RIVER SUPPLEMENTAL .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
STUDY, MI..................

MINNESOTA

BLUE EARTH RIVER ECOSYSTEM .............. .......... .............. .......... 160 ..........
RESTORATION, MN, SD, IA, ND
CROOKSTON................... .............. .......... .............. .......... 125 ..........
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED .............. .......... .............. .......... 150 ..........
UMR LAKE ITASCA TO L&D 2,
MN.........................
MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN, MN .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
AND SD.....................
RED RIVER OF THE NORTH .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
BASIN, MN, ND, SD,&
MANITOBA CN................
ROSEAU RIVER, MN............ .............. .......... .............. .......... 244 ..........
WILD RICE RIVER, MN......... .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........

MISSISSIPPI

HANCOCK COUNTY SEAWALL 308 .......... .............. .......... 308 ..........
RESTORATION, MS............
PEARL RIVER WATERSHED, MS... .............. .......... .............. .......... 650 ..........
SHEAR'S CREEK AND DOWNTOWN .............. .......... .............. .......... 500 ..........
DRAINAGE STUDY, MS.........

MISSOURI

KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS..... 500 .......... 500 .......... 500 ..........
LITTLE BLUE RIVER BASIN, .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
JACKSON COUNTY, MO.........
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, 350 .......... .............. .......... 350 ..........
UNITS L455 AND R460-471, MO
RIVER DES PERES, MO......... .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
SPRINGFIELD, MO............. 250 .......... 250 500 250 ..........
ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, .............. 609 .............. 609 .............. 609
MO.........................
ST. LOUIS MISSISSIPPI 150 .......... .............. .......... 150 ..........
RIVERFRONT, MO AND IL......
ST. LOUIS, MO (WATERSHED)... 400 .......... .............. .......... 400 ..........
SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 200
KANSAS CITY, MO............
WEARS CREEK, JEFFERSON CITY, 150 .......... .............. .......... 150 ..........
MO.........................

MONTANA

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, 800 .......... .............. .......... 1,000 ..........
MT.........................

NEBRASKA

LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND 131 .......... .............. .......... 131 ..........
TRIBUTARIES, NE............
SALT CREEK WATERSHED, .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
LINCOLN, NE................

NEVADA

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING, NV .............. .......... .............. .......... 500 ..........
AND CA.....................
TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV......... .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 3,500

NEW HAMPSHIRE

MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED 200 .......... 200 .......... 200 ..........
STUDY, NH AND MA...........
PISCATAQUA RIVER AND .............. .......... .............. .......... 50 ..........
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR, NH......

NEW JERSEY

HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, 300 .......... 800 .......... 300 ..........
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ.
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, 400 .......... 1,000 .......... 400 ..........
LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ....
LOWER SADDLE RIVER, BERGON .............. .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........
COUNTY, NJ.................
MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 200
INLET, NJ..................
NJ INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY .............. .......... .............. .......... 75 ..........
ENV. RESTORATION, NJ.......
NJ SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE .............. .......... .............. .......... 150 ..........
LONG-TERM NOURISHMENT, NJ..
NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, 400 .......... 400 .......... 400 ..........
HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLE..
PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ. .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 375
PECKMAN RIVER BASIN, NJ..... .............. .......... .............. .......... 375 ..........
RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ...... .............. .......... .............. .......... 175 ..........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ.........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
BAY, KEYPORT, NJ...........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK 100 .......... 100 .......... 100 ..........
BAY, LEONARDO, NJ..........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 125
BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ.......
SHREWSBURY RIVER AND .............. .......... .............. .......... 125 ..........
TRIBUTARIES, NJ............
SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 375
BASIN, NJ..................
STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER .............. .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........
BASIN, NJ..................
UPPER ROCKWAY RIVER, NJ..... .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 250

NEW MEXICO

EAST MESA, LAS CAUCES, NM... .............. .......... .............. .......... 400 ..........
ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE 250 .......... 250 .......... 500 ..........
AND TRIBUTARIES, NM........
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BOSQUE, NM 250 .......... 250 .......... 250 ..........
RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO, .............. .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........
AND TX.....................
SANTA FE, NM................ .............. .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........
SOUTHWEST VALLEY FLOOD .............. .......... .............. 180 .............. 500
DAMAGE REDUCTION,
ALBBUQUERGUE, NM...........

NEW YORK

BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY....... 250 .......... 500 .......... 250 ..........
BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL 200 .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
DREDGING, NY...............
EAST RIVERS SEAWALLS, NY.... .............. .......... 175 .......... .............. ..........
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK, NIAGRA .............. .......... .............. .......... 125 ..........
COUNTY, NY.................
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY.. .............. .......... .............. 170 .............. ..........
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, 400 .......... 600 .......... 400 ..........
GOWANUS CANAL, NY..........
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY 800 .......... 1,000 .......... 800 ..........
AND NJ.....................
JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND .............. .......... .............. .......... 50 ..........
PLUMP BEACH, NY............
LAKE CHAMPLAIN CANAL .............. .......... .............. .......... 50 ..........
DISPERSAL BARRIER, NY AND
VT.........................
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY..... .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
MONTAUK POINT, NY........... .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, 30 .......... 30 .......... 30 ..........
ASHAROKEN, NY..............
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
BAYVILLE, NY...............
ONONDAGA LAKE, NY........... 200 .......... 1,500 .......... 200 ..........
SAW MILL RIVER, NY.......... .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
ISLAND, NY.................
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
BASIN, CATAONK CREEK, NY...

NORTH CAROLINA

BOUGUE BANKS, NC............ .............. .......... .............. .......... 150 ..........
CAPE FEAR RIVER LOCKS AND .............. .......... .............. .......... 300 ..........
DAM, NC....................
CURRITUCK SOUND, NC......... 300 .......... .............. .......... 300 ..........
NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC....... 260 .......... .............. .......... 260 ..........
SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL .............. .......... .............. .......... 350 ..........
BEACH, NC..................

OHIO

COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN AREA, 53 .......... .............. .......... 53 ..........
OH.........................
EUCLID LAKEFRONT, HARBOR .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
TOWN, OH...................
OHIO RIVERFRONT, CINCINNATI, .............. .......... .............. 500 .............. ..........
OH.........................
WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH, 560 .......... 650 .......... 560 ..........
IN, AND MI.................

OKLAHOMA

GRAND LAKE COMPREHENSIVE .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
STUDY, OK..................
GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER BASIN, .............. .......... .............. .......... 300 ..........
OK, KS, MO, AND AR.........
OOLOGAH LAKE WATERSHED, OK 328 .......... 328 .......... 328 ..........
AND KS.....................
RED RIVER BRUSH MGMT ABOVE .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
DENISON DAM, TX AND OK.....
SE OKLAHOMA STUDY, OK....... .............. .......... .............. .......... 80 ..........
SPAVINAW CREEK WATERSHED, OK .............. .......... .............. .......... 133 ..........
AND AR.....................
WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK..... .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
WISTER LAKE WATERSHED, OK... .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........

OREGON

AMAZON CREEK, OR............ 264 .......... 264 .......... 264 ..........
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER 300 .......... .............. .......... 300 ..........
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR
AND WA.....................
WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, 500 .......... 600 .......... .............. ..........
OR AND WA..................
WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
REVIEW, OR.................
WILLAMETTE RIVER 325 .......... .............. .......... 325 ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR.
WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN 436 .......... 436 .......... 436 ..........
RESTORATION, OR............

PENNSYLVANIA

BLOOMSBURG, PA.............. .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, .............. .......... .............. .......... 300 ..........
PA, DE, AND MD.............
MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL 250 .......... .............. .......... 250 ..........
DREDGING, PA...............
SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN 250 .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
ESTUARINE, PA..............
SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN, 200 .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
WISSAHICKON CREEK BASIN, PA
SUSQUEHANNA AND DELAWARE .............. .......... 170 .......... .............. ..........
RIVER BASINS, PA...........
UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, .............. .......... .............. .......... 2,550 ..........
PA.........................

PUERTO RICO

GUYANES RIVER, YABUCOA, PR.. .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........

SOUTH CAROLINA

COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
HARBOR, SC.................
EDISTO ISLAND, SC........... 100 .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
PAWLEYS ISLAND,SC........... .............. .......... .............. .......... .............. 181
REEDY RIVER, SC............. 300 .......... .............. .......... 300 ..........
SANTEE DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
RESTORATION, SC............

SOUTH DAKOTA

JAMES RIVER, SD AND ND...... .............. .......... .............. .......... 600 ..........

TENNESSEE

MILL CREEK WATERSHED, 450 .......... .............. .......... 450 ..........
DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN........

TEXAS

ABILENE, TX (BRAZOS RIVER .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
BASIN).....................
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, 2,500 .......... 2,000 .......... .............. ..........
BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX....
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBS, TX .............. .......... .............. .......... 50 ..........
(MAINSTEM).................
BUFFALO BAYOU AND .............. .......... 100 .......... .............. ..........
TRIBUTARIES, TX............
CEDAR BAYOU, TX............. .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
COLONIAS-LWR RIO GRANDE .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
BASIN ALONG TEX-MEX BORDORS
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX......... 500 .......... 750 .......... 750 ..........
GIWW, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
O'CONNOR, TX...............
GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
RIVER, TX (REALIGNMENTS)...
GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS .............. 500 .............. 500 .............. 500
RIVER, TX..................
GIWW, PORT O'CONNOR TO CORPS .............. .......... .............. .......... 700 ..........
CHRISTIE BAY, TX...........
GIWW, VICINITY OF PORT .............. .......... .............. .......... 700 ..........
ISABEL, TX.................
GREENS BAYOU, TX............ .............. .......... .............. 150 .............. ..........
GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO 300 .......... 1,000 .......... 300 ..........
RIVER BASINS, TX...........
HARRIS GULLY, TX............ .............. .......... .............. .......... 500 ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, 300 .......... 400 .......... 1,000 ..........
TX.........................
LOWER GUADALUPE AND SAN .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
ANTONIO RIVERS, TX.........
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX.. .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX..... 300 .......... 400 .......... 300 ..........
NECHES RIVER BASIN, TX...... 500 .......... .............. .......... 500 ..........
NUECES RIVER AND 500 .......... 575 .......... 500 ..........
TRIBUTARIES, TX............
RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX...... .............. .......... .............. 300 .............. 450
RESACAS AT BROWNSVILLE, TX.. 150 .......... .............. .......... 150 ..........
RIO GRANDE BASIN, TX........ 50 .......... 50 .......... 250 ..........
SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX. 419 .......... 800 .......... 419 ..........
SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON 788 .......... 788 .......... 788 ..........
BAY, TX....................
SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL 198 .......... 198 .......... 198 ..........
PASO COUNTY, TX............
TEXAS CITY CHANNEL (50-FOOT .............. 900 .............. 900 .............. 900
PROJECT), TX...............
UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, 700 .......... 1,000 .......... 700 ..........
TX.........................

UTAH

VIRGIN AND SEVIER .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
WATERSHEDS, UT.............

VIRGINIA

AIWW BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, .............. .......... .............. .......... 104 ..........
VA.........................
CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE 40 .......... .............. .......... 40 ..........
EROSION, MATHEWS COUNTY, VA
DISMAL SWAMP AND DISMAL 150 .......... 150 .......... 150 ..........
SWAMP CANAL, VA............
ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENV 200 .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
RESTORATION, VA (PHASE II).
ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON .............. 500 .............. .......... .............. 500
ROADS, VA..................
FOUR MILE RUN RESTORATION, .............. .......... 800 .......... .............. ..........
VA.........................
JOHN H KERR DAM AND 600 .......... .............. .......... 600 ..........
RESERVOIR, VA AND NC
(SECTION 216)..............
LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA... 400 .......... 400 .......... 400 ..........
MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN, .............. .......... 800 .......... .............. ..........
CAMERON/HOLMES RUN, VA.....
NEW RIVER BASIN, CLAYTOR 200 .......... 200 .......... 200 ..........
LAKE STATE PARK, VA........
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
CRANEY ISLAND, VA..........
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA........... .............. .......... 200 .......... .............. ..........
POWELL RIVER WATERSHED, VA.. 400 .......... .............. .......... 400 ..........
VICINITY OF WILLOUGHBY SPIT, .............. .......... .............. .......... 400 ..........
VA.........................

WASHINGTON

CENTRALIA, WA............... .............. .......... .............. .......... 50 ..........
CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA.... 340 .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
ELLIOT BAY SEWALL, WA....... .............. .......... .............. .......... 1,500 ..........
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, .............. .......... .............. .......... 150 ..........
WA.........................
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, 470 .......... 470 .......... .............. ..........
WA.........................
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE 470 .......... 500 .......... 1,500 ..........
HABITAT RESTORATION, WA....
SKAGIT RIVER,WA............. .............. .......... .............. .......... 600 ..........
SKOKOMISH RIVER, WA......... .............. .......... 200 .......... .............. ..........

WEST VIRGINIA

CHERRY RIVER BASIN, WV...... .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV.... 110 .......... .............. .......... 110 ..........
PARKERSBURG/VIENNA .............. .......... .............. 400 .............. ..........
RIVERFROUNT PARK, WV.......

WISCONSIN

BARABOO RIVER, WI........... .............. .......... .............. .......... 135 ..........
FOX RIVER, WI............... .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
KENOSHA HARBOR, WI.......... .............. .......... .............. .......... 100 ..........
ST. CROIX RIVER, WI......... .............. .......... 120 .......... 120 ..........
ST. CROIX RIVER RELOCATION .............. .......... 500 .......... .............. ..........
OF ENDANGERED MUSSELS, WI..

WYOMING

BEAR RIVER FEASIBILITY .............. .......... .............. .......... 200 ..........
STUDY, WY..................

MISCELLANEOUS

COASTAL FIELD DATA 1,875 .......... 1,875 .......... 6,375 ..........
COLLECTION.................
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES.. 94 .......... 94 .......... 94 ..........
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA........... 248 .......... 248 .......... 248 ..........
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT 5,625 .......... 5,625 .......... 8,935 ..........
SERVICES...................
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES.......... 300 .......... 300 .......... 300 ..........
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES. 300 .......... 300 .......... 300 ..........
NATIONAL SHORELINE.......... 375 .......... 375 .......... 375 ..........
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS. 3,899 .......... .............. .......... 4,300 ..........
AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS.... .............. .......... 150 .......... .............. ..........
CALFED...................... .............. .......... 94 .......... .............. ..........
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM...... .............. .......... 75 .......... .............. ..........
COORDINATION WITH OTHER .............. .......... 246 .......... .............. ..........
WATER RESOURCES AGENCIES...
FERC LICENSING.............. .............. .......... 150 .......... .............. ..........
GULF OF MEXICO.............. .............. .......... 131 .......... .............. ..........
INTERAGENCY AND .............. .......... 113 .......... .............. ..........
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT......
INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE .............. .......... 750 .......... .............. ..........
DEVELOPMENT................
INVENTORY OF DAMS........... .............. .......... 222 .......... .............. ..........
LAKE TAHOE.................. .............. .......... 94 .......... .............. ..........
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.... .............. .......... 75 .......... .............. ..........
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL .............. .......... 75 .......... .............. ..........
MANAGEMENT PLAN............
PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST .............. .......... 75 .......... .............. ..........
CASE.......................
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND .............. .......... 1,649 .......... .............. ..........
REPORTS....................
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO 4,650 .......... 4,650 .......... 7,550 ..........
STATES.....................
PRECIPITATION STUDIES 225 .......... 225 .......... 225 ..........
(NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE).
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC 152 .......... 152 .......... 152 ..........
INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.... 22,000 .......... 19,643 .......... 34,500 ..........
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL 78 .......... 78 .......... 78 ..........
INFORMATION CENTERS........
STREAM GAGING (U.S. 600 .......... 600 .......... 600 ..........
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY).........
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS...... 375 .......... 375 .......... 375 ..........
TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS 402 .......... 402 .......... 402 ..........
TECHNOLOGY CENTER..........
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED -20,911 .......... .............. .......... -40,126 ..........
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, General 87,896 7,104 88,597 12,362 138,662 41,338
Investigations.......
95,000
100,000
180,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Knik Bridge Crossing, AK.--The Committee has included
$1,000,000 to initiate this technical study of the Federal
channel.
Kotzebue Harbor, AK.--The Committee has provided $500,000
to initiate this technical study to improve safety at the
harbor.
Little Diomede Harbor, AK.--The Committee has included
$400,000 to initate the technical study of navigation
improvements.
Little River County (Ogden Levee), AR.--The Committee has
included $100,000 to initiate Preconstruction Engineering and
Design [PED] studies. It is the Committee's understanding that
Federal interest has been previously determined and that this
project should proceed directly to PED.
Pine Mountain Dam, AR.--$400,000 is provided to continue
the General Reevaluation Report for the authorized project.
Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, AR and LA.--The
Committee has included $400,000 to complete feasibility and
initiate PED.
White River Minimum Flows, AR and MO.--The Committee
recognizes the importance of providing minimum flows from
various Corps projects as vital to aquatic ecosystem
restoration efforts along the river. However, the Committee
understands that there are serious issues that need to be
resolved prior to significant progress being made on this
project. Therefore, the Committee has provided $100,000 to
allow the Corps to continue to negotiate these contentious
issues with the local sponsor.
Coyote, CA.--$100,000 has been provided for this new
reconnaissance study as provided in the budget request.
Napa Valley Watershed Management, CA.--The Committee has
deleted funding for this study as local interests have
indicated a desire to terminate the study in fiscal year 2005.
Orange County Special Area Management Plan [SAMP], CA.--
$169,000 has been provided to complete the SAMP.
San Joaquin Valley Area, CA.--The Committee has provided
$100,000 to initiate a reconnaissance study of the San Joaquin
Valley in California (consisting of Stanislaus, Madera, Merced,
Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties).
Tahoe Basin, CA and NV.--$1,700,000 has been provided for
continuation of PED.
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Environmental Restoration,
DE.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for this
reconnaissance study.
Daytona Beach Shores, Volusia County, FL.--The Committee
has provided $325,000 to continue the feasibility study.
Tybee Island, GA.--$250,000 has been included to continue
this storm damage reduction project.
Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, IA.--$400,000 has been
included PED.
Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Navigation
Improvements, IL, IA, MN, MO, and WI.--The Committee recognizes
the importance of modernizing our Nation's waterways and has
provided $20,000,000 for the continued PED on this important
project.
Rocky Ripple, IN.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for
this feasibility study.
Missouri River Degradation Study, KS and MO.--The Committee
has provided $1,000,000 to initiate this study to investigate
the scour problems and degradation of the riverbed.
Salt Lick Creek, KY.--$100,000 is provided for this
reconnaissance study.
Louisiana Coastal Area, LA.--The Committee recognizes the
tremendous value of these coastal wetlands to the Nation. Much
of our national oil and gas infrastructure is protected by
these wetlands which are being lost at an alarming rate. The
Committee has provided the full budget request of $20,000,000
to further studies to determine ways to stop and reverse
wetland loss.
Pearl River Navigation, LA and MS.--The committee has
provided $100,000 for reconnaissance studies directed towards
deauthorization of this outdated project and to determine
appropriate disposal of project facilities.
Great Lakes Navigation Study, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA,
and WI.--$315,000 has been provided to continue this study.
These funds are to be used to complete the supplement to the
reconnaissance report of Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway
Navigation Study, which, based on previous agreement between
the secretary, the ministry of transportation Canada, and the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, is to be
limited in scope to evaluating the economic, engineering and
environmental impacts of maintaining the great lakes St.
Lawrence Seaway at current size draft and length of locks. The
Secretary is directed to complete the supplemental report by
September 2006, after which Congress, interested State and
Federal agencies, and the public shall review the report for 1
year to determine whether additional study is warranted.
Pearl River Watershed, MS.--$650,000 is provided to
complete the feasibility study.
St. Louis Watershed, MO.--The Committee has included the
budget request for this new reconnaissance study.
Salt Creek Watershed, Lincoln, NE.--The Committee has
provided $100,000 for this reconnaissance study.
Truckee Meadows, NV.--The Committee has provided $3,500,000
to continue PED for this important flood control project and
encourages the Corps to complete the necessary studies as soon
as possible.
Piscataqua River and Portsmouth Harbor, NH.--$50,000 is
provided to initiate the feasibility study.
East Mesa, Las Cruces, NM.--The Committee has included
$400,000 to pursue flood control and safety studies associated
with aging flood control structures.
Espanola Valley, Rio Grande and Tributaries, NM.--The
Committee has provided an additional $250,000 to accelerate
development of the environmental programs and other activities
associated with the Espanola diversion project consistent with
the cost-share agreement signed May 2005.
Rio Grande Basin, NM, CO & TX.--The Committee has provided
$250,000 for the feasibility study.
Santa Fe, NM.--The Committee has provided $250,000 to
continue on-going projects.
SW Valley Flood Damage Reduction, Albuquerque, NM.--The
Committee has provided $500,000 toward completion of this
project.
Upper Ohio Navigation Study, PA.--The Committee has
provided $2,550,000 for this navigation feasibility study.
Lower Colorado River, TX.--The Committee has provided
$1,000,000 to continue the feasibility study.
Neches River Basin, TX.--The Committee has provided
$500,000 for this new reconnaissance study as proposed in the
budget request.
Virgin and Sevier Watersheds, UT.--The Committee has
provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study to investigate
solutions to the devastating floods that recently occurred in
these watersheds.
AIWW Bridges at Deep Creek, VA.--The Committee has provided
$104,000 to complete the PED studies for this project.
Coastal Field Data Collection.--The Committee has provided
$6,375,000 for this program. Within the funds provided,
$1,000,000 is for the Coastal Data Information Program,
$1,000,000 is for the Southern California Beach Processes
Study, $1,500,000 is for the Pacific Island Land Ocean Typhoon
Experiment [PILOT] and $1,000,000 is for the Surge and Wave
Island Modeling Studies [SWIMS].
Other Coordination Studies.--The Committee has provided
$4,300,000 for this program. Within the funds provided,
$500,000 is to continue work associated with the Lake Tahoe
Interagency Partnership.
Flood Plain Management Services.--The Committee has
provided $8,935,000 for this program. Within the funds
provided, $1,000,000 is for Hurricane Evacuation Studies in HI;
$1,250,000 for Livingston Parish, LA, GIS; $160,000 to complete
the East Baton Rouge Parish, LA, GIS; $400,000 for Rancocas
Creek, NJ; and $500,000 for the Navajo Nation, NM, Flood Plain
Delineation.
Planning Assistance to States.--The Committee has included
$7,550,000 for the program. Within the funds provided $150,000
is for the Delaware Recreation Supply and Demand study;
$150,000 is for the Delaware Groundwater Investigation;
$250,000 is for the Hilo Bay, HI, Water Quality Model; $100,000
is for Lafayette/West Lafayette, IN; $400,000 is for the Rock
Creek, KS, Basin Stormwater project; $350,000 is for the
Assabet River, MA, Sediment Remediation Study; $1,000,000 is
for New Mexico Photogrammetric Mapping; $100,000 for the
Bartlesville, OK, Water Supply Study; $100,000 for the Mangum,
OK, Lake Phase V study; $50,000 is for the Waccamaw River
Watershed Modeling, SC; $50,000 is for the Surfside Beach, SC,
Stormwater Drainage Study; and $200,000 is for the Memphis
Riverfront Development, TN.
Research and Development.--The Committee has provided
$34,500,000 for the Corps R&D program. Within the funds
provided, $1,000,000 is for Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic
vegetation research, $1,000,000 is for the National Cooperative
Modeling Demonstration Program (model based negotiation process
piloted by the Institute for Water Resources), and $3,500,000
is provided for innovative technology demonstrations for urban
flooding and channel restoration in New Mexico and Nevada.
These demonstrations will be conducted in close coordination
and cooperation with the Urban Water Research Program of the
Desert Research Institute and the University of New Mexico.
$750,000 is provided for the Southwest Urban Flood Damage
Program research in New Mexico. $750,000 is provided for
implementation of the Collaborative Planning and Management
Demonstration Program within the Institute for Water Resources
in collaboration with Sandia National Laboratories and the
Idaho National Laboratory. An additional $5,000,000 has been
provided to counter declining research and development budgets.

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2005..................................\1\ $1,781,720,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 1,637,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,900,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,086,664,000

\1\ Excludes emergency appropriations of $62,600,000.

This appropriation includes funds for construction, major
rehabilitation and related activities for water resources
development projects having navigation, flood control, water
supply, hydroelectric, environmental restoration, 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
authorizing 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget House Committee
Project title estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALABAMA

MOBILE HARBOR, AL............................................... .............. 2,000 ..............
TUSCALOOSA, AL.................................................. .............. .............. 4,000
WALTER F. GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA (MAJOR REHAB)............ 4,121 3,915 4,121

ALASKA

AKUTAN HARBOR, AK............................................... .............. .............. 1,000
ALASKA COASTAL EROSION, AK...................................... .............. .............. 2,400
BETHEL BANK STABILIZATION....................................... .............. .............. 5,000
CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK.............................................. 2,000 1,900 2,000
COFFMAN COVE, AK................................................ .............. .............. 600
DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR.......................................... .............. .............. 3,000
DILLINGHAM EMERGENCY BANK STABILIZATION, AK..................... .............. .............. 4,000
FALSE PASS HARBOR, AK........................................... .............. .............. 7,000
HAINES HARBOR, AK............................................... .............. .............. 1,000
KAKE DAM, AK.................................................... .............. .............. 5,000
NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK.................................... .............. .............. 13,000
SAND POINT HARBOR, AK........................................... .............. .............. 6,000
ST. PAUL HARBOR, AK............................................. .............. .............. 8,000
UNALASKA HARBOR, AK............................................. .............. .............. 1,000

ARIZONA

NOGALES WASH, AZ................................................ .............. .............. 4,500
RIO DE FLAG, AZ................................................. .............. 2,500 4,000
RIO SALADO, PHOENIX AND TEMP REACHES, AZ........................ .............. 8,000 8,000
TRES RIOS, AZ................................................... .............. 3,000 6,000
TUCSON, ARIZONA DRAINAGE AREA, AZ............................... .............. 10,000 5,000

ARKANSAS

FOUCH BAYOU BASIN, LITTLE ROCK, AR.............................. .............. .............. 800
MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR............................... 20,000 20,000 20,000
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR POWERHOUSE.................................... .............. .............. 4,500
RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, LA, AR, OK AND TX.................. .............. .............. 4,000
RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR AND LA.................. .............. .............. 6,000

CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA.................................... 28,960 28,960 ..............
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON FEATURES), CA.................. .............. .............. 3,000
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), CA......... .............. .............. 15,850
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MINI RAISE), CA............ .............. .............. 12,000
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA (EI).................................. .............. .............. 500
CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA.......................................... .............. 200 250
COYOTE AND BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA................................. .............. .............. 500
GUADALUPE RIVER, CA............................................. 5,600 5,600 5,600
HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA...................... 13,000 13,000 13,000
HARBOR/SOUTH BAYWATER RECYCLING PROJECTS, LOS ANGELES........... .............. 4,000 4,000
KAWEAH RIVER, CA................................................ 4,300 4,085 4,800
LOS ANGELES HARBOR MAIN CHANNEL DEEPENING, CA................... 2,700 2,700 2,732
LOWER WALNUT CREEK BASIN STUDY, CA.............................. .............. 250 ..............
MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA................... .............. .............. 372
MURRIETA CREEK, CA.............................................. .............. .............. 5,000
NAPA RIVER, CA.................................................. 6,000 6,000 16,000
OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA............................ 48,000 48,000 42,000
SACRAMENTO AREA, CA............................................. .............. 6,000 ..............
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA.................... .............. 6,300 ..............
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA............................... .............. 250 ..............
SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA........................................... .............. .............. 1,000
SAN RAMON VALLY RECYCLED WATER, CA.............................. .............. .............. 3,000
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA.................................... 50,000 61,650 42,500
SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA............................. 2,852 2,852 5,000
SURFSIDE, SUNSET AND NEWPORT BEACHES, CA........................ .............. .............. 400
STOCKTON METROPOLITIAN FLOOD CONTROL REIMBURSEMENT, CA.......... 5,000 5,000 5,000
SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY)........................ 8,000 8,000 8,000
UPPER GUDADALUPE RIVER, CA...................................... .............. .............. 3,250
UPPER NEWPORT BAY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA..................... .............. 2,000 7,000
YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA............................................ .............. 200 1,200

DELAWARE

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TO LEWES BEACH.......... 10 .............. 60
DELAWARE COAST, BETHANY BEACH TO SOUTH BETHANY BEACH............ .............. .............. 4,000
DELAWARE COAST, CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK IS, DE................. .............. 1,700 1,000
DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE................................... .............. .............. 320
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, BROADKILL BEACH, DE..................... .............. .............. 500
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, PORT MAHON, DE.......................... .............. .............. 1,000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON, DC AND VICINITY..................................... 400 .............. 400

FLORIDA

BREVARD COUNTY, PROTECTION, FL.................................. .............. 500 500
BROWARD COUNTY, REIMBURSEMENT, FL............................... .............. 1,000 ..............
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL............................................ .............. 1,500 ..............
CEDAR HAMMOCK/WARES CREEK, FL................................... .............. .............. 1,000
CENTRAL AND SOUTH FLORIDA, FL................................... .............. .............. 76,826
DADE COUNTY, FL................................................. .............. .............. 1,800
EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM PESTORATION.............. .............. .............. 12,000
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS, FL..................... .............. 1,300 3,000
FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL........................................... .............. 200 ..............
HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (MAJOR REHAB)........................... 16,900 16,055 16,900
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL (GRR)................................... .............. .............. 500
KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL............................................. .............. .............. 13,174
LEE COUNTY, FL.................................................. .............. 750 1,500
NASSAU COUNTY, SHORE PRTECTION, FL.............................. .............. 3,000 ..............
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL........................................... .............. 2,450 ..............
PONCE DE LEON INLET............................................. .............. .............. 1,750
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL...................................... .............. 500 500
SOUTH FLORIDA EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL.............. 137,000 137,000 ..............
ST. LUCIE INLET, FL............................................. .............. .............. 2,000
TAMPA HARBOR, FL (GRR).......................................... .............. .............. 200
TAMPA HARBOR, BIG BEND, FL...................................... 5,000 4,000 5,000
TAMPA HARBOR, SUTTON CHANNEL, FL................................ .............. 1,000 ..............

GEORGIA

ATLANTA, GA (EI)................................................ .............. .............. 2,000
BRUNSWICK, GA................................................... .............. 19,100 19,100
BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB)............................. 5,812 .............. 5,812
HARTWELL LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB)............... 733 696 733
OATE CREEK, RICHMOND COUNTY, CA (DEF CORK)...................... .............. .............. 500
TYBEE ISLAND, GA (LRR).......................................... .............. .............. 18
RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC...................... 1,300 1,300 1,300
THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB)............... 5,700 5,415 5,700

HAWAII

HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT, HI..................................... .............. .............. 2,000
IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF CORR)................... .............. .............. 500
KAUMALAPAU HARBOR, LANAI, HI.................................... .............. .............. 13,000
KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI........................... 3,550 3,550 3,550

IDAHO

RURAL IDAHO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, ID.................... .............. 2,000 5,500

ILLINOIS

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR).......... 5,495 .............. 5,495
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIOR, IL........... .............. .............. 4,000
CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL........................................... 20,000 15,000 21,500
COOK COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, IL.................... .............. 500 ..............
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL........................................... .............. 5,000 4,000
EAST ST. LOUIS, IL.............................................. 760 722 760
EAST ST. LOUIS (INTERIOR FLOOD CONTROL), IL..................... .............. .............. 400
LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH........ 4,300 4,300 4,300
LOCK NO. 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO....................... .............. .............. 1,000
MADISON AND CLAIRE COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTUR......... .............. 1,000 ..............
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL.............................. .............. 25,000 30,000
MELVIN PRICE L&D, IL AND MO..................................... .............. .............. 750
NUTWOOD DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, IL......................... .............. .............. 300
OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY.................... 90,000 90,000 85,000
SOUTHERN ILLINIOS SHORELINE PROJECT, IL......................... .............. 200 ..............
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO &........... 33,500 33,500 20,000
WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, IL...................... .............. 590 ..............

INDIANA

CALUMET REGION, ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, IN................ .............. 3,500 ..............
INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY), IN................. 8,000 7,600 7,600
INDIANAN SHORELINE EROSION, IN.................................. .............. 500 ..............
INDIANA UNIVERSITY, SOUTH BEND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, IN............ .............. 715 ..............
INDIANAPOLIS COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW, IN........................ .............. 500 ..............
INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN........................... 3,200 3,040 3,040
JOHN T. MEYERS LOCK AND DAM, IN................................. .............. 700 ..............
LITTLE CALAMET RIVER, IN........................................ .............. 6,500 ..............
LITTLE CALAMET RIVER BASIN, CADY MARSH DITCH, IN................ .............. 4,000 ..............
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB)............................. 4,481 4,257 4,257
OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ACCESS, IN........................... .............. 3,100 ..............

IOWA

DAVENPORT, IA................................................... .............. .............. 400
DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA............................... .............. .............. 400
DES MOINES RECREATIONAL RIVER AND GREENBELT, IA................. .............. 5,000 3,500
LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB)............ 7,580 7,202 7,580
LOCK AND DAM 19, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB)............ 17,502 17,502 17,502
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE... 82,800 72,627 60,000
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS, AND MO................. .............. .............. 750
PERRY CREEK, IA................................................. 10,000 10,000 10,000

KANSAS

ARKANSAS CITY, KS............................................... 2,619 2,619 2,619
TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO................................... .............. .............. 4,000
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS (DAM SAFETY).............................. 27,000 25,650 27,000

KENTUCKY

KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY...................... .............. 21,750 32,000
MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND IN................... 70,000 70,000 65,000
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY......................... 3,670 3,670 3,670
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE)..................... 2,500 2,375 2,500

LOUISIANA

ASCENSION PARISH, LA (EI)....................................... .............. .............. 500
COMITE RIVER, LA................................................ 6,254 6,254 6,254
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA (EI)................................ .............. .............. 500
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA (FC)................................ .............. .............. 1,000
GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LA..................................... .............. .............. 900
IBERIA PARISH, LA (EI).......................................... .............. .............. 500
INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA.......................... .............. 9,038 15,000
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA................................. 1,500 1,500 15,000
LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE PROTECT.......... 2,977 2,977 7,500
LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION).............. .............. .............. 1,000
LIVINGSTON PARISH, LA (EI)...................................... .............. .............. 500
MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE............. .............. .............. 229
NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)................ .............. .............. 3,600
OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, LA....................................... .............. .............. 1,000
SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA......................................... 10,491 10,491 37,000
WEST BANK AND VICINITY, NEW ORLEANS, LA......................... 28,000 28,000 25,000

MARYLAND

ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD........................................... .............. .............. 1,020
ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD.................................. .............. .............. 4,900
BALTIMORE METRO-WYNNS FALLS, MD................................. .............. .............. 3,000
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA....................... .............. 1,000 3,000
CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM, MD, VA AND PA............. .............. .............. 2,950
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV................................. .............. .............. 1,200
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV (DAM SAFETY).................. 400 380 400
POPLAR ISLAND, MD............................................... 13,400 13,400 13,400

MASSACHUSETTS

MUDDY RIVER ECOSYSTEM AND FLOOD DAMAGE, MA...................... .............. 1,500 1,500

MICHIGAN

GENESEE COUNTY, MI (KEARSLYE CREEK INTERCEPTOR)................. .............. .............. 450
GEORGE W. KUHN DRAIN RETENTION FACILITY, MI..................... .............. 50 ..............
GREAT LAKE FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.................... .............. .............. 500
NEGAUNEE, MI.................................................... .............. .............. 464
SAULT ST. MARIE REPLACEMENT LOCK, MI............................ .............. 2,000 ..............

MINNESOTA

BRECKENRIDGE, MN................................................ .............. .............. 1,500
L&D 3 NAVIGATION SAFETY AND EMBANKMENT REEVALUATION............. .............. .............. 2,000
MILLE LACS REGIONAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, MN.................. .............. 1,500 ..............
NORTHEAST, MN................................................... .............. 5,000 ..............

MISSISSIPPI

COASTAL MISSISSIPPI WETLANDS RESTORATION........................ .............. .............. 2,500
DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI WASTEWATER TREATMENT, MS............. .............. 3,000 20,000
GULFPORT, MS.................................................... .............. .............. 1,200
MISSISSIPPI, MS (EI)............................................ .............. .............. 25,000
NATCHEZ, MS..................................................... .............. .............. 250
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS........................................... .............. .............. 3,500

MISSOURI

BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO............................... .............. 4,000 ..............
BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO............................. 5,000 5,000 5,000
BOIS BRULE, MO.................................................. .............. .............. 2,413
CAPE GIRARDEAU (FLOODWALL), MO.................................. .............. 300 ..............
CHESTERFIELD, MO................................................ .............. .............. 1,200
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO (MAJOR REHAB)............................... 22,000 22,000 22,000
MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO...................... 7,582 7,582 7,582
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO.......... 4,000 3,800 3,800
MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT, MO.......... .............. .............. 1,750
STE GENEVIEVE, MO............................................... .............. .............. 550

MONTANA

FT. PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT....................................... .............. .............. 700
RURAL MONTANA, MT (EI).......................................... .............. .............. 5,000

NEBRASKA

ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE..................................... .............. 1,000 3,250
MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE AND SD................. .............. 648 ..............
SAND CREEK WATERSHED, NE........................................ .............. .............. 4,000
WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NE............................... .............. .............. 3,000

NEVADA

RURAL NEVADA, NV................................................ .............. .............. 25,000
TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION, NV AND CA (EI)......................... .............. .............. 5,200
TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV............................... 13,000 13,000 18,000

NEW HAMPSHIRE

OTTER BROOK DAM, NH (DAM SAFETY)................................ 1,430 1,359 1,430

NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR INLET, NJ................... .............. 5,000 5,000
CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ............................ 1,900 1,900 1,900
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, OAKWOOD BEACH, NJ....................... .............. .............. 250
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DE AND NJ, REEDS BEACH TO PIERCE........ .............. .............. 1,100
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DE AND NJ VILLAS AND VICINITY........... .............. .............. 2,450
DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA AND DE...................... .............. .............. 3,000
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ....................... .............. .............. 600
HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ.............. .............. 1,500 ..............
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ...................... 7,000 5,500 7,000
MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ........................... .............. 400 ..............
MOLLY ANN'S BROOK, NJ........................................... .............. 3,000 1,500
PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NJ........................ .............. .............. 500
PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE, NJ............... .............. 3,000 ..............
PASSAIC RIVER STREAMBANK PRESERVATION, NJ(MINISH PARK).......... .............. .............. 3,000
RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ..................................... .............. .............. 1,750
RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, NEW JERSEY AND SUFFERN, NY............ .............. 250 ..............
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ.............................. .............. .............. 250
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ (PORT MONMOUTH).............. .............. .............. 2,000
RARITAN RIVER BASIN GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ................... .............. 5,000 5,000
SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ................................ .............. .............. 4,000
TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ........................... 11,600 11,600 11,600

NEW MEXICO

ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM.................................. 1,800 .............. 3,100
ALAMOGORDO, NM.................................................. 4,200 4,200 4,200
CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM (EI)..................................... .............. .............. 5,000
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELE.......... .............. .............. 600
NEW MEXICO, NM (EI)............................................. .............. .............. 5,000
RIO GRANDE FLOODWY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE APACHE, NM............. .............. .............. 700
SW VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NM...................................... .............. .............. 100

NEW YORK

ATLANTIC COAST OF LONG ISLAND, LONG ISLAND BEACH, NY............ .............. 200 ..............
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY.......................... 800 1,000 2,500
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ....................... 101,000 101,000 90,000
NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NY..................................... .............. .............. 1,000
ONONDAGA LAKE, NY............................................... .............. 3,500 ..............
ORCHARD BEACH, NY............................................... .............. 300 ..............

NORTH CAROLINA

BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC.................................... .............. 300 300
DARE COUNTY BECHES, NC.......................................... .............. .............. 2,500
WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND RIVER INLET, NC........................... .............. .............. 600
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC........................................... 19,900 19,900 19,900
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC.......................................... 890 890 890

NORTH DAKOTA

BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION ND.......... .............. 500 1,500
GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB).................. 3,582 3,403 3,582
GRAND FORKS, ND--EAST GRAND FORKS, MN........................... 40,000 35,000 40,000
MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION...................................... .............. .............. 250
SHEYENNE RIVER, ND.............................................. 550 523 550

OHIO

METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH............... 1,650 1,568 1,650
OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE............................... .............. 13,000 ..............

OKLAHOMA

CANTON LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY).................................... 6,000 6,000 6,000
ELM FORK, RED RIVER, OK (CHLORIDE CONTROL)...................... .............. .............. 500
LAWTON, OK...................................................... .............. .............. 50
TAR CREEK, OK................................................... .............. .............. 5,000
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)........................... 5,200 5,200 5,200
WEBBER FALLS LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE (MAJOR REHAB).............. .............. .............. 4,000

OREGON

BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR AND WA (MAJOR REHAB)......... 5,000 4,750 5,000
COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, OR AND WA.................. 15,000 15,000 15,000
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA........... 4,000 .............. 4,000
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR.............................................. 300 .............. 300
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA........... .............. .............. 2,000
WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR........................ 1,000 950 1,000

PENNSYLVANIA

EMSWORTH LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, PA (MAJOR REHAB)............ 15,000 15,000 15,000
LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA................ 50,800 50,800 46,000
NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA INFRASTRUCTURE, PA.................... .............. 2,600 ..............
PRESQUE ISLE, PA (PERMANENT).................................... .............. .............. 620
PROMPTON LAKE, PA............................................... 8,480 8,056 8,480
SAW MILL RIVER RUN, PA.......................................... .............. 1,000 ..............
SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE......... .............. 10,000 ..............
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA COBBS CREEK PARK PHILADELPHIA......... .............. 310 ..............
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TACONY CREEK, PA...................... .............. 500 ..............
THREE RIVERS WET WEATHER DEMO PROGRAM, PA....................... .............. .............. 1,000
WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING).............................. 10,496 10,496 10,496

PUERTO RICO

ARECIBO RIVER, PR............................................... 3,800 4,000 3,800
PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR................................. 14,000 14,000 14,000
RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR............................................ 20,000 20,000 20,000

RHODE ISLAND

FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, RI................................. .............. .............. 700

SOUTH CAROLINA

FOLLY BEACH, SC................................................. .............. .............. 80
LAKE MARION, SOUTH CAROLINA REGIONAL WATER AGENCY............... .............. 6,000 ..............
MYRTLE BEACH, SC (RENOURISHMENT)................................ .............. .............. 100
PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC.............................................. .............. .............. 2,420

SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD................................ .............. .............. 2,000
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD............... .............. .............. 5,000
MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SD.................................. .............. .............. 100

TENNESSEE

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN............................................ .............. 10,000 10,000

TEXAS

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX........................................ 11,800 11,800 11,800
CLEAR CREEK, TX................................................. .............. 1,500 ..............
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX................................. .............. .............. 523
DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TX................................... .............. 2,000 15,000
GRAHAM, TX (BRAZOS RIVER BASIN)................................. .............. .............. 1,000
HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX....................... 24,800 26,000 35,000
HUNTING BAYOU, TX............................................... .............. 500 ..............
JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX............... 500 500 500
LOWER SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASIN, TX............................... .............. 300 ..............
NORTH PADRE ISLAND, PACKERY CHANNEL, TX......................... .............. .............. 5,438
RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, OK, TX, AR AND LA............. .............. .............. 1,500
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX................ .............. 3,640 1,820
SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX......................................... 18,000 15,000 15,000
WHITNEY LAKE POWERHOUSE, TX (MAJOR REHAB)....................... .............. .............. 4,551

UTAH

RURAL UTAH, UT (EI)............................................. .............. .............. 10,000

VERMONT

BURLINGTON HARBOR, VT........................................... .............. .............. 500
LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VT.................................... .............. .............. 2,000
VERMONT DAMS REMEDIATION, VT.................................... .............. .............. 130

VIRGINIA

EMBREY DAM, VA.................................................. .............. .............. 2,000
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA......................................... .............. .............. 1,300
JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (MAJOR REHAB)......... 14,000 13,300 14,000
LAKE MERRIWEATHER, GOSHEN DAN AND SPILLWAY, VA.................. .............. .............. 4,000
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VA (DEEPENING)..................... .............. .............. 4,295
ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA.................. 5,000 5,000 5,000
SANDBRIDGE, VA.................................................. .............. .............. 4,000
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)....................... 4,000 4,000 11,395

WASHINGTON

CHEIF JOSEPH DAM GAS ABATEMENT, VA.............................. .............. .............. 8,000
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR, ID...................... .............. .............. 85,000
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH RECOVERY, WA, OR AND ID..................... 102,000 90,000 ..............
DUNAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA.............................. .............. .............. 2,500
HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, WA..................... 14,100 14,100 14,100
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR........ 900 .............. 900
MT ST. HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA.............................. 360 360 660
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY)............................... 4,400 4,400 4,400
PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS RESTORATION..................... .............. .............. 2,000
SHOALWATER BAY, WA.............................................. .............. .............. 2,000

WEST VIRGINIA

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY)................................. 21,500 20,425 21,500
CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA, WV....................................... .............. 750 ..............
GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV...................................... .............. .............. 3,000
ISLAND CREEK AT LOGAN, WV....................................... .............. .............. 305
LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V.......... .............. 20,000 14,100
LOWER MUD RIVER, WV............................................. .............. .............. 1,250
MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV.................................. 68,830 68,830 73,500
ROBERT C. BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV AND OH............. 914 914 914
SOUTHERN WEST VIRIGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE............ .............. 1,000 ..............
WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL, WV................ .............. 1,000 ..............
WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV....................... 2,400 .............. 2,400

WISCONSIN

NORTHERN WISCONSIN, WI.......................................... .............. 9,000 ..............

MISCELLANEOUS

ABANDONED MINE RESTORATION...................................... .............. .............. 1,705
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206)..................... 15,000 18,000 25,000
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM................................... 3,000 4,500 4,500
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL(SEC 204,SEC 207,SE.......... 3,000 4,000 6,200
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM............. 11,000 10,500 15,000
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM.................... 12,000 8,800 12,000
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SECTION.......... 4,000 8,000 15,000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION.......................................... 21,000 21,000 21,000
ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC LAW 106-457)................ 5,000 .............. 5,000
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205)............................ 13,000 25,000 41,000
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD EXPENSE..................... 40 40 40
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE..................... 170 170 170
MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGES (SECTION 111)....................... 1,500 500 2,000
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT........ 15,000 17,400 25,000
SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 103)......................... 500 1,000 7,000
SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMO (SEC. 227)....... .............. .............. 3,800
SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECTS (SECTION 208).................... 400 400 400
SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS, SECTION 107.......................... .............. 4,000 15,000
SUSPENSION FUND................................................. 80,000 .............. ..............
TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM...................................... .............. .............. 800
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.................. -1,441 .............. -202,833
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Construction General............................... 1,637,000 1,900,000 2,086,664
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuscaloosa, AL.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for
the relocation project at Tuscaloosa, AL.
Akutan Harbor, AK.--The Committee has provided funding to
initiate construction of this project.
Alaska Coastal Erosion, AK.--The Committee has provided
$2,400,000 for Alaska Coastal Erosion. The following
communities are eligible recipients of these funds: Kivalina,
Newtok, Shishmaref, Koyukuk, Barrow, Kaktovik, Point Hope,
Unalakleet, and Bethel. Section 117 of Public Law 108-447 will
apply to this project.
Chignik Harbor, AK.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000
to complete the project.
Coffman Cove, AK.--The Committee has provided funding to
prepare the decision document for design of a dock system.
Delong Mountain Harbor, AK.--The Committee has provided
funding to complete the environmental documentation, plans and
specifications and geotechnical investigations.
Nome Harbor, AK.--The Committee has included $13,000,000 to
continue construction of this project.
Sand Point Harbor, AK.--The Committee has included
$6,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
St. Paul Harbor, AK.--The Committee has included $8,000,000
to continue construction of this project.
Rio Salado, Phoenix and Tempe Reaches, AZ.--The Committee
has provided $8,000,000 for construction of this project. The
Committee encourages the Corps to reprogram previously revoked
funds in fiscal year 2006 to complete this project if possible.
Ozark-Jeta Taylor Powerhouse, AR.--The Committee has
provided $4,500,000 to continue the rehab of the powerhouse.
Red River Below Denison Dam, AR, LA, OK and TX.--The
Committee has provided $4,000,000 to continue levee
rehabilitation work in Arkansas and Louisiana.
Red River Emergency Bank Protection, AR and LA.--The
Committee has provided $6,000,000 for bank stabilization along
the Red River below Index, Arkansas.
American River Watershed, CA.--The Committee has chosen not
to combine the various, separately authorized, components of
the project into a single line item as was proposed in the
budget. The Committee believes that it is prudent to maintain
visibility of the various project elements in the budget
process. However, for purposes of reprogramming actions, the
three elements should be treated as a single project when
considering the reprogramming guidance provided in an earlier
section of this report.
American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Miniraise), CA.--The
Committee has provided $12,000,000. Within the funds provided,
$7,000,000 is for construction of the bridge.
Kaweah River, CA.--The Committee has provided $4,800,000 to
complete this project.
Oakland Harbor, CA.--The Committee has provided $42,000,000
to continue construction of this project. The reduction made to
this project should not be viewed as any diminution of support
for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of
Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the
Corps.
Santa Ana River Mainstem, CA.--The Committee has provided
$42,500,000 to continue construction of this project. No funds
are included for the San Timoteo reach of the project. The
reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any
diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to
balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the
various missions of the Corps.
Upper Guadalupe River, CA.--The Committee has included
$3,500,000 to initiate construction of this project.
Delaware Bay Coastline, Bethany Beach to South Bethany
Beach, DE.--$4,000,000 is provided for construction of this
shore protection project.
Delaware Coast, Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, DE.--The
Committee has included $1,700,000 to continue construction of
this project.
Washington, DC and Vicinity, DC.--The Committee has
provided $400,000 to initiate construction as proposed in the
budget request.
Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, FL.--
The Committee has chosen not to combine the various, separately
authorized, components of the project into a single line item
as was proposed in the budget. The Committee believes that it
is prudent to maintain visibility of the various project
elements in the budget process. However, for purposes of
reprogramming actions, the Central and South Florida Project,
the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Project
and the Kissimmee River Project should be treated as a single
project when considering the reprogramming guidance provided in
an earlier section of this report.
The Committee has chosen not to fund the $35,000,000
request for the Modified Waters Delivery Plan as proposed in
the budget. The Committee does not believe sufficient current
authorization exists for the Corps to fund this work. As the
work involved primarily benefits Everglades National Park,
budgeting for this work should be continued by the Interior
Department as has been past practice. The Committee is unsure
why this funding decision was made; however, much has been made
of the increase in costs of the Modified Waters Delivery Plan
since its authorization. The Committee understands that over 43
percent of cost growth is due to the extraordinary increase in
real estate values in the Miami-Dade area. Prices for land and
houses have been rising as much as 5 percent per month over the
last 2 years. Another significant cost increase has been due to
overseas demand for cement and high fuel prices that have
driven up construction costs.
The other major contributor to the cost increase is the
inclusion of bridge work for the Tamiami Trail. The 1992 design
which Congress approved was based on a determination that
existing culverts under the Trail could carry the flow expected
for the Modified Waters Delivery Plan without overtopping the
Tamiami Trail. Since then, the Corps has worked with the
sponsor, the South Florida Water Management District, and the
United States Geological Survey to determine actual capacities
of these culverts based on actual conditions that exist. The
Corps has also worked with the Florida Department of
Transportation on ensuring a safe design for the roadway. Based
on these analyses and design refinements, the Tamiami Trail fix
is much more involved than originally conceived. In order to
provide appropriate water deliveries to Everglades National
Park, both the Corps and the Department of Interior believe
building a bridge of some length, as well as raising the
roadway, is required to allow the design flows to pass as well
as ensure a safe highway. This is a significant part of the
cost increase as well. Over $130,000,000 of the current
estimate of $398,000,000 is for the Trail work.
The Committee encourages the administration to include the
Modified Waters Delivery Plan funding in the Interior budget in
future budget submissions.
Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, FL.--
Within the funds provided, the Corps may initiate construction
of the Aquifer Storage and Recovery pilot projects.
Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements, FL.--The Committee
has provided $3,000,000 for continued implementation of this
project. The Committee urges the administration to budget for
this project due to the interrelationship of this work to the
Everglades Restoration project, Biscayne Bay and all of the
nearshore waters.
Jacksonville Harbor, FL.--The Committee has provided
$500,000 to continue work on the General Reevaluation Report.
Tampa Harbor, FL.--$200,000 is provided to continue the
General Reevaluation Report.
Atlanta, GA.--The Committee has included $2,000,000 to
initiate this project.
Brunswick Harbor, GA.--The Committee has included
$19,900,000 to continue construction of this project.
Oates Creek, Richmond County, GA.--The Committee has
included $500,000 to continue construction of this project.
Tybee Island, GA.--The Committee has provided $18,000 to
complete the Limited Reevaluation Report for the shore
protection project in preparation for the next scheduled
renourishment.
Kaumalapau Harbor, Lanai, HI.--The Committee has provided
$13,000,000 to complete construction of this project.
Rural Idaho Environmental Infrastructure, ID.--The
Committee has provided $5,500,000 for this project. Within the
funds provided the Corps should give consideration to projects
at Emmett, Burley, Rupert, Bonners Ferry, Donnelly, Eastern
Idaho Regional Water Authority, Driggs, and Smelterville. Other
communities that meet the program criteria should be considered
as funding allows.
Des Plaines River, IL.--The Committee has included
$4,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, IL.--The Committee has
included $30,000,000 for continued construction of this
project.
Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IL and KY.--The
Committee has provided $85,000,000 to continue construction of
this project. The reduction made to this project should not be
viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide
program among the various missions of the Corps. None of the
funds provided for the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project are to be
used to reimburse the Claims and Judgment Fund.
Missouri Fish and Wildlife Recovery, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND
and SD.--The Committee has provided $60,000,000 for this
project. This is a significant increase from fiscal year 2005
funding but considerably less than the request. The Committee
is frustrated that the administration has not forwarded a
legislative proposal to authorize endangered species recovery
work along the Missouri River. Fish and Wildlife Mitigation for
the lower river has been authorized for several years; however,
habitat recovery for the upper river has yet to be addressed in
authorization language. Estimates for recovery of species along
the Missouri River are in excess of $3,500,000,000. The
Committee would not fund a $3,500,000,000 construction project
without a specific authorization and we do not believe it
prudent for the budget to continue asking for annual budget
increases to this project without clear authorization as to the
actions necessary for recovery.
Missouri River Levee System, IA, NE, KS and MO.--The
Committee has included $750,000 to continue construction of
this project.
Turkey Creek, KS and MO.--The Committee has included
$4,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, KY.--The Committee
has included $32,000,000 to continue construction of this
project.
McAlpine Locks and Dam, Ohio River, KY and IN.--The
Committee has provided $65,000,000 to continue construction of
this project. The reduction made to this project should not be
viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide
program among the various missions of the Corps.
Inner Harbor Lock and Dam, LA.--The Committee has included
$15,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--The Committee has
provided $15,000 for navigation channel refinement features,
land purchases and development for mitigation of project
impacts, and construction of project recreation and appurtenant
features.
Larose to Golden Meadow, LA.--The Committee has included
$1,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
New Orleans to Venice, LA.--The Committee has included
$3,600,000 to continue construction of this project.
West Bank and Vicinity, New Orleans, LA.--The Committee has
provided $25,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
The reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any
diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to
balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the
various missions of the Corps.
Chesapeake Bay Environmental Program, MD, PA and VA.--The
Committee has included $2950 for continuation of this project.
Within the funds provided, $273,000 is included to continue the
environmental studies concerning non-native oysters.
Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, MD and VA.--The Committee
has included $3,000,000 to continue construction of this
project.
Rural Montana, MT.--The Committee has provided $5,000,000
for this project. Within the funds provided the Corps should
give consideration to projects at Livingston, Missoula (Grant
Creek), Meagher County, Stevensville, Helena, Wisdom, Bigfork,
Sheridan, Butte and Drummond. Other communities that meet the
program criteria should be considered as funding allows.
Sand Creek, NE.--The Committee has included $4,000,000 to
continue construction of this project.
Rural Nevada, NV.--The Committee has provided $25,000,000
for this project. Within the funds provided the Corps should
give consideration to projects at North Lemmon Valley, Spanish
Springs Valley, Phase II, Huffaker Hills Water Conservation,
Lawton-Verdi, Boulder City, Lyon County, Gerlach, Searchlight,
Incline Village, Esmeralda County, Churchill County, West
Wendover, Yearington, Virgin Valley Water District, Lovelock,
and Carson City. Other communities that meet the program
criteria should be considered as funding allows.
Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV.--The Committee has
provided $18,000,000 to continue construction of this flood
control project. Within the funds provided $3,000,000 is
provided for work performed in accordance with Section 211 of
Public Law 104-303.
Delaware Bay Coastline, Villas and Vicinity, NJ and DE.--
The Committee has provided $2,450,000 to initiate construction
of this project.
Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, NJ.--The
Committee has included $5,000,000 to continue construction of
this project.
Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, NJ.--The Committee has
provided $4,000,000 to initiate construction of this project.
Acequias Irrigation System, NM.--The Committee has provided
$3,100,000 to continue restoration of these historic irrigation
distribution systems.
Central New Mexico, NM.--The Committee has included
$5,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
New Mexico [EI], NM.--The Committee has included $5,000,000
to continue construction of this project.
Fire Island to Montauk Point, NY.--Additional funds above
the budget request have been provided for the reformulation
study.
Dare County Beaches, NC.--$2,500,000 is included for
construction for this project.
Buford Trenton Irrigation District, ND.--The Committee has
included $1,500,000 to continue construction of this project.
Webber Falls Lock and Dam Powerhouse, OK.--The Committee
has included $4,000,000 for construction of the powerhouse
major rehabilitation project.
Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, PA.--The
Committee has provided $46,000,000 to continue construction of
this project. The reduction made to this project should not be
viewed as any dimunition of support for this project, rather an
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide
program among the various missions of the Corps.
Presque Isle, PA.--The Committee has provided $620,000 to
continue this project.
Big Sioux River, SD.--The Committee has included $2,000,000
to continue construction of this project.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.--The
Committee notes that Title IV of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999, Public Law 106-53 as amended,
authorizes funding to pay administrative expenses,
implementation of terrestrial wildlife plans, activities
associated with land transferred or to be transferred, and
annual expenses for operating recreational areas. The Committee
has included $5,000,000 for this effort. 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 the remaining funds as directed by Title
IV to the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.
Chickamauga Lock, TN.--The Committee has provided
$10,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, TX.--The Committee
has provided $35,000,000 for continued construction of this
project.
North Padre Island, Packery Channel, TX.--The Committee has
provided $5,438,000 to complete this project.
Red River Basin Chloride Control, TX, OK, AR and LA.--The
Committee has included $1,500,000 to continue construction.
Whitney Lake Powerhouse, TX.--The Committee has included
$4,551,000 to continue construction of the powerhouse
rehabilitation.
Rural Utah. UT.--The Committee has included $10,000,000 to
continue construction of this project.
Burlington Harbor, VT.--The Committee has included $500,000
to initiate removal of Oil bollards in the harbor.
The Committee has included $$2,000,000 for continued
deconstruction and environmental restoration efforts at the
Embrey Dam project.
Virginia Beach, VA.--The Committee has included $11,395,000
to complete initial construction.
Columbia River Fish Recovery, WA, OR, and ID.--The
Committee has chosen not to combine the various, separately
authorized, components of the project into a single line item
as was proposed in the budget. The Committee believes that it
is prudent to maintain visibility of the various project
elements in the budget process and has therefore funded the
three traditional line items combined in this heading.
Mt. St. Helens Sediment Control, WA.--The Committee has
included additional funds for the Corps to begin investigations
for restoration actions in the Cowlitz and Toutle watersheds.
Mud Mountain, Washington.--Out of the funds provided, the
Corps is directed to use up to $600,000 to study fish passage.
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland
River, WV, KY and VA.--The Committee has provided $14,100,000
for the continuation of the project. Within the funds provided,
the Committee recommendation includes $9,500,000 for the
Buchanan County, Dickenson County, and Grundy, VA elements.
Further, the recommendation includes $4,600,000 for Kermit,
Lower Mingo County, McDowell County, Upper Mingo and Wayne
County, WV.
Aquatic Plant Control Program.--The Committee has provided
$4,500,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, the
Committee has provided $850,000 for a cost shared program for
Lake Gaston, NC and $400,000 for a cost shared program for Lake
Champlain, VT.
Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material.--The Committee
recommendation includes $6,200,000 for the program. Within the
funds provided, $200,000 is provided for Dauphin Island, AL,
and $3,000,000 for Morehead City Harbor, NC.
Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program.--The
Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 to complete the
Waterbury dam repairs.
Shore Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration
Program.--The Committee has provided $3,800,000 for this
program. Within the funds provided, $2,300,000 is for an
Alternative Sand Test Beach and Breakwater Project in Florida
and $1,500,000 is for the Sacred Falls Demonstration project in
Hawaii.
Ability to Pay.--Section 103(m) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 Public Law 99-662, as amended, requires
that all project cooperation agreements for flood damage
reduction projects, to which non-Federal cost sharing applies,
will be subject to the ability of non-Federal sponsors to pay
their shares. Congress included this section in the landmark
1986 Act to ensure that as many communities as possible would
qualify for Federal flood damage reduction projects, based more
on needs and less on financial capabilities. The Secretary
published eligibility criteria in 33 CFR 241, which requires a
non-Federal sponsor to meet an ability-to-pay test. However,
the Committee believes that the Secretary's test is too
restrictive and operates to exclude most communities from
qualifying for relief under the ability-to-pay provision. For
example, 33 CFR 241.4(f) specifies that the test should be
structured so that reductions in the level of cost-sharing will
be granted in ``only a limited number of cases of severe
economic hardship,'' and should depend not only on the economic
circumstances within a project area, but also on the conditions
of the state in which the project area is located.

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

When Congress authorized the initial Continuing Authorities
in the 1940s and 1950s, they were envisioned to provide a small
pool of money available to the Corps of Engineers to solve very
small localized problems without being encumbered by the longer
study and project authorization process. As more programs were
added to the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP] they became
increasingly popular with congressional Members and the public.
More and more congressionally directed projects began to appear
in the annual appropriations bills. At first these
congressionally directed projects were added to the base
program. As more and more of these congressionally directed
projects came into the program it became difficult for these
congressionally directed projects to be added to the base and
as such, the base program began to shrink. Congressionally
directed projects now dominate all sections of the CAP Program.
Congressionally directed projects have proliferated to such an
extent that several of the sections are over-subscribed. Below
are the various CAP sections, their congressionally authorized
appropriation limit and the current estimate of outstanding
obligations:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
CAP Section Program Limit Obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 103............................. $30,000,000 $6,000,000
Section 107............................. 35,000,000 17,000,000
Section 1135............................ 25,000,000 49,500,000
Section 14.............................. 15,000,000 19,000,000
Sections 204, 207, 933.................. 15,000,000 9,000,000
Section 205............................. 50,000,000 42,500,000
Section 206............................. 25,000,000 50,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee directs that the Corps should prioritize
projects in the following manner to try to get the backlog of
these projects reduced. The first priority for funding should
be for construction projects that already have an executed
Project Cooperation Agreement. The next priority should be for
projects with executed design agreements. Third priority would
be for those with executed feasibility agreement. The last
priority should be new starts. To further this end, the
Committee directs a moratorium on execution of new cost share
agreements during fiscal year 2006. Work should continue on all
phases as funding and priority allows, but no project should
advance to the next stage during fiscal year 2006, except, of
course, project completions.
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 should 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.

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Beach Erosion Control Projects--Section 103

Unalakleet Seawall, AK............................... 1,000
North Shore of Indian River Inlet, DE................ 600
Pleasure Island, MD.................................. 500
St. Mary's River, MD................................. 630
Morris Island Lighthouse, SC......................... 2,234

Small Navigation Projects--Section 107

Gustavis Harbor, AK.................................. 100
Kokhanok Harbor, AK.................................. 34
Nanwalek Harbor, AK.................................. 100
Blytheville Harbor, AR............................... 500
Kahoolawe Small Boat Harbor, HI...................... 250
Laupahoehoe Harbor Project, HI....................... 400
North Kohala Navigation Improvements, HI............. 150
Port Fuchon, LA...................................... 88
Nanticoke Harbor, MD................................. 250
Yazoo Diversion Canal, MS............................ 2,900
Hampton Harbor, NH................................... 55
Charlestown Breachway and Ninigret Pond, RI.......... 90
Point Judith Harbor, Narragansett, RI................ 100
Northwest Tennessee Regional Harbor, TN.............. 490
Wisconsin Lakeshore State Park Breakwater, WI........ 2,000

Project Modifications for the Improvement of the
Environment--Section 1135

Ditch 28, AR......................................... 130
Horseshoe Lake, AR................................... 160
Millwood Lake, Grassy Lake, AR....................... 114.8
Rock Creek, Little Rock, AR.......................... 150
Bellaview Wetlands, CO............................... 377
Chatfield Downstream, South Platte River, CO......... 138.5
Oyster Revitilization in the Delaware Bay, DE and NJ. 2,000
Kanaha Pond Wildlife Sanctuary Restoration Project, 200
HI..................................................
Kawainui Marsh Environmental Restoration Project, HI. 700
Pelekane Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project, HI....... 400
Bayou Macon, LA...................................... 187
Frazier/Whitehorse Oxbow Lake Weir, LA............... 375
Lake St. Joseph, Tensas Parish, LA................... 130
Old River North, Concordia Parish, LA................ 10
Wild Cow Bayou, Concordia Parish, LA................. 10
Hart Miller Island, MD............................... 200
Duck Creek, Stoddard County, MO...................... 125
Kansas City Riverfront, Kansas City, Jackson County, 998
MO..................................................
Lower Decatur Bend Environmental Improvement, NE..... 3,552
Salt Cedar Invasive Species Eradication/Restoration, 150
NE..................................................
Albuquerque Biological Park Wetland Restoration 400
Project, NM.........................................
Ecosystem Revitalization at Route 66, NM............. 465
Carlsbad, Pecos River, NM............................ 150
Las Cruces Dam Environmental Restoration, Dona Ana 300
County, NM..........................................
Pecos River, Chaves County........................... 279
Riparian Wetland Restoration, Pueblo of Santa Ana 200
Reservation, NM.....................................
Socorro County Floodplain Restoration, NM............ 210
Lower Truckee River, McCarran Ranch, NV.............. 3,037
Fairmount Dam Fishladder Project, PA................. 820
Upper Tioga River Watershed, PA...................... 430
Allin's Cove, RI..................................... 300
Village of Oyster, VA Ecosystem Restoration, VA...... 165
City of Richland Ecosystem Restoration, WA........... 400
Mapes Creek Habitat Enhancement Project, WA.......... 270
Battle Island, Desoto, WI............................ 40
Kaunakakai Stream Environmental Restoration, HI...... 300

Streambank and Shoreline Protection for Public
Facilities--Section 14

Deering Shoreline Protection, AK..................... 900
Kwethluk, AK......................................... 55
27th Street Bridge (Glenwood Springs, CO)............ 353
Powers Boulevard (Colorado Springs, CO).............. 500
Coal Creek, Monroe County, IA........................ 60
Iowa River, Sac and Fox Tribe, IA.................... 378
Raccoon River, Panora County, IA..................... 92.3
Bayou Macon, Poverty Point, LA....................... 469
Ouachita River, City of Monroe, LA................... 80
Patuxent River, Patuxent Beach Road, MD.............. 700
Sturgeon River, Houghton County, MI.................. 120
Water Treatment Plant, St. Joseph, MI................ 177
Red Lake River Bank Stabilization, MN................ 40
Eubanks Creek, Jackson, MS........................... 275
Elizabeth River, Valleyview Road, Hillside, NJ....... 576
South Branch Rahway River, Woodbridge, NJ............ 500
I-40 Bridge, Rio Puerco, NM.......................... 850
Shoreland Avenue Embankment Restoration, Toledo, OH.. 660
Stayton Riverfront Park Bank Stabilization, OR....... 250
Mt. Moriah Culvert, TN............................... 305
Kenosha Harbor Retaining Wall, WI.................... 281

Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material--Sections 204,
207 and 933

Dauphin Island Aquatic Restoration Project, AL....... 439
Morehead City Harbor, NC............................. 4,625

Small Flood Control Projects--Section 205

Fort Yukon, AK....................................... 200
Salcha, AK........................................... 400
Bono, AR............................................. 80
Grubbs, AR........................................... 50
Wynne, AR............................................ 75
Heacock and Cactus Channels, CA...................... 4,000
New Hogan Lake Reoperation, CA....................... 600
Santa Venetia Flood Control, CA...................... 91.5
Salmon River, CT..................................... 650
Delaware City Dragon Run Flood Mitigation Project, DE 300
Elsmere Stormwater Infrastructure, DE................ 250
Little Mill Creek, New Castle County, DE............. 2,018
Rutherford, New Castle County, DE.................... 150
Kuliouou Stream Flood Damage Reduction, HI........... 250
Palai Stream Flood Damage Reduction, HI.............. 100
Waiakea Stream Flood Damage Reduction Project, HI.... 200
Wailele Stream Flood Damage Reduction Project, HI.... 150
Cedar River (Time Check Area), Cedar Rapids, IA...... 300
Denison, IA.......................................... 1,400
Delphi, IN........................................... 100
Fort Wayne, St. Marys and Maumee Rivers, IN.......... 200
Braithwaite Park, LA................................. 1,681
Jean Lafitte, Fisher School Basin, Jefferson Parish, 2,900
LA..................................................
Oakville to LaReussite, LA........................... 88
Red Chute Bayou, Bossier Parish, LA.................. 425
Town of Carenco, Lafayette, LA....................... 160
Elkton, MD........................................... 174
Canisteo Outflow Project, MN......................... 100
Montevideo, MN....................................... 2,828
Rockford Levee Upgrade, MN........................... 100
Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, MO..................... 244
Little River Diversion, Ducthtown, MO................ 175
Wilson, NC (Hominy Swamp Flood Control).............. 100
Fargo Ridgewood Addition, ND......................... 1,245.9
Gila River, Grants and Hidalgo Counties, NM.......... 100
Hatch, NM............................................ 158
Little Puerco River, Gallup, NM...................... 100
Little Puerco Wash, Gallup, NM....................... 100
Battle Mountain, NV.................................. 1,111.5
City of Las Vegas, NV................................ 300
North Spanish Springs, NV............................ 140
Reno Flood Warning System, NV........................ 3
North Park Lake, Flood Control Project............... 200
Sandy Creek, TN...................................... 50
Passumpsic River, Lyndonville, VT.................... 42
West Virginia Statewide Flood Warning System......... 200
Henderson, WY Drainage Improvements.................. 100

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Projects--Section 206

Eklutna, AK.......................................... 300
Northway, AK......................................... 350
Chattahoochee Fall Line Ecosystem Restoration 250
Project, AL and GA..................................
St Helena-Napa River Restoration, CA................. 600
York Creek Dam Removal, CA........................... 350
Bear Creek Reservoir, CO............................. 100
Bow Tie Wetlands, CO................................. 300
Goose Creek, CO...................................... 200
Kingfisher Point, CO................................. 191
Lower Boulder Creek, CO.............................. 240
North Fork, Gunnison River, CO....................... 2,201
Tamarisk Eradication, CO............................. 400
Red Clay Creek Dam Realignment, DE................... 250
Rose Bay, FL......................................... 250
Mokuhinia/Mokuula Ecosystem Restoration, HI.......... 220
Indian Creek, Caldwell, ID........................... 3,300
Paradise Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project, ID..... 250
Salmon River, Challis, ID............................ 611
Emiquon Preserve, IL................................. 313
South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River 600
(Bubbly Creek), IL..................................
Squaw Creek Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, IL........ 160
Cocodrie Bayou, LA................................... 10
University Lakes, Baton Rouge, LA.................... 200
University Lakes, East Baton Rouge Parish, LA........ 200
Blackwater Refuge, MD................................ 500
Paint Branch Fish Passage, MD........................ 282
Tidal Middle Branch, MD.............................. 250
Western Branch, Patuxent River, MD................... 1,158
Painter Creek, MN.................................... 300
Confluence Point State Park, MO...................... 100
Missouri Stream Restoration Pilot, MO................ 200
Central Bath Branch Tributary, Winston-Salem, NC..... 100
Ore Knob, NC......................................... 510
Heron Haven Wetland Restoration Project, NE.......... 645
Bottomless Lakes State Park, Roswell, NM............. 350
Jemez River Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Restoration, 211
Zia Pueblo, NM......................................
Las Cruces Wetland Restoration, NM................... 300
Carson River, NV..................................... 75
Incline, Third, and Rosewood Creeks, NV.............. 90
Arcola Creek Ecosystem Restoration, OH............... 528
Arrowhead Creek, OR.................................. 250
Camp Creek-Zumwalt Prairie, OR....................... 333
Coffee Lake, OR...................................... 250
Ingham Spring Dam and Lake Reconstruction, PA........ 300
Neshannock Creek, PA................................. 600
Sheradon Park and Chartiers Creek, PA................ 300
Blackstone Fisheries Restoration, RI................. 150
Brush Neck Cove, Warwick, RI......................... 150
Lower Blackstone River Fish Passage, RI.............. 250
Narrow, Narragansett, RI............................. 150
Ten Mile River, East Providence, RI.................. 250
Winnipaug Pond, Westerly, RI......................... 104
Potash Brook, South Burlington, VT................... 350
West Branch of the Little River, Stowe, Lamoille 200
County, VT..........................................
Wild Branch of the Lamoille River, Town of 200
Craftsbury, Orleans County and Town of Wolcott,
Lamoille County, VT.................................
Carpenter Creek, WA.................................. 300
Issaquah Salmon Hatchery, WA......................... 300
Great Pierce Meadows, Essex and Morris Counties, NJ.. 460
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tribal Partnership Program.--The Committee has also
included $400,000 for Nevada to initiate cultural resource
restoration on historic Washoe lands; and $400,000 for New
Mexico to further the tribal assistance efforts by the Corps in
New Mexico.

FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES--ARKANSAS, ILLINOIS,
KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, AND TENNESSEE

Appropriations, 2005....................................\1\ $321,904,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 270,000,000
House allowance......................................... 290,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 433,336,000

\1\ Excludes emergency appropriation of $6,000,000.

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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget House Committee
Project title estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

BAYOU METO, AR.................................................. .............. 1,640 ..............
SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR.......................................... .............. .............. 350
ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA...................................... 450 428 500
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM LAND STUDY, LA................ 100 .............. 150
DONALDSON TO THE GULF, LA....................................... .............. .............. 400
MORGANZA TO THE GULF, LA........................................ .............. 1,000 5,000
POINTE COUPEE TO ST. MARY PARISH, LA............................ .............. .............. 100
SPRING BAYOU, LA................................................ .............. .............. 500
TENSAS RIVER BASIN, LA.......................................... .............. .............. 250
BEAR CREEK, MS.................................................. .............. .............. 500
COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS.................. 500 475 750
QUIVER RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MS................................ .............. .............. 150
MILLINGTON AND VICINITY, TN..................................... 112 107 112
MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER MGMT STUDY, TN AND MS........... .............. .............. 150
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA.............................. 720 685 720
UNSPECIFIED REDUCTION........................................... .............. -1,640
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, General Investigations.......................... 1,882 2,695 9,632

CONSTRUCTION

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN.............. 42,500 40,413 42,500
FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH (EIGHT MILE CREEK), AR............. 3,446 3,277 ..............
GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR........................................ .............. .............. 10,000
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN......... 39,200 37,275 59,000
ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO.................................... .............. 6,800 6,800
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA.......................... 2,324 2,210 7,000
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA........................................... 21,000 19,969 21,000
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA.................................... 2,244 2,134 2,244
HORN LAKE CREEK MODIFICATIONS, MS............................... .............. .............. 200
YAZOO BACKWATER, LESS ROCKY BAYOU, YAZOO F AND WL MITIGATION .............. .............. 300
LANDS..........................................................
YAZOO BASIN--BACKWATER PUMPING PLANT, MS........................ .............. .............. 25,000
YAZOO BASIN--BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS............................ .............. .............. 2,000
YAZOO BASIN--DELTA HEADWATERS PROJECT, MS....................... .............. .............. 25,000
YAZOO BASIN--MAINSTEM, MS....................................... .............. .............. 25
YAZOO BASIN--REFORMULATION UNIT, MS............................. .............. .............. 2,200
YAZOO BASIN/UPPER YAZOO PROJECT, MS............................. .............. 5,600 20,000
ST. JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO..................... .............. 5,500 5,500
NONCONNAH CREEK, TN AND MS...................................... 500 475 800
WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN.................................. .............. .............. 500
WOLF RIVER, TN.................................................. .............. 3,500 3,500
SUSPENSION FUND................................................. 8,000 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.................................... 119,214 127,153 233,569

MAINTENANCE

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN.............. 70,609 67,142 70,609
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR.............................. 172 164 402
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR............................... 611 581 611
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR............................ 560 533 560
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR............................ 310 295 310
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN........ 9,256 9,902 21,191
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO..................................... 6,600 8,800 6,600
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND LA................ 2,600 2,472 2,600
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR....................................... 1,400 1,331 1,400
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL............................... 55 52 55
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY............................... 37 35 37
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA.......................... 2,860 2,720 2,860
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA........................................... 13,400 12,742 13,400
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA............................. .............. .............. 420
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA.............................. 65 62 65
BONNET CARRE, LA................................................ 2,713 2,580 2,713
INSPECTION OF COMPELTED WORKS, LA............................... 538 512 538
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA.......................... 66 63 66
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA.................................... 239 227 239
OLD RIVER, LA................................................... 10,200 9,699 10,200
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA........................... 3,950 3,756 3,950
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS........................................... .............. .............. 500
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS............................... 317 301 317
YAZOO BASIN:
ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS.......................................... 6,151 5,849 14,810
BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS..................................... 210 200 2,210
ENID LAKE, MS............................................... 5,232 4,975 12,300
GREENWOOD, MS............................................... 620 590 2,070
GRENADA LAKE, MS............................................ 5,674 5,395 12,278
MAIN STEM, MS............................................... 1,080 1,027 4,033
SARDIS LAKE, MS............................................. 7,153 5,802 16,500
TRIBUTARIES, MS............................................. 1,130 1,075 1,130
WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS............................. 430 409 430
YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS.................................... 470 447 956
YAZOO CITY, MS.............................................. 770 732 770
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, YAZOO BASIN..................................... 28,920 26,501 67,487

VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS............................................ .............. .............. 387
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO............................... 182 173 182
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO............................................. 4,676 4,446 4,676
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN............................... 110 105 110
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN............................... 992 943 992
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN........................................... .............. .............. 540
EMERGENCY REPAIR RESERVES....................................... .............. 1,700 ..............
MAPPING......................................................... 1,384 1,316 1,384
UNSPECIFIED REDUCTION........................................... .............. -1,000 ..............
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.................. -13,918 .............. -25,266
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Maintenance..................................... 148,904 158,512 190,135
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries... 270,000 290,000 433,336
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 natural 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.

General Investigations

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System Land Study, LA.--The
Committee has provided $150,000 to initiate this study as
recommended in the budget request.
Morganza to the Gulf, LA.--The Committee has provided
$5,000,000 to continue Preconstruction Engineering and Design
for this study.
Quiver River, MS.--The Committee has provided $150,000 to
initiate this study.
Memphis Metro, Storm Water Management Study, TN and MS.--
The Committee has provided $150,000 to initiate this study.

Construction

Grand Prairie, AR.--The Committee has provided $10,000,000
for continued construction of the project.
Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO and TN.--
The Committee has provided $59,000,000 to continue construction
of this project. Within the funds provided, $19,800,000 could
be used to continue construction on St. Johns-New Madrid Levee
Closure/Box Culvert, MO ($3,000,000); Carlisle-Tallula, MS Item
488-L ($6,000,000); and Above Cairo, IL Slurry Trench P-4
($600,000) and initiate construction on Willow Point-Youngs
Point, LA Items 445-R ($1,300,000); Pecan Point, AR, Relief
Wells P-2 ($200,000); Trotters, MS Berm P-2 ($100,000); Council
Bend, AR Relief Wells ($200,000); Willow Point-Youngs Point, LA
Items 450-R ($1,500,000); Farrell, MS Relief Wells ($200,000);
Badger-Cottonwood Point, MO Seepage Control ($200,000);
Tallula-Magna Vista, LA Items 474-R ($1,500,000) and
($5,000,000) could be used to complete plans and specifications
and initiate construction of the Lower Mississippi River Museum
and Riverfront Interpretive Site.
Yazoo Basin, Backwater Pumping Plant, MS.--The Committee
has provided $25,000,000 to continue construction of the
project. Within the funds provided, $150,000 is provided for
the Teddy Roosevelt Environment Education Center.
Yazoo Basin, Delta Headwaters Project, MS.--The Committee
has provided $25,000,000 to continue construction of this
project.
Yazoo Basin, Upper Yazoo Project, MS.--The Committee has
provided $20,000,000 to accelerate completion of this project.
Within the funds provided, $1,000,000 is for bank
stabilization.

Maintenance

Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO and TN.--
The Committee has provided $21,191,000 to continue construction
of this project. Funds are provided to complete Levee
Restoration, Mellwood, AR; initiate and complete Levee Repairs,
Torras, LA; Levee Slide Repairs, Above Old River, LA; initiate
Slope Pavement Repairs, Various Locations, LA; Floodwall
Renovations, Mound City, IL; Replacement of Cache Levee
Culvert, IL; Provide Levee Gravel, AR, LA and MS; Provide Levee
Gravel, Commerce to Birds Point, MO; Provide Levee Gravel,
Below Helena, AR and Provide Levee Gravel, Main Line Levee, LA.
Atchafalaya Basin, LA.--The Committee has provided
$13,400,000 for maintenance of this project. Additional funds
are provided for levee gravel.
The Committee has provided funding for necessary
maintenance dredging for the harbor projects located along the
main stem of the Mississippi River.
The Committee has provided additional funding to address
the maintenance backlog at Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid and Grenada
Lakes in Mississippi.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2005..................................\1\ $1,943,428,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 1,979,000,000
House allowance......................................... 2,000,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,100,000,000

\1\ Excludes emergency appropriation of $155,400,000.

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 is such
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 Corps 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.
The budget request has proposed that no navigation project
with less than 1 billion ton-miles of cargo be eligible for
maintenance dredging. The Committee believes that this is in
direct conflict with the way projects are evaluated,
authorized, and analyzed. Project analysis is based upon
Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water
and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (1983), the
Corps of Engineers Planning Guidance Notebook (2000), and other
polices and procedures. For navigation studies, the analysis
centers on transportation savings to the Nation considering the
ultimate origins and destinations of commodities to be moved.
Operation and maintenance costs are considered as a part of
this analysis and are figured into the benefit to cost ratio
utilized to make the investment decision. By applying an
arbitrary ton-mile figure to determine O&M funding decisions,
the budget request has essentially obviated the need for any of
the previous studies undertaken to determine the investment
decision.
The Committee is concerned about the annual proposals for
reductions of maintenance funding for ``low use waterways and
ports''. These tributary waterways naturally do not enjoy the
same level of relative efficiencies as mainstem waterways. The
Mississippi and Ohio Rivers 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. It is important to
recognize that the commerce on the tributaries is usually only
a small part of the total journey between producer and
consumer. When these statistics are compared on a system basis,
nearly all of these waterways appear to ``pay their way'' and
are performing as the economic analysis indicated when they
were originally authorized.
Uncertainties in maintenance funding for lower use projects
seriously impacts their ability to compete and become higher
use facilities. Without funding to provide a stable channel and
authorized depths and widths, industries and shippers are
reluctant to make the necessary investments in using these
projects. The Committee believes that proposed elimination of
maintenance funding for authorized projects is not only a
serious disservice to the public, but it demonstrates a
profound lack of respect for the Congressional oversight
committees that have jurisdiction for authorization and
deauthorization of such projects.
The Committee is not in favor of funding projects which are
no longer economically viable nor environmentally sustainable.
Unfortunately, the administration has chosen a path of
underfunding, or an entire lack of funding, for projects in an
effort to achieve de facto deauthorization through the
appropriations process by utilizing the billion-ton-mile model.
Further, the Committee believes much could be learned by
the open exchange of how ``low-use'' waterways and ports are
calculated, for the billion-ton-mile does not adequately
reflect the flow of commerce today. The Committee remains
concerned about the economic impacts of not maintaining all of
our waterways and ports at their authorized depths. As a result
of waterways not being maintained at the authorized depths,
shippers are forced to divide their cargo and place it on a
number of smaller ships in order to make passage to the final
destination. This adds significantly to the cost and time of
the movement of products in and around our waterways, something
which the administration does not appropriately take into
account when formulating the budget for the Corps. Therefore,
the Committee strongly encourages the administration to put
forth a proposal for a model which better reflects the flow of
goods along all of our ports and waterways, including
lightering. Until then, however, the Committee believes the
administration has the responsibility to budget for each and
every project such that the authorized widths and depths are
maintained.

CORPS HOPPER DREDGE FLEET

During fiscal year 2002, the Committee requested the
General Accounting Office [GAO] to review the benefits and
effects of current and proposed restrictions on the Corps'
hopper dredge fleet. The Committee faces significant future
investments in the Corps hopper dredge fleet, as it is rapidly
aging. The Committee believes that the investment decisions
must take into consideration the subsequent use of the fleet.
The final GAO report, released March, 2003, reviewed the
impacts of operational changes to the fleet since fiscal year
1993. GAO's findings made it clear to the Committee that
additional costs have been imposed upon the Corps with the
decreased use of the fleet, but that the benefits have not been
realized. Additionally, the GAO found that the Corps'
contracting process for hopper dredges was not effective. Most
importantly, the GAO reported that the Corps of Engineers did
not have even a limited system to evaluate the costs and
benefits of the varying operational levels of its hopper dredge
fleet, nor did it have a means to make maintenance and repair
decisions of the fleet taking operational use into
consideration. The Committee remains concerned that since 2000,
the Corps has provided a report to Congress which has been
found to have no analytical basis, thus calling into question
the ready reserve policy. Therefore, the Committee has provided
legislative language which changes the current dredge policy.

DIRECT FUNDING OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE WORK AND THE PMAS

The President's Budget includes user charge proposals to
offset discretionary spending. In particular, the
Administration proposes that, starting in 2006, receipts from
the sale of hydroelectric power generated at certain Federal
dams operated by the Corps of Engineers be used to finance the
operation and maintenance of those facilities. This direct
financing arrangement already exists for the Bonneville Power
Administration. However, due to budgetary scoring impacts the
Committee is unable to extend this proposal to the
Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Power Administrations
in the Department of Energy.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:

CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
Budget House Committee compared to (+ or -)
Project title estimate allowance recommendation -----------------------
Budget House
estimate allowance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA

ALABAMA--COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL...... 180 180 180 .......... ..........
ALABAMA--COOSA RIVER, AL.......................... 1,591 1,591 3,091 +1,500 +1,500
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL............ 22,117 22,117 22,117 .......... ..........
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL.................... 4,050 4,050 4,050 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL................. 50 50 50 .......... ..........
MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM............... 7,315 7,315 7,315 .......... ..........
MOBILE HARBOR, AL................................. 20,248 20,248 20,248 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL..................... 100 100 100 .......... ..........
ROBERT F. HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL.................. 7,125 7,125 7,125 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL............... 140 140 140 .......... ..........
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, 1,400 1,400 2,000 +600 +600
AL...............................................
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS........... 20,103 20,103 24,000 +3,897 +3,897
WALTER F. GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA.......... 7,171 7,171 7,171 .......... ..........

ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK.............................. 11,470 11,470 11,470 .......... ..........
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK............................. 3,051 3,051 3,051 .......... ..........
CORDOVA HARBOR, AK................................ ......... ......... 600 +600 +600
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK............................. 622 622 622 .......... ..........
HOMER HARBOR, AK.................................. 299 299 299 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK................. 45 45 45 .......... ..........
LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, AK........................... ......... ......... 100 +100 +100
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK.............................. 248 248 248 .......... ..........
NOME HARBOR, AK................................... 2,496 2,496 2,496 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK..................... 588 588 588 .......... ..........

AMERICAN SAMOA

OFU HARBOR, AMERICAN SAMOA........................ 1,480 1,480 1,480 .......... ..........
TAU HARBOR, AMERICAN SAMOA........................ 1,372 1,372 1,372 .......... ..........

ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ.................................... 1,280 1,280 1,730 +450 +450
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ................. 92 92 92 .......... ..........
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ.............................. 1,220 1,220 1,220 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ............... 37 37 37 .......... ..........
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ............................. 190 190 190 .......... ..........

ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR................................... 5,744 5,744 5,744 .......... ..........
BLAKELY MT. DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR................ 10,084 10,084 10,084 .......... ..........
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR............................ 1,292 1,292 1,292 .......... ..........
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR.............................. 6,392 6,392 6,392 .......... ..........
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR....................... 6,524 6,524 6,524 .......... ..........
DEGRAY LAKE, AR................................... 6,828 6,828 6,828 .......... ..........
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR.................................. 1,193 1,193 1,193 .......... ..........
DIERKS LAKE, AR................................... 1,161 1,161 1,161 .......... ..........
GILLHAM LAKE, AR.................................. 1,093 1,093 1,093 .......... ..........
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR............................. 5,608 5,608 5,608 .......... ..........
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR................ 30 30 430 +400 +400
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR................. 199 199 199 .......... ..........
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, 35,065 34,230 35,065 .......... +835
AR...............................................
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR................................. 1,782 1,782 1,782 .......... ..........
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR..................... 4,342 4,342 4,342 .......... ..........
NIMROD LAKE, AR................................... 1,656 1,656 1,656 .......... ..........
NORFORK LAKE, AR.................................. 4,540 4,540 4,540 .......... ..........
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR................................ 29 299 29 .......... -270
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA.............. 8,500 10,400 10,400 +1,900 ..........
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR................ 5,151 5,151 5,151 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR..................... 7 7 7 .......... ..........
WHITE RIVER, AR................................... 215 215 1,000 +785 +785
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR.............................. ......... ......... 176 +176 +176

CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA.............................. 1,989 1,989 1,989 .......... ..........
BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA................. 1,781 1,781 1,781 .......... ..........
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA........................ 310 310 310 .......... ..........
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA............. 4,084 4,000 4,084 .......... +84
CRESENT CITY HARBOR............................... ......... ......... 500 +500 +500
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA..... 5,272 5,825 5,272 .......... -553
FARMINGTON DAM, CA................................ 202 202 202 .......... ..........
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA...................... 2,090 2,090 2,090 .......... ..........
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA....................... 5,069 5,000 5,069 .......... +69
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA................. 1,396 1,396 1,396 .......... ..........
ISABELLA LAKE, CA................................. 2,291 2,291 2,291 .......... ..........
JACK D. MALTESTER CHANNEL, CA (SAN LEANDRO)....... ......... ......... 750 +750 +750
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA.............. 4,287 4,287 4,287 .......... ..........
LOWER PETALUMA RIVER, CA.......................... ......... ......... 750 +750 +750
MARINA DEL REY, CA................................ ......... ......... 1,000 +1,000 +1,000
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA......................... 251 251 251 .......... ..........
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA.............................. 290 290 290 .......... ..........
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA.............................. 1,616 1,616 1,616 .......... ..........
MOSS LANDING HARBOR, CA........................... ......... 1,475 .............. .......... -1,475
NAPA RIVER, CA.................................... ......... ......... 750 +750 +750
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA................................ 1,994 1,994 1,994 .......... ..........
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA.......... 1,634 1,634 1,634 .......... ..........
NOYO RIVER AND HARBOR, CA......................... 28 28 250 +222 +222
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA................................ 6,205 6,205 6,205 .......... ..........
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA.............................. 1,040 1,040 1,040 .......... ..........
PILLAR POINT HARBOR............................... ......... ......... 500 +500 +500
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA................................ 2,831 2,831 2,831 .......... ..........
PINOLE SHOAL MANAGEMENT STUDY, CA................. ......... 250 .............. .......... -250
PORT HUENEME, CA.................................. ......... ......... 500 +500 +500
PORT SAN LUIS, CA................................. ......... ......... 500 +500 +500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA..................... 1,891 1,891 1,891 .......... ..........
REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA........................... 4,967 4,967 4,967 .......... ..........
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA............................... 7,972 7,972 7,972 .......... ..........
SACRAMENTO RIVER (BASULE BRIDGE), CA.............. ......... ......... 1,000 +1,000 +1,000
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA............ 2,790 2,790 2,790 .......... ..........
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), 1,299 1,299 1,299 .......... ..........
CA...............................................
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA........ 119 119 119 .......... ..........
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA...... 1,185 1,185 1,185 .......... ..........
SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STUDY, CA.. ......... 1,600 .............. .......... -1,6000
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL).. 2,000 2,000 2,000 .......... ..........
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA.......................... 2,223 2,223 2,223 .......... ..........
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA............................. 2,886 2,886 2,886 .......... ..........
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA.......... 3,320 3,320 3,320 .......... ..........
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA......................... 3,321 3,321 3,321 .......... ..........
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA.......................... 1,408 1,408 1,408 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA............... 1,499 1,499 1,499 .......... ..........
SUCCESS LAKE, CA.................................. 1,809 1,809 1,809 .......... ..........
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA............................ 5,132 5,132 5,132 .......... ..........
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA..................... 1,692 1,692 1,692 .......... ..........
UPPER PETALUMA RIVER,CA........................... ......... ......... 300 +300 +300
VENTURA HARBOR, CA................................ 2,200 2,200 2,900 +700 +700
YUBA RIVER, CA.................................... 29 29 29 .......... ..........

COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO............................... 407 407 407 .......... ..........
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO................................ 1,233 1,233 1,900 +667 +667
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO............................. 1,941 1,941 2,607 +666 +666
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO................. 107 107 107 .......... ..........
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO......................... 2,926 2,926 2,926 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO............... 590 590 590 .......... ..........
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO................................. 1,021 1,021 1,688 +667 +667
COMMONWEALTH OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS ROTA 260 260 260 .......... ..........
HARBOR, CNMI.....................................

CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT............................... 592 592 592 .......... ..........
BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CT............................. ......... ......... 1,500 +1,500 +1,500
CLINTON HARBOR, CT................................ ......... 100 250 +250 +150
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT.......................... 583 583 583 .......... ..........
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT............................ 599 599 599 .......... ..........
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT................................ 1,005 1,005 1,005 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT................. 79 79 79 .......... ..........
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT......................... 535 535 535 .......... ..........
NORTH COVE HARBOR, CT............................. ......... ......... 2,000 +2,000 +2,000
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT......................... 527 527 527 .......... ..........
NORWALK FEDERAL NAVIGATION PROJECT, CT............ ......... 500 1,000 +1,000 +500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT..................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 .......... ..........
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT.................... 417 417 417 .......... ..........
THOMASTON DAM, CT................................. 951 951 951 .......... ..........
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT............................ 724 724 724 .......... ..........

DELAWARE

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO 11,475 11,475 12,475 +1,000 +1,000
CHESAPEAKE BAY...................................
MISPILLION RIVER, DE.............................. 20 20 20 .......... ..........
MURDERKILL RIVER, DE.............................. 20 20 20 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE..................... 86 86 86 .......... ..........
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE............................. 3,860 3,800 3,860 .......... +60

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC................. 9 9 9 .......... ..........
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL).. 744 744 744 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC..................... 37 37 37 .......... ..........
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC............................. 600 600 600 .......... ..........

FLORIDA

AIWW, NORFOLK, VA TO ST. JOHNS RIVER, FL, GA, SC, ......... ......... 500 +500 +500
NC, VA...........................................
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL.............................. 3,828 6,000 3,000 -828 -3,000
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL.................. 14,213 14,213 14,213 .......... ..........
ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 .......... ..........
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL............................. 1,513 1,513 1,513 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL................. 300 300 300 .......... ..........
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, CALOOSAHATCHEE TO ANCLOTE, ......... ......... 1,000 +1,000 +1,000
FL...............................................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL.. 250 250 4,000 +3,750 +3,750
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL........................... 3,637 3,637 3,637 .......... ..........
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL, 8,188 8,188 8,188 .......... ..........
AND GA...........................................
MANATEE HARBOR, FL................................ 2,000 2,000 2,000 .......... ..........
MIAMI HARBOR, FL.................................. 1,530 1,530 1,530 .......... ..........
MIAMI RIVER, FL................................... ......... 1,000 3,500 +3,500 +2,500
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL........................... 2,060 2,060 2,060 .......... ..........
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL............................. 1,183 1,183 1,183 .......... ..........
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL............................ 906 906 906 .......... ..........
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL.............................. 1,315 1,315 1,315 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL..................... 1,325 1,325 1,325 .......... ..........
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL..................... 2,306 2,306 2,306 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL............... 30 30 30 .......... ..........
SUWANEE RIVER, FL................................. ......... 500 .............. .......... -500
TAMPA HARBOR, FL.................................. 4,500 10,000 4,000 -500 -6,000

GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA................................ 7,322 7,322 7,322 .......... ..........
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, 1,050 1,050 6,500 +5,450 +5,450
AL &.............................................
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA................ 286 286 286 .......... ..........
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA.............................. 2,396 2,396 2,396 .......... ..........
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA............. 8,519 8,519 8,519 .......... ..........
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA.......................... 10,637 10,637 10,637 .......... ..........
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC.......................... 16,619 16,619 16,619 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA................. 41 41 41 .......... ..........
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC.................. 11,047 11,047 11,047 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA..................... 90 90 90 .......... ..........
RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC........ 12,283 12,283 12,283 .......... ..........
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA............................... 13,521 13,521 13,521 .......... ..........
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL................ 11,449 11,449 11,449 .......... ..........

HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI.......................... 231 231 231 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI................. 189 189 189 .......... ..........
POHIKI BAY HAWAII, HI............................. ......... ......... 100 +100 +100
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI..................... 200 200 200 .......... ..........

IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID.............................. 1,792 1,792 1,792 .......... ..........
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID.................... 2,464 2,464 2,464 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID................. 78 78 78 .......... ..........
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID............................... 2,567 2,567 2,567 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID............... 430 430 430 .......... ..........

ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN............... 2,900 2,900 2,900 .......... ..........
CARLYLE LAKE, IL.................................. 6,745 6,745 6,745 .......... ..........
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL................................ 3,499 3,499 3,499 .......... ..........
CHICAGO RIVER, IL................................. 385 385 385 .......... ..........
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL......................... 214 214 214 .......... ..........
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND IN........ 24,702 25,767 24,702 .......... -1,065
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND IN........ 1,065 1,065 1,065 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL................. 631 631 631 .......... ..........
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL.................... 1,189 1,189 1,189 .......... ..........
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL....................... 547 547 547 .......... ..........
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL.............................. 5,186 5,186 6,186 +1,000 +1,000
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS.......... ......... 67,030 .............. .......... ..........
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR 48,107 ......... 50,407 +2,300 +2,300
PORTION).........................................
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS 18,923 ......... 18,923 .......... ..........
PORTION).........................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL..................... 33 33 33 .......... ..........
REND LAKE, IL..................................... 5,254 5,254 5,254 .......... ..........
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL...... 114 114 114 .......... ..........
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL............................... 680 2,680 680 .......... -2,000

INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN............................... 872 872 872 .......... ..........
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN......................... ......... 800 .............. .......... -800
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN.............................. 600 600 600 .......... ..........
CECIL M. HARDEN LAKE, IN.......................... 687 687 687 .......... ..........
INDIANA HARBOR, IN................................ ......... 300 .............. .......... -300
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN................. 370 370 370 .......... ..........
J. EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN.......................... 643 643 643 .......... ..........
MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN.......................... ......... ......... 500 +500 +500
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN............................. 751 751 751 .......... ..........
MONROE LAKE, IN................................... 689 689 689 .......... ..........
PATOKA LAKE, IN................................... 619 619 619 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN..................... 59 59 59 .......... ..........
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN................................ 637 637 637 .......... ..........
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN...... 111 111 111 .......... ..........

IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA............................... 2,537 2,537 2,537 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA................. 202 202 202 .......... ..........
MISSOURI RIVER-KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA 152 152 152 .......... ..........
MISSOURI RIVER-RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS, AND MO.. 6,475 6,475 6,475 .......... ..........
MISSOURI RIVER-SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA AND NE...... 2,417 2,417 2,417 .......... ..........
RATHBUN LAKE, IA.................................. 2,081 2,081 2,081 .......... ..........
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA................ 3,415 3,415 3,415 .......... ..........
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA.............................. 3,952 4,202 4,202 +250 ..........

KANSAS

CLINTON LAKE, KS.................................. 1,987 1,987 1,987 .......... ..........
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS............................ 1,544 1,544 1,544 .......... ..........
EL DORADO LAKE, KS................................ 339 339 339 .......... ..........
ELK CITY LAKE, KS................................. 692 692 692 .......... ..........
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS............................... 2,154 2,154 2,154 .......... ..........
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS................................ 703 703 703 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS................. 85 85 85 .......... ..........
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS................ 1,081 1,081 1,081 .......... ..........
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS................................ 1,634 1,634 1,634 .......... ..........
MARION LAKE, KS................................... 1,551 1,551 1,551 .......... ..........
MELVERN LAKE, KS.................................. 1,828 1,828 1,828 .......... ..........
MILFORD LAKE, KS.................................. 2,903 2,903 2,903 .......... ..........
PEARSON-KUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS.................. 1,052 1,052 1,052 .......... ..........
PERRY LAKE, KS.................................... 2,211 2,211 2,211 .......... ..........
POMONA LAKE, KS................................... 1,810 1,810 1,810 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS............... 32 32 32 .......... ..........
TORONTO LAKE, KS.................................. 402 402 402 .......... ..........
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS............................. 2,189 2,189 2,189 .......... ..........
WILSON LAKE, KS................................... 1,509 1,509 1,609 +100 +100

KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY, AND TN.......... 9,507 9,507 9,507 .......... ..........
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY............................. 2,102 2,102 3,000 +898 +898
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY.............................. 1,091 1,091 1,091 .......... ..........
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY................................. 1,195 1,195 1,195 .......... ..........
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY............................... 1,252 1,652 1,252 .......... -400
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY................................. 733 733 733 .......... ..........
DEWEY LAKE, KY.................................... 1,245 1,245 1,245 .......... ..........
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY.................. 40 40 40 .......... ..........
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY................................. 1,621 1,621 1,621 .......... ..........
GRAYSON LAKE, KY.................................. 1,140 1,140 1,140 .......... ..........
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY....................... 1,178 1,178 1,178 .......... ..........
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY.............................. 1,882 1,882 1,882 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY................. 98 98 98 .......... ..........
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY............................. 1,814 1,814 1,814 .......... ..........
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY............................. 599 599 599 .......... ..........
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY............ 62 62 62 .......... ..........
NOLIN LAKE, KY.................................... 1,817 1,817 1,817 .......... ..........
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN, AND OH..... 32,210 32,210 32,210 .......... ..........
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN, AND OH.. 3,928 3,928 3,928 .......... ..........
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY.............................. 912 912 912 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY..................... 7 7 7 .......... ..........
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY.............................. 1,945 1,945 1,945 .......... ..........
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY............................. 1,149 1,149 1,149 .......... ..........
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY............... 5,902 5,902 5,902 .......... ..........
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY............................... 1,070 1,070 1,070 .......... ..........

LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND 15,948 15,948 24,948 +9,000 +9,000
BLACK, LA........................................
BARATARIA BAY..................................... ......... ......... 1,300 +1,300 +1,300
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA........................ 1,402 1,402 1,402 .......... ..........
BAYOU LACOMBE..................................... ......... ......... 500 +500 +500
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA... ......... ......... 1,000 +1,000 +1,000
BAYOU PIERRE, LA.................................. 32 32 32 .......... ..........
BAYOU SEGNETTE, LA................................ ......... ......... 1,450 +1,450 +1,450
BAYOU TECHE....................................... ......... ......... 800 +800 +800
CADDO LAKE, LA.................................... 330 330 330 .......... ..........
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA...................... 9,032 9,032 14,032 +5,000 +5,000
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA.............................. 1,466 1,466 1,466 .......... ..........
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA.................... 19,614 19,000 19,614 .......... +614
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA........................ 253 253 253 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA................. 856 856 856 .......... ..........
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA.................. 10,115 10,115 13,115 +3,000 +3,000
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA........................ ......... ......... 491 +491 +491
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA........................... ......... ......... 86 +86 +86
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA............................... 2,538 2,538 2,538 .......... ..........
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF 54,053 54,053 54,053 .......... ..........
MEXICO...........................................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA................ 14,111 13,500 14,111 .......... +611
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA........... ......... ......... 2,500 +2,500 +2,500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA..................... 60 60 60 .......... ..........
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA..................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 .......... ..........
WALLACE LAKE, LA.................................. 291 291 291 .......... ..........
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA.............. ......... ......... 240 +240 +240
WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO BAYOU ......... ......... 200 +200 +200
DULAC, LA........................................

MAINE

BASS HARBOR, ME................................... 95 95 95 .......... ..........
CARVERS HARBOR, ME................................ 270 270 270 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME................. 21 21 21 .......... ..........
INTERNATIONAL ST. CROIX RIVER BOARD OF CONTROL, ME 17 17 17 .......... ..........
KENNEBUNK RIVER, ME............................... ......... 700 .............. .......... -700
PORTLAND HARBOR, ME............................... 520 520 520 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME..................... 866 866 866 .......... ..........

MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD....... 15,214 15,214 19,214 +4,000 +4,000
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL).............. 326 326 326 .......... ..........
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV................... 126 126 750 +624 +624
HERRING CREEK, TALL TIMBERS, MD................... ......... ......... 450 +450 +450
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD................. 36 36 36 .......... ..........
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV................. 1,907 1,907 1,907 .......... ..........
KANPPS NARROWS, MD................................ ......... ......... 700 +700 +700
NANTICOKE RIVER NORTHWEST FORK, MD................ 240 240 240 .......... ..........
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD 220 220 1,900 +1,680 +1,680
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD..................... 379 379 379 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD............... 97 97 97 .......... ..........
ST. JEROME CREEK, MD.............................. ......... ......... 850 +850 +850
TILGHMAN ISLAND HARBOR,MD......................... ......... ......... 450 +450 +450
WICOMICO RIVER, MD................................ 500 500 500 .......... ..........

MASSACHUSETTS

AUNT LYDIA'S COVE, MA............................. ......... 250 .............. .......... -250
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA............................... 637 637 637 .......... ..........
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA................................ 607 607 607 .......... ..........
BOSTON HARBOR, MA................................. ......... ......... 7,500 +7,500 +7,500
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA.............................. 592 592 592 .......... ..........
CAPE COD CANAL, MA................................ 8,896 8,750 8,896 .......... +146
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA..... 312 312 312 .......... ..........
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA............................. 362 362 362 .......... ..........
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA........................... 458 458 458 .......... ..........
GREEN HARBOR, MA.................................. ......... ......... 350 +350 +350
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA............................ 591 591 591 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA................. 114 114 114 .......... ..........
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA............................... 677 677 677 .......... ..........
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA.............................. 541 541 541 .......... ..........
MERRIMACK RIVER, MA............................... ......... ......... 200 +200 +200
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE 337 337 337 .......... ..........
BARRIER..........................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA..................... 1,300 1,300 1,300 .......... ..........
TULLY LAKE, MA.................................... 595 595 595 .......... ..........
WEST HILL DAM, MA................................. 798 798 798 .......... ..........
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA................................ 579 579 579 .......... ..........
WEYMOUTH-FORE RIVER, MA........................... 3,774 3,700 3,774 .......... +74

MICHIGAN

ALPENA HARBOR, MI................................. ......... ......... 290 +290 +290
ARCADIA HARBOR, MI................................ ......... ......... 80 +80 +80
CASEVILLE HARBOR, MI.............................. ......... ......... 128 +128 +128
CEDAR RIVER HARBOR, MI............................ ......... ......... 550 +550 +550
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI.................... 183 183 183 .......... ..........
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI............................. 89 89 89 .......... ..........
DETROIT RIVER, MI................................. 4,347 4,347 4,347 .......... ..........
FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI.............................. 37 37 37 .......... ..........
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI............................ 1,879 1,879 1,879 .......... ..........
GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MI........................... 14 14 1,714 +1,700 +1,700
HARBOR BEACH HARBOR, MI........................... ......... 100 500 +500 +400
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI................................ 1,354 1,354 1,354 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI................. 144 144 144 .......... ..........
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI............................. 370 370 370 .......... ..........
LAC LA BELLE, MI.................................. 92 92 92 .......... ..........
LELAND HARBOR, MI................................. ......... ......... 88 +88 +88
LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI............................ ......... ......... 186 +186 +186
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI.............................. 500 500 500 .......... ..........
MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND HI....................... ......... 400 400 +400 ..........
MONROE HARBOR, MI................................. 550 550 550 .......... ..........
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI............................... 525 525 525 .......... ..........
NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI............................ ......... ......... 79 +79 +79
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI.............................. ......... ......... 300 +300 +300
PENTWATER, MI..................................... ......... 100 100 +100 ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI..................... 178 178 178 .......... ..........
ROUGE RIVER, MI................................... 1,161 1,161 1,161 .......... ..........
SAGINAW RIVER, MI................................. 2,427 2,427 2,427 .......... ..........
SEBEWAING RIVER, MI............................... ......... ......... 360 +360 +360
ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI............................... 920 920 920 .......... ..........
ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MI............................. 470 470 1,085 +615 +615
ST. MARYS RIVER, MI............................... 17,134 17,134 17,134 .......... ..........
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI...... 2,314 2,314 2,314 .......... ..........

MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD.......... 164 164 164 .......... ..........
DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI................. 5,081 5,381 5,081 .......... -300
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN................. 129 129 129 .......... ..........
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN.......... 363 363 363 .......... ..........
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP 58,073 58,073 57,073 -1,000 -1,000
PORTION).........................................
ORWELL LAKE, MN................................... 261 261 261 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN..................... 67 67 67 .......... ..........
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN............................ 320 320 320 .......... ..........
RESERVOIR PLAN OPERATING EVALUATION, MN........... ......... 400 .............. .......... -400
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN. 2,263 2,263 2,263 .......... ..........
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN...... 310 310 310 .......... ..........
WARROAD HARBOR, MN................................ ......... ......... 250 +250 +250

MISSISSIPPI

CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS......................... ......... ......... 62 +62 +62
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS.................... 102 102 170 +68 +68
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS............................... 2,500 2,500 4,000 +1,500 +1,500
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS................. 57 57 57 .......... ..........
MOUTH OF THE YAZOO RIVER, MS...................... ......... ......... 110 +110 +110
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS................................ 1,680 1,680 2,300 +620 +620
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS............................. 5,156 5,156 5,156 .......... ..........
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA............................ 276 276 276 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS..................... 181 181 181 .......... ..........
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS............................... ......... ......... 580 +580 +580
YAZOO RIVER, MS................................... ......... ......... 140 +140 +140

MISSOURI

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO......................... 23 23 350 +327 +327
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO....... 6,107 6,107 6,107 .......... ..........
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO............................... 2,677 2,600 2,677 .......... +77
HANNIBAL, MO...................................... ......... ......... 76 +76 +76
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO.............. 9,140 9,140 9,140 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO................. 768 768 768 .......... ..........
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO....................... 730 730 730 .......... ..........
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO.............................. 848 848 848 .......... ..........
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG 29,559 29,559 29,559 .......... ..........
WORKS), MO.......................................
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO............................. ......... ......... 360 +360 +360
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO........................... 1,963 1,963 1,963 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO..................... 7 7 7 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO............... 319 319 319 .......... ..........
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO............................... 1,237 1,237 1,237 .......... ..........
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MO.... ......... ......... 350 +350 +350
STOCKTON LAKE, MO................................. 3,742 3,742 3,742 .......... ..........
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO............................... 7,556 7,556 7,556 .......... ..........
UNION LAKE, MO.................................... 6 6 6 .......... ..........

MONTANA

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT.......................... 4,154 4,154 4,154 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT................. 19 19 19 .......... ..........
LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT..................... 2,189 2,189 2,189 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT............... 87 87 87 .......... ..........

NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE AND SD. 8,231 8,231 8,231 .......... ..........
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE............................ 1,863 1,863 1,863 .......... ..........
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE DAM SAFETY STUDY, NE........... ......... 355 .............. .......... -355
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE................. 102 102 102 .......... ..........
MISSOURI R. MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL, NE, IA, KS, 203 203 203 .......... ..........
MO,..............................................
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, NE......... 625 625 .............. .......... ..........
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE.................... 845 845 845 .......... ..........

NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV................. 46 46 46 .......... ..........
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA...................... 586 586 586 .......... ..........
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV................ 214 214 214 .......... ..........

NEW HAMPSHIRE

BLACKWATER DAM, NH................................ 644 644 644 .......... ..........
COCHECO RIVER..................................... ......... ......... 2,000 +2,000 +2,000
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH......................... 555 555 555 .......... ..........
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH............................ 768 768 768 .......... ..........
HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH....................... 1,228 1,228 1,228 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH................. 12 12 12 .......... ..........
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH.............................. 806 806 806 .......... ..........
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR/PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH............ ......... ......... 500 +500 +500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH..................... 300 300 300 .......... ..........
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH........................... 736 736 736 .......... ..........

NEW JERSEY

ABSECON INLET..................................... ......... ......... 110 +110 +110
BARNEGAT INLET, NJ................................ 95 95 500 +405 +405
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ............................. 540 540 540 .......... ..........
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ...................... 10 10 10 .......... ..........
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA, 20,465 20,465 20,465 .......... ..........
AND DE...........................................
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ... 720 720 720 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ................. 106 106 106 .......... ..........
MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ............................... 510 510 510 .......... ..........
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ..... 8,120 8,120 8,120 .......... ..........
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY.................. ......... ......... 1,250 +1,250 +1,250
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ........... 450 450 450 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ..................... 1,675 1,675 1,675 .......... ..........
RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ.......... 150 150 150 .......... ..........
RARITAN RIVER, NJ................................. 2,500 2,400 2,500 .......... +100
SALEM RIVER, NJ................................... ......... ......... 965 +965 +965
SAVOY HOOK AT LEONARDO, NJ........................ ......... ......... 150 +150 +150
SHARK RIVER, NJ................................... 80 80 230 +150 +150
SHREWSBURY RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ................. ......... ......... 400 +400 +400

NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM................................... 3,168 3,168 3,168 .......... ..........
ALBUQUERQUE LEVEES, NM............................ ......... ......... 2,000 +1,000 +1,000
COCHITI LAKE, NM.................................. 3,726 3,726 4,426 +700 +700
CONCHAS LAKE, NM.................................. 1,579 1,579 2,579 +1,000 +1,000
GALISTEO DAM, NM.................................. 779 750 779 .......... +29
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM................. 221 221 221 .......... ..........
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM.............................. 3,561 3,561 5,061 +1,500 +1,500
RIO GRANDE BOSQUE REHABILITATION, NM.............. ......... ......... 4,000 +4,000 +4,000
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM....................... 1,213 1,213 1,213 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM............... 1,221 1,221 1,221 .......... ..........
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM................................ 552 552 552 .......... ..........
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL........... ......... ......... 2,000 +2,000 +2,000

NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY................................... 509 509 509 .......... ..........
ARKPORT DAM, NY................................... 294 294 294 .......... ..........
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY....... 1,308 1,308 1,308 .......... ..........
BROWNS CREEK, NY.................................. 100 100 100 .......... ..........
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY................................ 1,030 1,030 1,030 .......... ..........
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY............................ 60 60 60 .......... ..........
EAST RIVER, NY.................................... 1,350 1,350 1,350 .......... ..........
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY........................... 140 140 140 .......... ..........
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY.............................. 517 517 517 .......... ..........
EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY............................. 100 100 100 .......... ..........
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY.............. 220 220 220 .......... ..........
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY........................ 150 150 150 .......... ..........
GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY............................... 200 200 200 .......... ..........
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY.......................... 350 350 350 .......... ..........
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT).......................... 1,794 1,794 1,794 .......... ..........
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C)............................ 1,090 1,090 1,090 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY................. 659 659 659 .......... ..........
JAMAICA BAY, NY................................... 140 140 140 .......... ..........
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY............. 200 200 200 .......... ..........
MORICHES INLET, NY................................ 80 80 80 .......... ..........
MT MORRIS LAKE, NY................................ 3,845 3,845 3,845 .......... ..........
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY.............. 7,200 7,200 7,200 .......... ..........
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY............................... 3,410 3,410 3,410 .......... ..........
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL)........ 4,400 4,400 4,400 .......... ..........
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (PREV OF OBSTRUCTIVE ......... ......... 950 +950 +950
DEPOSIT..........................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY..................... 1,310 1,310 1,310 .......... ..........
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY.............................. 120 120 120 .......... ..........
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY...... 662 662 662 .......... ..........
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY...... 710 710 710 .......... ..........
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY............................ 678 678 678 .......... ..........

NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC................ 860 860 5,860 +5,000 +5,000
B. EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC................ 1,849 1,849 1,849 .......... ..........
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC.............. 635 635 635 .......... ..........
CAROLINA BEACH INLET.............................. ......... ......... 550 +550 +550
FALLS LAKE, NC.................................... 2,097 2,097 2,097 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC................. 35 35 35 .......... ..........
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC......................... ......... ......... 950 +950 +950
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC....................... 7,855 7,855 15,855 +8,000 +8,000
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC....... 3,700 3,700 3,700 .......... ..........
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC.......................... 3,575 3,575 3,575 .......... ..........
NEW RIVER INLET, NC............................... ......... ......... 1,050 +1,050 +1,050
NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC..... ......... ......... 675 +675 +675
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC..................... 226 226 226 .......... ..........
SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC............................ 1,540 1,540 1,540 .......... ..........
W. KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC............... 2,817 2,817 2,817 .......... ..........
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC............................. 13,963 13,963 13,963 .......... ..........

NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN-HALEY LAKE, ND............................. 156 156 156 .......... ..........
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND.................. 13,266 13,516 14,266 +1,000 +750
HOMME LAKE, ND.................................... 266 266 266 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND................. 85 85 85 .......... ..........
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND............... 1,242 1,242 1,242 .......... ..........
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND................................. 459 459 459 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND............... 117 117 117 .......... ..........
SOURIS RIVER, ND.................................. 422 422 422 .......... ..........
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND...... 31 31 31 .......... ..........

OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH............................... 948 948 948 .......... ..........
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH.............................. 1,063 1,063 1,063 .......... ..........
BERLIN LAKE, OH................................... 1,544 1,544 1,544 .......... ..........
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH............................. 1,222 1,222 1,222 .......... ..........
CLARENCE J. BROWN DAM, OH......................... 1,358 1,358 1,358 .......... ..........
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH.............................. 3,305 3,305 3,305 .......... ..........
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH............................... 2,315 2,315 2,315 .......... ..........
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH............................... 815 815 815 .......... ..........
DELAWARE LAKE, OH................................. 794 794 794 .......... ..........
DILLON LAKE, OH................................... 1,790 1,790 1,790 .......... ..........
HURON HARBOR, OH.................................. ......... ......... 105 +105 +105
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH................. 280 280 280 .......... ..........
LORAIN HARBOR, OH................................. 600 600 600 .......... ..........
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH............ 25 25 25 .......... ..........
MICHAEL J. KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH........... 718 718 718 .......... ..........
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH........................... 717 717 717 .......... ..........
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH......................... 6,754 6,754 6,754 .......... ..........
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH.............. 125 125 125 .......... ..........
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH.............................. 721 721 721 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH..................... 240 240 240 .......... ..........
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH............ 30 30 30 .......... ..........
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH............................... 890 850 890 .......... +40
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH...... 170 170 170 .......... ..........
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH................................. 3,682 3,650 3,682 .......... +32
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH............................... 290 290 290 .......... ..........
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH.................. 403 403 403 .......... ..........
WILLIAM H. HARSHA LAKE, OH........................ 710 710 710 .......... ..........

OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK.................................. 429 429 429 .......... ..........
BIRCH LAKE, OK.................................... 475 475 475 .......... ..........
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK............................... 1,493 1,493 1,493 .......... ..........
CANTON LAKE, OK................................... 1,723 1,723 1,723 .......... ..........
COPAN LAKE, OK.................................... 1,511 1,511 1,511 .......... ..........
EUFAULA LAKE, OK.................................. 5,312 5,312 5,312 .......... ..........
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK.............................. 5,053 5,053 5,053 .......... ..........
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK.............................. 733 733 733 .......... ..........
GRAND LAKE, OR.................................... ......... ......... 650 +650 +650
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK........................ 166 166 166 .......... ..........
HEYBURN LAKE, OK.................................. 529 529 529 .......... ..........
HUGO LAKE, OK..................................... 1,451 1,451 1,451 .......... ..........
HULAH LAKE, OK.................................... 626 626 750 +124 +124
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK................. 88 88 88 .......... ..........
KAW LAKE, OK...................................... 2,378 2,378 2,378 .......... ..........
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK................................. 4,300 4,300 4,300 .......... ..........
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK.................................. 1,955 1,955 1,955 .......... ..........
OPTIMA LAKE, OK................................... 61 61 61 .......... ..........
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK.... 57 57 57 .......... ..........
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK............................... 857 857 857 .......... ..........
ROBERT S. KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIRS, OK.... 4,517 4,517 4,517 .......... ..........
SARDIS LAKE, OK................................... 1,192 1,192 1,192 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK............... 508 508 508 .......... ..........
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK................................. 1,086 1,086 1,086 .......... ..........
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK.......................... 2,998 2,998 2,998 .......... ..........
WAURIKA LAKE, OK.................................. 1,528 1,528 1,528 .......... ..........
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK.................... 4,815 4,815 4,815 .......... ..........
WISTER LAKE, OK................................... 460 460 460 .......... ..........

OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR................................ 595 595 595 .......... ..........
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR............................... 312 312 312 .......... ..........
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA................ 7,792 7,792 7,792 .......... ..........
CHETCO RIVER, OR.................................. 348 348 348 .......... ..........
COLUMBIA AND LWR WILLAMETTE R. BLW VANCOUVER, WA 16,829 16,829 17,579 +750 +750
AND PORTLA.......................................
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA............ 10,186 10,186 27,186 +17,000 +17,000
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE 254 254 254 .......... ..........
DALLES, OR.......................................
COOS BAY, OR...................................... 4,594 4,594 4,594 .......... ..........
COQUILLE RIVER, OR................................ ......... ......... 348 +348 ..........
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR............................ 780 780 780 .......... ..........
COUGAR LAKE, OR................................... 766 766 766 .......... ..........
DEPOE BAY, OR..................................... ......... ......... 400 +400 +400
DETROIT LAKE, OR.................................. 729 729 729 .......... ..........
DORENA LAKE, OR................................... 613 613 613 .......... ..........
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR............................... 555 555 555 .......... ..........
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR............................... 966 966 2,100 +1,134 +1,134
GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR...................... 1,186 1,186 1,186 .......... ..........
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR.............................. 3,807 3,807 3,807 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR................. 167 167 167 .......... ..........
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA.................. 4,692 4,692 4,692 .......... ..........
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR............................ 1,272 1,272 1,272 .......... ..........
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR............................... 5,096 5,096 5,096 .......... ..........
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA.................... 7,129 7,129 7,129 .......... ..........
PORT ORFORD, OR................................... ......... ......... 723 +723 +723
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR..................... 177 177 177 .......... ..........
ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR..................... 394 394 394 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR............... 62 62 62 .......... ..........
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR................................. 449 449 449 .......... ..........
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR...... 134 134 134 .......... ..........
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR (PORT OF GARIBALDI)..... ......... ......... 1,500 +1,500 +1,500
UMPQUA RIVER, OR.................................. ......... 225 679 +679 +454
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR.......... 72 72 72 .......... ..........
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR.............. 80 80 80 .......... ..........
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR............................. 538 538 538 .......... ..........
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR........................ 1,006 1,006 1,006 .......... ..........

PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA............................... 4,393 4,393 4,393 .......... ..........
ALVIN R. BUSH DAM, PA............................. 727 727 727 .......... ..........
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA......................... 251 251 251 .......... ..........
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA............................... 1,026 1,026 1,026 .......... ..........
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA............................... 2,662 2,662 2,662 .......... ..........
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA.......................... 1,074 1,074 1,074 .......... ..........
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA............................... 2,793 2,793 2,793 .......... ..........
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA............................ 1,033 1,033 1,033 .......... ..........
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA............................. 717 717 717 .......... ..........
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA................ 799 799 799 .......... ..........
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA...................... 745 745 745 .......... ..........
FRANCIS E. WALTER DAM, PA......................... 731 731 731 .......... ..........
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA........ 249 249 249 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA................. 196 196 196 .......... ..........
JOHNSTOWN, PA..................................... 1,603 1,603 1,603 .......... ..........
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA............ 1,147 1,447 1,147 .......... -300
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA............................... 785 785 785 .......... ..........
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA........................... 946 946 946 .......... ..........
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA............................. 17,138 17,138 17,138 .......... ..........
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH AND WV.......... 18,362 18,362 18,362 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA..................... 30 30 30 .......... ..........
PROMPTON LAKE, PA................................. 483 483 483 .......... ..........
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA.................................. 13 13 13 .......... ..........
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA................................. 5,449 5,849 5,449 .......... -400
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA............... 66 66 66 .......... ..........
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA.............................. 70 70 70 .......... ..........
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA........................... 1,831 1,831 1,831 .......... ..........
STILLWATER LAKE, PA............................... 386 386 1,000 +614 +614
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA...... 80 80 80 .......... ..........
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA........................... 3,365 3,365 3,365 .......... ..........
TIONESTA LAKE, PA................................. 1,331 1,331 1,331 .......... ..........
UNION CITY LAKE, PA............................... 147 147 147 .......... ..........
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA........................... 714 714 714 .......... ..........
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA.......................... 556 556 556 .......... ..........
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD................ 2,124 2,124 2,124 .......... ..........

PUERTO RICO

SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR............................... 1,800 1,800 1,800 .......... ..........

RHODE ISLAND

BULLOCKS POINT COVE, RI........................... ......... ......... 700 +700 +700
BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR, RI........................... ......... ......... 120 +120 +120
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI................. 15 15 15 .......... ..........
PAWTUXET COVE, RI................................. ......... ......... 1,600 +1,600 +1,600
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI..................... 400 400 400 .......... ..........

SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC................ 467 467 3,000 +2,533 +2,533
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC............................. 11,038 11,038 11,038 .......... ..........
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC............... 2,905 2,905 2,905 .......... ..........
FOLLY RIVER, SC................................... 987 987 987 .......... ..........
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC............................. 1,342 1,342 4,000 +2,658 +2,658
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC................. 30 30 30 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC..................... 349 349 349 .......... ..........
TOWN CREEK, SC.................................... ......... ......... 459 +459 +459

SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD..................... 7,577 7,577 7,577 .......... ..........
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRVLE SIOUS, SD. ......... ......... 2,000 +2,000 +2,000
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD............................... 275 275 275 .......... ..........
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD....................... 192 192 192 .......... ..........
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD........... 9,635 9,635 9,635 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD................. 17 17 17 .......... ..........
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN.......................... 434 434 434 .......... ..........
MISSOURI R. BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND GAVINS PT, 350 350 350 .......... ..........
SD, MT...........................................
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND.................... 11,421 11,421 11,421 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD............... 52 52 52 .......... ..........

TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN.............................. 6,397 6,397 6,397 .......... ..........
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN......................... 5,103 5,103 5,103 .......... ..........
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN.............................. 2,430 2,430 2,430 .......... ..........
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN................ 6,226 6,226 6,226 .......... ..........
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN.............................. 5,531 5,531 5,531 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN................. 137 137 137 .......... ..........
J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN............. 3,738 3,738 3,738 .......... ..........
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN...................... 6,385 6,385 6,385 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN..................... 7 7 7 .......... ..........
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN............................... 18,537 18,537 18,537 .......... ..........
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN............................. 23 23 23 .......... ..........

TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX.................................. 1,108 1,108 1,108 .......... ..........
ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL--AREA 1,051 1,051 1,051 .......... ..........
VI...............................................
BARDWELL LAKE, TX................................. 1,538 1,538 1,538 .......... ..........
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX.......................... 2,875 2,875 2,875 .......... ..........
BELTON LAKE, TX................................... 3,041 3,041 3,041 .......... ..........
BENBROOK LAKE, TX................................. 2,097 2,097 2,097 .......... ..........
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX.......................... 3,775 3,775 3,775 .......... ..........
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX................. 2,875 2,875 2,875 .......... ..........
CANYON LAKE, TX................................... 3,667 3,667 3,667 .......... ..........
CHOCOLATE BAYOU................................... ......... ......... 2,000 +2,000 +2,000
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX................... 3,900 3,900 3,900 .......... ..........
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX...................... 5,569 5,569 5,569 .......... ..........
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX........ 5 5 5 .......... ..........
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, TX........ 3,075 3,075 3,075 .......... ..........
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX............................... 3,610 3,610 3,610 .......... ..........
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX.................. 4,800 4,800 4,800 .......... ..........
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX..................... 6,975 6,975 6,975 .......... ..........
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX.......................... 2,004 2,004 2,004 .......... ..........
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX................................ 3,349 3,349 3,349 .......... ..........
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX.................... 29,312 29,312 29,312 .......... ..........
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX.............................. 1,665 1,665 1,665 .......... ..........
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX.......................... 3,261 3,261 11,056 +7,795 +7,795
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX................. 557 557 557 .......... ..........
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX.............................. 2,897 2,897 2,897 .......... ..........
JOE POOL LAKE, TX................................. 1,023 1,023 1,023 .......... ..........
LAKE KEMP, TX..................................... 422 422 422 .......... ..........
LAVON LAKE, TX.................................... 3,885 3,885 3,885 .......... ..........
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX................................ 4,290 4,290 4,290 .......... ..........
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX........................ 8,700 8,700 8,700 .......... ..........
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX............................ 2,353 2,353 2,353 .......... ..........
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX..... 2,320 2,320 2,320 .......... ..........
O. C. FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX..................... 1,260 1,260 1,260 .......... ..........
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX................................ 1,266 1,266 1,266 .......... ..........
PROCTOR LAKE, TX.................................. 2,221 2,221 2,221 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX..................... 50 50 50 .......... ..........
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX.............................. 1,070 1,070 1,070 .......... ..........
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX........................ 13,478 13,478 13,478 .......... ..........
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX................. 11,578 11,578 11,578 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX............... 84 84 84 .......... ..........
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX............................... 3,068 3,068 3,068 .......... ..........
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX......................... 1,951 1,951 1,951 .......... ..........
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX....................... 2,150 2,150 2,500 +350 +350
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX............. 500 500 1,600 +1,100 +1,100
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B. A. STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX......... 3,995 3,995 3,995 .......... ..........
WACO LAKE, TX..................................... 3,295 3,295 3,295 .......... ..........
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX.............................. 1,662 1,662 1,662 .......... ..........
WHITNEY LAKE, TX.................................. 5,603 6,803 5,603 .......... -1,200
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX.................... 3,416 3,416 3,416 .......... ..........

UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT................. 40 40 40 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT............... 631 631 631 .......... ..........

VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT............................ 801 801 801 .......... ..........
CONNECTICUT RIVER FLOOD CONTROL DAMS.............. ......... ......... 500 +500 +500
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT................. 45 45 45 .......... ..........
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT........................... 706 706 706 .......... ..........
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT........................ 892 892 892 .......... ..........
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT................................ 786 786 786 .......... ..........
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT............................. 684 684 684 .......... ..........

VIRGINIA

APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA.............................. ......... ......... 500 +500 +500
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA........... 1,670 1,670 1,670 .......... ..........
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA........... 275 275 850 +575 +575
BENNETT'S CREEK, VA............................... ......... ......... 352 +352 +352
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA............................ 900 900 900 .......... ..........
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA................. 2,084 2,084 2,084 .......... ..........
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS HBR, VA 825 825 825 .......... ..........
(DRIFT REM.......................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA................. 127 127 127 .......... ..........
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA........................... 3,295 3,295 3,295 .......... ..........
JOHN H. KERR LAKE, VA AND NC...................... 11,513 11,513 11,513 .......... ..........
JOHN W. FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA........... 1,435 1,435 1,435 .......... ..........
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA................................ 11,203 11,203 14,672 +3,469 +3,469
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA................ 346 346 346 .......... ..........
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA................................. 5,391 5,391 5,391 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA..................... 793 793 793 .......... ..........
RUDEE INLET, VA................................... 635 635 1,275 +640 +640
TANGIER CHANNEL, VA............................... 600 600 600 .......... ..........
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA............. 200 200 200 .......... ..........

WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA.............................. 2,419 2,419 2,419 .......... ..........
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA (PORT OF ILWACO).. ......... ......... 1,000 +1,000 +1,000
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND THE HEAD OF ......... ......... 1,000 +1,000 +1,000
SAND.............................................
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA............ 1,508 1,508 1,508 .......... ..........
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA............... 8,582 9,000 8,582 .......... -418
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA............................. 2,481 2,481 2,481 .......... ..........
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA....................... 5,670 5,670 5,670 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA................. 311 311 311 .......... ..........
LAKE CROCKETT (KEYSTONE HARBOR), WA............... 342 342 342 .......... ..........
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA.................... 4,387 4,387 6,480 +2,093 +2,093
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA..................... 2,165 2,165 2,165 .......... ..........
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA.................... 2,422 2,422 2,422 .......... ..........
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA................. 1,996 1,996 1,996 .......... ..........
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA............................... 1,041 1,041 1,041 .......... ..........
MT. ST. HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA............... 257 257 257 .......... ..........
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA.............................. 2,516 2,516 3,419 +903 +903
NEAH BAY, WA...................................... ......... ......... 1,000 +1,000 +1,000
OLYMPIA HARBOR, WA................................ 400 400 400 .......... ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA..................... 403 403 403 .......... ..........
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA.............. 864 864 864 .......... ..........
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA.............................. 58 58 58 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA............... 485 485 485 .......... ..........
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA................................ 555 555 555 .......... ..........
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA........................... 226 226 226 .......... ..........
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA...... 66 66 66 .......... ..........
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA........................ 112 112 112 .......... ..........
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR................ 3,667 3,667 3,877 +210 +210
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA...................... 158 158 158 .......... ..........

WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV............................... 1,014 1,014 1,014 .......... ..........
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV................................ 3,828 3,828 3,828 .......... ..........
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV............................... 1,517 1,517 1,517 .......... ..........
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV................................ 1,799 1,799 1,799 .......... ..........
ELK RIVER HARBOR, WV.............................. 10 10 10 .......... ..........
ELKINS, WV........................................ 16 16 16 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV................. 117 117 117 .......... ..........
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV.................. 13,661 13,661 13,661 .......... ..........
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY AND OH.......... 19,530 19,530 20,530 +1,000 +1,000
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY AND OH....... 2,019 2,019 2,519 +500 +500
R. D. BAILEY LAKE, WV............................. 1,515 1,515 1,515 .......... ..........
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV........................ 640 640 640 .......... ..........
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV............................. 1,657 1,657 1,657 .......... ..........
SUTTON LAKE, WV................................... 1,788 1,788 1,788 .......... ..........
TYGART LAKE, WV................................... 2,950 2,950 2,950 .......... ..........

WISCONSIN

ASHLAND HARBOR, WI................................ ......... ......... 166 +166 +166
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI.......................... 647 647 647 .......... ..........
FOX RIVER, WI..................................... 1,748 1,748 1,748 .......... ..........
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI.............................. 2,476 2,476 2,476 .......... ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI................. 40 40 40 .......... ..........
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI............................... ......... ......... 288 +288 +288
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI.............................. ......... ......... 450 +450 +450
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI.............................. 844 844 844 .......... ..........
PORT WASHINGTON HARBOR, WI........................ ......... ......... 213 +213 +213
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI..................... 105 105 105 .......... ..........
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, ......... ......... 257 +257 +257
WI...............................................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI...... 472 472 472 .......... ..........
TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI............................. ......... 420 .............. .......... -420

WYOMING

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY................. 11 11 11 .......... ..........
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY........................... 1,094 1,094 1,094 .......... ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY............... 86 86 86 .......... ..........

MISCELLANEOUS

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH................. 690 690 690 .......... ..........
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM.................... 2,475 2,475 2,475 .......... ..........
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION).............. 1,391 1,391 1,391 .......... ..........
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE...................... 8,000 8,000 8,000 .......... ..........
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING 1,062 1,000 1,062 .......... +62
SYSTEM...........................................
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 6,080 5,660 6,080 .......... +420
(DOER)...........................................
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM 1,391 1,300 1,391 .......... +91
(DOTS)...........................................
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM.............. 270 270 270 .......... ..........
FACILITY PROTECTION............................... 12,000 12,000 12,000 .......... ..........
GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELS............. 900 900 900 .......... ..........
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION............ 608 608 608 .......... ..........
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS................. 3,708 3,708 3,708 .......... ..........
LONG TERM OPTION ASSESSMENT FOR LOW USE NAVIGATION 1,500 ......... .............. -1,500 ..........
MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS....... 1,575 1,500 1,575 .......... +75
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM....................... 250 250 250 .......... ..........
NATIONAL DAM SECURITY PROGRAM..................... 31 31 31 .......... ..........
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP).... 5,000 5,000 5,000 .......... ..........
NATIONAL LEWIS AND CLARK COMMEMORATION 319 319 319 .......... ..........
COORDINATION.....................................
PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM....... 2,540 734 734 -1,806 ..........
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT (ABS-P2).... 250 250 250 .......... ..........
PROTECT, CLEAR AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS (SEC 3).... 45 45 45 .......... ..........
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM (RMSP)...... 1,600 1,500 1,600 .......... +100
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 1,391 1,391 10,016 +8,625 +8,625
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR 608 608 608 .......... ..........
REHABILITATION...................................
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS......................... 500 500 775 +275 +275
RESERVE FOR KEY EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE/REPAIRS..... 20,000 20,000 .............. -20,000 -20,000
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS)......... 653 653 653 .......... ..........
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS.................... 4,271 4,200 4,271 .......... +71
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.... -12,766 ......... -66,232 -52,341 -65,107
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Operation and Maintenance............ 1,977,894 2,000,000 2,100,000 +122,106 +100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alabama-Coosa River, AL.--The Committee has included an
additional $1,500,000 for maintenance dredging.
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, AL & MS.--The Committee has
included for additional maintenance dredging and for aquatic
plant control activities.
Cordova Harbor, AK.--The Committee has included $600,000
for maintenance dredging of the harbor.
Lowell Creek Tunnel, AK.--The Committee has included
$100,000 for maintenance of the Lowell Creek Tunnel project.
Nome Harbor, AK.--The Committee has included an additional
$2,496,000 for maintenance dredging of the harbor.
Alamo Lake, AZ.--The Committee has provided an additional
$450,000 for ecological restoration studies at the lake.
Helena Harbor, AR.--The Committee has included $400,000 for
maintenance dredging of this harbor.
McClellan-Kerr, Arkansas River Navigation System, AR and
OK.--Additional funds are provided to initiate replacement of
tow-haulage equipment at Locks 1 and 2.
Ouachita and Black Rivers, AR and LA.--The Committee has
included an additional, $1,800,000 for maintenance dredging.
Crescent City, CA.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for
the continued work on the dredge material management plan.
Sacrement River (Bascule Bridge), CA.--The Committee has
provided $1,000,000 to initiate transfer of the Bascule Bridge
to the City.
Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Lakes, CO.--The
Committee has included an additional $2,000,000 for continued
repairs at these three lakes. This action in no way is intended
to alter the Corps of Engineers' lease and property
accountability policies. It is the Committee's understanding
that the State of Colorado has agreed to cost share 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 of the operation and maintenance of these recreation
facilities. Of the funds provided, the Corps is directed to
conduct a reallocation study for Chatfield Reservoir project.
Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, DE
and MD.--The Committee recommendation includes $12,475,000 for
this project. Within the funds provided, $1,000,000 is included
for maintenance costs of the SR-1 Bridge.
AIWW, Norfolk, VA to St. Johns River, FL, GA, SC, NC, and
VA.--The Committee has included $1,000,000 for maintenance
dredging.
Intracoastal Waterway, Caloosahatchee to Anclote, FL.--The
Committee has included $1,000,000 for maintenance dredging.
Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, FL.--The
Committee has included $4,250,000 for maintenance dredging.
Miami River, FL.--The Committee is aware of the ongoing
economic analysis of the Miami River maintenance project. The
Corps has reported to the local sponsors on several occasions
that the study was nearing completion, only to postpone its
final completion. Most recently, the Corps has directed the
consultant to complete the study by August 15, in order for the
Corps to utilize the results of the study in its preparation of
the fiscal year 2007 budget request, and has conveyed its
intention once again to the local sponsors. The Committee
expects the Corps to complete and approve this analysis by
August 15.
Apalachiacola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, GA, AL, and
FL.--The Committee has included an additional $6,500,000, which
includes annual dredging of the river channel, annual
operations and maintenance of the George W. Andrews Lock, spot
dredging of shoals, continuation of slough mouth restoration,
and routine operations and maintenance of the project.
Pohiki Bay, Hawaii, HI.--The Committee has included
$100,000 to initiate plans and specifications for the
breakwater repair.
Lake Shelbyville, IL.--The Committee has included an
additional $1,000,000 for deferred maintenance activities at
recreation sites.
Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis
(MVR Portion), IL.--The Committee recommendation includes
$50,407,000. Within the funds provided, $3,000,000 is for
continuation of the rehab of Lock and Dam 11 and $2,500,000 is
for the rehab of Lock and Dam 19.
Saylorville Lake, IA.--The Committee has provided an
additional $250,000 to maintain the project's basic service
level as determined by the Corps.
Michigan City Harbor, IN.--The Committee has provided
$500,000 for the dredged material management plan and plans and
specifications for dredging the harbor.
Wilson Lake, KS.--The Committee has provided an additional
$100,000 for the Corps to conduct a reallocation study.
Barren River Lake, KY.--The Committee has provided an
additional $898,000 for the repair and upgrade of public use
facilities.
Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, LA.--
The Committee has provided an additional $9,000,000 for
maintenance dredging activities.
Barataria Bay Waterway, LA.--The Committee has provided
funds for maintaining the authorized depth of the project.
Calcasieu River and Pass, LA.--The Committee has provided
an additional $5,000,000 for maintenance dredging of this
channel.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--The Committee has
included an additional $3,000,000 for bank stabilization
repairs, dredging entrances to oxbow lakes, routine operation
and maintenance activities, annual dredging requirements, and
backlog maintenance.
Baltimore Harbor and Channels (50 foot), MD.--The Committee
has provided an additional $4,000,000 for maintenance dredging.
Herring Creek, Tall Timbers, MD.--With the funds provided,
the Committee expects the Corps to complete construction of the
revetment.
Boston Harbor, MA.--The Committee has provided $7,500,000
to initiate dredging in the Inner Harbor.
Grand Marais Harbor, MI.--The Committee has provided
$1,714,000 to initiate construction of the replacement
breakwater.
Clairborne County Port, MS.--The Committee has included
additional funds to continue maintenance dredging of the port.
Gulfport Harbor, MS.--The Committee has included an
additional $1,500,000 for ongoing maintenance projects and
dredging of the bar channel.
Mouth of the Yazoo River, MS.--The Committee has included
additional funds for the maintenance dredging of the entrance
to Vicksburg Harbor.
Okatibbee Lake, MS.--The Committee has included additional
funds for maintenance of public user facilities.
Rosedale Harbor, MS.--The Committee has included $580,000
for maintenance dredging of the harbor.
Cocheco River, NH.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000
continue dredging of the Cocheco River project.
New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, NJ.--The Committee has
included an additional $1,250,000 for dredging of the project.
Albuquerque Levees, NM.--The Committee has provided
$2,000,000 to assess damage to and make immediate repairs to
levees damaged as a result of spring run-off flooding in 2005.
Cochiti Lake, NM.--The Committee has provided additional
funds for the continuation of studies that were initiated in
fiscal year 2004, which include the proposed operational
changes and gate automation and to begin the relocation of the
Al Black area.
Jemez Canyon Dam, NM.--The Committee has provided an
additional $1,500,000 to modify headworks to allow management
of sediment flows to meet 2003 Biological Opinion requirements.
Rio Grande Bosque Rehabilitation, NM.--The Committee has
provided $4,000,000 to continue fire reduction work and general
Bosque rehabilitation in order to complete repairs and fire
protection resulting from 2003 and 2004 fires in the urban
interface.
Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model, NM.--The Committee
has provided $2,000,000 to improve data management, coordinate
river operations, automate data in partnership with the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, NC.--The Committee has
included an additional $5,000,000 for dredging of the project.
Manteo (Shallowbag Bay), NC.--The Committee has included an
additional $8,000,000 for dredging of the project.
Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea, ND.--The Committee has
provided $100,000 for mosquito control and $900,000 for the
Corps to work in cooperation with the Friends of Lake Sakakawea
to ensure the recreation sites around the lake can be utilized.
Columbia & Lower Willamette River Below Vancouver, WA and
Portland, OR.--The committee recommendation includes $750,000
for continued work at the Astoria Boat Basin.
Columbia River at the Mouth, OR and WA.--The Committee has
provided an additional $17,000,000 to continue jetty repairs
initiated with fiscal year 2005 budgeted funds, but not
budgeted in fiscal year 2006.
Fern Ridge Dam, OR.--The Committee has provided $2,100,000
for this project. The Committee understands that the additional
$1,134,000 will complete the emergency repairs begun in fiscal
year 2005 using emergency reprogramming procedures. The
Committee understands that the repairs will cost in excess of
$25,000,000. The Committee directs that these costs should be
considered as dam safety repairs for cost allocation purposes.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, SC.--The Committee has
included an additional $2,533,000 for dredging of the project.
Georgetown Harbor, SC.--The Committee has included
additional funds for maintenance dredging of the harbor.
Oahe Dam, Lake Oahe, SD & ND.--The Committee understands
that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's water system is facing a
potential water shortage due to extremely low water levels on
the Missouri River. The tribe's water intake is likely to
become inoperable, as the Corps of Engineers continues to draw
down the water level on Lake Oahe. The Committee urges the
Corps to take all necessary steps to relocate the tribe's water
intake on the Missouri River to ensure continued operation of
the water system and an uninterrupted water supply for the
Reservation.
Chocolate Bayou, TX.--The Committee has provided additional
funds for maintenance dredging of the channel.
Houston Ship Channel, TX.--The Committee has provided an
additional $7,795,000 for additional dredging and dredging
related activities.
Texas Water Allocation Study, TX.--The Committee has
provided additional funds for the ongoing study.
Norfolk Harbor, VA.--The Committee has provided an
additional $3,469,000 for maintenance dredging and to raise the
containment dikes to provide the capacity needed for the
Norfolk Harbor Deepening project.
Connecticut River Flood Control Dams, VT.--$500,000 has
been provided for continued work on fish passage facilities at
these projects.
Lake Washington Ship Channel, WA.--The Committee has
included an additional $2,093,000 to maintain basic service
levels at the Ballard Locks.
Mud Mountain, WA.--Out of the funds provided, the Corps is
directed to use up to $903,000 to satisfy Federal fish passage
obligations for the term of the cooperative agreement with
Puget Sound Energy.
The Dalles Lock and Dam, WA and OR.--The Committee has
provided an additional $210,000 for Lewis and Clark activities
at Celilo Park.
Ohio River Locks and Dams, WV, KY and OH.--The Committee
has provided $600,000 for security monitoring and $400,000 for
full levels of service at the lock.
Ohio River Open Channel Work, WV, KY and OH.--The Committee
has provided $500,000 for channel condition surveys.
Long Term Option Assessment for Low Use Navigation.--The
Committee has not provided funding for this study.
Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program.--The
Committee has provided $10,016,000 for this program. Within the
funds provided, $500,000 is for the southeast coast of Oahu,
HI; $2,500,000 is for the Littoral Drift Restoration Program,
Benson Beach, WA; $375,000 is for Lido Key, Sarasota, FL, and
Vicinity and central and southern Brevard County to Dade
County; $350,000 is for South Jetty and Clatsop Spit, OR; and
$4,900,000 is for Coastal Zone Mapping and Imaging Laser to be
conducted in accordance with the University of Southern
Mississippi.
Removal of Sunken Vessels.--The Committee has provided
$275,000 to remove the sunken vessel State of Pennsylvania from
the Christina River at Wilmington, DE.

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... ( \1\ )
Budget estimate, 2006................................... $70,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 43,000,000

\1\ Exclude emergency appropriation of $148,000,000.

The Committee has included $43,000,000 for the FCCE
account. This account provides funds for preparedness
activities for natural and other disasters, response, and
emergency flood fighting and rescue operations, hurricane
response, and emergency shore protection work. It also provides
for emergency supplies of clean water where the source has been
contaminated or where adequate supplies of water are needed for
consumption.

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $143,840,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 160,000,000
House allowance......................................... 160,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 150,000,000

An appropriation of $150,000,000 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 33 U.S.C. Sec. 401, the Clean Water Act of 1977
Public Law 95-217, and the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 Public Law 92-532.
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, 2005.................................... $163,680,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 140,000,000
House allowance......................................... 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 2005.
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.

general expenses

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $165,664,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 162,000,000
House allowance......................................... 152,021,000
Committee recommendation................................ 165,000,000

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. The
Committee recommendation is $165,000,000. The Committee
understands that the cost of the required financial audit of
the Corps of Engineers may exceed $20,000,000 for fiscal year
2006. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Corps to use the
Revolving Fund to undertake this audit and budget appropriation
for this audit in future years.
Executive Direction and Management.--The Office of the
Chief of Engineers and eight division offices supervise work in
38 district offices.
Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.--This support
center provides administrative services (such as personnel,
logistics, information management, and finance and accounting)
for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate
field operating activities.
Institute for Water Resources.--This institute performs
studies, analyses, and develops planning techniques for the
management and development of the Nation's water resources.
United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.--This
center provides centralized support for all Corps finance and
accounting.
Office of Congressional Affairs.--The Committee has
included statutory language for the past several years
prohibiting any funds from being used to fund an Office of
Congressional Affairs within the executive office of the Chief
of Engineers. The Committee believes that an Office of
Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works Program would hamper
the efficient and effective coordination of issues with the
Committee staff and Members of Congress. The Committee believes
that the technical knowledge and managerial expertise needed
for the Corps headquarters to effectively address Civil Works
authorization, appropriation, and Headquarters policy matters
resides in the Civil Works organization. Therefore, the
Committee strongly recommends that the office of Congressional
Affairs not be a part of the process by which information on
Civil Works projects, programs, and activities is provided to
Congress.
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.
In 1998, The Chief of Engineers issued a Command Directive
transferring the oversight and management of the General
Expenses account, as well as the manpower associated with this
function, from the Civil Works Directorate to the Resource
Management Office. General Expense funds are appropriated
solely for the executive management and oversight of the Civil
Works Program under the direction of the Director of Civil
Works.
The Committee is pleased with the efforts of the Corps to
restructure the management of general expense funds. It
continues to believe that the general expense dollars are
ultimately at the discretion of the Chief of Engineers and are
intended to be utilized in his effort to carry out the Corps'
mission. The new controls put in place to manage the general
expense dollars and evaluate the needs of the Corps address the
Committee's previous concerns. The Committee requests the Corps
continue to provide biannual written notification of the
dispersal of general expense funds.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

Section 101. The bill includes language limiting
reimbursements.
Section 102. The bill includes language prohibiting the
divesting or transferring Civil Works functions.
Section 103. The bill includes language prohibiting any
steps to dismantle the St. Georges Bridge in Delaware.
Section 104. The bill includes language concerning report
notifications.
Section 105. The bill includes language concerning report
notifications.
Section 106. The bill includes language making a technical
correction to the Baltimore Metropolitan Watershed Feasibility
Study-Gwnns Falls, MD.
Section 107. The bill includes language that provides for
increasing the cost ceiling for the Marmet Lock, Kanawha River,
WV project.
Section 108. The bill includes language that provides for
increasing the cost ceiling for the Lower Mud River, Milton, WV
project.
Section 109. The bill includes language regarding water
reallocation at Lake Cumberland, KY, the San Luis Unit and the
Kesterson Reservoir in California.
Section 110. The bill includes language regarding the Lower
Las Vegas Wash, NV.
Section 111. The bill includes language regarding the Yazoo
Basin, Upper Yazoo Projects in Mississippi.
Section 112. The bill includes language regarding the Lower
Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive Site, MS.
Section 113. The bill includes language regarding the
Central New Mexico, NM.
Section 114. The bill includes language regarding the Los
Angeles Harbor, CA.
Section 115. The bill includes language regarding the
Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project.
Section 116. The bill includes language regarding the
Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project.
Section 117. The bill includes language regarding the
Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project.
Section 118. The bill includes language regarding the
Missouri River Levee System, Unit L-15 Levee, MO.
Section 119. The bill includes language regarding the
Alpine, CA project.
Section 120. The bill includes language regarding
regulatory permit processing.
Section 121. The bill includes language regarding the
Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program, NM.
Section 122. The bill includes language regarding Bluestone
Dam, WV.
Section 123. The bill includes language deauthorizing a
portion of a project in Washington.
Section 124. The bill includes language regarding Fern
Ridge Dam, WV.
Section 125. The bill includes language regarding the
Federal dredges.
Section 126. The bill includes language regarding Federal
dredges.
Section 127. The bill includes language regarding a
Dispersal Barrier in Vermont and New York.

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Central Utah Project Completion Account

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $47,625,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 34,350,000
House allowance......................................... 34,350,000
Committee recommendation................................ 34,350,000

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2006 to carry
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act
totals $34,350,000. An appropriation of $31,668,000 has been
provided for Central Utah project construction; $946,000 for
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation.
The Committee recommendation provides $1,736,000 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.

Bureau of Reclamation

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $852,605,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 801,569,000
House allowance......................................... 832,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 899,569,000

An appropriation of $899,569,000 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 Committee has divided underfinancing between the
Resources Management Subaccount and the Facilities Operation
and Maintenance Subaccount. The Committee directs that the
underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied
uniformly across all projects within the subaccounts. Upon
applying the underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming
procedures should be undertaken to account for schedule
slippages, accelerations or other unforeseen conditions.
The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the
following table along with the budget request.

BUILDING AND SITE SECURITY

Security Costs and Allocations.--Following the attacks on
September 11, 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation strengthened
security at Federal dams and similar facilities and has
undertaken but not completed extensive risk assessments for
over 400 units throughout the West. Many of these are multi-
purpose facilities providing flood control, water storage for
contract irrigators, municipal and industrial water supplies,
power generation, recreation and environmental mitigation
benefits. The Committee understands that beginning in fiscal
year 2006, Reclamation will no longer make a distinction
between pre-September 11, 2001, security costs and post-
September 11, 2001, security costs. The Committee recognizes
that the security posture of Reclamation will likely not
approach pre-September 11, 2001, levels for many years, if
ever. The Committee recognizes that project beneficiaries
benefit from this enhanced security. However, the Committee
remains concerned about the reimbursability of increased
security costs for Reclamation projects. The Committee wants to
ensure that all project beneficiaries that benefit from the
enhanced security posture, pay a fair share of the costs.
Therefore, Reclamation shall provide a report to the Committee,
no later than, May 1, 2007, with a breakout of planned
reimbursable and non-reimbursable security costs by project pro
rated by project purposes. The Committee directs the
Commissioner not to begin the reimbursement process until the
Congress provides direct instruction to do so.

Direct Funding of Operations and Maintenance Work and the PMAs

The Committee has chosen not to include the legislative
proposal to directly fund reclamation hydropower operation and
maintenance activities through receipts from the power
marketing administrations due to budgetary scoring
implications.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate House allowance Committee
------------------------------------------------ recommendation
Project title -----------------------
Resources Facilities Resources Facilities Resources Facilities
management OM&R management OM&R management OM&R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

ARIZONA

AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT .......... 7,200 .......... 7,200 .......... 7,200
PROJECT................................
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER 22,128 95 22,128 95 22,128 95
BASIN..................................
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE 2,455 .......... 3,200 .......... 8,200 ..........
SYSTEM.................................
FORT MCDOWELL SETTLEMENT ACT............ 400 .......... 400 .......... 400 ..........
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM. 250 .......... 250 .......... 250 ..........
PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT 200 .......... 200 .......... 200 ..........
SALT RIVER PROJECT...................... 300 .......... 300 .......... 300 ..........
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT 100 .......... 100 .......... 100 ..........
ACT....................................
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT 4,725 .......... 4,725 .......... 4,725 ..........
ACT PROJECT............................
SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS 795 .......... 795 .......... 1,354 ..........
PROGRAM................................
TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION........ 300 .......... 300 .......... 300 ..........
YUMA AREA PROJECTS...................... 1,722 20,378 1,722 20,878 1,722 20,378

CALIFORNIA

CACHUMA PROJECT......................... 988 588 988 588 988 588
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....... 580 .......... 580 .......... 580 ..........
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 1,350 .......... 2,500 .......... 2,000 ..........
RECYCLING PLANT........................
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT.................. .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION............. 2,060 7,437 2,060 7,437 2,060 7,437
AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT............ 5,966 .......... 5,966 .......... 5,966 ..........
DELTA DIVISION...................... 10,441 5,752 10,441 5,752 10,441 5,752
EAST SIDE DIVISION.................. 1,907 2,297 1,907 2,297 1,907 2,297
FRIANT DIVISION..................... 2,235 3,481 2,235 3,481 2,435 3,481
MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS...... 12,511 1,114 12,511 1,114 15,074 1,114
REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND .......... 23,200 .......... 23,200 .......... 23,200
EXTRAORDINARY MAINT................
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION........... 2,381 1,759 2,381 1,759 2,458 1,759
SAN FELIPE DIVISION................. 846 .......... 846 .......... 846 ..........
SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION................ 300 .......... 300 .......... 300 ..........
SHASTA DIVISION..................... 1,050 7,606 1,050 7,606 1,050 7,606
TRINITY RIVER DIVISION.............. 7,621 3,242 7,621 3,242 8,121 3,242
WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS.......... 1,707 10,211 1,707 10,211 1,707 10,211
WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS 5,191 7,146 5,191 7,146 5,191 7,146
UNIT...............................
YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION..... 500 .......... 500 .......... 500 ..........
EL DORADO TEMPERATURE CONTROL DEVICE.... .......... .......... 1,000 .......... .......... ..........
LAKE CACHUMA WATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT. .......... .......... .......... .......... 500 ..........
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT 100 .......... 100 .......... 3,000 ..........
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND 650 .......... 650 .......... 650 ..........
REUSE PROJECT..........................
LONG BEACH DESALINATION PROJECT......... .......... .......... 1,250 .......... 1,250 ..........
MISSION SPRINGS WATER REUSE, DESERT HOT .......... .......... .......... .......... 150 ..........
SPRINGS, CA............................
NAPA--SONOMA--MARIN AGRICULTURAL REUSE .......... .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
PROJECT................................
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER 1,250 .......... 2,500 .......... 1,250 ..........
RECYCLING PROJECT......................
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION 1,250 .......... 2,250 .......... 2,250 ..........
PROJECT, PHAS..........................
ORLAND PROJECT.......................... 41 920 41 920 41 920
PASADENA RECLAIMED WATER PROJECT........ .......... .......... .......... .......... 160 ..........
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVERSION STUDY........ .......... .......... 1,000 .......... .......... ..........
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT............. 1,000 .......... 4,800 .......... 1,000 ..........
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND 3,500 .......... 3,500 .......... 3,500 ..........
REUSE PROGRAM..........................
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT............... 500 .......... 500 .......... 500 ..........
SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION PROJECT... .......... .......... 10,000 .......... .......... ..........
SAN JOSE WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 300 .......... 300 .......... 1,000 ..........
PROGRAM................................
SANTA MARGARITA RIVER CONJUNCTIVE USE .......... .......... 500 .......... .......... ..........
PROJECT................................
SOLANO PROJECT.......................... 1,502 2,863 1,502 2,863 1,502 2,863
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS 550 .......... 1,050 .......... 550 ..........
PROGRAM................................
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT................... 596 .......... 596 .......... 596 ..........
WATSONVILLE AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT .......... .......... 2,000 .......... .......... ..........

COLORADO

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP SECTION 5 52,000 .......... 56,000 .......... 60,000 ..........
AND 8..................................
COLLBRAN PROJECT........................ 166 1,277 166 1,277 166 1,277
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT........... 438 16,151 438 16,151 438 16,151
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM......... 200 .......... 200 .......... 200 ..........
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT................ 20 128 20 128 20 128
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT.............. 173 8,579 173 8,579 173 8,579
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II..... 233 670 233 670 233 670
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY....... 72 2,250 72 2,250 72 2,250
MANCOS PROJECT.......................... 86 88 86 88 86 88
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II... 62 2,055 62 2,055 62 2,055
PINE RIVER PROJECT...................... 114 128 114 128 114 128
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT................. 279 5,490 279 5,490 279 5,490
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT..................... 172 126 172 126 172 126

HAWAII

HAWAIIAN RECLAIM AND REUSE STUDY........ .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,000 ..........

IDAHO

BOISE AREA PROJECTS..................... 2,480 2,520 2,480 2,520 2,480 2,520
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY 17,500 .......... 17,500 .......... 17,500 ..........
PROJECT................................
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............ 548 .......... 548 .......... 548 ..........
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS.................. 3,169 2,639 3,169 2,639 3,169 2,639
MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAIN WATER 200 .......... 200 .......... 200 ..........
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.....................
MINIDOKA PROJECT, GRASSY LAKE SOD....... .......... 310 .......... 310 .......... 310

KANSAS

KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........... 150 .......... 150 .......... 150 ..........
WICHITA PROJECT......................... 261 334 261 334 261 334

MONTANA

FORT PECK DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM .......... .......... 13,000 .......... 19,000 ..........
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT.................... .......... 331 .......... 331 .......... 331
HUNTLEY PROJECT......................... 26 125 26 125 26 125
MILK RIVER PROJECT...................... 455 852 455 852 455 852
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS.................. 385 .......... 385 .......... 385 ..........
NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA RURAL WATER .......... .......... 7,500 .......... .......... ..........
PROJECT................................
ST. MARY'S FACILITIES REHABILITATION.... .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,000 ..........
SUN RIVER PROJECT....................... .......... 241 .......... 241 .......... 241

NEBRASKA

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT.................... 12 71 12 71 12 71
NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM......... 128 .......... 128 .......... 128 ..........

NEVADA

HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY.............. 200 .......... 200 .......... 1,000 ..........
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT.................. 4,520 3,057 4,520 3,057 4,520 3,057
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM........ 1,200 .......... 1,200 .......... 2,775 ..........
NORTH LAS VEGAS WATER REUSE............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,000 ..........
SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT. .......... .......... .......... .......... 3,423 ..........

NEW MEXICO

ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER AND .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,000 ..........
RECLAMATION REUSE......................
CARLSBAD PROJECT........................ 2,297 822 2,297 822 2,297 822
CHIMAYO WATER PLAN...................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,000 ..........
EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
EASTERN NEW MEXICO INVESTIGATIONS 70 .......... 70 .......... 70 ..........
PROGRAMS...............................
ESPANOLA WATER DIVERSION................ .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,000 ..........
JICARILLA APACHE RESERVATION RURAL WATER .......... .......... 500 .......... .......... ..........
SYSTEM.................................
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT............... 9,150 9,850 9,150 9,850 15,650 9,850
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE OFF-CHANNEL .......... .......... .......... .......... 2,000 ..........
SANCTUARIES............................
NAVAJO GALLUP WATER SUPPLY.............. .......... .......... 500 .......... 500 ..........
NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.... 180 .......... 180 .......... 180 ..........
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT. .......... 181 .......... 181 .......... 181
RIO GRANDE PROJECT...................... 1,134 3,567 1,134 3,567 1,134 3,567
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS 150 .......... 150 .......... 150 ..........
PROGRAM................................
SANTA FE--WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
PROJECT................................
SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS 230 .......... 230 .......... 230 ..........
INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................
TUCUMCARI PROJECT....................... 56 7 56 7 56 7

NORTH DAKOTA

DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.......... 237 .......... 237 .......... 237 ..........
DAKOTAS TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM... 84 .......... 84 .......... 84 ..........
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM, 22,640 4,197 22,640 4,197 26,640 4,197
GARRISON DIVERSION.....................

OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT........................ 17 183 17 183 17 183
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT..................... 33 518 33 518 33 518
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT................... 17 338 17 338 17 338
NORMAN PROJECT.......................... 17 384 17 384 17 384
NORMANIOR FEASISBILITY STUDY............ .......... .......... .......... .......... 300 ..........
NORTH FORK OF THE RED RIVER PROJECT, .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
(OKLAHOMA INVESTI......................
OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM......... 155 .......... 155 .......... 155 ..........
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT................... 30 1,155 30 1,155 30 1,155
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT..................... 137 389 137 389 137 389

OREGON

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT................... 661 446 661 446 661 446
DESCHUTES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT. .......... .......... .......... .......... 2,000 ..........
DESCHUTES PROJECT....................... 301 147 301 147 301 147
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS................. 544 362 544 362 544 362
KLAMATH PROJECT......................... 21,310 690 21,310 690 21,310 690
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........... 450 .......... 450 .......... 450 ..........
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT 780 223 780 223 780 223
DIVISION...............................
SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM REMOVAL............... 1,000 .......... 1,000 .......... 2,000 ..........
TUALATIN PROJECT........................ 475 147 475 147 475 147
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY .......... .......... 300 .......... 300 ..........
PROJECT................................
UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT, PHASE III STUDY. 200 .......... 200 .......... 200 ..........
UMATILLA PROJECT........................ 803 3,127 803 3,127 803 3,127

SOUTH DAKOTA

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM...... 15,000 .......... 15,000 .......... 20,000 ..........
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT.......... .......... 15 .......... 300 4,000 15
MNI WICONI PROJECT...................... 22,447 7,053 14,947 7,053 26,447 7,053
PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT..... .......... .......... .......... .......... 2,000 ..........
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM..... .......... 50 .......... 50 .......... 50

TEXAS

BALMORHEA PROJECT....................... 24 .......... 24 .......... 24 ..........
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT.................. 69 97 69 97 69 97
EL PASO WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE..... .......... .......... 100 .......... 103 ..........
LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES. 50 .......... 2,900 .......... 50 ..........
NUECES RIVER............................ 36 503 36 503 36 503
SAN ANGELO PROJECT...................... 17 344 17 344 17 344
TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............ 214 .......... 214 .......... 214 ..........
TRINITY RIVER WASTEWATER STUDY.......... .......... .......... 200 .......... .......... ..........
WILLIAMSON COUNTY WATER RECYLING PROJECT .......... .......... .......... .......... 200 ..........

UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT........................... 125 30 125 30 125 30
MOON LAKE PROJECT....................... 13 27 13 27 13 27
NEWTON PROJECT.......................... 43 23 43 23 43 23
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.... 154 .......... 154 .......... 654 ..........
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT..................... 228 35 228 35 228 35
PARK CITY FEASIBILITY STUDY............. .......... .......... 500 .......... 500 ..........
PROVO RIVER PROJECT..................... 894 319 894 319 894 319
PROVO RIVER PROJECT, DEER CREEK DAM..... .......... 4,900 .......... 4,900 .......... 4,900
SCOFIELD PROJECT........................ 86 27 86 27 86 27
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT............... 177 8 177 8 177 8
WEBER BASIN PROJECT..................... 1,841 357 1,841 357 1,841 357
WEBER BASIN PROJECT, PINEVIEW PROJECT... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
WEBER RIVER PROJECT..................... 41 80 41 80 41 80

WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT.................. 4,047 7,616 4,047 7,616 4,047 7,616
LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM WATER SUPPLY .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
FEASIBILITY STUDY......................
MAKAH INDIAN COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY .......... .......... 300 .......... 300 ..........
FEASIBILITY STUDY......................
STORAGE DAM FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY 780 .......... 780 .......... 780 ..........
STUDY..................................
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....... 300 .......... 550 .......... 950 ..........
YAKIMA PROJECT.......................... 1,524 6,398 1,524 6,398 1,524 6,398
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE........ .......... .......... 1,500 .......... 1,500 ..........
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT 8,500 .......... 7,000 .......... 8,500 ..........
PROJECT................................

WYOMING

KENDRICK PROJECT........................ 50 4,010 50 4,010 50 4,010
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT.................... 79 1,817 79 1,817 79 1,817
SHOSHONE PROJECT........................ 62 740 62 740 62 740
WYOMING INVESTIGATION PROGRAM........... 40 .......... 40 .......... 40 ..........

VARIOUS

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL .......... 10,673 .......... 10,673 .......... 10,673
PROJECT, TITLE I.......................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, 10,000 .......... 10,000 .......... 10,000 ..........
TITLE II...............................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 6,293 3,403 6,293 3,403 6,293 3,403
5......................................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 4,030 .......... 4,030 .......... 4,030 ..........
8......................................
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 465 .......... 465 .......... 465 ..........
PROGRAM................................
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM...................... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM....... .......... 1,500 .......... 1,500 .......... 1,500
INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION...... .......... 44,578 .......... 44,578 .......... 44,578
SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION .......... 100 .......... 100 .......... 100
STUDIES............................
SAFETY OF EVALUATION OF EXISTING .......... 18,500 .......... 18,500 .......... 18,500
DAMS...............................
DEPARTMENTAL IRRIGATION DRAINAGE PROGRAM .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,900 ..........
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE............ 500 .......... 500 .......... 500 ..........
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE .......... 1,360 .......... 1,360 .......... 1,360
PROGRAM................................
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY 9,734 .......... 9,734 .......... 9,734 ..........
IMPLEMENTATION.........................
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY 1,790 .......... 1,790 .......... 1,790 ..........
COORDINATION ACTIVITIES................
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.... 965 .......... 965 .......... 965 ..........
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES...... .......... 5,699 .......... 5,699 .......... 5,699
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM. .......... 1,575 .......... 1,575 .......... 1,575
GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES................ 2,006 .......... 2,006 .......... 2,006 ..........
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM....... 7,000 .......... 7,000 .......... 7,000 ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS 300 .......... 300 .......... 300 ..........
PROGRAM................................
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM. 17,894 .......... 17,894 .......... 17,894 ..........
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS.. .......... 631 .......... 631 .......... 631
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM......... 7,525 .......... 7,525 .......... 9,025 ..........
NATURAL RESOURCES DAMAGE ASSESSMENT..... 300 .......... 300 .......... 300 ..........
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER 1,745 .......... 1,745 .......... 1,745 ..........
MARKETING..............................
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 165 876 165 876 165 876
MANAGEMENT.............................
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN--OTHER 3,537 38,553 3,537 38,553 3,537 38,553
PROJECTS...............................
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES.................. 1,020 212 1,020 212 1,020 212
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM........ 634 124 634 124 634 124
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION.......... 2,368 .......... 2,368 .......... 2,368 ..........
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT--TITLE 582 .......... 582 .......... 582 ..........
XXVIII.................................
RECREATION & FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM 1,570 .......... 1,570 .......... 1,570 ..........
ADMINISTRATION.........................
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT................ .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
DESALINATION RESEARCH AND 25 .......... 25 .......... 11,025 ..........
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM................
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM...... 9,684 .......... 9,684 .......... 10,684 ..........
SITE SECURITY........................... .......... 50,000 .......... 40,000 .......... 50,000
SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION.......... 293 .......... 293 .......... 293 ..........
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES.......... 1,884 .......... 1,884 .......... 1,884 ..........
TITLE XVI, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 1,229 .......... .......... .......... 4,229 ..........
PROGRAM................................
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES-- 80 .......... 80 .......... 80 ..........
TECHNICAL SUPPORT......................
WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICE PROGRAM 8,950 .......... 9,875 .......... 9,250 ..........
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM....... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
PROGRAM............................
WATER 2025.............................. 30,000 .......... .......... .......... 20,000 ..........
WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT.................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,500 ..........
UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON -30,172 .......... -6,967 .......... -30,749 -2,978
ANTICIPATED DELAYS.....................
RESCISSION--PUBLIC LAW 108-447.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Water and Related Resources 409,892 391,677 449,488 382,462 510,870 388,699
801,569
832,000
899,569
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colorado Front Work and Levee System, AZ.--The Committee
has included $8,200,000 for continuation of this project.
Additional funds were provided above the budget request for
continued work on the regulating reservoirs and for initiation
of appropriate studies to determine if additional capacity can
be economically realized behind Laguna Dam if sediment is
removed. The Committee understands that these projects have the
potential of saving as much as 300,000 acre-feet of Colorado
River System water that would otherwise be over-delivered to
Mexico. Due to the potential for such water savings
(essentially Nevada's entire annual share of Colorado River
Water), the Committee urges Reclamation to increase budgeting
for these items.
South/Central Arizona Investigations Program, AZ.--Within
the funds provided, the Committee has included $300,000 for the
Central Arizona Salinity Study and $250,000 for the West Salt
River Study.
Central Valley Project.--
--Delta Division.--Within the funds provided for the Delta
Division, $4,000,000 is provided for the Interagency
Ecological Program.
--Friant Division.--$200,000 has been provided for appraisal
level studies of the Madera Irrigation District Water
Supply Enhancement.
--Miscellaneous Project Programs.--Additional funds above the
budget request are provided for the Kaweah River Delta
Corridor Enhancement Study ($63,000) and the Sacramento
Valley Regional Integrated Water Management Plan
($2,500,000).
--Sacramento River Division.--Additional funds above the
budget request are provided to complete the Glen Colusa
Irrigation District Fish Screen Improvement Project.
--Trinity River Division.--The Committee has provided
$500,000 above the budget request for the Fishery
Restoration program. These funds are to be used in
concert with the $2,000,000 provided in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Program to meet Federal
trust responsibilities to protect the fishery resources
of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. The Commissioner is urged to
continue to support a Co-Management Agreement between
the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Bureau of Reclamation.
Animas-La Plata, CO.--The Committee has provided
$60,000,000 for construction of this project.
Colorado-Big Thompson Project, CO.--The Committee is aware
of the recently completed pipeline study and urges Reclamation
to work with the stakeholders with relation to the Colorado-Big
Thompson project as authorities allow.
Fort Peck, Dry Prairie Rural Water System, MT.--The
Committee has provided $19,000,000 for continued construction
of the project.
Lahontan Basin Project, NV.--The Committee has learned that
dam safety issues have arisen concerning Tahoe Dam. As this dam
provides more than 70 percent of the water supply for the area,
it is imperative that safety remediation activities be
undertaken as soon as possible. The Committee understands that
preliminary investigations are underway and will be continued
with budgeted funds in fiscal year 2006. The Committee expects
Reclamation to ask for the appropriate funding level in the
fiscal year 2007 budget to address safety issues.
Southern Nevada Water Recycling Project, NV.--The Committee
has provided $3,423,000 to complete the Federal share of this
project.
Chimayo Water Plan, NM.--The Committee has provided
$1,000,000 to initiate this project.
Espanola Water Diversion, NM.--The Committee has provided
$1,000,000 to initiate this project.
Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.--The conferees
support the reorganization of the Endangered Species Act
Collaborative Program resulting in the Army Corps of Engineers
in collaboration with the Fish and Wildlife Service taking
responsibility to provide the administrative support for the
program and the Army Corps of Engineers taking responsibility
to meet the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative of the 2003
Biological Opinion required by section 205 of Public Law 108-
447 (118 Stat 2949) other than the water acquisition and
management functions set out in the Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative. Additionally, the Army Corps of Engineers will
assume responsibility for providing a detailed spending plan
for fiscal year 2006 funds to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees for approval; completion of the
baseline Long-Term Plan and completion of the Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement before the end of fiscal year
2006. The Bureau of Reclamation retains responsibility to meet
the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative regarding water
acquisition and management, including acquisition of water to
meet the flow requirements articulated in the 2003 Biological
Opinion and development of a long-term plan to meet these flow
requirements. The conferees expect the Bureau of Reclamation to
facilitate a smooth transition of administrative functions for
the program to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Fish and
Wildlife Service within 3 months of the beginning of fiscal
year 2006. Of the total $25,500,000 provided for the Middle Rio
Grande Project, the conferees have provided $12,900,000 for the
collaborative program. Of these funds, The Bureau of
Reclamation is provided $5,000,000 for water acquisition and
associated administrative support within the Bureau; the Bureau
is to transfer $7,500,000 to the Army Corps of Engineers to
fund populations management, habitat restoration, water
management studies, fish passage and river connectivity, minnow
management, water quality, science and monitoring, biological
opinion monitoring, and program management to meet the 2003
Biological Opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives; and to
provide $400,000 to the Fish and Wildlife Service for program
management support. The cost-share requirements of the program
remain 75 percent Federal/25 percent non-Federal for all
activities except water acquisition and program administration.
Non-Federal cost share may be provided through in-kind services
and participation on the administration team.
Middle Rio Grande Off-Channel Sanctuaries, New Mexico.--The
Committee provides $2,000,000 for completion of construction
and initial operation of the off-channel sanctuary authorized
under section 6014 of Public Law 109-13.
Norman, OK.--The Committee has included $300,000 to
initiate this study.
Deschutes Ecosystem Restoration Project, OR.--The Committee
has provided $2,000,000 to continue this project.
Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project, SD.--The Committee has
provided $4,000,000 to close out this project that was
completed in fiscal year 2005.
El Paso, Water Reclamation and Reuse, TX.--The Committee
has included $103,000 to complete the project as currently
authorized.
Williamson County Water Reclamation and Reuse Project,
TX.--The Committee has provided $200,000 to initiate this
project.
Northern Utah Investigations Program, UT.--The Committee
has included an additional $500,000 for the Rural Water
Technology Alliance.
Washington Investigations Program, WA.--The Committee has
provided $950,000 for this program. Within the funds provided,
$600,000 is for the Odessa Sub Area study, and $50,000 is for
the West Canal study.
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I.--
The Committee is concerned about drought conditions in the west
and particularly how they relate to the Colorado River System.
As was discussed under the Colorado Front Work and Levee System
Project, it is imperative that Reclamation, working with the
stakeholders, determine how to retain additional water in the
system to avoid making excess releases to Mexico.
The Yuma desalting plant was constructed by the Bureau of
Reclamation to address Treaty water, quality and quantity,
issues with Mexico; however, it has never been operated at more
than about one-third capacity for about 6 months. Without the
plant, about 100,000 acre feet of Colorado River water is
bypassed to Mexico through the Welton-Mohawk Drain. Treaty
obligations have been met by other means over the last 10-12
years rather than using the desalting plant. However, with the
persistent drought the loss of that 100,000 acre feet of water
is becoming more of an issue as Lake Mead and Lake Powell have
dropped.
The Committee understands that the Yuma plant is antiquated
and expensive to operate. However, it appears to the Committee
that it might be the best short-term alternative to respond to
the drought. Therefore, the Committee directs the Commissioner
of Reclamation to provide an engineering report to the
Committee no later than 30 days after the enactment of this act
detailing the costs and current progress towards modernizing
the Yuma plant to where it could be used as intended. Further,
the Committee directs the Commissioner to include realistic
operational costs in the report for the plant. The Committee
would entertain discussions of alternate ideas for water
sources or operation of the plant provided they do not infringe
upon property rights, state or local laws.
Departmental Irrigation Program.--The Committee has
provided $1,900,000 for this program. $150,000 is provided for
the Uncompaghre selenium control project and $1,750,000 is for
irrigation modernization activities for Elephant Butte
Irrigation District.
Drought Emergency Assistance.--The Committee has provided
the budget request for this program. Within the funds provided,
the Committee urges Reclamation to provide full and fair
consideration for drought assistance from the State of Hawaii.
Native American Affairs Program.--Additional funds provided
above the budget request are for continued work on the AAMODT
settlement.
Research and Development, Science and Technology Program.--
The Committee has provided $1,000,000 above the request for the
further refinement of the Upper Rio Grande Water Operations
Model in collaboration with the Army Corps of Engineers and
Sandia National Laboratories.
Research and Development, Desalination Research and
Development Program.--The Committee has provided $11,025,000
for this program. Within the funds provided, $4,000,000 is for
desalination R&D efforts directed by the Bureau of Reclamation.
The Committee continues to urge the Bureau of Reclamation to
place a higher priority on desalination activities in future
budgets given the importance of sustainable water supplies to
the West and to other regions of the country. Additionally, the
Committee has provided $7,000,000 for the completion of
construction of the Tularosa Basin Desalination Facility, New
Mexico and initial operation. Upon completion of the facility,
the Bureau is directed to select an organization to operate the
facility under Bureau direction. In this selection the Bureau
should give priority to local education institutions who have
expertise, do not need to relocate and have on-going water
research activities.
Site Security.--The Committee has provided the budget
request for this item and directs that increased security costs
continue to be non-reimbursible until the Committee notifies
Reclamation otherwise.
Title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse.--The Committee has
provided $4,229,000 for this program. Within the funds
provided, the Committee has included $3,000,000 for the
WateReuse Foundation. These funds shall be available to support
the Foundation's research priorities.
Water Conservation Field Service Program.--The Committee
has included $300,000 for urban water conservation projects
identified through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California Innovative Conservation Program that will increase
water-use efficiency. In addition, $100,000 is provided for the
Bureau of Reclamation to initiate a study to identify
concurrent and overlapping Government programs aimed at
improving water resource efficiency. It is hoped that the study
will encourage agencies to look beyond their individual areas
of responsibility in an effort to bring about greater resource
efficiencies to the Southern California region.
Water 2025.--The dire drought the West is currently
experiencing, combined with an unprecedented number of water
users and endangered species and related requirements, make
water use efficiencies more critical than ever. The Committee
has provided $20,000,000 for this initiative proposed by the
administration. The Committee believes that water resource and
efficiency issues, combined with the drought and endangered
species listings, make the Rio Grande River in New Mexico the
embodiment of the Water 2025 initiative. Therefore, the
Committee has included $1,000,000 to provide for continued
efficiency and water improvements related to the Middle Rio
Grande Conservancy District and $1,000,000 for work related to
water efficiency and supply supplementation in the Pecos
consistent with the partnership between the Carlsbad Irrigation
District and the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. A
critical component of reducing tension among multiple water
users is collaborative planning and joint operations. Within
the funds provided, $2,000,000 is for the Desert Research
Institute to address water quality and environmental issues in
ways that will bring industry and regulators to mutually
acceptable answers.
Wetlands Development.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,500,000 for the Yuma East Wetlands project.

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $54,628,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 52,219,000
House allowance......................................... 52,219,000
Committee recommendation................................ 52,219,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $52,219,000,
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 RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005....................................................
Budget estimate, 2006................................... $35,000,000
House allowance......................................... 35,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 37,000,000

This account funds activities that are consistent with the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18
State and Federal agencies and representatives of California's
urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals
of the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water
supply reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-
San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California's
water distribution system.
The Committee has provided $37,000,000, $2,000,000 above
the budget request for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The
Committee is aware of recent declines in the Delta smelt
population in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Within the
funds provided, $1,000,000 is for the Interagency Ecological
Program to identify the causes of and propose remedies for the
smelt's population decline and $1,000,000 is for the Westside
Regional Drainage Program in the San Luis Division of the
Central Valley Project.

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $57,688,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 57,917,000
House allowance......................................... 57,917,000
Committee recommendation................................ 57,917,000

The Committee recommendation for general administrative
expenses is $57,917,000. 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.
Bureau of Reclamation Transformation for the Future.--The
Committee notes that the core activities of the Bureau have
largely transitioned from design and construction of dams and
power plants to maintenance, repair, and renovation of these
facilities. It is appropriate to ask whether Reclamation has
the appropriate organizational structure, core competencies,
and resource allocations to meet the current realities of the
Bureau's mission. The Committee therefore directs that
Reclamation contract with the National Research Council to
conduct a study to advise Reclamation on the appropriate
organizational, management, and resource configurations to meet
its construction, maintenance, and infrastructure missions of
the 21st Century. Once completed, the Bureau shall submit the
findings to the Committee.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Section 201. The bill includes language regarding the San
Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
Section 202. The bill includes language that states
requirements for purchase or lease of water from the Middle Rio
Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico.
Section 203. The bill includes language regarding Drought
Emergency Assistance.
Section 204. The bill includes language authorizing Water
2025 and making it permanent.
Section 205. The bill includes language regarding the Rio
Grande Collaborative water operations team.
Section 206. The bill includes language extending the
Desalination Act by 5 years, regarding the San Luis Unit and
the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
Section 207. The bill includes language extendeing the
completion date for the Animas-La Plata.
Section 208. The bill includes language regarding the
Humbolt Project Title transfer.
Section 209. The bill includes language regarding Desert
Terminus Lakes.
Section 210. The bill includes language authorizing a
feasibility study for Norman, OK.
Section 211. The Committee has included a provision
concerning Animas-La Plata.

TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Title III provides for the Department of Energy's programs
relating to energy supply, environmental management, science,
national security and other related programs, including the
power marketing administrations, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.

REPROGRAMMINGS

The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully
inform the Committee when a change in program execution or
funding is required during the fiscal year. A reprogramming
includes the reallocation of funds from one activity to another
within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a
program, project, or activity described in the agency's budget
justification, including contemplated site budgets as presented
to and approved or modified by Congress in an appropriations
act or the accompanying statement of managers or report. For
construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the
reallocation of funds from one construction project identified
in the justifications to another or a significant change in the
scope of an approved project.
Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new
programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the
Act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions
are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be
submitted in advance to the Committee and be fully explained
and justified. The Committee has not provided the Department
with any internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year
2005, unless specifically identified in the House, Senate, or
conference reports. Any reallocation of new or prior year
budget authority or prior year deobligations must be submitted
to the Committees in writing and may not be implemented prior
to approval by the Committees on Appropriations.

SMALL BUSINESS PROCUREMENTS

The Committee is concerned that the Department of Energy's
current efforts at breaking out procurements for small business
contracts do not represent a systematic approach for
consideration of small business statutory goals together with
other legitimate acquisition objectives.
Beginning with its roots in the Manhattan Project, the
Department of Energy [DOE] has executed a broad mandate with
regard to the Nation's nuclear and energy challenges. The
Department maintains the primary responsibility for energy
security, ensuring the safety, security and reliability of the
nuclear weapons stockpile, cleaning up the environment from the
legacy of the Cold War, and developing innovations in science
and technology. A significant portion of DOE's mission
(approximately 83 percent of DOE's budget) is carried out by
industrial and academic contractors operating DOE-owned plants
and laboratories under large facilities management contracts
where it is essential to meeting mission needs for the work to
be fully integrated at a site. Although DOE has aggressively
sought out new opportunities for small businesses as both prime
contractors and subcontractors, there is a limit to what it can
do since DOE's facility management contracts are not, for the
most part, suitable for award to small businesses as prime
contractors.
Nevertheless, DOE has increased the amount of DOE dollars
awarded to small businesses and over $4,000,000,000 a year is
awarded to small businesses under DOE prime contracts and
subcontracts. However, DOE's recent innovative efforts to
increase small business prime contracts have met with mixed
results. For example, major small business set-a-sides by the
Office of Environmental Management [EM] have continued EM's
preferred, but complicated, cost-plus-incentive fee type
contracts for mission reasons, but have also attempted to
streamline the process for small businesses. The complexities
of the Federal procurement process and the clean up mission
requirements for these procurements often resulted in schedule
delays which negatively impact the small business participants
who may be less able to absorb such delays than larger
businesses may be. NNSA's attempts to break out work from
facility management contracts have been met with concerns over
mission fragmentation and the ability to properly administer
new cadres of newly awarded prime Federal contracts.
Language was included in section 6022 of Public Law 109-13,
the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the
Global War on Terror and Tsunami Relief Act of 2005 (Public Law
109-13) directing the Secretary of Energy and Administrator of
the Small Business Administration to negotiate a Memorandum of
Understanding on developing a better methodology of counting
prime and subcontracts awarded by the Department of Energy's
management and operating, management and integration and other
facility management prime contractors. During this period of
negotiation, the Committee expects the Department and the
National Nuclear Security Administration to refrain from
implementing new contracting schemes, such as the Tri-lab
Initiative, until an MOU has been filed with the Congress.
Consistent with section 6022 of the Emergency Supplemental, the
Committee also urges the Department to increase it efforts to
ensure that any efforts to break out of prime contracts are
provided to local small businesses.
Contracting requirements for the Department designed to
assist small businesses access the Federal procurement market
has created inequitable competition amongst 8(a) firms. In the
attempt to comply with the current contracting requirements,
the Department has turned to Alaska Native Corporations [ANC]
as a means to increase its Federal prime contracting numbers.
Since October 2003, the Department has signed contracts with
Alaska Native Corporations totaling more that $500,000,000 as
8(a) firms, despite the size and income of some ANCs. In New
Mexico, for example, the National Nuclear Security
Administration has used ANC contractors at the expense of New
Mexico small businesses.
The Committee is aware of an ongoing Government
Accountability Office [GAO] investigation into Federal
contracting rules that are applied to Indian tribes and Native
American businesses, including Alaska Native Corporations and
Hawaiian Native Organizations. The Committee looks forward to
the completion of the GAO report and the study conducted by the
Department so that it may identify where appropriate reforms
are necessary to ensure that the spirit of the Small Business
Act is fulfilled.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LABS

In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office
[GAO] issued a report entitled, ``Equal Employment Opportunity:
Information on Personnel Actions, Employee Concerns, and
Oversight at Six Department of Energy Laboratories'' (GAO-05-
190). This report examined six Department of Energy
laboratories to determine whether differences existed for
managerial and professional women and minorities compared with
men and whites in salaries, merit pay increases, separation
patterns, and promotion rates; what concerns these women and
minorities have raised; and how the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs [OFCCP] and the Department of Energy are
responding to these issues. Based on the recommendations of the
GAO, the Committee directs the Department of Energy to work
with Department of Labor's OFCCP to determine the causes of the
disparities and take the necessary corrective steps to address
the problems identified.

LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT [LDRD]

The Committee is concerned with the continued lack of
recognition of the value of the LDRD, Plant Directed Research
and Development [PDRD] and Site Directed Research and
Development [SDRD] programs to DOE, other Federal agencies, and
the American taxpayer. For example, the most recent DOE report
submitted to Congress on the LDRD program clearly indicates
that other Federal agencies continue to receive a very
favorable return on their limited investment in the LDRD
program. The LDRD program continues to provide solutions to
future science and defense mission needs before program
problems or requirements are even realized.
Building on extensive understanding of radiation transport,
LDRD efforts successfully developed a method for simulating
dose response in radiation treatment of cancer. This system,
dubbed Peregrine, has been licensed and approved by the FDA,
and is currently in use for treating patients. The technology
is a substantial improvement over previous approaches,
providing more precise targeting of cancerous cells with
radiation therapy, lowering the overall dose to the patient,
and protecting healthy tissue from unnecessary exposure. LDRD
research has resulted in systems for detecting biological and
chemical warfare agents which have been deployed in recent
combat zones. Specifically, Sniffer-Star has as its core
technology the ``chem-lab-on-a-chip'' developed under the LDRD
program, and has been flown over combat areas on un-manned
aerial vehicles, ensuring that these areas were safe for our
troops.
The LDRD program provides the Nation the flexibility needed
to support various research activities that result in many
additional scientific breakthroughs and advances that would not
have occurred otherwise, since DOE program funding is limited
in its ability to fund these critical research efforts.
Limiting the amount of funding provided to this program is
counter-intuitive to the continued strength of American science
and defense programs in the long run, and the Committee
strongly resists any penny-wise but pound-foolish calls to
arbitrarily limit the amounts provided for LDRD.
As currently structured, the LDRD program ensures that a
very small fraction of the laboratories' budgets are invested
in innovative research and new ideas that are relevant to the
missions of DOE/NNSA and the laboratories. In fact, the current
funding level for the LDRD program is relatively small compared
to the overall laboratory and Departmental budgets, but the
program has been able to produce significant scientific and
technical results that benefit the Nation's science and defense
missions, and the Committee is hard-pressed to think of another
program that produces results as beneficial to the taxpayer
with such a paltry amount of funds. In this regard, the
Committee is concerned that the current funding ceiling for the
LDRD program is not adequate to continue to achieve the
objectives of the program. Therefore, we recommend the LDRD
funding ceiling be raised to effectively meet the increasing
challenges faced by the laboratories to maintain their critical
scientific competencies and attract and retain the best and
brightest scientists. The new LDRD funding ceiling shall now be
set at 8 percent (up from the current 6 percent) and PDRD and
SDRD shall now be set at 4 percent (up from the current 2
percent) and continue to be annually approved by the
Department.
Further, the Committee would like to compliment the
Department for its strong and effective management of the LDRD
program. The Department has been subject to several internal
and external reviews over the last 5 years which have indicated
the LDRD program continues to be well-managed by the
Department. In fact, the most recent GAO review specifically
indicated that DOE has implemented procedures for the LDRD
program to ensure compliance with existing laws. The report
also states that the GAO contacted the CFO and/or General
Counsel of six Federal agencies and ``each agency told us that
the LDRD program's inclusion as an indirect cost does not limit
their ability to comply with their agency's statutory or
appropriations requirements. Similarly, none of the research
managers and/or contracting officers at the agencies expressed
concern about the LDRD program or its funding method.'' The
White House Federal Laboratory Review Panel (called the Packard
Panel) recommended the Federal laboratories conduct
discretionary research programs at the 5-10 percent level with
appropriate Federal oversight. The Panel's report also states:

``If U.S. taxpayers are to get the most return from their
support of R&D, government laboratories must have sufficient
discretionary funding for independent research and development.
Almost every laboratory has found that the most important
innovation often comes from the scientists' independent ideas
or actions. Thus the productivity of the U.S. R&D establishment
depends on a vigorous independent R&D program.''

Over the years, LDRD-funded research has resulted in many
scientific breakthroughs and advances, benefiting and
furthering not only DOE's mission, but the missions of all
sponsors of work at the laboratories. LDRD is a cost of doing
business at the laboratories, and the Department should
continue to ensure its laboratories distribute LDRD as indirect
costs, in accordance with cost accounting standards [CAS], to
all work performed at its laboratories. The Department must
maintain a funding mechanism that is: (1) stable, to ensure the
laboratories continue to perform long-term, fundamental
research--which is among their most distinctive contributions
to the Nation; (2) flexible because of the uniqueness of each
institution; (3) equitable for all customers; and (4)
consistent with cost accounting standards in order to allocate
expenses to cost objectives that cause, or benefit from, the
expenses in accordance with CAS (a model consistent with
government contracts placed with private industry). The
Committee supports the current method for accumulating LDRD
program dollars and believes that it is a fair and equitable
approach to funding the program. Therefore, funds provided in
Title III of this Act may be used to finance the total cost of
work performed for other Federal sponsors, including LDRD
costs, until they are reimbursed through the Department's
normal billing and collection processes.
Given the evidence reiterating the well managed LDRD
program and the public benefits it provides, the Committee
strongly supports the LDRD program as currently structured and
managed by the Department, and specifically rejects the program
changes suggested by the House Committee on Appropriations in
their report (House Report 109-86) accompanying the fiscal year
2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. The Department and
its laboratories have clearly demonstrated the need for the
LDRD program to continue. The Committee recognizes LDRD as a
legitimate cost for keeping the laboratories vibrant, cutting
edge and creative in ideas and new fields, and thereby benefits
all customers using the DOE laboratories as well as the DOE and
its missions. For the future of the Department and its
laboratories, the Committee suggests that the Secretary of
Energy should consider expanding the LDRD program to other DOE
laboratories to further enhance the clear benefits of the
program.
The Committee recognizes that scientific discovery does not
always coincide with the annul budget cycles and promising
scientific discovery occasionally fails to capture the
attention of this Committee. The LDRD program will continue to
provide scientists the best opportunity to pursue discoveries
as they develop, regardless if it was never contemplated by the
Congress or the Office of Management and Budget. The Committee
strongly endorses the LDRD program, as authorized, to ensure
researchers sufficient funding and flexibility to pursue useful
and relevant scientific discovery.

Energy Supply and Conservation

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $1,806,936,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 1,749,446,000
House allowance......................................... 1,763,888,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,945,330,000

The purposes of the programs funded under Energy Supply are
to develop new energy technologies and improve existing energy
technologies through basic and applied research and targeted
programs in technology development. This account provides funds
for both operating expenses and capital equipment for the
advancement of the various energy technologies.
The Energy Supply and Conservation account includes the
following programs: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Nuclear Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability, Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense) and
Legacy Management. Energy Conservation programs previously
funded by the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
are now funded by the Energy Supply and Conservation
appropriation, and are combined with energy efficiency
activities in the Energy Supply and Conservation activities.
These funds shall remain available until expended.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

The Committee recommendation provides $1,253,819,000 for
renewable energy resources, an increase of $53,405,000 from the
current year level.
This program undertakes research and development of
renewable energy and related technologies to meet the growing
need for clean and affordable energy. Program activities range
from basic research in universities and national laboratories
to cost-shared applied research, development, and field
validation in partnership with the private sector.
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. The Committee continues to support the
efforts of the National Center on Energy Management and
Building Technologies to improve energy efficiency in
buildings. The Committee directs that this project shall be
subject to the cost-sharing requirements of a research project
rather than a demonstration project and directs the Department
to continue to fund this project at the fiscal year 2005 level
of $5,000,000.
Hydrogen Research.--As a key component of the President's
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, this program develops hydrogen
production, storage and delivery technologies that are more
energy efficient, cleaner, safer and lower in cost. The long-
term aim is to develop hydrogen technologies that will allow
the Nation to aggressively move forward to achieve a vision of
a cleaner, more secure energy future. Current research will
facilitate a decision by industry to commercialize hydrogen-
powered fuel cell vehicles by 2015.
As such, the Committee recommendation includes $182,694,000
for hydrogen research, which is consistent with the request and
$13,188,000 above the current year level. The Committee also
directs the Department to provide the budget request for
Hydrogen Storage Centers of Excellence.
The Committee recognizes the importance of DOE's
``Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration
Validation Program'' for further development of hydrogen
technology to meet our Nation's energy needs. This
demonstration program is unique in that for the first time
vehicles and energy infrastructure are integrated in real world
settings that serve as test laboratories. The DOE requires
extensive data collection and sharing that will be used to help
advance this technology towards commercialization. The
demonstration program requires full cost sharing. The Committee
specifically provides $14,900,000 for infrastructure and
$24,000,000 for vehicles for the demonstration projects as
requested in the Department's fiscal year 2006 budget.
Industrial consumption of hydrogen, especially by the
petro-chemical and fertilizer communities is large and growing.
The rate of petro-chemical hydrogen consumption necessary for
gasoline-powered vehicles will accelerate as global reserves of
sweet crude oil diminish. The dominant resource for hydrogen
production today is natural gas whose reformation into hydrogen
and carbon dioxide contributes significantly to atmospheric
greenhouse gases. Moreover, natural gas reserves are
insufficient to service simultaneously domestic heating and
electricity requirements, industrial hydrogen consumption, and
future demands by hydrogen powered vehicles and other fuel cell
applications that would accompany the future ``Hydrogen
Economy.'' Thus, the Committee recommendation seeks to focus
the resources of the initiative on developing the most
economical means of producing hydrogen from renewable sources
and nuclear power. In addition, the Committee supports the
recommendations of the National Academy of Science, and
requests that the Department integrate their recommendations
into the program. The Committee is aware of an ethanol-to-
hydrogen fueling station and vehicle demonstration project in
Chicago and encourages the Department to provide appropriate
technical and financial assistance.
For the UNLV Research Foundation the Committee
recommendation includes $4,000,000 to continue evaluation of
solar-powered thermochemical production of hydrogen and
$4,000,000 for on-going hydrogen fuel cell and storage research
and development.
Biomass/Biofuels--Energy Systems.--The Committee
recommendation includes $92,164,000 for biomass/biofuels energy
systems, an increase of $20,000,000 above the request.
The Committee believes that the Regional Biomass Energy
Program [RBEP] has been a successful partnership with the five
distinct regions it has served. The Committee recommendation
includes $15,000,000 for product development for the State and
Regional Partnership Activity, of which $11,000,000 shall be
provided to establish the Southeastern Center at Mississippi
State University to support regional biomass research and
development efforts and identify the best commercial
opportunities in the Southeast for the use of biofuels and
biomass to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.
Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends $5,000,000,
the amount of the budget request, for the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory to sustain the bioproducts program focused
on catalysis and fungal biotechnology for replacing petroleum
derived chemicals and materials.
The Committee recommendation also includes $4,000,000 for
the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, a successful
consortium of 34 universities and 33 agribusinesses and trade
associations.
Geothermal.--The Committee recommends $23,299,000 for
geothermal technology development, the same as the request,
including continued funding (at current year levels) for
GeoPowering the West. The Committee recommendation also
includes $1,300,000 for the Geothermal and Renewable Energy
Laboratory of Nevada; $500,000 to continue funding of
operations at the GeoHeat Center at Oregon Institute of
Technology; and $500,000 for the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
Energy Project.
Hydropower.--The Committee recommends $500,000 for
hydropower, the same as the budget request.
Solar Energy.--The Committee recommendation for solar
energy programs is $83,953,000.
The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the
Southeast and Southwest photovoltaic experiment stations. The
Committee recommends $1,200,000 for Sandia National
Laboratories for the development of advanced cells and modules
using ultra-thin back-contact multicrystalline-silicon solar
cells employing micromachining. The Department should continue
to fully support the public/private Million Solar Roofs
initiative or another effective solar deployment program. The
Committee recommendation includes $11,000,000 from within
available funds for concentrating solar power, including
$5,000,000 to validate the commercial viability by supporting a
one megawatt demonstration at Sandia National Laboratory for
dish concentrating solar power.
Wind.--The Committee recommendation includes $34,249,000
for wind energy systems. The Committee recognizes that wind
energy has succeeded in penetrating the energy markets as a
cost-effective renewable energy resource. Between 1990 and
2003, the United States added 6,347 MW of wind-based generating
capacity. The Committee concurs with the assessment of the
Government Accountability Office in its September 2004 report
(GAO-04-756) that noted that the driving factor behind wind
deployment is the production of tax credit.
The budget request also provides support for offshore wind
research and development. Due to Federal regulatory uncertainty
in permitting offshore facilities, the Committee recommends
that the Department not expend any funds to support offshore
wind energy research until the Federal rules and permitting
requirements are implemented through legislation. In addition,
the Committee recognizes that the intermittent nature of wind
energy has made interconnection to the electricity grid a
barrier to entry. The Committee supports Federal efforts to
integrate renewable energy, but believes this activity is
better suited to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability.
Vehicles Technology.--This program was previously funded in
the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is funded within the
Energy Supply and Conservation account of this Act. The mission
of the Vehicle Technologies Program is to develop more energy
efficient and environmentally friendly highway transportation
technologies that will enable America to use significantly less
petroleum. The long-term aim is to develop ``leapfrog''
technologies that through improvements in vehicle energy
efficiency will provide Americans with continuing freedom of
mobility and greater energy security, at lower costs and with
lower impacts on the environment than current vehicles. The
program focuses its research and development investments
specifically on potential technology improvements that have
uncertain or long-term outcomes, yet have significant public
benefit. The high risks associated with these projects make it
unlikely that they would be pursued by industry alone. The
Committee recommends $199,943,000, an increase of $34,000,000
above the request. The Committee includes $15,000,000 above the
budget request for the Oak Ridge National Lab to be divided
evenly between materials development and computational modeling
to develop more energy efficient and environmentally friendly
highway transportation technologies. The Committee provides an
additional $4,500,000 for the CAVS Center located at
Mississippi State University. The Committee also recommends an
additional $2,600,000 to support the VULCAN beam line. Within
available funds, $2,000,000 is provided for the Transportable
Emissions Testing Laboratory; $1,000,000 is provided for the
lightweight composite materials for heavy duty vehicles
program; and $500,000 is provided for the hydrogen natural gas
vehicles cylinder safety, inspection and maintenance program.
The Committee recommendation includes $3,500,000, the same as
current year, for the Off-Highway Program. The Committee
expects the Department to fund the Automotive Lightweight
Vehicles program account at the President's request of
$18,000,000. The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for support
of natural gas fueled vehicles. The Committee recognizes the
Department's cooperative turbocharger research and development
program and its contribution to increasing fuel efficiency in
diesel engines. The Committee urges the continuation of the
turbocharger initiative and seeks to facilitate the integration
of such technology into engine and vehicle designs.
The Committee recognizes the need to ensure that materials
research funding within the vehicles technology program
supports strategic advances in science and innovation and the
long-term competitiveness of U.S. industry. The Committee
directs DOE to expand research in the area of computational
predictive engineering and testing of lightweight thermoplastic
polymer composites as an enabling technology supporting the
future design and manufacture of safer, more fuel efficient,
and lower emissions vehicles competitive in global markets. In
addition, the Committee acknowledges the important work in this
area being undertaken by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in cooperation with the
American Plastics Council.
Building Technologies.--This program was previously funded
in the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is funded within the
Energy Supply and Conservation account of this Act. The
Building Technologies program aims to reduce energy use in
homes and commercial buildings by developing advanced lighting
and appliances which, when coupled with improved building
design, will yield maximum results. The Committee recommends
$67,000,000, which includes $22,000,000 for lighting R&D, an
increase of $5,000,000 to support through this office and the
Office of Science a National Center for Solid State Lighting
Research affiliated with the Center for Integrated
Nanotechnologies. The Committee recommendation also includes
$20,000,000, an increase of $2,250,000 above the request, for
Residential Buildings Research. The Committee notes there are a
number of proposed activities within the Building Technologies
program that seek to reduce electricity through demand side
management. The Secretary should consider transferring these
activities to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability. At a minimum, the Committee directs the Department
to provide the Committee with a brief report on how the
research between the two programs will add value to both
programs and not needlessly duplicate research efforts. The
Committee recommendation includes a $4,000,000 increase for
Thermal Energy Technologies. Within the $12,000,000
recommended, $4,000,000 is for gas engine-driven heat pump
development; $2,000,000 shall be used to complete the on-going
Ammonia Absorption Technology Development for HVAC&R activity;
$2,500,000 shall be available for a CHP engineering prototype &
field test activity of ammonia absorption technology; Desiccant
research shall be continued at a level of $1,500,000; and heat
and mass transfer activities shall be continued at a level of
$2,000,000.
Industrial Technologies.--This program was previously
funded in the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is funded within
the Energy Supply and Conservation account of this Act. The
Industrial Technologies program aims to develop more efficient
industrial processes in energy intensive industries through the
cost-sharing of research. The Committee recommends $56,489,000.

FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

This program was previously funded in the Energy
Conservation account in the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, and now is funded within the Energy Supply
and Conservation account of this act. The Federal Energy
Management Program advances energy efficiency and use of
renewable energy in Federal buildings through financial and
technical assistance and project evaluation. The Committee
recommends $17,147,000 for Federal Energy Management Programs.

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommendation for Facilities and
Infrastructure is $16,315,000. The recommendation includes
$5,800,000 for operation and maintenance of facilities and
$10,515,000 for construction of Project 04-E-001, Science and
Technology Facility, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, Colorado.

WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES

The mission of the Weatherization and Intergovernmental
Program is to develop and accelerate the adoption of energy
efficiency, renewable energy, and oil displacement technologies
and practices by a wide range of stakeholders. These include
State and local governments, weatherization agencies,
communities, companies, fleet managers, building code
officials, technology developers, Native American tribal
governments, and international agencies. This program was
previously funded in the Energy Conservation account in the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is
funded within the Energy Supply and Conservation account of
this Act. The Committee recommends $240,000,000 for
weatherization assistance program grants, an increase of
$15,000,000 above the request, $4,600,000 for training and
technical assistance, $41,000,000 for State energy program
grants, $500,000 for State energy activities, and $26,657,000
for gateway deployment. The Committee recommends that gateway
deployment funds be distributed as follows: $6,571,000 for
Rebuild America; $350,000 for energy efficiency information and
outreach; $4,550,000 for building codes training and
assistance; $6,510,000 for Clean Cities; $5,776,000 for Energy
Star; and $2,400,000 for inventions and innovations. The
intergovernmental total includes $2,910,000 for the
International Renewable Energy program to promote the use of
renewable energy resources in international markets. The
Committee directs the Department to avoid using funds
appropriated to the International Renewable Energy Program to
fund domestic programs and projects. From within the funds
provided, the Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for
the Renewable Energy Production Incentive [REPI]. The
Intergovernmental total includes $4,000,000 for the tribal
energy program to help Native Americans develop renewable
energy resources on their lands and help tribal leaders develop
energy plans. Within the funds provided to the tribal energy
program, the Committee includes $1,000,000 for the Council of
Renewable Energy Resource Tribes [CERT] to provide technical
expertise and training of Native Americans in renewable energy
resource development and electric generation facilities
management.
The Committee provides $600,000 above the President's
request, to be made available to the Office of International
Energy Market Development in the Department of Energy to carry
out a program in support of the multi-agency Clean Energy
Technology Exports Initiative.
Program Support.--The Committee recommendation for Program
Support is $9,456,000, the same as the budget request. The
Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 to continue the
efforts of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] to
develop renewable energy resources uniquely suited to the
Southwestern United States through its virtual site office in
Nevada.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation for
Program Direction is $86,524,000.
Regional Offices.--The Committee recognizes and applauds
EERE's efforts to strengthen project management through its
creation of the EERE Project Management Center [PMC] and notes
that the National Academy for Public Administration has
identified it as a best management practice in the Department
of Energy. To accelerate and strengthen its development, the
Committee directs that the six Regional Offices be consolidated
into the PMC locations at the Golden Field Office and the
National Energy Technology Laboratory. To allow for an orderly
implementation, contract close-out and personnel relocations,
the Committee provides that this consolidation be fully
implemented by June 1, 2006. The Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy originally established 10 regional offices
in 1973 in response to the Arab Oil Embargo. The original
function of the offices was to coordinate gasoline and
petroleum allocations to distributors and resellers and to
promote energy conservation. They were located in what used to
be standard Federal Regions. In addition to the current
regional offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver,
Philadelphia, and Seattle, offices were located in San
Francisco/Oakland, Kansas City, New York City, and Dallas. In
1996, as part of Secretary O'Leary's Strategic Realignment
Initiative, regional offices in San Francisco, Dallas, Kansas
City and New York City were closed and the programmatic
responsibilities of those offices were distributed among the
remaining regions. In order to support weatherization
assistance, the Committee recommends the Department close the
remaining offices and develop a more cost effective outreach
plan that minimizes the impact on employees. The Committee has
reserved 20 percent for necessary close-out cost and severance
payments. The Committee recognizes this is a Presidential
priority and is confident the distribution of the formula based
grants will not be negatively impacted. The Committee will
apply $15,000,000 toward weatherization grants.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed
projects. The Committee has provided sufficient funding to
cover the cost of these additions so as not to impact essential
research.
--$1,000,000 for Missouri biodiesel demonstration project
(Biomass);
--$2,000,000 for Alternative Uses for Asphalt Shingle Waste,
UT (Biomass);
--$1,200,000 for Auburn Alternative Fuel Source Study of
Cement Kilns, AL (Biomass);
--$1,000,000 for Canola-based Automotive Oil Research and
Development, PA (Biomass);
--$1,000,000 for Center for Advanced Bio-based Binders, IA
(Biomass);
--$1,000,000 for Biomass Power for Rural Development, IA
(Biomass);
--$500,000 for the Development of Applied membrane Technology
for Processing Ethanol from Biomass, DE (Biomass);
--$500,000 for the National Ag-Based Industrial Lubricants
Center at the University of Northern Iowa (Biomass);
--$1,000,000 for the University of North Dakota Center for
Biomass Utilization (Biomass);
--$1,000,000 for the Michigan Biotechnology Institute
(Biomass);
--$500,000 for the Washington State Ferries Biodiesel
Demonstration Project (Biomass);
--$500,000 for the Oxydiesel demonstration project in
California and Nevada (Biomass);
--$500,000 for the Louisiana State University Biorefinery for
Ethanol, Chemicals, Animal Feed and Biomaterials
(Biomass);
--$500,000 for the Vermont Biomass Energy Resource Center
(Biomass);
--$500,000 for a demonstration project on alternative sources
of energy at St. Joseph College in West Hartford, CT
(Biomass);
--$4,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation for development
of biofuels utilizing ionic transfer membranes
(Biomass);
--$500,000 for the Lake County Full Circle Project, CA
(Geothermal);
--$3,000,000 for the Montana Palladium Research Center
(Hydrogen);
--$1,100,000 for the Ohio Distributed Hydrogen Project
(Hydrogen);
--$3,000,000 for the hydrogen fuel cell project for the
Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, NV
(Hydrogen);
--$500,000 for the production of Hydrogen at the
Nanotechnology Center of Excellence University of
Arkansas, Little Rock (Hydrogen);
--$4,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation for the
renewable hydrogen refueling station system, including
development of high pressure electrolysis using
photovoltaics (Hydrogen);
--$3,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation for development
of photoelectric chemical production of hydrogen
(Hydrogen);
--$500,000 for the Michigan Technological University Fuel
Cell Research, MI (Hydrogen);
--$500,000 for the University of Southern Mississippi's
School of Polymers and High Performance Materials'
Improved Materials for Fuel Cell Membranes program
(Hydrogen);
--$5,000,000 for the photoelectrochemical generation of
hydrogen by solid nanoporous titanium dioxide project
at the University of Nevada-Reno (Hydrogen);
--$1,000,000 for the California Hydrogen Infrastructure
Project (Hydrogen);
--$500,000 for the Southern Nevada Alternative Fuels
Demonstration Project (Hydrogen);
--$400,000 for the University of Louisville Sustainable
Buildings Project, KY (Building Technologies);
--$4,000,000 for the Hackensack University Medical Center
Green Building, NJ (Building Technologies);
--$500,000 Portland Center Stage Armory Theater Energy
Conservation Project, OR (Building Technologies);
--$1,000,000 for the Brigham City, UT Wind Energy Project
(Wind);
--$1,500,000 for Alaska Wind Energy (Wind);
--$500,000 for Renewable Energy for Rural Economic
Development [RERED] Program, UT (Wind);
--$500,000 for Synchronous Wind Turbines, ID (Wind);
--$2,000,000 for Texas Tech Great Plains Wind Power Test
Facility (Wind);
--$500,000 for the North Dakota Hydrogen Wind Pilot Project,
ND (Wind);
--$500,000 for the Fox Ridge Renewable Energy Education
Center, SD (Wind);
--$250,000 for the PowerJet Wind Turbine project, NV (Wind);
--$300,000 for Portland State University's Solar Photovoltaic
Test Facility System, OR (Solar);
--$1,000,000 for Next Generation Hydraulic Actuator
Technology for Solar Power, OH (Solar);
--$3,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation for photonics
research, including evaluation of advanced fiber optics
for hybrid solar lighting (Solar);
--$2,000,000 for Waste Heat Recovery Program, IN (Vehicle
Technologies);
--$500,000 for the Gerlach Green Energy Project, NV (Energy
Conservation);
--$500,000 for the Minnesota Center for Renewable Energy, MN
(Energy Conservation);
--$500,000 for the Wireless Sensor Network for Advanced
Energy Management, WI (Energy Conservation); and
--$2,000,000 for ITM/Syngas Project (PA).

OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $120,185,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 95,604,000
House allowance......................................... 99,849,000
Committee recommendation................................ 178,083,000

Electric Transmission and Distribution

Consistent with the direction from Congress in fiscal year
2005, this office has merged the old Offices of Transmission
and Distribution and Energy Assurance to create this entity.
The office has responsibility for modernizing our national
electric grid to increase reliability and security and respond
to widespread interruption or failure in our energy
infrastructure. Without enforcement authority, this office will
find numerous challenges in trying to lead a national reform
effort. However, this office must support investment in
research and development initiatives such as high temperature
superconductivity and next generation wire, in areas where
utilities or State regulatory authorities are unlikely to
support such investment. These technological developments have
the potential to drastically increase line capacity and serve
areas that are currently transmission constrained as a result
of either an unwillingness or inability to increase
transmission capacity. This office should also take the lead in
working to integrate alternative technologies such as
distributed generation and renewable energy sources into the
grid for the Department of Energy. This office also has the
responsibility for understanding and correcting vulnerabilities
in our energy transmission infrastructure. Drawing on the
technical expertise of our national laboratories through
testing on Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition [SCADA]
systems this office should identify and support the deployment
of a technology based architecture that will reduce the
vulnerability of our energy infrastructure at both a cyber and
physical level.
The Committee provides $178,083,000 for the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, an increase of
$82,479,000 over the budget request.
Research and Development.--The Committee provides
$128,386,000, an increase of $56,629,000 above the budget
request. This increase is a result of transferring the
Distributed Generation program to the Office of Electricity
Reliability and Energy Assurance.
The Committee recommends $50,500,000 for continued
development of high temperature superconductivity [HTS], which
promises to revolutionize electrical generation, transmission
and distribution, conditioning and, ultimately, consumption.
This is an increase of $5,500,000.
The Committee recommends eliminating funding for Gridwise
and Gridworks and has shifted this funding to the R&D budget to
support superconductivity research and transmission
reliability. The Committee recommends $5,000,000 to conduct
research and development at the National Energy Technology
Laboratory associated with electricity transmission,
distribution and energy assurance activities. Additionally,
$2,500,000 shall be for the continued development of an energy
information training facility at Camp Dawson, and related
activities. The Committee recommendation also includes
$1,000,000 for the integrated control of next generation power
systems project at West Virginia University. The Committee
provides $10,000,000 to support critical research at SCADA test
facilities. The funds are to be equally divided between the
Sandia and Idaho National Labs.
The Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability
Program.--This program was previously funded in the Energy
Conservation account in the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, and is now funded within the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability [OE] account within
this Act. The activities within this account complement the
mission of OE and are consistent with the research and
development initiatives related to advanced composite
conductors and high temperature superconductive cable and wire.
If the distributed generation platform is to be successfully
deployed it must be integrated into the electricity
transmission and distribution network, which is a primary
responsibility for the Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability. This program has been merged with the
Electricity distribution transformation R&D program and the
Committee recommends $64,666,000 to support these activities.
Both programs are funded at the requested level. The Committee
urges the Secretary to reorganize these activities as
appropriate in the fiscal year 2007 budget request.
The Committee is aware that program managers with the
Distributed Energy Program have failed to adequately support
the telecommunications sector that has high electric power
requirements and represents a critical element in our first
response needs during emergencies. The Committee directs the
Department to provide $3,000,000 for deployment testing and
analysis of advanced energy storage systems for
telecommunication applications in Kansas.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $15,477,000,
an additional $4,000,000 for Program Direction to support the
transition of staff to this new office and to properly align
staff and mission responsibilities.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee
recommendation includes the following congressional directed
projects. The Committee has provided sufficient funding to
cover the cost of these additions so as not to impact essential
research.
--$5,000,000 for Hawaii/New Mexico Sustainable Energy
Security Partnership [OE];
--$2,000,000 for the Navajo Electrification Project, NM [OE];
--$2,350,000 for Load Control System Reliability, MT [OE];
--$10,000,000 for SCADA test beds in New Mexico and Idaho
[OE];
--$2,500,000 for advancing AC- and DC-power communications,
OH [OE];
--$2,000,000 for Grid Computing in KY and its Impact of
Research and Education Project [OE];
--$1,500,000 to University of Missouri-Rolla for electric
grid modernization [OE]; and
--$1,000,000 for the Integrated Distribution Management
System in Alabama [OE].

NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $385,568,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 389,906,000
House allowance......................................... 377,701,000
Committee recommendation................................ 449,906,000

The Committee recommendation provides $449,906,000 for
nuclear energy, an increase of $60,000,000 above the request.
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.--The
Committee recommends $24,000,000 for university reactor fuel
assistance and support. The Committee recommends $4,500,000
from within available funds for the Institute of Nuclear
Science and Engineering at the Idaho National Laboratory.
University nuclear engineering programs and university
research reactors represent a fundamental and key capability in
supporting our national policy goals in health physics,
materials science and energy technology. The Committee strongly
supports the University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support
program's efforts to provide fellowships, scholarships, and
grants to students enrolled in nuclear energy, science and
engineering programs and related areas like health physics at
U.S. universities, as well as efforts to provide fuel
assistance and reactor upgrade funding for university-owned
research reactors.
The Committee remains concerned about the ability of the
Nation to respond to the growing demand for trained experts in
nuclear science and technology in the face of financial and
other challenges affecting engineering programs and research
reactor facilities at American universities.
The Committee strongly endorses the administration's
commitment to cooperate with the People's Republic of China in
its expansion of nuclear power. The Committee believes that the
deployment of advanced U.S. reactor technology is critical to
meet the growing energy demands in China and to contribute to
improved air quality.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research
and development includes a total of $251,000,000, an increase
of $60,000,000 over the budget request.
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.--The Committee strongly
supports the NERI program. Consistent with the goals of the
November 1997 President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology [PCAST] that addresses energy research, the
Committee directs the Department to maintain the existing,
stand-alone NERI program that provides funding to peer-reviewed
projects proposed by national laboratories, universities and
industry on issues facing the nuclear energy industry. As
provided in the PCAST report, research topics should include
research into developing a proliferation resistant fuel cycle,
improvements to reactor designs of new and existing designs,
increased efficiency, as well as better knowledge of materials
and fuel characteristics to support the Next Generation Nuclear
Plant and Generation IV programs. The Committee is aware that
the budget proposes to merge the NERI funding into the various
research and development programs. The Committee concurs with
the request and provides NERI funding in the following manner:
$4,000,000 within the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative;
$4,000,000 within the Generation IV program; and $2,000,000 for
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.
Nuclear Power 2010.--The recommendation includes
$76,000,000 for nuclear power 2010. The Department is directed
to focus the resources on the demonstration of the regulatory
licensing processes of 10 CFR Part 52 for early site permits,
design certifications, and combined construction and operating
licenses. This is to be cost-shared with industrial and
governmental entities.
The Committee recommendation supports demonstration of key
regulatory approval processes in order to encourage the
deployment of new, advanced nuclear plants in the United States
by the 2010 timeframe. The strong industry response to the
Department's request for proposals for a Combined Operating
License is a turning point in the future of nuclear energy in
the country and presents the Department with a unique
opportunity to facilitate the deployment of one or more new
nuclear plants in a generation. Support for such a program is
critical in order to diversify our electric generation fuel
supply with the added benefit of not producing any greenhouse
gas emissions.
Generation IV.--The recommendation includes $60,000,000 for
the Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative, an
increase of $15,000,000 over the request. The Committee directs
$40,000,000 to be used for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant
[NGNP] program. Prior to the submission of this budget the
Office of Nuclear Energy had worked expeditiously on a process
to select a reactor design from a competitive solicitation in
order to deploy and test the design at the Idaho National
Laboratory where it will serve as a test bed for electric and
hydrogen cogeneration. The Department had received a strong
response to the expression of interest and was preparing a
request for proposal. Unfortunately, the current budget
recommendation fails to adequately support the Next Generation
Nuclear Plant. The Committee is concerned that the
administration's strategy of collaborative international
research lacks sufficient focus and doesn't support a specific
schedule to facilitate the construction of a next generation
reactor at the Idaho National Lab. The Generation IV budget
should be used as an initiative to build and demonstrate new
technologies and rebuild U.S. nuclear capabilities as opposed
to the current proposal of indefinite research.
This funding shall be used to support a design competition
conducted by DOE as well as fund R&D efforts linked to the NGNP
program. The Committee urges the Department to complete the
competition by the end of fiscal year 2006. The Committee
expects the Department to submit a budget for fiscal year 2007
that will fund a pre-engineering design that is consistent with
the goal of testing hydrogen production or electricity
generation by 2017 at Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee
encourages the Department to give priority consideration to
fast spectrum technologies. Coupled with efforts of the
Advanced Fuel Cycle initiative, research in this program must
keep nonproliferation as a primary objective to reduce the
amount of plutonium and other high level wastes that are a by-
product of current technology. The Committee also recognizes
that new advances in materials and fuels must be developed
before these technologies can be deployed. In addition, the
Department shall develop a R&D road map by which the Department
identifies the current technical challenges, proposes a
research and development plan to resolve existing fast spectrum
challenges within the Generation IV program, and downselects to
no more than two technologies by the end of fiscal year 2007.
The Department shall provide a copy of the Generation IV R&D
roadmap to the Committee by the end of fiscal year 2006.
The Committee remains interested in the potential use and
application of small modular reactors that would be inherently
safe, be relatively cost effective, contain intrinsic design
features which would deter sabotage or diversion, require
infrequent refuelings, and be primarily factory constructed and
deliverable to remote sites. The Committee is particularly
interested in design of a small modular fast reactor that can
serve as both a test bed for small commercial reactors and to
test fast spectrum technologies. Within available funds,
$5,000,000 is provided for the development of high temperature
fuel fabrication capabilities in Virginia, in support of the
Generation IV program, under the direction of the Idaho
National Laboratory.
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.--The Committee recommendation
includes $30,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000.
The Committee provides an additional $7,000,000 above the
budget request for the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative to
accelerate essential materials research and development and
component design, test and evaluation for implementing the high
temperature sulfur-iodine water spitting process for hydrogen
production necessary to the advanced reactor hydrogen co-
generation project at Idaho National Laboratory. In addition,
the Department is directed to establish a 5-year Cooperative
Agreement with the UNLV Research Foundation for advanced
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative materials research and development.
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $85,000,000, an increase of $15,000,000
over the budget request. The initiative should continue to
focus on development of fuel cycle technologies that minimize
the toxicity of final waste products resulting from spent fuel
while recovering energy remaining in spent fuel; minimize
proliferation concerns and environmental impacts of the fuel
cycle and minimize the number of reprocessing steps so as to
minimize system costs. The initiative shall assist the
Secretary with development of alternative technology options.
Based on the success learned at the Savannah River
Technology Center of the Uranium Extraction Technology, known
as UREX in 2002, the Committee expects the Department to expand
its efforts to advance research of aqueous spent fuel treatment
and to begin the engineering scale demonstrations. The
Committee recommends an additional $10,000,000 to accelerate
the design activities associated with a proposed Engineering
Scale Demonstration [ESD]. The ESD will provide the United
States with the capability to conduct research and development
into advanced spent fuel separations and transmutation from
laboratory scale through engineering scale prior to commercial
deployment. The budget request provided funds for pre-
conceptual design activities only. This funding will allow
completion of the conceptual design in fiscal year 2006 and
enable preengineering design to commence in fiscal year 2007.
In addition to studying light water reactors, the Committee
expects the Department to evaluate fast reactors that are
capable of destroying larger amounts of long-lived radioactive
material.
To provide confidence in the technology options proposed,
the project will use Department of Energy national laboratory
and university expertise to perform research and development of
advanced technologies for spent fuel treatment and
transmutation of plutonium, higher actinides and long-lived
fission products. Advanced nuclear material recycle and
safeguard technologies, proliferation-resistant nuclear fuels,
and transmutation systems shall be investigated. Both reactor-
based and a combination of reactor and accelerator-based
transmutation approaches may be included as part of the
research and systems analysis.
The project shall use international and university
collaborations to provide cost effective use of research
funding. The Committee has provided an additional $6,000,000 to
the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative for the UNLV Research
Foundation and directs the Department to enter into a 5-year
cooperative agreement to study deep burn-up of nuclear fuel and
other fuel cycle research to eliminate the need for multiple
spent nuclear fuel repositories, to eliminate weapons useable
material from disposed spent fuel, and to maintain forever
potential radiological releases from a repository below
currently legislated limits.
The Committee is aware of the excellent recent progress in
the jointly funded U.S./Russian program to develop the GT-MHR.
The recent completion of the particle fuel fabrication and
testing facilities in Russia along with continued progress in
the area of the power conversion system indicates the continued
support of the Russians for the development of this option. The
Committee also notes that the GT-MHR is a leading Gen IV
reactor type. Within the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative,
$3,000,000 is provided for the Idaho Accelerator Center and the
Department is directed to enter into a 5-year cooperative
agreement with IAC. The Department is provided $7,000,000 to
develop a Nuclear Energy Materials Test Station at Los Alamos
Neutron Science Center to advance the technology needed to
support the materials and fuel experiments required by the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and for the exploration of
Generation IV fast neutron spectrum systems. Since the closure
of the Fast Flux Test Facility, resulting in no domestic fast
neutron source for conducting actinide transmutation, the
Materials Test Station will advance the development of improved
fuel cycles that can reduce the quantity, heat generation and
toxicity of spent nuclear fuel. The Committee recommendation
includes $1,000,000 for the Center for Materials Reliability
and $750,000 for nuclear transportation hazard research at the
University of Nevada-Reno.
The Committee is aware of the fact that the Department is
responsible for the maintenance of 62 metric tons of sodium
bonded spent nuclear fuel located in Idaho. Of these amounts,
the Office of Environmental Management manages 34 tons (55
percent of the total) from the Detroit Edison Fermi plant which
is stored at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering
Center. The remaining 28 tons (45 percent) is from the
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II and is managed by the Office of
Nuclear Energy, AFCI program. The AFCI program spends
$18,000,000 annually to maintain this stockpile, funding that
could be more effectively used to explore critical materials
and fuels research and development. The EBR-II reactor fuel
adds little to the AFCI program, which is focused on Generation
IV fuel types such as nitride fuels, and not solid metal fuels
such as the EBR-II fuels. The AFCI program only needs 3 percent
of the inventory for future pyroprocessing experiments. The
Committee directs the Department to undertake a study to
evaluate and propose a disposal solution for the entire 62 tons
of sodium bonded spent fuel and to consider what minimal amount
of fuel is needed for future experiments under the AFCI. The
Department shall provide a report recommending the preferred
disposal pathway to the Committee no later than March 1, 2006.

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Radiological Facilities Management.--The Committee
recommends $64,800,000. The purpose of this program is to
maintain the critical user facilities in a safe,
environmentally compliant and cost-effective manner to support
national priorities in serving our space missions or medical
fields. Facilities located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Los Alamos, Sandia, Brookhaven and Idaho National Labs all
support this mission. The Committee supports the ongoing
efforts at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Committee
recommends the investment of $1,300,000 in new equipment for
Los Alamos National Lab and $12,700,000 provided to operate the
bench-scale scrap recovery line and to address the long-term
storage and disposal of waste residues.
Idaho National Lab.--This program funds the site-wide
landlord infrastructure activities for the Idaho National
Laboratory. These activities are required to support the
laboratory's technical efforts such as research on the Advanced
Fuel Cycle Initiative, Generation IV nuclear energy systems,
the Space and Defense Power Systems program, and the Navy's
nuclear propulsion research and development program. The
Committee recommendation for these infrastructure activities is
$111,362,000. Of this total budget request $80,100,000 is
funded in the Energy Supply appropriation, which includes
$10,955,000 for construction activities. The Committee provides
$17,762,000 in the Other Defense Activities appropriation and
$13,500,000 to be transferred from Naval Reactors program to
support the ATR Gas Loop.

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation includes $30,006,000 for
program direction, the amount of the request. The Committee has
also provided $31,103,000 from Other Defense Activities.

LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommendation includes $33,522,000 as
provided in the budget request. Funding is provided to support
the long-term surveillance and maintenance of non-defense sites
where remediation has been substantially completed, to oversee
post-retirement benefits for former DOE contractor employees,
and for records management and retrieval.

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $27,778,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 30,000,000
House allowance......................................... 26,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,000,000

The Committee recommendation includes $30,000,000 for non-
defense environment, safety, and health, which includes
$20,900,000 for Program Direction.

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

(DEFERRAL)

The Committee recommends the deferral of $257,000,000 in
clean coal technology funding until fiscal year 2007. These
balances are not needed to complete active projects in this
program.

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $571,854,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 491,456,000
House allowance......................................... 502,467,000
Committee recommendation................................ 641,646,000

The mission of the Fossil Energy R&D Program is to create
public benefits by enhancing U.S. economic, environmental, and
energy security. The program carries out three types of
activities: (1) managing and performing energy-related research
that reduces market barriers to the reliable, efficient, and
environmentally sound use of fossil fuels for power generation
and conversion to other fuels such as hydrogen; (2) partnering
with industry and others to advance clean and efficient fossil
energy technologies toward commercialization in United States
and international markets; and (3) supporting the development
of information and policy options that benefit the public by
ensuring access to adequate supplies of affordable and clean
energy.
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--By 2010, demonstration of
advanced coal-based power generation technologies will be
initiated that will lead to long-range economic and
environmental public benefits. The Committee recommends
$100,000,000 for the Clean Coal Power Initiative, an increase
of $50,000,000.
FutureGen.--The FutureGen research prototype facility
within the Clean Coal Power Initiative subprogram will
demonstrate the technical feasibility and economic viability of
the zero emission (including carbon) coal concepts. The
Committee recommends $18,000,000 for FutureGen as requested.
Fuels and Power Systems.--The Committee recommends a total
of $306,550,000 for fuels and power systems, an increase of
$23,550,000. The recommendation includes $99,850,000 for
central systems (innovations for existing plants, advanced
integrated gasification combined cycle, and advanced turbines).
The Committee recommends $74,200,000 for carbon sequestration,
including $10,000,000 for the Center for Zero Emissions
Research and Technology, and $5,000,000 above the request for
the Energy and Environmental Research Center. The Committee
recommendation includes $29,000,000 for fuels, $69,000,000 for
fuel cells, (including $7,500,000 for High Temperature
Electrochemistry), and $34,500,000 for Advanced Research.
Within funds made available for Advanced Fuels Research,
$700,000 is provided for development of continuous solvent
extraction processes for coal derived carbon products; and
$500,000 is provided within the amount for fuels to West
Virginia University to study the long-term environmental and
economic impacts of the development of coal liquefaction in
China.
U.S./China Energy and Environmental Center.--The Committee
recommends the Department continues support for the U.S./China
Energy and Environmental Center. The Center provides essential
services to assist U.S. industries entering the complex and
expanding Chinese energy market.
Natural Gas Technologies.--The Committee recommendation
includes $27,000,000, an increase of $17,000,000 above the
budget request. The Committee recommends $2,000,000 to support
the efforts of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.
Petroleum--Oil Technologies.--The Committee recommendation
includes $32,000,000, an increase of $22,000,000 above the
budget request.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation includes
$106,941,000, an increase of $8,000,000 above the budget
request for the National Energy Technology Laboratory.
Plant and Capital Equipment.--The Committee recommendation
includes $23,000,000 for plant and capital equipment, an
increase of $23,000,000 above the budget request. Within these
funds, $20,000,000 is for the infrastructure improvement
program at the National Energy Technology Laboratory and
$3,000,000 is for general plant projects.
Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration.--The Committee
recommendation includes $9,600,000, an increase of $1,600,000
above the budget request.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed
projects, within available funds.
--$2,500,000 for the Coal to Liquids program--Phase II, MT
(Coal);
--$2,000,000 for the Utah Center for Ultra-Clean Coal
Utilization (Coal);
--$500,000 for the Coal-Waste Slurry Reburn Project, PA
(Coal);
--$1,500,000 for the Multi-Disciplinary Coal-bed Natural Gas
Research Center at the University of Wyoming (Coal);
--$3,000,000 for the National Center for Hydrogen Technology,
ND (Fuels and Power);
--$5,000,000 for the High Temperature Electrochemistry Center
in Montana (Fuels and Power);
--$5,000,000 for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, PA (Fuels and
Power);
--$1,500,000 for Fuel Processors for megawatt-scale solid
oxide fuel cell systems for stationary power
generation, OH (Fuels and Power);
--$2,000,000 for National Biofuel Energy Laboratory, MI
(Fuels and Power);
--$1,000,000 for the Oil Heat Research Project (Oil and Gas);
--$7,000,000 for Arctic Energy Office, AK (Oil and Gas);
--$400,000 Risk Base Data Management System, AK (Oil and
Gas);
--$1,750,000 for the Utah Center for Heavy Oil Research (Oil
and Gas); and
--$1,000,000 for hydrates research at the University of
Mississippi (Oil and Gas).

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $17,750,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 18,500,000
House allowance......................................... 18,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 21,500,000

The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve
the national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900's,
and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) required the sale of the
Government's interest in the Naval Petroleum Reserve 1 [NPR-1].
To comply with this requirement, the Elk Hills field in
California was sold to Occidental Petroleum Corporation in
1998. Following the sale of Elk Hills and the transfer of the
oil shale reserves, DOE retains two Naval Petroleum Reserve
properties: the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 in Wyoming (Teapot
Dome field), a stripper well oil field that the Department is
maintaining until it reaches its economic production limit; and
the Buena Vista Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 in California,
a checkerboard pattern of Government and privately owned tracts
adjacent to the Elk Hills field. The DOE continues to be
responsible for routine operations and maintenance of NPR-3,
management of the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center at
NPR-3, lease management at NPR-2, and continuing environmental
and remediation work at Elk Hills.
The Committee recommends $21,500,000, an increase of
$3,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee has provided
the additional funding to support the activities under the NPR/
Colorado, Utah Wyoming program.

ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

Appropriations, 2005.................................... \1\ $36,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 48,000,000
House allowance......................................... 48,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 48,000,000

\1\ The fiscal year 2005 enacted level reflects an advanced
appropriation available on October 1, 2005.

Payment to the Elk Hills school lands fund was part of the
settlement associated with the sale of the Naval Petroleum
Reserve Number 1. Under the settlement, payments to the fund
are to be made over a period of 7 years. The payments to date
($216,000,000) were based on an estimate of the amount that
would be required to pay the State of California nine percent
of the net sales of proceeds.
The Committee recommends $48,000,000, the same as the
budget request, and combined with the fiscal year 2005 advance
appropriation of $36,000,000, will make available a total of
$84,000,000 in fiscal year 2006. While this represents Payment
#7 in a series of seven payments, the Committee understands
that the final amount due will be based on the resolution of
equity determinations, which cannot be determined until all
divestment-related expenses are accounted for.

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $169,710,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 166,000,000
House allowance......................................... 166,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 166,000,000

The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve [SPR] is to
store petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a
major petroleum supply interruption to the United States and to
carry out obligations under the international energy program.
The reserve will be filled to 700 million barrels in 2005,
providing 59 days of net import protection.
The Committee recommends $166,000,000, the same as the
budget request, for operation of the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, a decrease of $3,710,000 from the fiscal year 2005
level.

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $4,960,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the
Northeast States began in August 2000 when the Department of
Energy, through the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account,
awarded contracts for the lease of commercial storage
facilities and acquisition of heating oil. The purpose of the
reserve is to assure home heating oil supplies for the
Northeast States during times of very low inventories and
significant threats to immediate supply of heating oil. The
Northeast Heating Oil Reserve was established as a separate
entity from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001.
The 2 million barrel reserve is stored in commercial facilities
in New York Harbor, New Haven, Connecticut, and the Providence,
Rhode Island area.
The Committee recommends no new appropriation, the same as
the budget request, for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve,
a decrease of $4,960,000 from the fiscal 2005 level. All
activities in fiscal year 2006 are funded from carryover
balances.

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2005..................................... $83,819,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 85,926,000
House allowance......................................... 86,426,000
Committee recommendation................................ 85,926,000

The Committee recommends $85,926,000, the same as the
budget request.
The Energy Information Administration is a leader in
providing high-quality, policy-neutral energy information to
meet the requirements of Congress, the Federal Government,
industry, energy markets and the public in a manner that
promotes sound policymaking and efficient markets. As the
energy industry becomes more complex and interdependent, it has
been EIA's responsibility to update its energy data to keep
pace with changing energy industry and markets. It is critical
that EIA continue to adapt to rapid changes and provide data
that is relevant and helpful to industry, policymakers, the
media and Federal enforcement officials.

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The Non-Defense Environmental Management program includes
funds to manage and clean up sites used for civilian energy
research, and non-defense related activities. These past
activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste
contamination that requires remediation, stabilization, or some
other type of action.
The Non-Defense Environmental Management activities were
previously funded in three separate accounts, two of which are
now combined: Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion, and
Non-Defense Environmental Services are now one account, Non-
Defense Environmental Cleanup. The Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund for environmental
management responsibilities at the three gaseous diffusion
enrichment plants (Oak Ridge, Portsmouth, and Paducah) and for
reimbursement of licensees conducting cleanup of uranium and
thorium processing sites remains the same.
The Committee remains committed to the strategy of
accelerating cleanup and closing sites. However, the
categorization of funding activities by planning goals has
diminished in utility over time--dates slip, and activities
that do not fit the ``2012'' timeframe were merely moved into
the ``2035'' timeframe as a matter of course. As such, the
Committee no longer finds this display of activities useful,
and has moved to a location/site-based display, to increase the
transparency of where environmental cleanup dollars are being
spent. The Committee requests that congressional budget
submissions be submitted in this format in the future.
Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee continues to
support the need for flexibility to meet changing funding
requirements at sites. In fiscal year 2006, the Department may
transfer up to $2,000,000 between control points, to reduce
health or safety risks or to gain cost savings as long as no
program or project is increased or decreased by more than
$2,000,000 once during the fiscal year. The control points for
reprogramming are the Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility, West
Valley Demonstration Project, Gaseous Diffusion Plants, Small
Sites, and construction line items. This reprogramming
authority may not be used to initiate new programs or programs
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the
Act or report. The Committees on Appropriations of the House
and Senate must be notified within 30 days prior to the use of
this reprogramming authority.
Economic Development.--None of the Non-Defense
Environmental Management funds, including those provided in the
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, and Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, are available for
economic development activities.

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $439,601,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 259,934,000
House allowance......................................... 319,934,000
Committee recommendation................................ 353,219,000

The Committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental
Cleanup is $353,219,000, an increase of $3,285,000 above the
budget request.
The Committee provides $77,100,000 for solid waste
stabilization and disposition, and nuclear facility
decontamination and decommissioning at the West Valley
Demonstration Project, and $48,813,000 for decontamination and
decommissioning of the gaseous diffusion plants. The Committee
provides $46,113,000 for the decontamination and
decommissioning of the Fast Flux Test Facility [FFTF].
The Committee provides $85,803,000 for depleted uranium
hexafluoride conversion at Portsmouth and Paducah. The
Committee provides $28,006,000, for soil and water remediation
measures at the former Atlas uranium mill tailings site at
Moab, Utah.
Small Sites.--The Committee provides $34,328,000 for soil
and water remediation, graphite research reactor and high flux
beam reactor decontamination and decommissioning at Brookhaven
National Laboratory; $10,487,000 for soil and water remediation
and nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at
Argonne National Laboratory; and $5,274,000 for spent nuclear
fuel stabilization and disposition at Idaho National
Laboratory.
The Committee recommendation provides $3,900,000 for soil
and water remediation at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;
$3,500,000 for soil and water remediation at the Stanford
Linear Accelerator Center; $9,000,000 for nuclear facility
decontamination and decommissioning for the Energy Technology
Engineering Center; $490,000 for decontamination and
decommissioning of the Tritium System Test Assembly Facility at
Los Alamos National Laboratory; and $305,000 for soil and water
remediation at Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory.

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $415,655,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 571,498,000
House allowance......................................... 571,498,000
Committee recommendation................................ 561,498,000

The Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund supports projects to
maintain, decontaminate, decommission and otherwise remediate
the gaseous diffusion plants at Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah,
Kentucky; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In addition, the Uranium/
Thorium Licensee Reimbursement program activities are funded
within this appropriation.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning.--
The Committee recommendation includes $561,498,000, a decrease
of $10,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee
recommendation includes $281,329,000 for activities at Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. The Committee recommends $105,000,000 at
Paducah, Kentucky, an increase of $7,000,000 above the budget
request. The Department shall use the additional funds to
accelerate the characterization and disposition of waste
offsite, including the Designated Material Storage Areas, low-
level wastes, TSCA waste, and mixed low level waste. Within the
funds provided the Department shall undertake a study of the
potential purchase of property or options to purchase property
that is located above the plume of contaminated groundwater
near the facility site. The study shall evaluate the adequate
protection of human health and environment from exposure to
contaminated groundwater and consider whether such purchase,
when taking into account the cost of remediation, long-term
surveillance, and maintenance, is in the best interest of
taxpayers.
The Department of Energy Inspector General published a
report on March 10, 2005, which found that the Department had
spent $17,000,000 for ``activities that are not specifically
related to accelerating the cleanup at Portsmouth''. The IG
found that $14,000,000 was used to move equipment in order to
accommodate USEC's schedule to develop a gas centrifuge
facility. The IG also found that the Department has expended
$3,000,000 to move equipment to a temporary storage site to
benefit USEC. The IG believes these expenditures and another
$16,000,000 in possible future expenditures are in violation of
the terms of the 2002 Agreement in which the Department agreed
to clean up the Portsmouth site, leaving USEC to build and
operate the enrichment facility at its own expense. It was the
IG's determination that the Department had gone out of its way
to support the commercial operations. The Committee also
recognizes that the fiscal year 2003 House Energy and Water
report (H. Rept. 107-681) provided clear direction that the
Department was only to provide assistance on a reimbursable
basis. As such, the Committee recommends a $17,000,000
reduction in funding and directs the Department to recover the
funding reduction from USEC. The Committee directs the
Department to provide a full accounting and justification of
all future expenditures at Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
to the Department of Energy Inspector General for review to
ensure compliance with the 2002 agreement between the
Department and USEC in fiscal year 2006. The Committee
recommends $175,157,000 for cleanup activities at Portsmouth,
Ohio, a reduction of $17,000,000 below the budget request.
The Committee does not approve of and has provided no funds
for direct or indirect costs; and prohibits the Department from
transferring any uranium assets for trade, sale or barter with
USEC as proposed in the budget. The Department has failed to
adequately specify proposed costs associated with these
activities and the Committee is skeptical that this proposal is
in the best interests of Federal Government and U.S. taxpayers.
The Committee understands that the Government Accountability
Office is undertaking a study of the terms and conditions of
this arrangement and will provide a report to Congress to
clarify if this activity is in the best interest of taxpayers.
Until Congress has an opportunity to review the GAO report, the
Congress does not provide any funds to support the barter
arrangement. The Committee is also skeptical of the proposed
benefits of the USEC-proposed Project Isaiah to down blend
highly enriched uranium and undertake a complicated scheme of
transactions to provide low enriched fuel to the market. The
Committee provides no funding to the Department to undertake
Project Isaiah or support this effort.
Uranium/Thorium Reimbursement.--The Committee
recommendation includes no funding for this activity.

Science

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $3,599,871,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 3,462,718,000
House allowance......................................... 3,666,055,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,702,718,000

The Committee recommendation for the Office of Science is
$3,702,718,000, an increase of $240,000,000 above the request
and $102,847,000 above the current year level.
The Science account funds investment in basic research
critical to the success of the Department's missions in
national security, energy security and economic security.
Programs funded under this account perform a leadership role in
advancing the frontiers of knowledge in the physical sciences
and areas of biological, environmental and computational
sciences. The Department provides 40 percent of the total
Federal spending that supports the research of 15,000 PhDs,
post doctorate and graduate students, as well as operating 10
facilities used by over 19,000 researchers each year.

GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES

Investment in the physical sciences and engineering plays a
critical role in enabling U.S. technological innovation and
global economic leadership. It is essential to the development
and utilization of our energy resources, as well as innovations
in the areas of defense, the environment, communications and
information technologies, health care and much more. Over the
past 50 years, half of U.S. economic growth has come from prior
investment in science and technological innovation. Life
expectancy has grown from 55 years in 1900 to nearly 80 years
today.
The United States has been the undisputed world leader in
the physical sciences for the past six decades, an investment
strategy that has led to huge gains in our national security,
economic prosperity and overall quality of life for all U.S.
citizens. Federal support for fundamental research in physics,
chemistry, materials sciences, and other scientific disciplines
crucial to U.S. industry has been a major contributor to this
national success story.
But the foundations for the future of the physical sciences
are eroding. The Department of Energy's Office of Science,
which is the leading source of Federal investment for R&D
facilities and fundamental research in the physical sciences,
is at a crossroads. At a time when our international
competitors are significantly scaling up their investments in
the physical sciences (the European Union will soon double its
overall funding for R&D), funding for the Office of Science and
other U.S. agencies has been flat or even declining. This comes
at a time when U.S. industry is scaling back its investments in
long-term research in the physical sciences in an effort to
remain competitive in the short term.
This trend is not uniform or irreversible. Significant
investments in key areas of science, most of which are
supported by DOE's Office of Science, will keep our Nation at
the forefront of future research into the physical sciences.
The future health of our national system of physical sciences
R&D can be restored by focused investments in three areas:
major scientific user facilities that support the physical
sciences; the university scientists who conduct world class
research and train our next generation of scientific talent;
and DOE's national laboratories, which are the Nation's
crucible for multidisciplinary work in challenging aspects of
the physical sciences that cannot be performed elsewhere.
The Office of Science has done commendable work planning
for the future of the physical sciences in the United States. A
20-year investment plan for the new research facilities that
our Nation needs is being implemented but existing capabilities
cannot be sacrificed to purchase new facilities. The Committee
urges that the Office of Science research programs work closely
with their university counterparts to make joint investments
that ensure the vitality of physical science academic
departments.
The Government must tap into the enormous capabilities of
the Office of Science and regain world leadership in the
physical sciences. DOE user facilities should be operating at
their designed capacity, providing key discovery opportunities
for thousands of new researchers every year. University
research programs in nanoscience, catalysis, mathematics and
physics should be expanded to ensure training of the next
generation of outstanding scientists needed to solve important
national problems. Multidisciplinary research at the national
laboratories should be encouraged to meet national challenges
in defense, energy production and the environment. Taken as a
whole, these investments will ensure U.S. leadership in the
physical sciences and the vitality of the U.S. economy.
The Office of Science operates many of the Nation's most
advanced large-scale user facilities of importance to all areas
of science. These state-of-the-art facilities are shared with
the science community world-wide and contain technologies and
instrumentation that are available nowhere else. These
facilities serve tens of thousands of users in laboratories,
universities, industry, and other Federal agencies, and
represent large Federal capital investments. Over the last
several years many of these facilities have operated below
optimal levels. In order to rectify this situation, the
Committee has provided funding to restore operations of the SC
user facilities to optimal levels by providing an additional
$100,000,000 for facility operations allocated as follows:
$20,000,000 in Basic Energy Sciences; $3,000,000 in High Energy
Physics; $49,000,000 in Nuclear physics; and $28,000,000 in
Fusion Energy Sciences.

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $735,699,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 713,933,000
House allowance......................................... 735,933,000
Committee recommendation................................ 716,933,000

The Committee recommendation includes $716,933,000 for high
energy physics, an increase of $3,000,000, to provide
operational funding to ensure full utilization of facilities.
The high energy physics program focuses on gaining insights
into the fundamental constituents of matter, the fundamental
forces in nature, and the transformations between matter and
energy at the most elementary level. The program encompasses
both experimental and theoretical particle physics research and
related advanced accelerator and detector technology R&D. The
primary mode of experimental research involves the study of
collisions of energetic particles using large particle
accelerators or colliding beam facilities.
The Committee recognizes the critical importance of the
DOE/NASA Joint Dark Energy Mission [JDEM] in answering
fundamental questions about the nature and substance of the
universe. Consequently, the Committee encourages the Department
to move JDEM forward aggressively to ensure the timely
accomplishment of this important work.

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $404,778,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 370,741,000
House allowance......................................... 408,341,000
Committee recommendation................................ 419,741,000

The Committee recommends $419,741,000 for nuclear physics,
an increase of $49,000,000 to ensure full utilization of
experimental facilities.
The nuclear physics program supports and provides
experimental equipment to qualified scientists and research
groups conducting experiments at nuclear physics accelerator
facilities. These facilities provide new insights and advance
our knowledge of the nature of matter and energy and develop
the scientific knowledge, technologies and trained manpower
needed to underpin the Department's nuclear missions.
Rare Isotope Accelerator.--The Committee requests the
Department to submit a report within 120 days after the
enactment of this Act, with information critical to moving
forward with the site selection of the Rare Isotope
Accelerator. The report shall include, but not be limited to,
(1) the status and progress of the conceptual research and
development supporting the development of RIA over the past 6
years; (2) the priority research areas the Department will
complete prior to site selection for RIA; (3) the process by
which the Department selects recipients for its research and
development funding; (4) how the results of current and future
research and development may affect the design of RIA or the
path forward; (5) what technical hurdles remain before RIA site
selection can resume; and (6) what funding will be required to
clear those hurdles and what is the expected length of time for
completion of these activities.
Finally, the Committee requests the Department clarify its
plans to move forward with RIA, provide an estimate of when the
draft request for proposals will be reissued, and assess
whether in a constrained budget environment the Department has
any concern that RIA, as it is currently envisioned, will not
be built. If the Department anticipates that future budgets
will not allow for RIA, the Committee requests the report
provide alternatives and explain how the Nation would meet our
need for the fundamental physics knowledge and training of
scientists applicable to national security and homeland
security that RIA would provide.

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $571,922,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 455,688,000
House allowance......................................... 525,688,000
Committee recommendation................................ 503,688,000

The Committee recommendation includes $503,688,000 for
biological and environmental research, an increase of
$48,000,000 over the budget request.
The biological and environmental research program develops
the knowledge base necessary to identify, understand, and
anticipate the long-term health and environmental consequences
of energy use and development. The program utilizes the
Department's unique scientific and technological capabilities
to solve major scientific problems in the environment,
medicine, and biology. The Committee recommendation includes
the budget request for low dose radiation research. The
Department is in the process or reorganizing the National
Institute for Global Environmental Change [NIGEC] into the
National Institute for Climatic Change Research [NICCR]. The
Committee directs that a center be created that will work in
collaboration with the other four regional centers of NICCR and
will address the need for the development of methodologies and
tools for the understanding and modeling of the impacts of
global and regional climatic changes on riparian and coastal
environmental and ecological systems that are throughout the
Nation.
Genomes.--Funding for the Human Genome program is provided
to understand the genes identified in the Human Genome Project
and to meet growing demand for sequencing in the broader
scientific community. The Genome to Life activity aimed at
understanding the composition and function of biochemical
networks that carry our essential processes of living
organisms. Current estimates project that the energy needs of
the world will double by the year 2050. Energy supply and
demand are expected to exert strong economic pressure on the
United States and become one of the most important factors in
the security of the country in this time frame. Biology-based
solutions that contribute to increasing U.S. energy supply and
decreasing its dependence on foreign sources of energy offer an
exceptionally attractive alternative to petroleum-based
sources. Microbes can act as catalysts to convert biomass to
clean fuels and feedstock for key chemicals. To develop
practical and economical biology-based systems for generation
of energy and high-value chemicals, we must increase our
knowledge of key biological systems, metabolic pathways, gene
regulatory systems, and molecular structures and function.
Understanding these key areas will provide new insights in
microbial systems and permit biology-based resources to be
harnessed.
The Committee is supportive of the Department's effort to
move ahead with a request for proposal for the first of four
GTL facilities. The Committee is concerned that under the
current budget and timetable, it is unlikely the Office of
Science will be able to successfully prepare timely
procurements for the three remaining facilities unless changes
are made to the program. The Committee recommends the
Department apply the same model as was used for the competition
of the five nanotechnology centers. The Department was able to
complete the five regional centers for a total cost of
$301,000,000. Using the nanotechnology centers as the model,
the Committee directs the Office of Science to accelerate the
deployment of these world class genomic facilities.
Each of the four proposed facilities already identified by
the Office of Science will support research and development to
understand and develop solutions related to bioenergy and
biobased products. However, due to the nature of the research
there is a need for all four facilities to be deployed in order
to meet the separate scientific challenges of molecular
characterization, analysis of microbial response, and
developing a better understanding of biological systems. The
Committee has provided $40,000,000 to accelerate the Genomics:
GTL program. Within the funds provided $20,000,000 shall be
used to support research and development to support the GTL
program and $20,000,000 to conduct preliminary engineering and
design for the remaining 3 facilities in the Genomes To Life
program.
Molecular Medicine.--The Committee continues to support
research that brings together PET imaging, systems biology and
nanotechnology to develop new molecular imaging probes. These
probes should provide a biological diagnosis of disease that is
informative of the molecular basis of disease and specific for
guiding the development of new molecular therapies.
The Committee is concerned about the consequences
mitigation activities and public health impact associated with
the threat of any radiological event and strongly encourages
the Department to develop therapeutical radiological
countermeasures to protect against exposure to the effects of
ionizing radiation. The Committee is aware of the potential of
inositol signaling molecules as a therapy for exposure to
ionizing radiation and encourages the Department to support
research of this emerging technology. The Committee recommends
$7,000,000 for UCLA Institute for Molecular Medicine to protect
the public health against radiation exposure.
The Committee strongly supports DOE's efforts to maintain
the scientific infrastructure of the Nation's structural
biology assets, and encourages the Department to work to
address the needs within the broader community.
The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the purchase of
equipment at the New York Structural Biology Center.
Within available funds, the Department shall continue to
fund the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.
The Committee recommendation includes an additional
$3,500,000 to the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory
[EMSL] for upgrades to instrumentation at this national user
facility.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee
recommendation includes the following Congressionally directed
projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds
recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may attach
to these projects.
--$12,000,000 for the Mind Institute in New Mexico;
--$1,000,000 for the Mississippi State University Bio-fuel
Application Center;
--$1,500,000 for the University of Louisville Institute for
Advanced Materials, KY;
--$400,000 for Center for River Dynamics and Restoration at
Utah State University;
--$3,000,000 for Texas' Metroplex Comprehensive Imaging
Center;
--$1,000,000 for Ultra Dense Memory Storage for
Supercomputing in CO;
--$2,000,000 for Health Sciences Research and Education
Facility, MO;
--$1,500,000 for the National Center for Regenerative
Medicine, OH;
--$1,000,000 for the University of Alabama at Birmingham-
Radiation Oncology Functional Imaging Program;
--$1,762,000 for the University City Science Park,
Philadelphia, PA;
--$2,500,000 for Jackson State University Bioengineering
Complex, MS;
--$800,000 for the Science Building Renovation Project, CO;
--$538,000 for St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital, TN;
--$500,000 for the California Hospital medical Center PET/CT
Fusion imaging system;
--$1,000,000 for Mount Sinai Medical Center Imaging and
Surgical Equipment, FL;
--$350,000 for Benedictine University Science Lab. & Research
Equipment, IL;
--$350,000 for Swedish American Health Systems, IL;
--$350,000 for La Rabida Children's Hospital, Chicago, IL;
--$500,000 for Edward Hospital, Plainfield, IL;
--$1,000,000 for Morgan State University Center for
Environmental Toxicology, MD;
--$500,000 for the University of Massachusetts at Boston
Multidisciplinary Research Facility and Library;
--$500,000 for the CIBS Solar Cell Development, NE;
--$1,000,000 for the University Medical Center of Southern
Nevada Radiology/Oncology Program Equipment;
--$1,000,000 for Mega Cargo Imaging Program at the Nevada
Test Site;
--$500,000 for the University of Delaware Medical Research
Facility;
--$500,000 for the St. Francis Hospital Linear Accelerator,
DE;
--$500,000 for the ViaHealth/Rochester General Hospital
Emergency Department, NY;
--$1,000,000 for University of Vermont Functional MRI
Research;
--$1,000,000 for the Nevada Cancer Institute;
--$3,000,000 for the Vermont Institute of Natural Sciences;
--$500,000 for the Queen's Medical Center Telemedicine
Project, HI;
--$250,000 for the Sarcoma Alliance for Research through
Collaboration, MI;
--$250,000 for Rush Medical Center, IL;
--$500,000 for the North Shore Long Island Jewish Health
System, NY;
--$250,000 for the Hackensack University Medical Center
Ambulatory Adult Cancer Center, NJ;
--$250,000 for the College of New Jersey Genomic Analysis
Facility;
--$500,000 for the Western Michigan University Expanded
Energy and Natural Resources Learning Center;
--$500,000 for the Arnold Palmer Prostate Center, CA;
--$500,000 for the Louisiana Immersive Tech Enterprise
program at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette;
--$500,000 for the Brown University MRI Scanner, RI;
--$350,000 for the University of Dubuque Environmental
Science Center, IA;
--$500,000 for the New School University in New York City,
NY;
--$500,000 for the Oregon Nanoscience and Microbiologies
Institute;
--$350,000 for Mt. Sinai Hospital Cardiac Catheterization
Lab, MD;
--$250,000 for the University of Massachusetts Medical School
NMR Spectrophotometer;
--$250,000 for the Mojave Bird Study, NV;
--$250,000 for the Science Center at Maltby Nature Preserve
in Minnesota; and
--$2,000,000 for the Existing Business Enhancement Program
Building, University of Northern IA.

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $1,104,632,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 1,146,017,000
House allowance......................................... 1,173,149,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,241,017,000

The Committee recommendation provides $1,241,017,000, an
increase of $95,000,000.
The basic energy sciences [BES] program funds basic
research in the physical, biological and engineering sciences
that support the Department's nuclear and non-nuclear
technology programs. The BES program is responsible for
operating large national user research facilities, including
synchrotron light and neutron sources, and a combustion
research facility, as well as smaller user facilities such as
materials preparation and electron microscopy centers. The BES
program supports a substantial basic research budget for
materials sciences, chemical sciences, energy biosciences,
engineering and geosciences.
Within available funds, the Committee recommendation
includes $7,280,000 for the Department's Experimental Program
to Stimulate Competitive Research. The Committee provides
$5,000,000 to purchase additional fuel for the High Flux
Isotope Reactor.

Research

The Committee recommendation includes $1,062,944,000, the
amount of the request, for materials sciences, engineering
research, chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy
biosciences. The Committee recommendation includes $4,500,000
for Altair Nanotech for nanotechnology, nanosensors, and
nanomaterials research, development, and deployment.
Energy-Water Supply Technologies.--The Committee
recommendation includes an additional $25,000,000, within the
chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy biosciences account,
to support a research and demonstration program to study
energy-related issues associated with water resources and
issues associated with sustainable water supplies for energy
production. Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$25,000,000 for energy and water resources management including
$8,000,000 for advanced concept desalination and arsenic
treatment research in partnership with American Water Works
Research Foundation and WERC; $12,000,000 for water supply
technology development in partnership with other national
laboratories to initiate demonstration projects and technology
transfer activities; and $5,000,000 for water management
decision support including demonstration programs in
partnership with the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer,
transboundary applications and support for international energy
and water efficiency.

Construction

Spallation Neutron Source.--The Committee recommendation
includes the budget request of $41,744,000 to continue
construction at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the
Spallation Neutron Source [SNS] to meet the Nation's neutron
scattering needs.
Nanoscale Science Research Centers.--The Committee
recommendation supports the high priority given to nanoscale
research and has included the budget request for the nanoscale
science research centers at Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Argonne National
Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and the joint
effort between Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos
National Laboratory.
National Nanotechnology Enterprise Development Center.--The
Committee directs $30,000,000 for the establishment of the
National Nanotechnology Enterprise Development Center [NNEDC],
to be co-located with the Center for Integrated
Nanotechnologies [CINT], a joint facility of Sandia National
Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Committee
intends that the NNEDC will assist in the technological
maturation of nanotechnologies developed at the National
Nanoscience Initiative facilities. The mission of the NNEDC
will be to identify nanotechnologies developed at the national
laboratories and partnered universities that are promising
candidates for commercialization and to assist in their
transition to the marketplace. The Center will be directed by
employees of Sandia National Laboratory and Los Alamos National
Laboratory and will emphasize opportunities for industry
partnership with the CINT.

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation provides $207,055,000 for
advanced scientific computing research. The Advanced Scientific
Computing Research [ASCR] program supports advanced
computational research--applied mathematics, computer science,
and networking--to enable the analysis, simulation and
prediction of complex physical phenomena. The program also
supports the operation of large supercomputer user facilities.
The National Leadership Computing Facility at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory will provide the scientific community with
the computing capability needed to solve problems out of reach
of currently available systems and lead to significant
advancements in areas such as biology, fusion, and climate
change. Unfortunately, the budget request for this effort would
halt the next phase of machine acquisitions and provides
inadequate funding to operate the system that will be installed
during fiscal year 2005.
The Committee strongly supports the National Leadership
Computing Facility and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's
leadership in this important area. Full operation of the
National Leadership Computing Facility at ORNL is necessary to
keep domestic researchers and industries competitive with their
global counterparts. The Committee will work to ensure that
sufficient funding is provided to meet the next phase of
machine acquisitions and encourages the Department to focus its
efforts on enhancing and expanding activities at the National
Leadership Computing Facility.

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $40,105,000, to support
infrastructure activities at the five national labs under the
direction of the Office of Science.

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

Fusion Energy.--The Committee provides $290,550,000, the
same as the budget request. The Committee has provided
$28,000,000 in additional funding to ensure the full operations
on the DIII-D, Alcator C-Mod, and NSTX fusion research
facilities. The current budget reduces operations from 48 weeks
to just 17 weeks, which the Committee believes is an
irresponsible use of the taxpayer investment in these
facilities. The Committee has reduced funding for the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor [ITER] by
$28,000,000, equal to the amount domestic research has been
increased. The Committee is disappointed that a decision has
not been made in selecting a site for the location of this
international burning plasma user facility. Without a final
decision on a location or allocation, the Committee is
skeptical the Department will be able to expend the full budget
request for this project in fiscal year 2006. If a site is
selected, the Committee will work with the Department to
provide an allocation that is consistent with the expected
needs for this project. Within available funds, the Committee
includes $1,000,000 for non-defense research activities at the
Atlas Pulse Power facility.

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommendation provides $74,317,000 for
safeguards and security, the same level as the request.
The safeguards and security line identifies the funding
necessary for the physical protection, protective forces,
physical security, protective systems, information security,
cyber security, personnel security, materials control and
accountability and program management activities for national
laboratories and facilities of the Office of Science.

SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommendation provides $7,192,000 for
science workforce development.
The science workforce development program provides limited
funding to train young scientists, engineers, and technicians
to meet the demand for a well trained scientific and technical
workforce, including the teachers that educate the workforce.
The Committee encourages the Department of Energy to
provide funds and technical expertise for high school students
to participate in the 2005 For Inspiration and Recognition of
Science and Technology [FIRST] Robotics competition. FIRST has
proven to be a valuable program to introduce and mentor
students in math and science.

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation provides $207,725,000 for
science program direction.
Within available funds, the Committee provides $5,000,000
for the Office of Science to conduct project engineering and
design in support of replacement facilities at the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory in order to support accelerated
cleanup of Hanford site. The Committee has provided a total of
$18,000,000 for preliminary engineering and design in this
account and in Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.

Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $343,232,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 300,000,000
House allowance......................................... 310,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 300,000,000

The Committee provides $300,000,000 from fees collected by
the Secretary and deposited into the fund established by Public
Law 97-425 as amended. In addition to the defense contribution
of $277,000,000, funding for Yucca Mountain will be provided at
the fiscal year 2004 level of $577,000,000.
The Department plans to submit its nuclear waste repository
license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during
fiscal year 2006. In view of the authority granted to the State
of Nevada and the affected units of local government to
participate in licensing activities under this Act, the
Congress wants to ensure that conflicts of interest are avoided
between the Department as license applicant and the affected
governments as potential parties to the license proceeding. The
Department's practice of reviewing and approving annual work
plans for affected government oversight programs is
inconsistent with its role as a license applicant because the
affected governments are potential parties to the proceeding.
In place of an approval function, the Department shall advise
and consult with affected governments for the sole purpose of
assisting them to comply with the requirements of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act (Public Law 97-425). The affected governments
are required, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act [NWPA], to
provide certification to the Department that all funds have
been expended for activities authorized by the NWPA and this
Appropriations Act. The prior approval of the Department is not
required by these acts. Such certification and any audits
carried out by the Department or others are sufficient to
ensure that affected governments are using funds for the
purpose intended. Audits shall be carried out at regular
intervals by auditors from the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management, or by independent auditors, using uniform
criteria and procedures. Funds appropriated under this Act may
be used for review of repository activities authorized in
Section 116(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, for review of
any proposal to develop a Monitored Retrievable Storage
facility or an Interim Storage facility, and for monitoring
lessons learned from related facilities for the storage and
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste. Such review activities may include potential economic,
social, public health and safety, and environmental impacts of
the transportation, storage and disposal of nuclear wastes.
The Committee has provided $3,500,000 for the State of
Nevada and $8,500,000 for the affected units of local
government in accordance with the statutory restrictions
contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Committee
directs that $500,000 be provided to Nye County, Nevada, to
conduct on-site activities pursuant to Section 117(d) of that
Act. These funds shall be separate and apart from oversight
funding under Section 116(c) of the Act, and shall be made
available to Nye County by direct payment subject to the same
restrictions as apply to oversight payments for affected units
of local government. Nye County is still permitted to seek
funding under the Section 116(c) program, but the Committee
expects the county to seek a lesser percentage of that
program's annual funding.
The administration has requested that the funds provided to
the AULG's be provided for a period of 21 months. The Committee
rejects this approach and directs the Department to provide
this funding in the traditional annual (i.e., 12 month) manner.
The Committee expects to provide fiscal year 2007 funding in
the fiscal year 2007 Appropriations bill.

Departmental Administration

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $238,503,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 279,976,000
House allowance......................................... 252,909,000
Committee recommendation................................ 280,976,000

(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $121,024,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 123,000,000
House allowance......................................... 123,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 123,000,000

The Committee recommends $280,976,000 for departmental
administration, a net appropriation of $157,976,000.
The Departmental Administration account funds policy
development and analysis activities, institutional and public
liaison functions, and other program support requirements
necessary to ensure effective operation and management. The
account also covers salaries and expenses for the Office of the
Secretary; Board of Contract Appeals; Chief Information
Officer; Congressional and intergovernmental affairs; Economic
impact and diversity; General Counsel; Office of Management,
Budget and Evaluation; Policy and International Affairs; and
Public Affairs. The Committee recommends an increase of
$1,000,000 for Public Affairs.

Inspector General

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $41,176,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 43,000,000
House allowance......................................... 43,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 43,000,000

The Committee has provided $43,000,000 for the Office of
the Inspector General, the same as the budget request.
The Office of the Inspector General provides agency-wide
audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and
correct management and administrative deficiencies which create
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste,
and mismanagement.

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 Environmental and Other Defense
Activities. Appropriation accounts under the National Nuclear
Security Administration [NNSA] are Weapons Activities, Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the
Administrator. Environmental and Other Defense Activities
include appropriation accounts for Defense Site Acceleration
Completion, Defense Environmental Services, Other Defense
Activities, and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal.

National Nuclear Security Administration

The National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA], a
separately organized and semi-autonomous agency within the
Department of Energy, came into existence on March 1, 2000. The
missions of the NNSA are: (1) to enhance United States national
security through the military application of nuclear energy;
(2) to maintain and enhance the safety, reliability, and
performance of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile,
including the ability to design, produce, and test, in order to
meet national security requirements; (3) to provide the United
States Navy with safe, militarily effective nuclear propulsion
plants and to ensure the safe and reliable operation of those
plants; (4) to promote international nuclear safety and
nonproliferation; (5) to reduce global danger from weapons of
mass destruction; and (6) to support United States leadership
in science and technology. The programs and activities of the
NNSA are funded through the following appropriation accounts:
Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval
Reactors, and Office of the Administrator.
The committee is pleased that the administration has
submitted the revised nuclear weapons stockpile plan as
required by the fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act (Public Law 108-137). The plan outlines how
the Nation will achieve the 1,700-2,200 operationally deployed
strategic warheads first outlined by the President in 2001 and
subsequently codified in the Moscow Treaty. Once the reductions
are achieved, the U.S. active nuclear weapons stockpile will be
the smallest since the Eisenhower Administration. It clearly
shows that the Administration undertook a careful analysis of
the size and composition of the nuclear weapons stockpile that
will be needed in the years ahead to ensure U.S. national
security. To mitigate the risks of a smaller stockpile requires
the United States must make continued progress in restoring a
modern nuclear weapons infrastructure that can rapidly respond
to geopolitical changes that may challenge U.S. national
security or address potential problems in the Nation's nuclear
deterrent.
NNSA Complex Review.--Initiated under former Secretary
Abraham, a task force was commissioned to study potential
reforms to the nuclear weapons complex. This is the ninth such
study commissioned since 1988. Previous studies have proposed a
multitude of wide-ranging proposals, of which many were
justifiably ignored. The challenge for the latest study panel
will be to develop a modest package of reforms that identify
cost savings and improvement to the complex without undermining
the safety and security of our nuclear deterrent. It is the
hope of this Committee that the study group will support the
ongoing reforms to modernize the stockpile, through the
Reliable Replacement Warhead program. This initiative, which
was first proposed in the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated
Appropriations Conference Report (H. Rept. 108-447) by the
Energy and Water subcommittee, is a means to assure continued
certification of the existing stockpile and to make it more
affordable to manufacture, maintain and secure weapons. Such a
plan will challenge weapons designers, manufacturing experts,
computer scientists and experimentalists at our national labs
to modernize the stockpile and will require sufficient funding
in Science and Engineering Campaigns. The RRW program is not a
new weapon, and this fact should be clear to the study panel
members.
The Committee recognizes the temptation for panel members
to recommend comprehensive changes to shake up the complex and
set it on a new direction. However, the Committee disagrees
with the purported proposal to consolidate all of the nuclear
material and the entire weapons manufacturing capability,
including the construction of a Modern Pit Facility, at a
single location. There are very strong opinions in Congress
regarding the siting of a new pit facility or changing the
military capability of the existing weapons. As such, the
Committee believes it is unlikely that Congress would support
such comprehensive reforms as currently proposed by the NNSA
Complex study panel.
It would be premature for this study to recommend
significant changes to the complex until it is clear to both
the Department of Defense and the Department of the Energy
agree on what the stockpile will look like in the future and
has the concurrence of the Congress before policy makers are
likely to support the deployment of a brand new weapon into the
stockpile, even if the military requirements remain the same.
Those who support broad complex-wide reforms to the complex
must be realistic in their expectations in reinventing the
complex. Such a task will take time to ensure that the
necessary improvement adequately supports science based
stockpile stewardship.
To protect the interests of the Committee and to ensure
that this report and it proposed recommendations are carefully
considered, no funds shall be used to implement any of the
panel's recommendations in fiscal year 2006. This delay will
provide Congress the opportunity to fully review the impact of
the proposed recommendations. Since this report was not
contemplated in President's fiscal year 2006 request, Congress
will consider the implementation of any reforms as part the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget request.

Weapons Activities

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $6,331,590,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 6,630,133,000
House allowance......................................... 6,181,121,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,554,354,00

The Weapons Activities account provides for the maintenance
and refurbishment of nuclear weapons in order to sustain
confidence in their safety, reliability, and performance; the
expansion of scientific, engineering, and manufacturing
capabilities to enable certification of the enduring nuclear
weapons stockpile; and the manufacture of nuclear weapon
components under a comprehensive test moratorium. The Weapons
Activities account also provides for maintaining the capability
to return to the design and production of new weapons and to
underground nuclear testing if so directed by the President and
Congress. The major elements of the program include the
following: directed stockpile work, campaigns, readiness in
technical base and facilities, facilities and infrastructure,
secure transportation asset, and safeguards and security.
Weapons Activities Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee
provides limited reprogramming authority within the Weapons
Activities account without submission of a reprogramming to be
approved in advance by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations. The reprogramming categories will be as
follows: directed stockpile work, science campaigns,
engineering campaigns, inertial confinement fusion, advanced
simulation and computing, pit manufacturing and certification,
readiness campaigns, and operating expenses for readiness in
technical base and facilities. In addition, funding of not more
than $5,000,000 may be transferred between each of these
categories and each construction project subject to the
following limitations: only one transfer may be made to or from
any program or project; the transfer must be necessary to
address a risk to health, safety or the environment or to
assure the most efficient use of weapons activities funds at a
site; and funds may not be used for an item for which Congress
has specifically denied funds or for a new program or project
that has not been authorized by Congress. Congressional
notification within 15 days of the use of this reprogramming
authority is required. Transfers during the fiscal year which
would result in increases or decreases in excess of $5,000,000
or which would be subject to the limitations outlined above
require prior notification and approval from the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

The Committee recommendation includes $1,458,786,000 for
directed stockpile work.
Directed Stockpile Work [DSW] includes all activities that
directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including
maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification
and dismantlement and disposal activities.
The Committee supports a degree of flexibility in executing
this budget by providing limited reprogramming authority within
Directed Stockpile Work [DSW]. The control levels for the DSW
program are:
(1) Life Extension Programs;
(2) Stockpile Systems;
(3) Retired Warhead Stockpile Systems; and
(4) Stockpile Services.
Life Extension Program.--Within Life Extension Programs,
the Committee fully funds LEP activities at $348,318,000
including the administration's request for the B61 at
$50,810,000 to refurbish the canned subassembly and replacement
of associated seals, supports, cables and connectors. The
Committee provides full funding of $162,268,000 for the W76 to
provide among other activities funding to support the design of
the refurbished warheads to meet the military characteristics.
The Committee provides for the W80 at $135,240,000 in order to
accelerate process prove-in activities, ground qualification
tests for hardware that supports future flight tests,
hydrodynamic tests, the system thermal mechanical tests and the
full system engineering tests.
Stockpile System.--Within Stockpile Systems, the Committee
fully endorses $311,804,000 for Stockpile Systems including the
W80 at $26,315,000 in order to conduct vital surveillance lab
tests, Canned Subassembly [CSA] surveillance and significantly
decrease the current surveillance backlog of work. Other
critical activities include support of the annual assessment
process, providing support for all agency safety studies,
accelerating completion of Significant Finding Investigations
[SFIs], conducting key integrated experiments per the baseline
plan; maintain steady production of the 1K reservoir, timely
production of telemetry units and other Joint Test Assembly
[JTA] hardware for support of flight tests. Also, these
improvements and acceleration of activities will support the
Seamless Safety for the 21st Century [SS-21] initiative. Within
the Stockpile Systems program the Committee supports the budget
request and provides $66,050,000 for the B61; $8,967,000 for
the W62; $63,538,000 for the W76; $32,632,000 for W78;
$26,315,000 for the W80; $26,391,000 for B83; $4,402,000 for
the W84; $50,678,000 for the W87; and $32,831,000 for the W88.
Stockpile Services.--The Committee fully endorses the
President's request at $798,664,000 for Stockpile Services with
the areas of: Production Support; Research and Development
Support; Research and Development Certification and Safety;
Management, Technology, and Production; and, the Robust Nuclear
Earth Penetrator. The Stockpile Services Program provides
essential funding for production activities that supports all
of the weapons systems. Any reduction to this program would
undermine the U.S. infrastructure and the critical R&D and
production support, including quality control, certification,
and training.
The Committee recommends $267,246,000 for Production
Support in order to facilitate, expedite and improve activities
in the areas of Engineering Support; Manufacturing Support;
Quality Supervision and Control; Tool, Gage and Test Equipment
support; Purchasing and Material Support; and, Information
Systems Support that were previously allocated to weapon types.
The Committee recommends $71,753,000 for R&D Support in
order to continue to conduct timely and essential activities
directly supporting research, development, design, and
maintenance functions where the work is performed by the same
functional organization, the work supports two or more weapon
types, and the work is essentially the same for each weapon-
type and association of project costs to a weapon type would be
arbitrary and are not directly identified or allocated to
specific weapon types. The Committee directs the NNSA to fund
the Nevada Test Site at $40,000,000, $5,000,000 above the
request, to maintain the Subcritical Experiment Program,
including the Phoenix Explosive Pulse Power program.
The Committee recommends $243,727,000 for R&D Certification
and Safety in order to promote core competencies and
capabilities not directly attributable to a single warhead
type. Critical activities include modeling and assessment;
safety, surety, and quality; warhead effects and system
analysis studies, and model-based engineering and
manufacturing; preparing and performing hydrodynamic tests;
providing engineering and infrastructure support; multi-system
surveillance; material science support and legacy archiving.
The Committee recommends that an additional $21,000,000 be
provided for Research and Development Certification and Safety
to integrate new technologies into the stockpile consistent
with the RRW program. The Committee provides an additional
$10,000,000 to Los Alamos National Laboratory to conduct
hydrodynamic testing in support of the Stockpile Stewardship
program.
The Committee recommends $171,587,000 for Management,
Technology, and Production in order to continue key management
and workload activities, not associated with a particular
weapon type, which includes updating the Stockpile
Dismantlement Database for the Nuclear Weapons Complex; Gas
Transfer System [GTS] Redevelopment Reclamation for the First
Production Unit [FPU]; core surveillance diagnostics; timely
close-out of Significant Finding Investigations [SFIs];
conducting component engineering activities, reservoir forging
development and special stockpile studies. The Committee
provides $4,000,000 above the request to fund independent
assessments of the safety of the stockpile and secure
information exchange within the weapons complex.
Reliable Replacement Warhead.--In response to a Los Alamos
National Lab proposal to improve the sustainability of our
national nuclear deterrent, Congress adopted the Reliable
Replacement Warhead [RRW] Program in the fiscal year 2005
Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 108-447). NNSA is
undertaking the RRW Program to understand if warhead design
constraints imposed on Cold War systems (e.g. high yield to
weight ratios that have typically driven ``tight'' performance
margins in nuclear design) are relaxed, could replacement
components for existing stockpile weapons be more easily
manufactured with more readily available and more
environmentally benign materials, and whose safety and
reliability could be assured with high confidence, without
nuclear testing. This effort does not call into question the
safety or reliability of the current stockpile but acknowledges
the long-term sustainability of the legacy stockpile will be
difficult. Implementation of RRW should also result in reduced
life-cycle costs for supporting the stockpile. The Committee
recognizes that RRW is early in its development and will not
significantly alter the near-term plans for stockpile support
such as LEPs, but NNSA is encouraged to move aggressively to
incorporate benefits from RRW into the stockpile as soon as
possible.
The Committee recommends $25,351,000 for RRW to accelerate
the planning, development and design for a comprehensive RRW
strategy that improves the reliability, longevity and
certifiability of existing weapons and their components.
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.--The Committee recommends
$4,000,000 to support the funding of the Air Force led study.
The NNSA-DOD teams will conduct B83 impact studies and analyze
test data. Sandia National Laboratory is the site of the RNEP
tests and the Laboratory possesses a unique set of capabilities
to conduct the test on a qualified test track where they are
able to design and produce necessary instrumentation. Sandia is
also able to maintain a Secret/Restricted Data Protected
Environment in which to conduct the test and disassemble test
materials that include hazardous material such as depleted
uranium and insensitive high explosives. There are no other
facilities aside from Sandia and Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory where the test data can be readily used to validate
computer models that require terra-scale computers to model the
data. If this test were moved to another site, it would cost at
least 100 percent more than the existing budget request in
order to replicate the test facility, prepare the test in a
Secret/Restricted Data environment and handle the appropriate
material. Any alternative site would need to conduct the
appropriate environmental impact statement to ensure full
compliance with environmental statutes. The Committee urges the
Department to quickly complete the testing and opposes the
Department moving this test to any other facility, as it would
be a waste of taxpayer resources. The Committee reminds the
administration that none of the funds provided may be used for
activities at the engineering development phases, phase 3 or
6.3 or beyond, in support of the Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator.
The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the warhead
dismantlement program within stockpile services. The Committee
urges the NNSA to explore alternatives to more aggressively
work off the dismantlement backlog, but acknowledges that
effectively utilizing NNSA site/plant space and throughput
capacities is challenging in order to balance the priority
commitment to support the Life Extension Programs.

CAMPAIGNS

Campaigns focus on scientific, technical and engineering
efforts to develop and maintain critical capabilities and tools
needed to support stockpile refurbishment and continued
assessment and certification of the stockpile for the long term
in the absence of underground nuclear testing. The major
elements of the campaigns are: science campaigns, engineering
campaigns, inertial confinement fusion and high yield, advanced
simulation and computing, pit manufacturing and certification,
and readiness campaigns.
Within available funds, the Department is directed to work
with the UNLV Research Foundation and a consortium of
universities to continue design, preparation and
experimentation on the Atlas Machine.
Science Campaigns.--The Committee recommendation includes
$307,925,000 for the Science campaign, an increase of
$46,000,000 above fiscal year 2005 levels. The Science Campaign
is the principal mechanism for supporting the science required
to maintain the technical viability of the national nuclear
weapons laboratories to enable them to respond to emerging
national security needs. As such the campaign maintains the
scientific infrastructure of the three weapons laboratories.
The Department is directed to renew for 5 years the
existing cooperative agreements with the University of Nevada
Las Vegas and the University of Nevada Reno. The Department is
also directed to provide funding of $3,000,000 to each
institution per year.
Primary Assessment Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$55,179,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget
request, to improve the understanding of boost physics, one of
the most complex challenges facing weapons designers. To
understand the performance of materials subjected to extreme
pressures that occur during a nuclear event, the laboratories
have developed the capabilities to replicate the extreme
physical environment in order to support the stockpile
stewardship activities. The Committee expects the laboratories
to support these activities with experiments using radiography
and hydrotests. This data will be used to reduce the
uncertainties in performance codes. Within the increased level
of funding $5,000,000 is provided to Los Alamos to initiate
preliminary design activities and demonstrate the capability of
proton radiography of the LANSCE facilities in supporting
stockpile stewardship activities.
The Committee directs NNSA to fund the Nevada Test Site at
$15,000,000, an increase of $5,000,000 to maintain NTS dynamic
experiments, diagnostics, and data analysis, including past UGT
analysis, at the level necessary to sustain the critical
personnel skills and institutional viability to meet national
program goals.
Test Readiness.--The Committee recommends $25,000,000, the
same as the budget request and a decrease of $1,784,000 below
fiscal year 2005 funding levels.
Dynamic Materials Properties.--The Committee recommends
$90,894,000, an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget
request. The Committee provides an additional $5,000,000 above
the budget request of $20,000,000 to fund the Dynamic Materials
Properties at the Nevada Test Site [NTS], and directs NNSA to
make full use of plutonium experiments at the Joint Actinide
Shock Physics Experimental Research facility [JASPER] and
experiments on dynamic materials properties at the Atlas
facility. The Committee opposes the budget request since it is
unable to adequately support necessary experiments to validate
thermodynamic properties and better understand material
properties. Without additional funding, the Atlas Machine at
the Nevada Test Site would be put on standby. The Committee
directs the Department to use the increased funds to support
experiments using the Z machine at Sandia National Lab, gas
guns at Los Alamos, dynamic materials property tests using
Atlas and plutonium experiments at the Joint Actinide Shock
Physics Experimental facility [JASPER] located at the Nevada
Test Site. The Committee directs the Department to support
additional funding to Lawrence Livermore National Lab for
experiments on equation-of-state measurements at JASPER needed
for primary certification. The Committee recommendation
includes $1,000,000 for LCS laser upgrades to the Idaho
Accelerator Center.
Advanced Radiography.--The Committee recommends
$59,520,000, an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget
request. The goal of the Advanced Radiography program is to
develop multi-axis, multi-time radiographic hydrotest
capability and to develop techniques for focused physical
studies. The top priority for NNSA has been the refurbishment
and reinstallation of the 2nd axis on DARHT. This is a joint
effort among LANL, LLNL and Lawrence Berkley National Lab. The
Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support improvements in
radiography improvements to better diagnostic support on future
subcritical experiments ad to ensure timely completion of the
DARHT 2nd axis.
Secondary Assessment Technologies.--The Committee
recommends $77,332,000, an increase of $16,000,000. This
program plays a critical role in developing the Advanced
Scientific Computing effort to validate experimental data in
modeling the yield performance of our nuclear systems and the
impact of aging of materials. This program supports
hydrodynamic and high-energy-density experiments.
As a result of NNSA's decision to focus on construction of
the National Ignition Facility [NIF] rather than focus on
stockpile research there will be an increased reliance on the Z
facility at Sandia and the Omega laser at the University of
Rochester to support critical R&D efforts. As such, the
Committee directs the NNSA to support additional experiments on
Z machine and Omega laser using the increase in funding.
Failure to provide adequate funding would prevent the labs from
meeting the necessary campaign milestones.

Engineering Campaigns

The Committee recommends $272,756,000 for the Engineering
Campaign, an increase of $14,013,000 over fiscal year 2005
levels. This campaign provides validation of engineering
science, modeling and simulation tools necessary to support
design, qualification and the certification of the stockpile.
This campaign also supports at an increased level the
development of surety technologies that are critical to
ensuring the safe storage and transportation of these weapons.
Enhanced Surety.--The Committee recommends $45,845,000, an
increase of $16,000,000 above the request, to provide
validation technology for inclusion in the stockpile
refurbishment program to assure that modern nuclear safety
standards are fully met and a new level of use-denial
performance is achieved. The Committee recommends $16,000,000
in additional funding to be provided to research, develop and
design architectures to integrate required safety, security,
reliability and use control functions. Work performed under
this campaign supports all of the current and future stockpile
activities that will utilize MESA developed micro technologies.
This funding increase will allow restoration of activities for
developing surety architectures that will provide increased
security during storage, transportation and mission-related
activities. This funding should be used to supplement the
increased investment in the RRW initiative to ensure that
enhanced safeguards are included in future modifications to the
stockpile.
Weapons Systems.--The Committee recommends $20,040,000, 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
$25,386,000, an increase of $16,000,000 above the budget
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. The Committee provides
$16,000,000 to support work at the MESA facility to design work
for the W76-1 and other reentry systems to meet the requirement
for radiation hardening. Sandia National Laboratory retains the
only expertise in the Nation to develop equipment and
electronics capable of withstanding intense radiation
environments.
Enhanced Surveillance.--The Committee recommendation
includes $111,207,000 for the Enhanced Surveillance Campaign,
$15,000,000 above the request. The increase is provided to
begin enhanced surveillance work to take advantage of the
accelerated MESA completion and newly-developed ASC simulation
codes, as well as to encourage the development and deployment
of advanced surveillance technologies and techniques into RRW
and the sustainable stockpile. Modern stockpile evaluation
based upon the enhanced surveillance program activities is
intended to provide an accurate, more timely and more cost-
effective means for assuring performance of existing stockpile
systems, upcoming LEPs, and RRW. Funding increases will enable
the development and implementation of these new techniques, and
improving their readiness for RRW and the sustainable
stockpile.
The Enhanced Surveillance program provides component and
material lifetime assessments and develops predictive
capabilities for early identification and assessment of
stockpile aging concerns. This program supports the University
Research Program in Robotics at $4,465,000.
Project 01-D-108 Microsystem and Engineering Science
Applications [MESA], SNL, Albuquerque, New Mexico.--The
Committee recommendation includes $65,564,000 to maintain the
construction schedule consistent with projected stockpile
needs. The budget also provides $4,714,000 in operating funds
to support other project costs that are related to the MESA
line item construction project but are not capitalized.

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield

The Committee recommends $314,023,000, a reduction of
$4,482,000 from the budget request for the Inertial Confinement
Fusion and High Yield Campaign. This allocation restores
$61,000,000 in funding to the Support of Stockpile and Inertial
Fusion Technology program that was cut from the budget request.
National Ignition Facility [NIF].--The Committee is
disappointed in the long-term funding outlook for Weapons
Activities contained in the fiscal year 2006 FYNSP. Compared to
the budget request in fiscal year 2005, Weapons Activities
funding is reduced by $3,000,000,000 over the next 5 years.
This decline is likely to have significant programmatic impacts
and drastically curtail NNSA's scientific capabilities. It is
difficult to conceive of a single program not being severely
impacted, including NIF, as a result of the declining budget.
The Committee is cognizant that the modest funding reduction of
$25,000,000 in fiscal year 2005 to the NIF program forced NNSA
managers to rebaseline the entire project. As a result of the
rebaselining effort, the NNSA has made the decision to support
the NIF construction effort at the expense of the Inertial
Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaigns, putting in
jeopardy critical high energy stewardship research at Los
Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.
The fiscal year 2006 budget cuts experimental programs that are
essential in obtaining scientific data for ASC codes. The
budget proposes the elimination of the Inertial Fusion
Technology program that supported research on the Z machine and
High Average Power Laser program. Currently, NIF is able to
operate four beamlines, making NIF the most powerful laser in
the world.
The NNSA has not completed the rebaselining of the NIF
program, and the Committee directs that no funds be expended on
project 96-D-111 in order to focus on supporting a
comprehensive stewardship program.
Ignition.--The Committee recommends $68,800,000 to support
experiments at Inertial Confinement facilities to demonstrate
the principles of thermonuclear fusion. Sufficient funding is
provided to support computer simulation, target fabrication,
and target design calculation.
Support for Other Stockpile Programs.--In order to avoid
drastic cuts to the ICF program, the Committee recommends
restoring funding to $41,000,000 to perform experiments on the
Z-machine to validate computer models as well as experiments on
OMEGA at the University of Rochester, NY. This is an increase
of $31,128,000 above the budget request.
NIF Diagnostics, Cryogenics and Experimental Support.--The
Committee provides $30,000,000. It is clear from recent
advances in target research that targets may hold the key to
significant increases in efficiency. Targets with cryogenic
fuel, composite ablators, foams, double shells and advanced
hohlraum designs can compensate for limitation for both
indirect and direct target concepts. The Committee directs the
Department to provide $10,000,000 from within available funds
to accelerate development of targets to support experiments on
NIF, OMEGA and Z-machine.
Pulsed Power Inertial Confinement Fusion.--The Committee's
recommendation provides $10,900,000, a $910,000 increase over
the budget request for pulsed power ICF to assess Z pinches as
drivers for ignition and high yield fusion.
University Grants/Other ICF Support.--The Committee
provides $7,700,000 for research assistance in high energy
density science, a level consistent with fiscal year 2005.
The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to Nevada
Terawatt Facility. Within the funds provided, $3,000,000 is for
research into strongly magnetized highly density energy matter
and $2,000,000 is for construction of the high energy, short-
pulse laser system.
Facility Operations and Target Production.--The Committee
provides $54,623,000 as requested to support operations on
OMEGA and Z-machine. Funds will support target production,
engineering support, and maintenance.
Inertial Fusion Technology.--The Committee is disappointed
that the budget completely eliminated funding with this
account. As such the Committee has restored the funding to
$41,000,000 and provides $6,000,000 to prepare Z-machine to
support extended operations.
NIF Demonstration.--The Committee recommends $50,000,000 to
support the NIF Demonstration program. The committee directs
the NNSA to use this funding to support Stockpile Stewardship
responsibilities necessary for closeout costs or other impacts
as a result of the halt in construction and installation.
High Energy Petawatt Laser Development.--The Committee
strongly supports the OMEGA petawatt laser and provides
$10,000,000 an increase of $7,000,000 above the request. The
funding supports the development and testing of two short
pulsed laser beams to support the existing capabilities at
OMEGA in Rochester, New York. The Committee recommendation
includes an additional $7,000,000 for university grants and
other support. Of this amount, $3,000,000 is provided for
continued development of petawatt laser at the University of
Texas at Austin; $2,000,000 is provided to the University of
Nevada, Reno to continue its collaboration with Sandia National
Laboratories on highly diagnosed studies of exploding wire
arrays and implosion dynamics. The Committee provides
$2,000,000 to Sandia National Laboratories for Z-Petawatt
Consortium experiments using the Sandia Z-Beamlet and Z-
Petawatt lasers.
Construction--Project 96-D-111.--The Committee directs that
no funds shall be expended for this project.
The Committee directs the NNSA to continue working with the
Office of Science and the NSF on interagency coordination and
support of high energy density physics and high intensity laser
science. The Committee recommends that the Department form a
High Energy Density Physics Advisory Committee, drawn from the
scientific and technical community, to assist in this effort.
The Committee further directs the Department to provide to the
Committee a plan for funding and managing non-defense high
energy density physics research and facilities development by
March 1, 2006.

Advanced Simulation and Computing

The Committee recommends $735,830,000, an increase of
$75,000,000 above the President's budget request, to support
stockpile refurbishments, annual assessment and certification.
The Committee acknowledges the important role of the ASC
Program in Stockpile Stewardship as affirmed by the JASONs'
study directed by Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003,
Public Law 108-7. The Committee shares the concerns raised by
the JASONs about ensuring both adequate capacity and capability
to meet the growing computational demands of the weapons
designers and engineers at the laboratories. The Committee
urges NNSA to further improve code confidence through more
rigorous analysis. The Committee recognizes that without the
Advanced Computing program the labs will be unable to certify
the life extension program designs in the required timeframes.
Codes based in experimental data are critical to validating the
calculated changes to a physics package that will be included
in the life extension program. As the labs enter a new phase in
the life extension program through the RRW program, improved
computer modeling will be critical to designing and deploying
more reliable and interchangeable parts.
The Committee is aware of the enormous management and
technical challenge the NNSA has faced in establishing the ASC
program over the past 10 years. The Committee is supportive of
NNSA's proposed transition to a product-focused initiative that
will integrate the experimental data and enhance the
predictability to answer challenging questions researchers have
yet to solve. In fiscal year 2006, the ASC program is expected
to deliver an advanced physics and engineering simulation
capability to support the W76 and the W80 life extension
certifications. The Committee supports the ASC challenge to
complete the modern baseline that reflects the comprehensive
physics baseline of our enduring stockpile with ASC codes by
fiscal year 2009. In order for the NNSA to meet these
milestones and complete its transition to a product based
program that serves, the Committee directs the Secretary to
withhold funding of earmarks that do not directly support the
stockpile stewardship mission within the ASC program until the
Secretary certifies in writing to Congress on an annual basis
that the ASC program remains on track to meet the annual
milestones, as well as goals laid out in the NNSA 5-year plan.
The Committee recognizes that there is a need for much
faster computer systems to perform the most complicated weapons
systems analyses. The Committee recommends an increase of
$75,000,000 to acquire a 150 teraflop computing system at Los
Alamos to decrease the time required for the large weapons
related calculations and to increase the productivity of the
scientists. Currently, Los Alamos is working on a life
extension program for the W76. The Committee has been informed
that one calculation to support the LEP has been running for 19
months on a 20 teraflop machine. This is an unacceptable
timeframe. The purchase of the new 150 TF machine will reduce
the runtime from 19 months to just 3 months for the same
calculation. In 2003 the Committee charged JASON and the
National Academies to report on the requirements drivers and
computer architectural directions chosen by the Advanced
Simulation and Computing program. The studies recognized that
Stockpile Stewardship simulation demands oversubscribe current
resources and that a diversity of supercomputer architectures
is needed to meet the demanding obligations of Stewardship.
Demands of the Life Extension Programs in particular and
Stockpile Stewardship in general do not allow the reallocation
of leading systems to single problems for any extended period
of time. The Blue Gene/L system at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, and its focus on critical nuclear weapons science,
only fulfills part of the mission needs. While this system
effectively targets weapons aging issues, by design it is not
suited to advance the complex full-weapons-systems simulation.
The Committee agrees with study recommendations and recognizes
the need to support the most demanding requirements.
From within amounts provided, the Committee recommends that
no less than $269,800,000 is provided to Los Alamos National
Laboratory; $243,700,000 for Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory; and $162,500,000 for Sandia National Laboratory to
support the Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign. In
addition, the Committee provides $55,000,000 for the capacity
computing requirements to support the W76-1 LEP.

Pit Manufacturing and Certification

The Committee recommendation includes a total of
$248,760,000 for the pit manufacturing and certification
campaign, the same as the budget request. This amount includes
$182,821,000 to support the manufacturing and certification of
a W88 pit consistent with the project baseline. The Committee
directs the NNSA to revise as appropriate the pit production
and certification plan and submit the report to the relevant
congressional committees by March 31, 2005, and annually
thereafter.
Modern Pit Facility.--The Committee recommendation includes
a total of $7,686,000, the same as the budget request.

Readiness Campaigns

Stockpile Readiness Campaign.--The Committee recommends
$218,755,000 for the stockpile readiness campaign, the amount
of the request. This program, initiated in fiscal year 2001,
enables the Y-12 National Security Complex to replace or
restore production capability and to modernize aging
facilities. At present, all of the critical manufacturing
capabilities required for weapons refurbishments at Y-12 do not
exist.
High Explosives and Weapons Operations.--The Committee
recommends $17,097,000 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
$28,630,000, 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.
Tritium Readiness.--The Committee recommendation includes
$87,588,000 for the tritium readiness campaign, the same as the
request. This includes funding for the construction of the
Tritium extraction facility at the requested level of
$24,894,000.
Advanced Design and Production Technologies.--The Committee
recommends $54,040,000.
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 remains supportive of this activity
and directs the administration to honor existing cooperative
agreements as this new office implements its responsibilities.
The Committee is aware of the successful partnerships between
the NNSA and the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and the
University of Nevada-Reno that have been fostered through a
series of cooperative agreements. The Department is encouraged
to renew these agreements.

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

The Committee recommendation includes $1,696,336,000 an
increase of $64,950,000 from the budget request.
The readiness in technical base and facilities [RTBF]
program provides the underlying physical infrastructure and
operational readiness for the directed stockpile work and
campaign programs. RTBF activities include ensuring that
facilities are operational, safe, secure, and in compliance
with regulatory requirements, and that a defined level of
readiness is sustained at facilities funded by the Office of
Defense Programs.
Operations of Facilities.--The Committee recommends
$1,200,483,000, an increase of $39,700,000, to maintain
readiness for all RTBF facilities. The Committee provides an
additional $15,000,000 above the budget request to support
operation and recapitalization of facilities at the Nevada Test
Site [NTS], specifically the Device Assembly Facility
preparations for expanded missions, the Joint Actinide Shock
Physics Experimental Research facility, Big Explosive
Experimental Facility [BEEF], U1a Complex, and other projects.
The Committee recommendation includes an additional $11,000,000
within the funds provided for modification of the Z-Beamlet
laser at the Z Pinch at Sandia National Laboratories. The
Committee provides $12,000,000 from within available funds to
support MESA Operations. The Committee provides an additional
$20,000,000 for facility upgrades at the Kansas City Plant, to
be distributed as follows: $5,000,000 is provided to replace
machinery essential to support the Life Extension Programs;
$7,000,000 to address deferred maintenance to machinery; and
$5,700,000 to support infrastructure improvement.
The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for the
UNLV Research Foundation to support the ongoing programs of the
Institute for Security Studies. The Committee provides an
additional $3,000,000 above the budget request for the Advanced
Monitoring Systems Initiative at the NTS to continue micro-
sensing technology deployment and prototype deployment of
remote monitoring systems for the underground test area.
The Committee recommendation provides an additional
$15,000,000 to improve and upgrade existing roads at the Nevada
Test Site and an additional $4,000,000 to install two new water
storage tanks in Area 6 of the NTS. The Committee provides
$1,000,000 to purchase and install a Geographic Information
Center at the NTS. Additionally, the Committee recommendation
provides $4,000,000 to install a 17-mile fiber optic link
between the Nevada Test Site and Indians Springs Air Force
Base; and $4,500,000 to upgrade the Emergency Operations Center
within the Nevada Support Facility to meet national program
goals.
The recommendation also includes, within funds provided,
$3,000,000 for the Consortium for Terrorism and Fire Science at
UNR.
Program Readiness.--The Committee recommends $105,738,000,
the same as the budget request, to enhance readiness and
maintain materials processing and component manufacturing
readiness.
Special Projects.--The Committee recommendation includes
$19,869,000 for special projects. Within the available funds,
$250,000 for the continuing operations and security at the
Atomic Testing History Institute; $2,000,000 to the UNLV
Research Foundation to continue support of the radioanalytical
services laboratory. The Committee provides $3,500,000 to the
not-for-profit Technology Ventures Corporations to continue the
successful technology transfer and commercialization efforts at
the National Laboratories and the Nevada Test Site. The
Committee provides $2,500,000 for the National Museum of
Nuclear Science and History.
The Committee recommends $1,250,000 for the Arrowhead
Center at New Mexico State University. The Committee provides
$2,000,000 for Rapid Prototyping activities at the Special
Technology Laboratory in Santa Barbara, CA to accelerate
development of sensor and live plume tracking capabilities at
the Nevada Test Site. The Committee recommendation also
includes $2,000,000 for a public-private partnership to
continue the test and evaluation of water filtration technology
to protect the public against nuclear, biological, and chemical
threats. The Committee recommends $1,000,000 to continue the
ongoing administration infrastructure support grant for the
UNLV Research Foundation.
Material Recycle and Recovery.--The Committee recommends
$72,730,000, the amount of the budget request.
Construction Projects.--The Committee recommends an
appropriation of $255,047,000, for construction projects under
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities.
The Committee continues to be concerned about the fire
station support at the Nevada Test Site and is pleased by the
decision to use a design-build acquisition strategy for the
fire stations and encourages completion at the earliest
possible time within the funding that has been provided.
$65,000,000 is provided to the 4-D-125 the CMR Replacement
facility. In 1999, NNSA approved a strategy to managing risk at
CMR that recognized the facility could not continue its mission
at acceptable level of risk to the workforce without
operational restrictions. The CMRR project will allow the NNSA
to consolidate the critical stewardship mission support
functions including analytical chemistry, materials
characterization, and actinide R&D located in the existing
facility. The Committee recognizes and fully supports the
NNSA's efforts to construct the CMR Replacement facility near
the TA-55 plutonium facility to ensure Los Alamos will be able
to fully support its ongoing plutonium mission.
Project 05-D-140, Project Engineering and Design [PED]--
RTBF, Various Locations.--The Committee recommends an
additional $2,000,000 for the Test Capabilities Revitalization
project at Sandia National Laboratory.

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM

The Committee recommendation includes $261,809,000, a
reduction of $21,700,000 below the request.
The facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program
is a multi-year but limited term effort to restore the physical
infrastructure of the weapons complex and eliminate the
maintenance backlog. The program provides funds to accomplish
deferred maintenance and utilities replacement while improving
facility management practices to preclude further
deterioration.

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

The Committee recommendation includes a total of
$212,100,000.
The secure transportation asset program provides for the
safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear
material, and weapon components between military locations and
nuclear complex facilities within the United States.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

Formerly funded in the Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities account, the program funding for emergency
management and radiological emergency response activities
ensures a central point of contact and an integrated response
to radiological emergencies. The Committee recommends
$118,796,000, the amount of the request.

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommendation includes $740,478,000, the
same as the request.
The safeguards and security line identifies the funding
necessary for all safeguard and security requirements (except
for personnel security investigations) at NNSA landlord sites,
specifically the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, the
Nevada Test Site, Kansas City Plant, Pantex Plant, Y-12 Plant,
and the Savannah River Site Tritium Facilities. The Committee
directs NNSA to fund the Nevada Site Office security budget at
the fiscal year 2006 request of $62,000,000 and provide an
additional $20,000,000 to fully staff the security force at the
Device Assembly Facility, including the full implementation of
the protective force Special Response Team program. The
Committee provides $20,000,000 to complete the expansion of the
red network at Los Alamos in order to reduce the necessity for
CREM. The Committee provides within available funds $12,000,000
to reinvigorate security research development, test and
evaluation. Without the assistance of innovative technological
solutions, most sites are forced to rely on protective forces.
Technology can be a force multiplier, but without investment in
advanced security technology research and development new
technologies will not be realized. The Committee provides
$1,900,000 to deploy and demonstrate an enterprise PKI for
secure authentication and communication at Sandia National
Laboratory.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $1,409,033,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 1,637,239,000
House allowance......................................... 1,500,959,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,729,066,000

The Committee recommendation includes $1,729,066,000 for
defense nuclear nonproliferation, an increase of $91,827,000.
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account funds programs
and activities to (1) prevent the spread of materials,
technology, and expertise relating to weapons of mass
destruction; (2) detect the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction worldwide; (3) provide for international nuclear
safety, and (4) eliminate inventories of surplus fissile
materials usable for nuclear weapons. These highly important
initiatives address the danger that hostile nations or
terrorist groups may acquire weapons of mass destruction or
weapons-usable material, dual-use production technology or
weapons of mass destruction expertise. The major elements of
the program include the following: nonproliferation and
verification research and development, nonproliferation and
international security, and nonproliferation programs with
Russia.
The Committee recognizes the importance of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT] in preventing states of concern
and terrorists from acquiring or developing nuclear weapons.
Developments with North Korea and Iran as well as the A.Q. Khan
nuclear black market underscore the need to strengthen the NPT.
The Committee is concerned that efforts to strengthen the NPT
have been weakened by the allegation that U.S. nuclear weapons
policy is not consistent with its commitment under Article VI
of the NPT to work toward general and complete disarmament. The
nuclear posture and nonproliferation policies of the United
States are consistent with its obligations under Article VI.
The United States nuclear stockpile is the smallest in many
decades, and it is not developing new generations of nuclear
weapons. The Committee urges the Department of Energy to focus
on the primary challenge of strengthening the NPT by closing
the loopholes that enable countries to develop weapons programs
under the guise of peaceful nuclear energy programs. The
Committee also urges the Department to use any and all
incentives available to accelerate conversion of research
reactors fueled with highly-enriched uranium [HEU] to low
enriched uranium to eliminate the use of HEU in the civilian
sector.

NONPROLIFERATION VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommendation includes $297,218,000, an
increase of $30,000,000.
The nonproliferation and verification research and
development program conducts applied research, development,
testing, and evaluation leading to prototype demonstrations and
detection systems that are critical to the United States
response to current and projected threats posed by the
proliferation of nuclear weapons, and diversion of special
nuclear material. The program works directly with agencies
responsible for monitoring proliferation and combating
terrorism.
The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for the
UNLV Research Foundation support of nonproliferation activities
at Institute for Security Studies.
The Committee supports the nuclear and radiological
national security program. The NNSA is directed to provide for
the sustained development of advanced technologies needed to
counter nuclear terrorism threats and should focus on improving
capabilities through research and development in threat
assessment and prediction, basic nuclear understanding, sensors
and detection systems, consequence mitigation, forensics and
attribution and render-safe technologies.
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support a research
and development program in the NNSA, through the national
laboratories and drawing on the expertise of the Science
programs, to provide a foundation and long term R&D capability
in chemical and biological detection.
Project 06-D-180, National Nuclear Security Administration
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program, Project Engineering
and Design [PED], National Security Laboratory, PPNL,
Washington.--The Committee recommendation includes $13,000,000.
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 to begin the conceptual
design effort to design a facility to accommodate the security
category of III/IV radiological mission, materials and
activities currently housed at TA-18.

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Committee recommendation includes $90,173,000, an
increase of $9,827,000 from the request to adequately fund
Global Threat Reduction Initiative. The Committee supports the
administration's efforts to remove and secure high-risk nuclear
and radiological materials and equipment around the world that
pose a threat to the United States and its allies by:
consolidating, accelerating, and expanding the Department's
nuclear materials removal efforts; enhancing the security of
vulnerable radiological materials worldwide; and identifying
nuclear and radiological materials and equipment not being
addressed by current nonproliferation activities.
The nonproliferation and international security program
supports activities to: control the export of items and
technology useful for weapons of mass destruction [WMD];
implement international safeguards in conjunction with the
International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]; monitor and
implement treaties and agreements; develop and implement policy
in support of international security efforts aimed at securing
high-risk nuclear material; develop and implement transparency
measures to assure international nonproliferation and arms
control commitments; and explore and implement innovative
approaches to improve regional security. The Committee directs
the Department to provide $5,000,000 in grants to institutions
of higher learning and non-profit entities for research related
to nuclear nonproliferation and chemical and biological weapons
detection. Each individual grant provided shall not exceed
$500,000.
The recommendation includes $10,000,000 to reinvigorate
initiatives focused on removing nuclear materials from
vulnerable sites around the world. These activities are
essential to prevent terrorist groups or states hostile to the
United States from acquiring destructive nuclear capabilities.

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The Committee recommendation includes $343,435,000, the
same as the request. This program will continue to improve the
security for nuclear material and weapons in Russia by
installing basic rapid upgrades and through comprehensive
security improvements.
The Committee continues to believe that these activities
are critical elements of the United States nonproliferation
efforts.
Regarding the second line of defense activities, the
Committee urges the NNSA to continue its efforts in the use of
integrated monitoring methodology for special nuclear
monitoring detection at airports, ports, and border crossing in
the former Soviet Union and newly independent States. The
Committee provides $97,929,000 for Second Line of Defense
Activities, including $73,929,000 for the Megaports program.

GLOBAL INITIATIVE FOR PROLIFERATION PREVENTION

The Committee recommendation includes $50,890,000 to
support the Global Initiative for Proliferation Prevention
[GIPP]. In fiscal year 2005, this account was formerly named
the Russian Transition Initiatives [RTI] and supported the
funding for the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention and
the Nuclear Cities Initiative [NCI]. Although the names have
changed the purpose remains the same. The Department recognizes
that scientists in other countries are seeking to, or are
already working on developing the capability for nuclear,
biological, or chemical weapons. Consistent with the successful
mission of the former RTI programs, the Department should look
to engage scientists outside the former Soviet Union in useful
scientific discovery and cooperation. The Department should
continue to support the original activities within Russia, but
seek to expand its cooperation with other countries that pose
the highest risk of developing weapons of mass destruction.
HEU Transparency Implementation.--The Committee
recommendation includes $20,483,000 to support continued work
with Russia to provide confidence to the United States that the
Russian highly enriched uranium [HEU] being converted is from
its military stockpile, consistent with the 1993 United States-
Russia HEU Purchase Agreement.
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production
Program.--The Committee recommendation includes $152,000,000
for this program to assist the Russian Federation in ceasing
its production of weapons-grade plutonium production by
providing replacement power production capacity.
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 to support conversion
of the Zheleznogorsk plutonium reactor.
In 2004, Congress authorized the Department to use
international funds for the EWGPP program without further
appropriation and without fiscal year limitation. Additionally,
the Department is authorized and encouraged to develop and
implement cost-sharing options with the Russian Federation,
when practicable.
Fissile Materials Disposition.--The Committee
recommendation includes $653,065,000. This program conducts
activities in both the United States and Russia to dispose of
fissile materials that would pose a threat to the United States
if acquired by hostile nations or terrorist groups.
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 understands the important role the U.S.
plutonium disposition program plays in the Department's
domestic efforts to consolidate and dispose of inventories of
surplus weapons-grade plutonium. The consolidation and the safe
disposals of this material from across the complex will
significantly lower safety and security costs, and facilitate
the closure of former nuclear weapons sites across the NNSA
complex. Any effort to eliminate funding for this project will
likely foreclose a disposal pathway for plutonium stored at
Savannah River causing the Department to pay the State of South
Carolina up to $100,000,000 per year in fines starting in 2011.
Without a viable disposal solution, the cleanup of the Hanford
Site and arrangements for decreasing inventories of plutonium
at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Pantex Plant
will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually
for storage and related Design Basis Threat activities.

CONSTRUCTION

Project 99-D-141 Pit Disassembly & Conversion Facility.--
The Committee recommends $24,000,000, the same as the budget
request.
Project 99-D-143 Mixed Oxide [MOX] Fuel Fabrication
Facility.--The Committee recommends $338,565,000, the same as
the request.

GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

The Global Threat Reduction Initiative mission is to
identify, secure, remove high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and
radiological materials and equipment around the world that pose
a potential threat to the United States and the International
community. The Committee encourages the Department to increase
its efforts to accelerate the return of highly enriched uranium
[HEU] from research and test reactors worldwide. The Committee
provides $108,975,000, an increase of $11,000,000 above the
budget request. The Committee has provided this funding
increase to the Radiological Threat Reduction program to
establish a pilot program that would utilize commercial or non-
governmental resources for recovery, storage and monitoring of
greater than class C domestic radiological sealed sources.
The Committee provides an addition $7,000,000 to support
the conversion of highly enriched uranium core to a low
enriched uranium core for as many as four university research
reactors located in the United States. The reactors targeted
for conversion are Purdue University, Oregon State, University
of Wisconsin and Washington State.

Naval Reactors

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $801,437,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 786,000,000
House allowance......................................... 799,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 799,500,000

The Committee recommendation includes $799,500,000, an
increase of $13,500,000 above the budget request. The increase
is to be transferred to the office of Nuclear Energy to support
the Idaho National Laboratory's Advanced Test Reactor.
The Naval Reactors account funds the design, development,
and testing necessary to provide the Navy with safe, militarily
effective nuclear propulsion plants in keeping with the
Nation's nuclear-powered fleet defense requirements. Naval
Reactors will continue to develop nuclear reactor plant
components and systems for the Navy's new attack submarine and
next-generation aircraft carriers, and continue to maintain the
highest standards of environmental stewardship by responsibly
inactivating shut down prototype reactor plants.

Office of the Administrator

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $353,350,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 343,869,000
House allowance......................................... 366,869,000
Committee recommendation................................ 343,869,000

The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of
$343,869,000.
The Office of the Administrator account provides corporate
planning and oversight for programs funded by the Weapons
Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval
Reactors appropriations including the National Nuclear Security
Administration field offices. This account provides the Federal
salaries and other expenses of the Administrator's direct
staff, headquarters employees, and employees at the field
service center and site offices. Program Direction for Naval
Reactors remains within that program's account, and program
direction for the Secure Transportation Asset remains in
Weapons Activities.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.--The Committee provides
$70,000,000 for the Federal Employees in Office of Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation to allow for greater flexibility for
that office for hiring and supporting the Federal staff. Both
the budget request and the Committee recognize the increasing
role this office and staff play in global nonproliferation
efforts. As such it is critical that this office is provided
sufficient funding and support to fulfill it national security
mission.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Environmental Management Transition to NNSA

On March 24, 2004, the Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA] announced that NNSA
would assume responsibilities for both newly generated and
legacy wastes, and environmental remediation at NNSA sites
beginning in fiscal year 2006. In his announcement, the
Administrator stated that NNSA management of newly generated
waste would reside with the generator, in this case principally
the Office of Defense Programs [NA-10]. Having been assigned
authority for the long-term stewardship of the Nation's nuclear
weapons program by the NNSA Act, the Committee was concerned
that in accepting responsibility for managing legacy waste and
environmental remediation, the NNSA may be forced to divert
funds from or dilute its focus on weapons activities. As such,
the Committee does not support the transfer of cleanup
responsibility to the NNSA and expects the Office of
Environmental Management make environmental remediation its
sole responsibility. The Committee has adopted a new budget
structure that more accurately tracks environmental cleanup
expenditures by site and project.
The mission of the Office of Environmental Management is
the cleanup and risk reduction of the environmental impact as a
result of the nuclear weapons program. For over 50 years, the
Department and its predecessor agencies supported nuclear
weapons production and energy research that has created million
of gallons of waste and thousands of tons of contaminated soil,
material and nuclear fuel. All of this legacy material must be
addressed in an effective way.
Since 2001 the program has succeeded in making significant
progress by reducing the life-cycle cost on a comparable scope
basis by $50,000,000,000 and reducing the time frame by 35
years. The Committee is supportive of these efforts and
encourages the Department to continue keep the remaining sites
on track.
Reprogramming.--The Committee continues to support the need
for flexibility to meet the changing funding requirements at
the sites. In fiscal year 2006, the Department may transfer up
to $5,000,000 between control points, as noted in the table
below, to reduce health or safety risks or to gain cost savings
as long as no program or project is increase or decreased by
more than $5,000,000 once during the fiscal year. This
reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new program
or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by
Congress in the Act or report. The Committees on Appropriations
of the House and the Senate must be notified within 30 days of
the use of this reprogramming authority.

CONTROL LEVELS FOR REPROGRAMMING

Savannah River site, 2012 accelerations
Savannah River site, 2035 accelerations
Savannah River Tank Farm
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Idaho National Laboratory
Oak Ridge Reservation
Hanford site, 2012 accelerated completions
Hanford site, 2035 accelerated completions
Office of River Protection, waste treatment & immobilization
Office of River Protection, tank farm activities
Closure sites
Program direction
Program support
UE D&D fund contribution
Technology development
All construction line items
NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites
Safeguards and Security.

Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $6,808,319,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 6,015,044,000
House allowance......................................... 6,468,366,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,366,441,000

The Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental
Cleanup totals $6,366,441,000, an increase of $351,397,000
above budget request of $6,015,044,000. The Committee does not
support the proposed transfer of environmental cleanup
responsibilities from the Office of Environmental Management to
the National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA]. By
restoring these core cleanup responsibilities to the Office of
Environmental Management the Defense Environmental Cleanup
budget is increased by $222,887,000. The Committee recommends
that the Department provide any carry over balances for WERC a
consortium for environmental education and technology
development, be provided to support an educational foundation
with that organization. Within the amounts provided, the
Department is directed to fund hazardous waste worker training
at $10,000,000.
Closure Sites.--The Committee recommendation provides
$1,008,589,000, the same as the budget request. Cleanup of this
category of sites is expected to be complete in fiscal year
2006. The recommendation provides $579,950,000 for Rocky Flats,
Colorado; $327,609,000 for Fernald, Ohio; $16,000,000 for
Ashtabula, Ohio; $75,530,000 for Miamisburg, Ohio; and
$9,500,000 for West Jefferson site, Columbus, Ohio.
Savannah River Site.--The Committee recommendation provides
$1,247,082,000, an increase of $18,000,000 to address solid
waste stabilization and soil and water remediation for cleanup
at the Savannah River Site. The Committee supports the request
of $10,000,000 for the melt and dilute technology for excess
weapons-grade plutonium. The Committee believes this project is
appropriately managed by the Office of Environmental
Management.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [WIPP].--The Committee
recommendation provides $230,629,000 for the Waste Isolation
Pilot Project. The Committee recommends $6,000,000 to purchase
TRUPACT-III shipping containers which will allow the Department
to accommodate large shipments to WIPP and reduce worker
exposure by not requiring materials to be repackaged. The
recommendation includes an additional $3,500,000 which shall be
made available to the Carlsbad community for educational
support, infrastructure improvements, and related initiatives
to address the impacts of accelerated operations.
The Committee understands that the Carlsbad Field Office
has established a joint task force with the City of Carlsbad to
evaluate the needs, functions, and requirements of a record
center in Carlsbad. In order to provide more timely information
in a useable format to citizens, researchers, stakeholders, and
regulators, the Committee provides an additional $5,000,000 and
directs the Department to consolidate at Carlsbad all record
archives relevant to the operations of WIPP and the TRU waste
in the repository under a new contract.
The Committee directs the Department to utilize up to
$2,000,000 from within funds available to the Office of
Environmental Management to support the important work of the
Center for Excellence in Hazardous Materials.
The Committee provides $1,500,000 from within available
funds for Neutrino research.
Waste Analysis Requirements for the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant [WIPP].--The Committee recognizes that the WIPP facility
is central to the cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex and
that waste should be emplaced as quickly and safely as
possible--for reasons of reducing clean-up costs, public
safety, and with the growing threat of radiological terrorism
and for national security. Current law and regulation regarding
the sampling and analysis of waste destined for WIPP produces
substantial health and safety risks to workers with little if
any corresponding public benefit.
Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee recommendation
provides $544,725,000, an increase of $13,000,000 above the
request. The Committee has modified the request to accelerate
the construction of the Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Project
at Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee recommends an
additional $39,270,000 to begin construction of Project 06-D-
401, Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Project. The Committee has
offset this increase by reducing PBS ID-0014B, operating
expenses by $26,700,000 and $13,000,000 in additional budget
authority.
Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommendation
provides $221,854,000, an increase of $25,302,000 above the
budget request. The Committee recommends reallocating funds to
restore funding to the original closure contract baseline for
the Melton Valley. The Department has recommended offsets be
taken from Safeguards and Security PBS OR-0040 without any
impact to the program.
Hanford Site.--The Committee recommendation provides
$749,717,000, the same as the budget request for the Hanford
Site.
The Committee recommendation provides $5,861,000 to operate
the waste disposal facility, $1,813,000 for spent fuel
stabilization and storage, and $15,411,000 for Richland
community and regulatory support, the same as the budget
request. Within available funds, the Committee recommendation
includes $6,500,000 for the Volpentest Hazardous Materials
Management and Emergency Response [HAMMER] training and
education center. The Department is expected to continue making
PILT payments at last year's level to counties that have the
Hanford reservation within their boundaries. The Committee
recognizes that the Department has been taking steps to
increase the involvement of, and cooperation with, its co-
trustees on natural resource damages issues. The Committee
encourages the Department to continue those efforts, including
funding for the other natural resource trustees to provide
technical assistance in cleanup matters.
Office of River Protection.--The Committee recommendation
provides $962,699,000, an increase of $34,393,000 above the
budget request. Within the available funds, the Committee
recommends $328,840,000 an increase of $34,393,000 to address
tank waste stabilization and disposition.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation provides
$230,931,000.
Program Support.--The Committee recommendation provides
$32,846,000 for program support, the same as the budget
request.
Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination
and Decommissioning Fund.--The Energy Policy Act of 1992
(Public Law 102-486) created the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund to pay for the cost of
cleanup of the gaseous diffusion facilities located in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. The
Committee recommendation includes the budget request of
$451,000,000 for the Federal contribution to the Uranium
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund as
authorized in Public Law 102-486.
Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee
recommendation provides $56,389,000, an increase of $35,000,000
over the budget request. This program focuses on high priority
technical needs at near-term closure sites and projects. In
addition, the technology program will focus on identifying
technical vulnerabilities and alternative solutions in support
of the Department's accelerated cleanup strategies.
Within available funds, the Committee provides $6,000,000
for the Western Environmental Technology Office; $5,000,000 for
the UNR School of Medicine Core Facilities equipment;
$4,500,000 for the Great Basin Science Sample and Records
Library; $2,000,000 for the Desert Research Institute's CAVE
project; $1,000,000 to the UNLV Research Foundation to continue
earthquake hazard and seismic risk research; and $1,500,000 is
provided for work on the subsurface science research institute
by Idaho National Laboratory and the Inland Northwest Research
Alliance institutions; $5,000,000 is provided for the
Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory.
The Department is directed to renew its cooperative
agreements with the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and the
University of Nevada-Reno. The Committee is concerned that the
Department has ignored direction in prior Conference Reports
regarding these cooperative agreements. The Department is
specifically directed to reinstitute the NRAMP cooperative
agreement at a level consistent with the original agreement.
Within available funds, $3,000,000 is provided to continue
the development of an electrochemical system utilizing ceramic
ionic transport membranes for the recycle and disposal of
radioactive sodium ion waste.
The Department shall continue its support of the Tribal
Colleges Initiative grant, involving Crownpoint Institute of
Technology, Dine College, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
Institute, to develop high-quality environmental programs at
tribal colleges. The Committee recommendation includes
$5,000,000 for the continued support of the international
agreement and collaboration with AEA Technology to address
alternative cost effective technologies for cleaning up legacy
waste.
Within available funds, $3,000,000 is provided for the
Desert Research Institute's Environmental Monitoring Program;
$2,000,000 for the Nye County Groundwater Evaluation Program;
$2,000,000 for emergency and non-emergency communications
systems upgrades in Nye County, Nevada, for areas closest to
the Nevada Test Site and Yucca Mountain; and $1,500,000 for the
City of Caliente, Nevada.
NNSA Sites and Nevada Off-sites.--The Committee
recommendation provides $352,757,000, an increase of
$207,702,000 over the budget request. The increase reflects the
return of cleanup activities to the Environmental Management
program that otherwise would have transferred to the NNSA. The
Committee recommends $5,300,000 for Stabilization of Los Alamos
Airport Landfill.
Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommendation
provides $287,223,000, the same as the budget request.

Other Defense Activities

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $687,149,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 635,998,000
House allowance......................................... 702,498,000
Committee recommendation................................ 661,998,000

The Other Defense Activities account provides funding for
the following Departmental offices and functions: security;
intelligence; counterintelligence; independent oversight and
performance assurance; defense-related environment, safety and
health support; worker and community transition, legacy
management; and hearings and appeals.

OFFICE OF SECURITY AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

The Committee recommendation includes $321,095,000,
$20,000,000 above the budget request.
The security program consists of the following elements:
nuclear safeguards and security, security investigations, and
program direction. These programs provide policy for the
protection of the Department's nuclear weapons, nuclear
materials, classified information, and facilities. They ensure
a Department-wide capability to continue essential functions
across a wide range of potential emergencies, allowing DOE to
uphold its national security responsibilities and provide
security clearances for Federal and contractor personnel.

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

The Committee recommendation includes a total of
$83,029,000 in the budget request. The Committee provides
$7,000,000 to undertake the Chernobyl Research and Service
Project.
The defense-related environment, safety and health program
is a corporate resource that provides Departmental leadership
and management to protect the workers, public, and environment
in the areas of oversight, health studies, radiation effects
research, employee compensation support, and program direction.
The Committee supports the Radiation Effects Research
Foundation at the requested level to carry out the scientific
work, which the United States has funded since 1947, to study
the health effects associated with the atomic blast over
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the
DOE Worker Records Digitization project in Nevada.
Former Worker Medical Screening.--The Committee directs the
Secretary to allocate $16,500,000 for the former worker medical
screening programs, $4,000,000 above the budget request. From
within available funds the Committee directs $465,000 to extend
medical screening and outreach to current and former workers at
the three gaseous diffusion plants [GDP] in Portsmouth, Ohio,
Paducah, Kentucky and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Committee
directs the Secretary to allocate $1,000,000 to carry out
medical screening and outreach to former workers at the Mound
facility in Miamisburg, Ohio; and $1,000,000 for medical
screening and outreach for former workers at the Fernald
facility in Harrison, Ohio, who were employed after 1985. The
Committee directs the Secretary to commence a program of early
lung cancer detection using helical low dose CT technology for
all workers who are at elevated risk of lung cancer at the Y-12
and X-10 facilities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, consistent with
the eligibility protocols established for the three GDPs. Given
that the cancer screening program carried out at the three GDPs
since 2000 has identified the majority of lung cancers at early
stages where surgical intervention is likely to be successful,
and which has led to an increase in survival rates; and given
the increased rates of lung cancer identified in health studies
at Y-12, it is appropriate to extend lung screening to at-risk
workers at the Oak Ridge Y-12 and X-10 facilities. The
Committee supports DOE's plan to continue and extend its
regional medical screening projects in fiscal year 2006. To
offset the increases, the Committee allocates $2,700,000 in
fiscal year 2006, for activities under the DOE-HHS Memorandum
of Agreement, and directs the Department to prioritize funds
for the work of the National Center for Environmental Health at
Los Alamos National Labs, and to fully support the research
work of the Health Energy Related Branch of the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommendation includes $45,076,000, the same
as the budget request.

DEFENSE-RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $87,575,000 for
National Security Programs Administrative support. This fund
pays for departmental services that are provided in support of
the National Nuclear Security Administration.

FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES IN IDAHO

The Committee recommendation includes $123,873,000 to fund
the defense-related activities at the Idaho National Laboratory
[INL] and associated Idaho cleanup sites. This amount includes
$17,762,000 for INL infrastructure, the same as the budget
request, $75,008,000 for Idaho site-wide safeguards and
security, the same as the budget request; and $31,103,000 for
program direction to support headquarters and Idaho Field
Office personnel.

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

The Committee recommendation includes $4,353,000 for the
Office of Hearings and Appeals, the same as the budget request.
The Office of Hearings and Appeals conducts all of the
Department's adjudicative processes and provides various
administrative remedies as may be required.

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $229,152,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 351,447,000
House allowance......................................... 351,447,000
Committee recommendation................................ 277,000,000

The Committee recommends $277,000,000 for defense nuclear
waste disposal.
This account provides the Federal Government's fiscal year
2006 contribution to the nuclear waste repository program to
support nuclear waste repository activities attributed to
atomic energy defense activities.
The Committee understands that the Department formally
approved in 1995 the right of the Affected Units of Local
Government to retain interest earned on unexpended balances in
their oversight accounts. The Committee affirms that this
policy reflects the intent of Congress and should be maintained
by the Department.

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.

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 States in the Columbia River basin. BPA markets
hydroelectric power from 21 multipurpose water resource
projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 10 projects of
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, plus some energy from non-
Federal generating projects in the region. These generating
resources and BPA's transmission system are operated as an
integrated power system with operating and financial results
combined and reported as the Federal Columbia River Power
System [FCRPS]. BPA is the largest power wholesaler in the
Northwest and provides about 45 percent of the region's
electric energy supply and about three-fourths of the region's
electric power transmission capacity.
BPA finances its operations on the basis of the self-
financing authority provided by Federal Columbia River
Transmission System Act of 1974 (Transmission Act) (Public Law
93-454) and the borrowing authority provided by the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Pacific
Northwest Power Act) (Public Law 96-501) for energy
conservation, renewable energy resources and capital fish
facilities. Authority to borrow is available to the BPA on a
permanent, indefinite basis.
The Committee is concerned about the increasing cost of
salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia River Basin, and about
the potential adverse impact of those increased costs on
customers of the Bonneville Power Administration. The Committee
also is concerned about the quality and efficiency of some of
the fish data collection efforts and analyses being performed.
As a result, during fiscal year 2006, the Bonneville Power
Administration may make no new obligations from the Bonneville
Power Administration Fund in support of the Fish Passage
Center. The Committee understands that there are universities
in the Pacific Northwest that already collect fish data for the
region and are well-positioned to take on the responsibilities
now being performed by the Fish Passage Center, and that the
universities can carry out those responsibilities at a savings
to the region's ratepayers that fund these programs.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $5,158,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance......................................... 5,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,600,000

The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric
power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11
Southeastern States. 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 recommendation includes $32,713,000 for
purchase power and wheeling activities.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $29,117,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 3,166,000
House allowance......................................... 30,166,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,166,000

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 recommendation includes $3,000,000 for
purchase power and wheeling activities.

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE WESTERN AREA
POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $171,715,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 53,957,000
House allowance......................................... 226,992,000
Committee recommendation................................ 240,757,000

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 more than 260
substations.
Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund.--This fund is
dedicated primarily for environmental mitigation expenditures
covering fish and wildlife, and recreation resources impacted
by the Central Utah Project and the Colorado River Storage
Project in the State of Utah. For fiscal year 2004, the
President's Budget proposes to transfer the authorities and
future contributions for the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Account from the Secretary of Energy, Western Area
Power Administration, to the Secretary of the Interior, Bureau
of Reclamation.
The Committee recommendation includes $279,500,000 for
purchase power and wheeling activities, and provides
$53,957,000 for construction and rehabilitation as requested.

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

The Committee recommendation is $2,692,000, the same as the
budget request.
Creation of the Falcon and Amistad Operating and
Maintenance Fund was directed by the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, fiscal years 1994-95 (Public Law 103-236).
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 understands that WAPA has included $6,700,000
in its request to be transferred to the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Fund. The Committee expects WAPA to
continue budgeting for and transferring these funds to the fund
as required by section 214 of Public Law 108-137.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $210,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 220,400,000
House allowance......................................... 220,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 220,400,000

SALARIES AND EXPENSES--REVENUES APPLIED

The Committee recommendation includes $220,400,000, 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.

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 Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee --------------------------------------------------
recommendation Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION

ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE
ENERGY

Hydrogen Technology:
Hydrogen technology.......... 94,562 99,094 99,094 99,094 +4,532 ............... ...............
Fuel cell technologies....... 74,944 83,600 83,600 83,600 +8,656 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, hydrogen 169,506 182,694 182,694 182,694 +13,188 ............... ...............
technology................

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems 89,063 72,164 86,164 92,164 +3,101 +20,000 +6,000
R&D.............................
Solar energy..................... 85,841 83,953 83,953 83,953 -1,888 ............... ...............
Wind energy systems.............. 41,267 44,249 44,249 34,249 -7,018 -10,000 -10,000
Geothermal technology............ 25,594 23,299 23,299 23,299 -2,295 ............... ...............
Hydropower....................... 4,960 500 500 500 -4,460 ............... ...............
Vehicle technologies............. 166,905 165,943 167,943 199,943 +33,038 +34,000 +32,000
Building technologies............ 67,138 57,966 64,966 67,000 -138 +9,034 +2,034
Industrial technologies.......... 75,349 56,489 58,891 56,489 -18,860 ............... -2,402
Distributed energy and 60,626 56,629 56,629 ............... -60,626 -56,629 -56,629
electricity reliability.........

Federal Energy Management
Program:
Departmental energy 1,951 2,019 2,019 2,019 +68 ............... ...............
management program..........
Federal energy management 18,144 17,147 17,147 17,147 -997 ............... ...............
program.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Federal Energy 20,095 19,166 19,166 19,166 -929 ............... ...............
Management Program........

Facilities and infrastructure:
National Renewable Energy 4,762 5,800 5,800 5,800 +1,038 ............... ...............
Laboratory..................
Construction: 02-E-001 6,627 10,515 10,515 10,515 +3,888 ............... ...............
Science and technology
facility, NREL..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Facilities and 11,389 16,315 16,315 16,315 +4,926 ............... ...............
infrastructure............

Weatherization and
Intergovernmental program:
Weatherization assistance.... 224,738 225,400 235,400 240,400 +15,662 +15,000 +5,000
Training and technical 3,422 4,600 4,600 4,600 +1,178 ............... ...............
assistance..................
State energy program grants.. 44,176 41,000 41,000 41,000 -3,176 ............... ...............
State energy activities...... 2,320 500 500 500 -1,820 ............... ...............
Gateway deployment........... 34,973 26,657 26,657 26,657 -8,316 ............... ...............
International renewable 6,449 2,910 3,910 2,910 -3,539 ............... -1,000
energy program..............
Tribal energy activities..... 5,457 4,000 4,000 4,000 -1,457 ............... ...............
Renewable energy production 4,960 5,000 5,000 5,000 +40 ............... ...............
incentive...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weatherization 326,495 310,067 321,067 325,067 -1,428 +15,000 +4,000
and Intergovernmental
program...................

Congressionally directed ............... ............... ............... 57,000 +57,000 +57,000 +57,000
priorities......................
Program Direction................ 93,129 101,524 101,524 86,524 -6,605 -15,000 -15,000
Program Support.................. 16,837 9,456 9,456 9,456 -7,381 ............... ...............

Use of prior year balances....... -5,318 ............... ............... ............... +5,318 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND 1,248,876 1,200,414 1,236,816 1,253,819 +4,943 +53,405 +17,003
RENEWABLE ENERGY..........
======================================================================================================================
ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND
DISTRIBUTION

Research and development......... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
High temperature 54,560 45,000 45,000 50,500 -4,060 +5,500 +5,500
superconductivity R&D...........
Transmission reliability R&D..... 15,594 9,220 13,220 14,220 -1,374 +5,000 +1,000
Electricity distribution 5,415 4,037 4,037 60,666 +55,251 +56,629 +56,629
transformation R&D..............
Energy storage R&D............... 3,968 3,000 3,000 3,000 -968 ............... ...............
Gridwise......................... 6,448 5,500 6,745 ............... -6,448 -5,500 -6,745
Gridworks........................ 5,456 5,000 5,000 ............... -5,456 -5,000 -5,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Research and 91,441 71,757 77,002 128,386 +36,945 +56,629 +51,384
development...............

Electricity restructuring........ 19,840 12,400 12,400 12,400 -7,440 ............... ...............
Congressionally directed ............... ............... ............... 21,850 +21,850 +21,850 +21,850
priorities......................
Program direction................ 8,135 11,447 10,447 15,447 +7,312 +4,000 +5,000
Construction: 04-E-001 Project 769 ............... ............... ............... -769 ............... ...............
engineering and design (PED),
Energy Reliability and
Efficiency Laboratory...........
Use of prior year balances....... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ELECTRICITY 120,185 95,604 99,849 178,083 +57,898 +82,479 +78,234
TRANSMISSION AND
DISTRIBUTION..............

NUCLEAR ENERGY

University reactor infrastructure 23,808 24,000 24,000 24,000 +192 ............... ...............
and education assist............

Research and development:
Nuclear energy plant 2,480 ............... ............... ............... -2,480 ............... ...............
optimization................
Nuclear energy research 2,480 ............... ............... ............... -2,480 ............... ...............
initiative..................
Nuclear power 2010........... 49,600 56,000 46,000 76,000 +26,400 +20,000 +30,000
Generation IV nuclear energy 39,680 45,000 45,000 60,000 +20,320 +15,000 +15,000
systems initiative..........
Nuclear hydrogen initiative.. 8,928 20,000 20,000 30,000 +21,072 +10,000 +10,000
Advanced fuel cycle 67,456 70,000 75,500 85,000 +17,544 +15,000 +9,500
initiative..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Research and 170,624 191,000 186,500 251,000 +80,376 +60,000 +64,500
development...............

Infrastructure:
Radiological facilities
management:
Space and defense 33,530 31,200 39,700 31,200 -2,330 ............... -8,500
infrastructure..........
Medical isotopes 21,024 14,395 14,395 14,395 -6,629 ............... ...............
infrastructure..........
Construction: 05-E-203 13,507 18,705 ............... 18,705 +5,198 ............... +18,705
Facility modifications for U-
233 di disposition, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, TN...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Medical 34,531 33,100 14,395 33,100 -1,431 ............... +18,705
isotopes infrastructure.

Enrichment facility and uranium 496 500 500 500 +4 ............... ...............
management......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Radiological 68,557 64,800 54,595 64,800 -3,757 ............... +10,205
facilities management.....

Idaho facilities management:
INL Operations and 120,555 86,907 102,907 86,907 -33,648 ............... -16,000
infrastructure..............
ANL--West operations......... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............

INL infrastructure........... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Construction:
06-E-200 Project ............... 7,870 7,870 7,870 +7,870 ............... ...............
engineering and
design (PED), INL,
ID..................
06-E-201 Gas test ............... 3,085 3,085 3,085 +3,085 ............... ...............
loop in the ATR,
INL, ID.............
99-E-200 Test reactor 1,511 ............... ............... ............... -1,511 ............... ...............
area electrical
utility upgrade,
Idaho National
Engineering Lab, ID.
95-E-201 Test reactor ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
area fire and life
safety improvements
(INEL)..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 1,511 10,955 10,955 10,955 +9,444 ............... ...............
Construction....
======================================================================================================================
Subtotal, Idaho 122,066 97,862 113,862 97,862 -24,204 ............... -16,000
facilities
management........

Idaho sitewide safeguards and 58,103 75,008 75,008 75,008 +16,905 ............... ...............
security........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Infrastructure...... 248,726 237,670 243,465 237,670 -11,056 ............... -5,795

Spent nuclear fuel management.... 6,681 ............... ............... ............... -6,681 ............... ...............
Program direction................ 60,076 61,109 61,109 61,109 +1,033 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear Energy... 509,915 513,779 515,074 573,779 +63,864 +60,000 +58,705
======================================================================================================================
Funding from other defense -114,347 -123,873 -123,873 -123,873 -9,526 ............... ...............
activities......................
Funding from Naval Reactors...... -10,000 ............... -13,500 ............... +10,000 ............... +13,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY...... 385,568 389,906 377,701 449,906 +64,338 +60,000 +72,205
======================================================================================================================
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

Office of Environment, Safety and 7,936 9,100 5,100 9,100 +1,164 ............... +4,000
Health (non-defense)............
Program direction................ 19,842 20,900 20,900 20,900 +1,058 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY 27,778 30,000 26,000 30,000 +2,222 ............... +4,000
AND HEALTH................

OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT

Legacy management................ 30,881 33,522 23,522 33,522 +2,641 ............... +10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Energy supply and 1,813,288 1,749,446 1,763,888 1,945,330 +132,042 +195,884 +181,442
conservation..............
======================================================================================================================
Use of prior year balances....... -6,352 ............... ............... ............... +6,352 ............... ...............
Less security charge from ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
reimbursable work...............
Miscellaneous appropriations ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
(Public Law 108-199)............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY AND 1,806,936 1,749,446 1,763,888 1,945,330 +138,394 +195,884 +181,442
CONSERVATION..............
======================================================================================================================
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

Deferral of unobligated balances, -257,000 257,000 257,000 257,000 +514,000 ............... ...............
fiscal year 2005................
Deferral of unobligated balances, ............... ............... -257,000 -257,000 -257,000 -257,000 ...............
fiscal year 2007................
Rescission....................... ............... -257,000 ............... ............... ............... +257,000 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Clean Coal -257,000 ............... ............... ............... +257,000 ............... ...............
Technology................

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT

Clean coal power initiative...... 49,305 50,000 50,000 100,000 +50,695 +50,000 +50,000
FutureGen........................ 17,750 18,000 18,000 18,000 +250 ............... ...............
Advance appropriation, fiscal ............... 257,000 ............... ............... ............... -257,000 ...............
year 2007.......................

Fuels and Power Systems:
Innovations for existing 19,081 23,850 23,850 25,400 +6,319 +1,550 +1,550
plants......................
Advanced integrated 45,805 56,450 56,450 56,450 +10,645 ............... ...............
gasification combined cycle.
Advanced turbines............ 15,383 18,000 18,000 18,000 +2,617 ............... ...............
Carbon sequestration......... 45,361 67,200 50,000 74,200 +28,839 +7,000 +24,200
Fuels........................ 32,147 22,000 22,000 29,000 -3,147 +7,000 +7,000
Fuel cells................... 77,386 65,000 65,000 69,000 -8,386 +4,000 +4,000
Advanced research............ 42,699 30,500 30,500 34,500 -8,199 +4,000 +4,000
Combustion systems........... 5,227 ............... ............... ............... -5,227 ............... ...............
U.S./China Energy and 986 ............... ............... ............... -986 ............... ...............
Environmental Center........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fuels and power 284,075 283,000 265,800 306,550 +22,475 +23,550 +40,750
systems...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Coal............. 351,130 608,000 333,800 424,550 +73,420 -183,450 +90,750

Natural Gas Technologies......... 44,839 10,000 33,000 27,000 -17,839 +17,000 -6,000
Petroleum--Oil Technologies...... 33,921 10,000 29,000 32,000 -1,921 +22,000 +3,000
Program direction................ 104,528 98,941 105,152 106,941 +2,413 +8,000 +1,789
Plant and Capital Equipment...... 6,902 ............... ............... 23,000 +16,098 +23,000 +23,000
Fossil energy environmental 9,467 8,060 8,060 9,600 +133 +1,540 +1,540
restoration.....................
Import/export authorization...... 1,774 1,799 1,799 1,799 +25 ............... ...............
Advanced metallurgical research.. 9,861 8,000 8,000 8,000 -1,861 ............... ...............
National Academy of Sciences 493 ............... ............... ............... -493 ............... ...............
program review..................
Special recruitment programs..... 656 656 656 656 ............... ............... ...............
Cooperative research and 8,283 3,000 3,000 3,000 -5,283 ............... ...............
development.....................
Congressionally directed ............... ............... ............... 25,100 +25,100 +25,100 +25,100
priorities......................
Use of prior year balances... ............... ............... -20,000 -20,000 -20,000 -20,000 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, FOSSIL ENERGY 571,854 491,456 502,467 641,646 +69,792 +150,190 +139,179
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT..
Advance appropriations. ............... 257,000 ............... ............... ............... -257,000 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY 571,854 748,456 502,467 641,646 +69,792 -106,810 +139,179
R&D INCLUDING
ADVANCES............
======================================================================================================================
NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE 17,750 18,500 18,500 21,500 +3,750 +3,000 +3,000
RESERVES........................
ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUNDS..... 72,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 +12,000 ............... ...............
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE...... 169,710 166,000 166,000 166,000 -3,710 ............... ...............
NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL 4,930 ............... ............... ............... -4,930 ............... ...............
RESERVE.........................
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION 83,819 85,926 86,426 85,926 +2,107 ............... -500

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

West Valley Demonstration Project 73,628 77,100 77,100 77,100 +3,472 ............... ...............
Gaseous Diffusion Plants......... 143,962 45,528 45,528 48,813 -95,149 +3,285 +3,285
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride 99,200 85,803 70,803 85,803 -13,397 ............... +15,000
Conversion, 02-U-101............
Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility 45,715 46,113 41,113 46,113 +398 ............... +5,000
(WA)............................

Small Sites:
Argonne National Lab......... 785 10,487 10,487 10,487 +9,702 ............... ...............
Brookhaven National Lab...... 42,316 34,328 34,328 34,328 -7,988 ............... ...............
Idaho National Lab........... ............... 5,274 5,274 5,274 +5,274 ............... ...............
Consolidated Business Center:
California Site support.. 98 100 100 100 +2 ............... ...............
Inhalation Toxicology Lab 487 305 305 305 -182 ............... ...............
Lawrence Berkeley 4,038 3,900 3,900 3,900 -138 ............... ...............
National Lab............
Stanford Linear 2,480 3,500 3,500 3,500 +1,020 ............... ...............
Accelerator Center......
Energy Technology 18,238 9,000 9,000 9,000 -9,238 ............... ...............
Engineering Center......
Los Alamos National Lab.. 447 490 490 490 +43 ............... ...............
Lab for Energy-Related 496 ............... ............... ............... -496 ............... ...............
Health Research.........
Moab..................... 7,711 28,006 18,006 28,006 +20,295 ............... +10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, small sites.. 77,096 95,390 85,390 95,390 +18,294 ............... +10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE 439,601 349,934 319,934 353,219 -86,382 +3,285 +33,285
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP.
======================================================================================================================
URANIUM ENRICHMENT
DECONTAMINATION AND
DECOMMISSIONING FUND

Decontamination and 415,655 571,498 571,498 561,498 +145,843 -10,000 -10,000
decommissioning.................
Uranium/thorium reimbursement.... 79,360 20,000 20,000 ............... -79,360 -20,000 -20,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT 495,015 591,498 591,498 561,498 +66,483 -30,000 -30,000
D&D FUND..................

SCIENCE

High energy physics:
Proton accelerator-based 401,120 387,093 398,093 390,093 -11,027 +3,000 -8,000
physics.....................
Electron accelerator-based 143,929 132,822 132,822 132,822 -11,107 ............... ...............
physics.....................
Non-accelerator physics...... 46,934 38,589 38,589 38,589 -8,345 ............... ...............
Theoretical physics.......... 48,995 49,103 49,103 49,103 +108 ............... ...............
Advanced technology R&D...... 94,721 106,326 117,326 106,326 +11,605 ............... -11,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 735,699 713,933 735,933 716,933 -18,766 +3,000 -19,000

Construction: 98-G-304 745 ............... ............... ............... -745 ............... ...............
Neutrinos at the main
injector, Fermilab..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, High energy physics. 736,444 713,933 735,933 716,933 -19,511 +3,000 -19,000

Nuclear physics.................. 404,778 368,741 406,341 417,741 +12,963 +49,000 +11,400
Construction: 06-SC-02 ............... 2,000 2,000 2,000 +2,000 ............... ...............
Project engineering and
design (PED), Electron beam
ion source, Brookhaven
National Laboratory, Upton,
NY..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Nuclear physics... 404,778 370,741 408,341 419,741 +14,963 +49,000 +11,400

Biological and environmental 571,992 455,688 525,688 503,688 -68,304 +48,000 -22,000
research........................
Construction: 05-SC-004 9,920 ............... ............... ............... -9,920 ............... ...............
Project engineering and
design (PED), Facility for
the Production and
Characterization of Proteins
and Molecular Tags..........

Basic energy sciences:
Research:
Materials sciences and 635,132 746,143 772,025 816,143 +181,011 +70,000 +44,118
engineering research....
Chemical sciences, 239,475 221,801 223,051 246,801 +7,326 +25,000 +23,750
geosciences and energy
biosciences.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Research..... 874,607 967,944 995,076 1,062,944 +188,337 +95,000 +67,868

Construction:
05-R-320 LINAC coherent 29,760 83,000 83,000 83,000 +53,240 ............... ...............
light source (LCLS).....
05-R-321 Center for 18,317 36,553 36,553 36,553 +18,236 ............... ...............
Functional Nanomaterials
(BNL)...................
04-R-313 The molecular 31,828 9,606 9,606 9,606 -22,222 ............... ...............
foundry (LBNL)..........
03-SC-002 Project 19,914 2,544 2,544 2,544 -17,370 ............... ...............
engineering & design
(PED) SLAC..............
03-R-312 Center for 17,669 ............... ............... ............... -17,669 ............... ...............
Nanophase Materials
Sciences, ORNL..........
03-R-313 Center for 30,650 4,626 4,626 4,626 -26,024 ............... ...............
Integrated
Nanotechnology..........
02-SC-002 Project 1,996 ............... ............... ............... -1,996 ............... ...............
engineering and design
(VL)....................
99-E-334 Spallation 79,891 41,744 41,744 41,744 -38,147 ............... ...............
neutron source (ORNL)...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction. 230,025 178,073 178,073 178,073 -51,952 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Basic energy 1,104,632 1,146,017 1,173,149 1,241,017 +136,385 +95,000 +67,868
sciences..............

Advanced scientific computing 232,468 207,055 246,055 207,055 -25,413 ............... -39,000
research........................

Science laboratories
infrastructure:
Laboratories facilities
support:
Infrastructure support... 1,752 1,520 1,520 1,520 -232 ............... ...............
General plant projects... ............... 3,000 3,000 3,000 +3,000 ............... ...............
Construction:
04-SC-001 Project 4,960 3,000 3,000 3,000 -1,960 ............... ...............
engineering and
design (PED),
various locations...
03-SC-001 Science ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
laboratories
infrastructure......
MEL-001 Multiprogram 19,236 12,869 14,869 12,869 -6,367 ............... -2,000
Energy Laboratory
infrastructure
projects, various
locations...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 24,196 15,869 17,869 15,869 -8,327 ............... -2,000
Construction....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 25,948 20,389 22,389 20,389 -5,559 ............... -2,000
Laboratories
facilities
support.........

Oak Ridge landlord........... 5,039 5,079 5,079 5,079 +40 ............... ...............
Excess facilities disposal... 6,051 14,637 14,637 14,637 +8,586 ............... ...............
Safety-related corrective 4,960 ............... ............... ............... -4,960 ............... ...............
actions.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Science laboratories 41,998 40,105 42,105 40,105 -1,893 ............... -2,000
infrastructure............

Fusion energy sciences program... 273,903 290,550 296,155 290,550 +16,647 ............... -5,605
Safeguards and security.......... 72,773 74,317 74,317 74,317 +1,544 ............... ...............
Workforce development for 7,599 7,192 7,192 7,192 -407 ............... ...............
teachers and scientists.........

Science program direction:
Field offices................ 88,809 92,593 92,593 92,593 +3,784 ............... ...............
Headquarters................. 65,222 70,132 70,132 70,132 +4,910 ............... ...............
Technical information ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
management program..........
Energy research analyses..... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Congressionally directed ............... ............... ............... 45,000 +45,000 +45,000 +45,000
priorities......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Science program 154,031 162,725 162,725 207,725 +53,694 +45,000 +45,000
direction.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science.......... 3,610,538 3,468,323 3,671,660 3,708,323 +97,785 +240,000 +36,663
======================================================================================================================
Use of prior year balances....... -5,062 ............... ............... ............... +5,062 ............... ...............
Less security charge for -5,605 -5,605 -5,605 -5,605 ............... ............... ...............
reimbursable work...............
Miscellaneous appropriations ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
(Public Law 108-199)............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, SCIENCE............. 3,599,871 3,462,718 3,666,055 3,702,718 +102,847 +240,000 +36,663
======================================================================================================================
NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Repository program............... 263,872 218,536 228,536 218,536 -45,336 ............... -10,000
Program direction................ 79,360 81,464 81,464 81,464 +2,104 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE 343,232 300,000 310,000 300,000 -43,232 ............... -10,000
DISPOSAL..................
======================================================================================================================
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations:
Salaries and expenses:
Office of the Secretary.. 4,644 5,399 4,843 5,399 +755 ............... +556
Board of Contract Appeals 648 648 680 648 ............... ............... -32
Chief Information Officer 37,967 51,122 39,865 51,122 +13,155 ............... +11,257
Congressional and 4,826 5,089 5,067 5,089 +263 ............... +22
intergovernmental
affairs.................
Economic impact and 5,099 5,352 5,352 5,352 +253 ............... ...............
diversity...............
General Counsel.......... 21,774 24,217 22,780 24,217 +2,443 ............... +1,437
Office of Management, 106,850 111,806 110,300 111,806 +4,956 ............... +1,506
Budget and Evaluation...
Policy and international 14,993 18,844 15,743 18,844 +3,851 ............... +3,101
affairs.................
Public affairs........... 2,459 4,504 2,566 5,504 +3,045 +1,000 +2,938
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Salaries and 199,260 226,981 207,196 227,981 +28,721 +1,000 +20,785
expenses..............

Program support:
Minority economic impact..... 823 830 823 830 +7 ............... +7
Policy analysis and system 392 395 392 395 +3 ............... +3
studies.....................
Environmental policy studies. 562 567 562 567 +5 ............... +5
Cybersecurity and secure 24,733 32,000 24,733 32,000 +7,267 ............... +7,267
communications..............
Corporate management 31,881 23,055 23,055 23,055 -8,826 ............... ...............
information program.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Program support.. 58,391 56,847 49,565 56,847 -1,544 ............... +7,282

Competitive sourcing initiative 2,480 3,000 3,000 3,000 +520 ............... ...............
(A-76)..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative 260,131 286,828 259,761 287,828 +27,697 +1,000 +28,067
operations................

Cost of work for others.......... 71,048 80,723 80,723 80,723 +9,675 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Departmental 331,179 367,551 340,484 368,551 +37,372 +1,000 +28,067
Administration............
======================================================================================================================
Use of prior year balances and ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
other adjustments...............
Funding from other defense -91,700 -87,575 -87,575 -87,575 +4,125 ............... ...............
activities......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental 239,479 279,976 252,909 280,976 +41,497 +1,000 +28,067
administration (gross)....
======================================================================================================================
Miscellaneous revenues........... -122,000 -123,000 -123,000 -123,000 -1,000 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL 117,479 156,976 129,909 157,976 +40,497 +1,000 +28,067
ADMINISTRATION (net)......
======================================================================================================================
Office of Inspector General...... 41,176 43,000 43,000 43,000 +1,824 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Directed stockpile work:
Stockpile research and ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
development.................
Stockpile maintenance........ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Stockpile evaluation......... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Dismantlement/disposal....... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Production support........... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Field engineering, training ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
and manuals.................
Life extension program....... ............... ............... ............... 348,318 +348,318 +348,318 +348,318
B61...................... 116,984 50,810 50,810 ............... -116,984 -50,810 -50,810
W76...................... 234,536 162,268 162,268 ............... -234,536 -162,268 -162,268
W80...................... 145,239 135,240 100,240 ............... -145,239 -135,240 -100,240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Life 496,759 348,318 313,318 348,318 -148,441 ............... +35,000
extension program.....

Stockpile systems:............... ............... ............... ............... 311,804 +311,804 +311,804 +311,804
B61.......................... 90,526 66,050 66,050 ............... -90,526 -66,050 -66,050
W62.......................... 18,254 8,967 8,967 ............... -18,254 -8,967 -8,967
W76.......................... 136,427 63,538 63,538 ............... -136,427 -63,538 -63,538
W78.......................... 43,958 32,632 32,632 ............... -43,958 -32,632 -32,632
W80.......................... 39,191 26,315 16,315 ............... -39,191 -26,315 -16,315
B83.......................... 44,635 26,391 26,391 ............... -44,635 -26,391 -26,391
W84.......................... 6,070 4,402 4,402 ............... -6,070 -4,402 -4,402
W87.......................... 79,245 50,678 50,678 ............... -79,245 -50,678 -50,678
W88.......................... 48,700 32,831 32,831 ............... -48,700 -32,831 -32,831
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Stockpile systems 507,006 311,804 301,804 311,804 -195,202 ............... +10,000

Stockpile services:
Production support........... ............... 267,246 200,246 267,246 +267,246 ............... +67,000
Research and development..... ............... 66,753 50,753 71,753 +71,753 +5,000 +21,000
Research and development 146,802 211,727 150,727 243,727 +96,925 +32,000 +93,000
certification and safety....
Management, technology, and 112,196 166,587 131,589 171,587 +59,391 +5,000 +39,998
production..................
Reliable replacement warhead. 8,928 9,351 25,000 25,351 +16,423 +16,000 +351
Robust nuclear earth ............... 4,000 ............... 4,000 +4,000 ............... +4,000
penetrator..................
Warheads Dismantlement....... 74,400 35,245 110,245 15,000 -59,400 -20,245 -95,245
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Stockpile 342,326 760,909 668,560 798,664 +456,338 +37,755 +130,104
services..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Directed stockpile 1,346,091 1,421,031 1,283,682 1,458,786 +112,695 +37,755 +175,104
work......................

Campaigns:
Science campaigns:
Primary assessment 73,381 45,179 35,179 55,179 -18,202 +10,000 +20,000
technologies............
Test readiness........... ............... 25,000 15,000 25,000 +25,000 ............... +10,000
Dynamic materials 85,829 80,894 70,894 90,894 +5,065 +10,000 +20,000
properties..............
Advanced radiography..... 54,928 49,520 40,500 59,520 +4,592 +10,000 +19,020
Secondary assessment 63,088 61,332 55,332 77,332 +14,244 +16,000 +22,000
technologies............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science 277,226 261,925 216,905 307,925 +30,699 +46,000 +91,020
campaigns.............

Engineering campaign:
Enhanced surety.......... 32,856 29,845 22,000 45,845 +12,989 +16,000 +23,845
Weapons system 27,052 24,040 15,040 20,040 -7,012 -4,000 +5,000
engineering assessment
technology..............
Nuclear survivability.... 9,384 9,386 9,386 25,386 +16,002 +16,000 +16,000
Enhanced surveillance.... 99,080 96,207 76,000 111,207 +12,127 +15,000 +35,207

Microsystem and 4,563 4,714 4,714 4,714 +151 ............... ...............
engineering science
applications (MESA),
other project costs.....
Construction: 01-D-108 85,808 65,564 65,564 65,564 -20,244 ............... ...............
Microsystem and
engineering science
applications (MESA),
SNL, Albuquerque, NM....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, MESA....... 90,371 70,278 70,278 70,278 -20,093 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Engineering 258,743 229,756 192,704 272,756 +14,013 +43,000 +80,052
campaign............

Inertial confinement fusion ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
ignition and high yield campaign
Ignition..................... 68,882 75,615 75,615 68,800 -82 -6,815 -6,815
Support of stockpile program. 38,675 9,872 9,872 41,000 +2,325 +31,128 +31,128
NIF diagnostics, cryogenics 48,631 43,008 43,008 30,000 -18,631 -13,008 -13,008
and experiment support......
Pulsed power inertial 10,991 10,111 10,111 10,900 -91 +789 +789
confinement fusion..........
University grants/other 7,714 9,946 9,946 7,700 -14 -2,246 -2,246
support.....................
Facility operations and 62,552 54,623 69,623 54,623 -7,929 ............... -15,000
target production...........
Inertial fusion technology... 33,728 ............... 40,000 41,000 +7,272 +41,000 +1,000
NIF demonstration program.... 94,934 112,330 112,330 50,000 -44,934 -62,330 -62,330
High-energy petawatt laser 41,639 3,000 29,000 10,000 -31,639 +7,000 -19,000
development.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 407,746 318,505 399,505 314,023 -93,723 -4,482 -85,482
Construction: 96-D-111 128,960 141,913 141,913 ............... -128,960 -141,913 -141,913
National ignition facility,
LLNL........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Inertial 536,706 460,418 541,418 314,023 -222,683 -146,395 -227,395
confinement fusion........

Advanced simulation and computing 694,928 660,830 500,830 735,830 +40,902 +75,000 +235,000
Construction:
01-D-101 Distributed ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
information systems
laboratory, SNL,
Livermore, CA...........
00-D-103, Terascale 3,202 ............... ............... ............... -3,202 ............... ...............
simulation facility,
LLNL, Livermore, CA.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction. 3,202 ............... ............... ............... -3,202 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Advanced 698,130 660,830 500,830 735,830 +37,700 +75,000 +235,000
simulation and
computing.............

Pit manufacturing and
certification:
W88 pit manufacturing........ 130,949 120,926 120,926 120,926 -10,023 ............... ...............
W88 pit certification........ 60,472 61,895 61,895 61,895 +1,423 ............... ...............
Pit manufacturing capability. 13,392 23,071 23,071 23,071 +9,679 ............... ...............
Modern pit facility.......... 6,944 7,686 ............... 7,686 +742 ............... +7,686
Pit campaign support 51,788 35,182 35,182 35,182 -16,606 ............... ...............
activities at NTS...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pit manufacturing 263,545 248,760 241,074 248,760 -14,785 ............... +7,686
and certification.........

Readiness campaign:
Stockpile readiness.......... 45,446 31,400 31,400 31,400 -14,046 ............... ...............
High explosives readiness/ 33,946 17,097 17,097 17,097 -16,849 ............... ...............
assembly campaign...........
Non-nuclear readiness........ 32,693 28,630 28,630 28,630 -4,063 ............... ...............
Advanced design and 79,150 54,040 54,040 54,040 -25,110 ............... ...............
production technologies.....

Tritium readiness............ 58,379 62,694 62,694 62,694 +4,315 ............... ...............
Construction: 98-D-125 20,832 24,894 24,894 24,894 +4,062 ............... ...............
Tritium extraction
facility, SR............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Tritium 79,211 87,588 87,588 87,588 +8,377 ............... ...............
readiness.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Readiness 270,446 218,755 218,755 218,755 -51,691 ............... ...............
campaign..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Campaigns....... 2,304,796 2,080,444 1,911,686 2,098,049 -206,747 +17,605 +186,363

Readiness in technical base and
facilities:
Operations of facilities..... 1,112,585 1,160,783 1,204,786 1,200,483 +87,898 +39,700 -4,303
Program readiness............ 105,354 105,738 105,738 105,738 +384 ............... ...............
Special projects............. 41,168 6,619 ............... 19,869 -21,299 +13,250 +19,869
Material recycle and recovery 86,269 72,730 72,730 72,730 -13,539 ............... ...............
Containers................... 17,767 17,247 17,247 17,247 -520 ............... ...............
Storage...................... 18,830 25,222 25,322 25,222 +6,392 ............... -100
Nuclear weapons incident ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
response....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Readiness in 1,381,973 1,388,339 1,425,823 1,441,289 +59,316 +52,950 +15,466
technical base and
facilities..............

Construction:
06-D-140 Project ............... 14,113 14,113 14,113 +14,113 ............... ...............
engineering and design
(PED), various loca-
tions...................
06-D-402 NTS replace fire ............... 8,284 8,284 8,284 +8,284 ............... ...............
stations 1 & 2 Nevada
Test Site, NV...........
06-D-403 Tritium facility ............... 2,600 2,600 2,600 +2,600 ............... ...............
modernization Lawrence
Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore,
CA......................
06-D-404 Building ............... 16,000 16,000 16,000 +16,000 ............... ...............
remediation,
restoration, and
upgrade, Nevada Test
Site, NV................
05-D-140 Project 16,467 5,000 5,000 7,000 -9,467 +2,000 +2,000
engineering and design
(PED), various loca-
tions...................
05-D-401 Building 12-64 24,899 11,000 11,000 11,000 -13,899 ............... ...............
production bays
upgrades, Pantex plant,
Amarillo, TX............
05-D-402 Berylium 3,598 7,700 7,700 7,700 +4,102 ............... ...............
capability (BEC)
project, Y-12 National
security complex, Oak
Ridge, TN...............
04-D-101 Test ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
capabilities
revitalization, Sandia
National Laboratories,
Albuquerque, NM.........
04-D-102 Exterior ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
communications
infrastructure
modernization, Sandia
National Laboratories...
04-D-103 Project 1,488 2,000 2,000 2,000 +512 ............... ...............
engineering and design
(PED), various loca-
tions...................
04-D-104 National ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
security sciences
building, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los
Alamos, NM..............
04-D-125 Chemistry and 39,680 55,000 ............... 65,000 +25,320 +10,000 +65,000
metallurgy facility
replacement project, Los
Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos,
NM......................
04-D-126 Building 12-44 2,579 ............... ............... ............... -2,579 ............... ...............
production cells
upgrade, Pantex plant,
Amarillo, TX............
04-D-127 Cleaning and ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
loading modifications,
Savannah River site,
Aiken, SC...............
04-D-128 TA-18 mission ............... 13,000 13,000 13,000 +13,000 ............... ...............
relocation project, Los
Alamos Laboratory, Los
Alamos, NM..............
03-D-102, National 37,049 ............... ............... ............... -37,049 ............... ...............
Security Sciences
building, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los
Alamos, NM..............
03-D-103 Project 15,153 29,000 15,000 29,000 +13,847 ............... +14,000
engineering and design
(PED), various loca-
tions...................
03-D-121 Gas transfer ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
capacity expansion,
Kansas City Plant,
Kansas City, MO.........
03-D-122 Purification ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
facility, Y-12 plant,...
3-D-123 Special nuclear 4,565 ............... ............... ............... -4,565 ............... ...............
materials
requalification, Pantex
plant, Amarillo, TX.....
02-D-103 Project 5,208 ............... ............... ............... -5,208 ............... ...............
engineering and design
(PED), various loca-
tions...................
02-D-105 Engineering 5,357 ............... ............... ............... -5,357 ............... ...............
technology complex
upgrade, LLNL, CA.......
02-D-107 Electrical power ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
systems safety
communications and bus
upgrades, NV............
01-D-103 Project 5,952 9,000 9,000 9,000 +3,048 ............... ...............
engineering and design
(PED), various loca-
tions...................
01-D-124 HEU materials 113,088 70,350 81,350 70,350 -42,738 ............... -11,000
facility, Y-12 plant,
Oak Ridge, TN...........
01-D-126 Weapons ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Evaluation Test
Laboratory, Pantex
Plant, Amarillo, TX.....
99-D-104 Protection of ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
real property (roof
reconstruction--Phase
II), LLNL, Livermore, CA
99-D-127 Stockpile ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
management restructuring
initiative, Kansas City
plant, Kansas City, MO..
96-D-102 Stockpile ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
stewardship facilities
revitalization (Phase
VI), various locations..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 275,083 243,047 185,047 255,047 -20,036 +12,000 +70,000
Construction........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Readiness in 1,657,056 1,631,386 1,610,870 1,696,336 +39,280 +64,950 +85,466
technical base and
facilities..........

Facilities and infrastructure 289,239 233,484 200,484 211,784 -77,455 -21,700 +11,300
recapitalization program........
Construction:
06-D-160 Project ............... 5,811 5,811 5,811 +5,811 ............... ...............
engioneering and design
(PED), various loca-
tions...................
06-D-601 Electrical ............... 4,000 4,000 4,000 +4,000 ............... ...............
distribution system
upgrade, Pantex Plant,
Amarillo, TX............
06-D-602 Gas main and ............... 3,700 3,700 3,700 +3,700 ............... ...............
distribution system
upgrade, Pantex Plant,
Amarillo, TX............
06-D-603 Steam plant life ............... 729 729 729 +729 ............... ...............
extension project
(SLEP), Y-12 National
Security Complex, Oak
Ridge, TN...............
05-D-160 Facilities and 8,630 10,644 10,644 10,644 +2,014 ............... ...............
infrastructure
recapitalization program
project engineering
design (PED), various
locations...............
05-D-601 Compressed air 4,365 9,741 9,741 9,741 +5,376 ............... ...............
upgrades project (CAUP),
Y-12, National security
complex, Oak Ridge, TN..
05-D-602 Power grid 9,920 8,500 8,500 8,500 -1,420 ............... ...............
infrastructure upgrade
(PGIU), Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los
Alamos, NM..............
05-D-603 New master 595 6,900 6,900 6,900 +6,305 ............... ...............
substation (NMSU), SNL..
04-D-203 Facilities and 973 ............... ............... ............... -973 ............... ...............
infrastructure
recapitalization program
(FIRP), project
engineering design
(PED), various locations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 24,483 50,025 50,025 50,025 +25,542 ............... ...............
Construction........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Facilities and 313,722 283,509 250,509 261,809 -51,913 -21,700 +11,300
infrastructure
recapitalization
program.............

Secure transportation asset:
Operations and equipment..... 142,722 143,766 143,766 143,766 +1,044 ............... ...............
Program direction............ 56,968 68,334 68,334 68,334 +11,366 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Secure 199,690 212,100 212,100 212,100 +12,410 ............... ...............
transportation asset......

Use of prior year balances... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Secure 199,690 212,100 212,100 212,100 +12,410 ............... ...............
transportation asset......

Nuclear weapons incident response 98,415 118,796 118,796 118,796 +20,381 ............... ...............

Environmental projects and
operations:
Environmental projects and ............... 156,504 ............... ............... ............... -156,504 ...............
operations program..........
Program direction............ ............... 17,885 ............... ............... ............... -17,885 ...............
Subtotal, Environmental ............... 174,389 ............... ............... ............... -174,389 ...............
projects and operations...

Safeguards and security.......... 714,913 699,478 784,478 699,478 -15,435 ............... -85,000
Construction:
05-D-170 Project 16,864 41,000 41,000 41,000 +24,136 ............... ...............
engineering and design
(PED), various loca-
tions...................
05-D-701 Security 19,840 ............... ............... ............... -19,840 ............... ...............
perimeter project, Los
Alamos, National
Laboratory, Los Alamos,
NM......................
99-D-132 SMRI nuclear ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
material safeguards and
security upgrade project
(LANL), Los Alamos, NM..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Safeguards and 751,617 740,478 825,478 740,478 -11,139 ............... -85,000
security............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons 6,671,387 6,662,133 6,213,121 6,586,354 -85,033 -75,779 +373,233
activities..........

Use of prior year balances....... -14,039 ............... ............... ............... +14,039 ............... ...............
Less security charge for -29,760 -32,000 -32,000 -32,000 -2,240 ............... ...............
reimbursable work...............
Undistributed miscellaneous 4,002 ............... ............... ............... -4,002 ............... ...............
adjustment......................
Excluding transfer of DOD -300,000 ............... ............... ............... +300,000 ............... ...............
ppropriations...................
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.. 6,331,590 6,630,133 6,181,121 6,554,354 +222,764 -75,779 +373,233
======================================================================================================================
Transfer from Department of (300,000) ............... ............... ............... (-300,000) ............... ...............
Defense appropriations..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Weapons Activities (6,631,590) (6,630,133) (6,181,121) (6,554,354) (-77,236) (-75,779) (+373,233)
(program level)...........
======================================================================================================================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Nonproliferation and 223,944 267,218 322,218 297,218 +73,274 +30,000 -25,000
verification, R&D...............
Construction: 06-D-180 Project ............... 5,000 13,000 13,000 +13,000 +8,000 ...............
engineering and design (PED),
National Security Laboratory,
PNNL............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nonproliferation 223,944 272,218 335,218 310,218 +86,274 +38,000 -25,000
& verification R & D......

Nonproliferation and 152,768 80,173 75,836 90,000 -62,768 +9,827 +14,164
international security..........
International nuclear 319,424 343,435 428,435 343,435 +24,011 ............... -85,000
materials protection and
cooperation.................
Accelerated highly enriched ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
uranium (HEU)...............
Global initiatives for 40,672 37,890 30,312 50,890 +10,218 +13,000 +20,578
proliferation prevention....
HEU transparency 20,782 20,483 20,483 20,483 -299 ............... ...............
implementation..............
International nuclear safety. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Elimination of weapons-grade 39,776 132,000 197,000 152,000 +112,224 +20,000 -45,000
plutonium production program

Fissile materials
disposition:
U.S. surplus materials 158,422 226,500 168,700 226,500 +68,078 ............... +57,800
disposition.............
Russian surplus materials 63,488 64,000 64,000 64,000 +512 ............... ...............
disposition.............
Construction:
01-D-407 Highly ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
enriched uranium
(HEU) blend.........
99-D-141 Pit 32,042 24,000 24,000 24,000 -8,042 ............... ...............
disassembly and
conversion facility,
Savannah River, SC..
99-D-143 Mixed oxide 365,056 338,565 35,000 338,565 -26,491 ............... +303,565
fuel fabrication
facility, Savannah
River, SC...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 397,098 362,565 59,000 362,565 -34,533 ............... +303,565
Construction....

Melt and dilute ............... ............... 10,000 ............... ............... ............... -10,000
immobilization project......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fissile materials 619,008 653,065 301,700 653,065 +34,057 ............... +351,365
disposition...............

Offsite source recovery project.. 7,539 ............... ............... ............... -7,539 ............... ...............
Global threat reduction ............... 97,975 111,975 108,975 +108,975 +11,000 -3,000
initiative......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear 1,423,913 1,637,239 1,500,959 1,729,066 +305,153 +91,827 +228,107
Nonproliferation..........
======================================================================================================================
Use of prior year balances....... -14,880 ............... ............... ............... +14,880 ............... ...............
Emergency appropriations (Public 84,000 ............... ............... ............... -84,000 ............... ...............
Law 109-13).....................
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR 1,493,033 1,637,239 1,500,959 1,729,066 +236,033 +91,827 +228,107
NONPROLIFERATION..........
======================================================================================================================
NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development....... 755,121 738,800 738,800 738,800 -16,321 ............... ...............
Construction:
06-D-901 Central office ............... 7,000 7,000 7,000 +7,000 ............... ...............
building II.............
Transfer to Nuclear 9,920 ............... 13,500 13,500 +3,580 +13,500 ...............
Energy..................
05-N-900 Materials 6,151 9,900 9,900 9,900 +3,749 ............... ...............
development facility
building, Schenectady,
NY......................
03-D-201 Cleanroom ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
technology facility,
Bettis atomic power lab,
West Mifflin, PA........
90-N-102 Expended core 981 ............... ............... ............... -981 ............... ...............
facility dry cell
project, Naval Reactors
Facility, ID............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 17,052 16,900 30,400 30,400 +13,348 +13,500 ...............
Construction........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Naval reactors 772,173 755,700 769,200 769,200 -2,973 +13,500 ...............
development.........
Program direction................ 29,264 30,300 30,300 30,300 +1,036 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Naval Reactors... 801,437 786,000 799,500 799,500 -1,937 +13,500 ...............
======================================================================================================================
Use of prior year balances....... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS...... 801,437 786,000 799,500 799,500 -1,937 +13,500 ...............
======================================================================================================================
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Office of the Administrator...... 353,350 350,765 373,765 350,765 -2,585 ............... -23,000
Defense nuclear nonproliferation. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Use of prior year balances....... ............... -6,896 -6,896 -6,896 -6,896 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE 353,350 343,869 366,869 343,869 -9,481 ............... -23,000
ADMINISTRATOR.............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR 8,979,410 9,397,241 8,848,449 9,426,789 +447,379 +29,548 +578,340
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION...
======================================================================================================================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Closure Sites:
Ashtabula.................... 15,752 16,000 16,000 16,000 +248 ............... ...............
Columbus..................... 19,690 9,500 9,500 9,500 -10,190 ............... ...............
Fernald...................... 317,725 327,609 327,609 327,609 +9,884 ............... ...............
Miamisburg................... 110,905 75,530 105,530 75,530 -35,375 ............... -30,000
Rocky Flats.................. 641,700 579,950 579,950 579,950 -61,750 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, closure sites....... 1,105,772 1,008,589 1,038,589 1,008,589 -97,183 ............... -30,000

Savannah River site:
04-D-423 Container 20,475 ............... ............... ............... -20,475 ............... ...............
surveillance capability in
235F........................
04-D-414 Container 2,976 ............... ............... ............... -2,976 ............... ...............
surveillance capability in
235F PED....................
Nuclear material 355,111 250,303 250,303 250,303 -104,808 ............... ...............
stabilization and
disposition 2012............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 2012 accelerated 378,562 250,303 250,303 250,303 -128,259 ............... ...............
completions...............

SNF stabilization, 11,240 13,889 13,889 13,889 +2,649 ............... ...............
disposition/storage.........
SR community and regulatory 11,592 13,046 13,046 13,046 +1,454 ............... ...............
support.....................
Nuclear material 43,218 75,105 65,105 75,105 +31,887 ............... +10,000
stabilization and
disposition.................
Spent nuclear fuel 22,767 11,273 11,273 11,273 -11,494 ............... ...............
stabilization and
disposition.................
Solid waste stabilization and 88,313 112,993 112,993 112,993 +24,680 ............... ...............
disposition.................
Soil and water remediation... 100,896 103,665 103,665 112,665 +11,769 +9,000 +9,000
Nuclear facility D&D......... 68,198 66,516 66,516 75,516 +7,318 +9,000 +9,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 2035 accelerated 346,224 396,487 386,487 414,487 +68,263 +18,000 +28,000
completions...............

Radioactive liquid tank waste 381,858 500,975 500,975 500,975 +119,117 ............... ...............
stabil. & disposition.......
HLW legislative proposal..... 112,039 ............... ............... ............... -112,039 ............... ...............
03-D-414, Salt waste 23,469 4,342 4,342 4,342 -19,127 ............... ...............
processing facility PED SR..
04-D-408, Glass waste storage 43,476 6,975 6,975 6,975 -36,501 ............... ...............
building #2.................
05-D-405, Salt waste 25,792 70,000 70,000 70,000 +44,208 ............... ...............
processing facility.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Tank farm 586,634 582,292 582,292 582,292 -4,342 ............... ...............
activities................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Savannah River site. 1,311,420 1,229,082 1,219,082 1,247,082 -64,338 +18,000 +28,000

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant:
Operate WIPP................. 146,430 111,948 111,948 117,948 -28,482 +6,000 +6,000
Central Characterization 26,242 38,502 38,502 38,502 +12,260 ............... ...............
Project.....................
Transportation............... 29,248 37,631 37,631 37,631 +8,383 ............... ...............
Community and regulatory 23,452 24,548 24,548 36,548 +13,096 +12,000 +12,000
support.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Waste Isolation 225,372 212,629 212,629 230,629 +5,257 +18,000 +18,000
Pilot Plant...............

Idaho National Laboratory:
SNF stabilization and 32,419 12,666 12,666 12,666 -19,753 ............... ...............
disposition/storage.........
Nuclear material 1,889 1,555 1,555 1,555 -334 ............... ...............
stabilization and
disposition.................
SNF stabilization and 10,224 19,158 19,158 19,158 +8,934 ............... ...............
disposition--2012...........
Solid waste stabilization and 109,472 140,015 140,015 140,015 +30,543 ............... ...............
disposition.................
Radioactive liquid tank waste 127,635 124,965 124,965 98,695 -28,940 -26,270 -26,270
stabilization and
disposition.................
06-D-401, Sodium bearing ............... 15,000 15,000 54,270 +54,270 +39,270 +39,270
waste treatment project, ID.
04-D-414, Sodium bearing ............... 9,200 9,200 9,200 +9,200 ............... ...............
waste treatment facility,
PED ID......................
04-D-402, Cathodic Protection ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
System Expansion PED ID.....
Soil and water remediation-- 124,994 161,489 161,489 161,489 +36,495 ............... ...............
2012........................
Nuclear facility D&D......... 5,425 5,026 5,026 5,026 -399 ............... ...............
Non-nuclear facility D&D..... 26,993 39,105 39,105 39,105 +12,112 ............... ...............
Soil and water remediation-- 1,984 ............... ............... ............... -1,984 ............... ...............
2035........................
Idaho community and 3,088 3,546 3,546 3,546 +458 ............... ...............
regulatory support..........
HLW legislative proposal..... 96,522 ............... ............... ............... -96,522 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Idaho National 540,645 531,725 531,725 544,725 +4,080 +13,000 +13,000
Laboratory................

Oak Ridge Reservation:
Solid waste stabilization and 39,775 ............... ............... 4,630 -35,145 +4,630 +4,630
completion--2006............
Soil and water remediation-- 71,099 15,146 15,146 35,818 -35,281 +20,672 +20,672
Melton Valley...............
Solid waste stabilization and 46,744 68,360 68,360 68,360 +21,616 ............... ...............
disposition--2012...........
Soil and water remediation-- 12,753 16,483 16,483 16,483 +3,730 ............... ...............
offsites....................
Nuclear facility D&D, E. 6,540 6,034 12,534 6,034 -506 ............... -6,500
Tenn. Technology Park.......
Nuclear facility D&D Y-12.... 27,323 40,558 40,558 40,558 +13,235 ............... ...............
Nuclear facility D&D ORNL.... 19,626 16,034 25,634 16,034 -3,592 ............... -9,600
Solid waste stabilization & 18,220 18,267 18,267 18,267 +47 ............... ...............
disp.--science current gen..
Solid waste stabilization & 19,619 ............... ............... ............... -19,619 ............... ...............
disp--NNSA current gen......
OR contract/post closure 14,583 ............... ............... ............... -14,583 ............... ...............
liabilites/admin............
OR reservation community & 3,592 5,670 5,670 5,670 +2,078 ............... ...............
regulatory support..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Oak Ridge 279,874 186,552 202,652 211,854 -68,020 +25,302 +9,202
Reservation...............

Hanford Site:
Nuclear material 179,097 190,772 206,565 190,772 +11,675 ............... -15,793
stabilization & disposition
PFP.........................
SNF stabilization and 122,885 58,479 58,479 58,479 -64,406 ............... ...............
disposition.................
Nuclear facility D&D, river 212,033 168,501 188,501 168,501 -43,532 ............... -20,000
corridor closure project....
HAMMER facility.............. ............... ............... 7,500 ............... ............... ............... -7,500
B-reactor museum............. ............... ............... 1,000 ............... ............... ............... -1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 2012 accelerated 514,015 417,752 462,045 417,752 -96,263 ............... -44,293
completions...............

Solid waste stabilization & 219,139 165,113 173,113 165,113 -54,026 ............... -8,000
disposition 200 Area........
Soil & water remediation-- 50,231 72,955 86,955 72,955 +22,724 ............... -14,000
groundwater/vadose zone.....
Nuclear facility D&D-- 118,182 70,812 75,812 70,812 -47,370 ............... -5,000
remainder of Hanford........
Operate waste disposal 6,103 5,861 5,861 5,861 -242 ............... ...............
facility....................
SNF stabilization and 991 1,813 1,813 1,813 +822 ............... ...............
disposition/storage.........
Richland community and 13,124 15,411 15,411 15,411 +2,287 ............... ...............
regulatory support..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 2035 accelerated 407,770 331,965 358,965 331,965 -75,805 ............... -27,000
completions...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Hanford Site........ 921,785 749,717 821,010 749,717 -172,068 ............... -71,293

Office of River Protection:
01-D-416 Waste treatment & 684,480 625,893 690,000 625,893 -58,587 ............... -64,107
immobilization plant........

Tank Farm activities:
Rad liquid tank waste 332,878 294,447 361,447 328,840 -4,038 +34,393 -32,607
stabil. and disposition.
HLW rad liquid tank waste 31,793 ............... ............... ............... -31,793 ............... ...............
stabil & disp leg prop..
03-D-403 Immobilized HLW ............... 7,495 ............... 7,495 +7,495 ............... +7,495
interim storage facility
River protection ............... 471 471 471 +471 ............... ...............
community and regulatory
support.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Tank Farm 364,671 302,413 361,918 336,806 -27,865 +34,393 -25,112
activities............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of River 1,049,151 928,306 1,051,918 962,699 -86,452 +34,393 -89,219
Protection............

Program direction................ 270,016 230,931 248,816 230,931 -39,085 ............... -17,885
Program support.................. 32,707 32,846 32,846 32,846 +139 ............... ...............
Uranium enrichment D&D fund 459,296 451,000 451,000 451,000 -8,296 ............... ...............
contribution....................
Technology development........... 59,726 21,389 21,389 56,389 -3,337 +35,000 +35,000

NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites:
Lawrence Livermore National 57,948 ............... 54,578 54,578 -3,370 +54,578 ...............
Laboratory..................
NNSA Service Center.......... 9,002 ............... 8,304 8,304 -698 +8,304 ...............
Nevada....................... 90,095 ............... 85,024 85,024 -5,071 +85,024 ...............
Kansas City Plant............ 3,478 ............... 4,526 4,526 +1,048 +4,526 ...............
California site support...... 746 ............... 550 550 -196 +550 ...............
Pantex....................... 24,016 ............... 19,654 19,654 -4,362 +19,654 ...............
Pinellas (Post Closure ............... ............... ............... 9,769 +9,769 +9,769 +9,769
Benefits)...................
Sandia National Laboratories. 20,084 ............... 9,769 21,997 +1,913 +21,997 +12,228
Y-12 newly generated waste... ............... ............... 21,997 ............... ............... ............... -21,997
Nevada off-sites............. ............... 2,846 2,846 2,846 +2,846 ............... ...............
Los Alamos National 116,752 142,209 142,209 145,509 +28,757 +3,300 +3,300
Laboratory..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NNSA sites and 322,121 145,055 349,457 352,757 +30,636 +207,702 +3,300
Nevada off-sites..........

Safeguards and Security:
Waste Isolation Pilot Project 4,072 4,223 4,223 4,223 +151 ............... ...............
Oak Ridge Reservation........ 21,850 28,855 28,855 28,855 +7,005 ............... ...............
Fernald...................... 1,157 1,391 1,391 1,391 +234 ............... ...............
Miamisburg................... 524 ............... ............... ............... -524 ............... ...............
West Valley.................. 2,648 1,800 1,800 1,800 -848 ............... ...............
Paducah...................... 7,760 11,014 11,014 11,014 +3,254 ............... ...............
Portsmouth................... 16,009 17,842 17,842 17,842 +1,833 ............... ...............
Richland/Hanford Site........ 56,276 82,155 82,155 82,155 +25,879 ............... ...............
Rocky Flats.................. 16,455 3,200 3,200 3,200 -13,255 ............... ...............
Savannah River Site.......... 136,191 136,743 136,743 136,743 +552 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Safeguards and 262,942 287,223 287,223 287,223 +24,281 ............... ...............
Security..................

Use of prior year balances....... -32,508 ............... ............... ............... +32,508 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE 6,808,319 6,015,044 6,468,336 6,366,441 -441,878 +351,397 -101,895
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP....
======================================================================================================================
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Other national security programs:
Energy security and
assurance:
Energy security.......... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Program direction........ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Energy ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
security and assurance

Office of Security:
Nuclear safeguards and 193,794 ............... ............... ............... -193,794 ............... ...............
security................
Security investigations.. 44,561 ............... ............... ............... -44,561 ............... ...............
Program direction........ 57,763 ............... ............... ............... -57,763 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of 296,118 ............... ............... ............... -296,118 ............... ...............
Security..............

Office of Security and Safety
Performance Assurance:
Nuclear safeguards and ............... 176,878 233,378 196,878 +196,878 +20,000 -36,500
security................
Security investigations.. ............... 48,725 48,725 48,725 +48,725 ............... ...............
Program direction........ ............... 75,492 75,492 75,492 +75,492 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of ............... 301,095 357,595 321,095 +321,095 +20,000 -36,500
Security and Safety
Performance...........

Intelligence................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Counterintelligence.......... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Independent oversight and 24,472 ............... ............... ............... -24,472 ............... ...............
performance assurance.......
Environment, safety and 108,352 56,483 56,483 62,483 -45,869 +6,000 +6,000
health (Defense)............
Program direction--EH.... 20,251 20,546 20,546 20,546 +295 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Environment, 128,603 77,029 77,029 83,029 -45,574 +6,000 +6,000
safety & health
(Defense).............

Worker and community ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
transition..................
Program direction--WT.... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Worker and ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
community transition..

Office of Legacy Management:
Legacy management........ 33,425 31,421 41,421 31,421 -2,004 ............... -10,000
Program direction........ 13,095 13,655 13,655 13,655 +560 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of 46,520 45,076 55,076 45,076 -1,444 ............... -10,000
Legacy Management.....

Nuclear energy:
Infrastructure:
Idaho facilities ............... 17,762 17,762 17,762 +17,762 ............... ...............
management..........
Idaho sitewide ............... 75,008 75,008 75,008 +75,008 ............... ...............
safeguards and
security............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, ............... 92,770 92,770 92,770 +92,770 ............... ...............
Infrastructure....

Program direction........ ............... 31,103 31,103 31,103 +31,103 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear ............... 123,873 123,873 123,873 +123,873 ............... ...............
energy................

Defense related 91,700 87,575 87,575 87,575 -4,125 ............... ...............
administrative support......
Defense activities at INEEL.. 113,456 ............... ............... ............... -113,456 ............... ...............
Office of Hearings and 4,283 4,353 4,353 4,353 +70 ............... ...............
Appeals.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Other Defense 705,152 639,001 705,501 665,001 -40,151 +26,000 -40,500
Activities................
======================================================================================================================
Use of prior year balances....... -15,000 ............... ............... ............... +15,000 ............... ...............
Less security charge for -3,003 -3,003 -3,003 -3,003 ............... ............... ...............
reimbursable work...............
Supplemental appropriations ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
(Public Law 108-11).............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE 687,149 635,998 702,498 661,998 -25,151 +26,000 -40,500
ACTIVITIES................
======================================================================================================================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Defense nuclear waste disposal... 229,152 351,447 351,447 277,000 +47,848 -74,447 -74,447
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY 16,704,030 16,399,730 16,370,730 16,732,228 +28,198 +332,498 +361,498
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........
======================================================================================================================
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
Purchase power and wheeling.. 34,000 32,713 32,713 32,713 -1,287 ............... ...............
Program direction............ 5,158 5,600 5,600 5,600 +442 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and 39,158 38,313 38,313 38,313 -845 ............... ...............
maintenance.............

Offsetting collections........... -34,000 -38,313 -32,713 -32,713 +1,287 +5,600 ...............
Offsetting collections (Public ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Law 106-377)....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER 5,158 ............... 5,600 5,600 +442 +5,600 ...............
ADMINISTRATION............
======================================================================================================================
SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
Operating expenses........... 4,639 7,042 7,042 7,042 +2,403 ............... ...............
Purchase power and wheeling.. 2,900 1,235 1,235 3,000 +100 +1,765 +1,765
Program direction............ 19,169 19,958 19,958 19,958 +789 ............... ...............
Construction................. 5,309 3,166 3,166 3,166 -2,143 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and 32,017 31,401 31,401 33,166 +1,149 +1,765 +1,765
maintenance...............

Offsetting collections........... -2,900 -28,235 -1,235 -3,000 -100 +25,235 -1,765
Offsetting collections (Public ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Law 106-377)....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER 29,117 3,166 30,166 30,166 +1,049 +27,000 ...............
ADMINISTRATION............
======================================================================================================================
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
Construction and 20,029 53,957 40,192 53,957 +33,928 ............... +13,765
rehabilitation..............
Operation and maintenance.... 39,510 47,295 47,295 47,295 +7,785 ............... ...............
Purchase power and wheeling.. 227,600 148,500 148,500 279,000 +51,400 +130,500 +130,500
Program direction............ 115,844 143,667 143,667 143,667 +27,823 ............... ...............
Utah mitigation and ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
conservation................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and 402,983 393,419 379,654 523,919 +120,936 +130,500 +144,265
maintenance...............

Offsetting collections........... -227,600 -335,300 -148,500 -279,000 -51,400 +56,300 -130,500
Offsetting collections (Public -3,668 -4,162 -4,162 -4,162 -494 ............... ...............
Law 98-381).....................
Offsetting collections (Public ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Law 106-377)....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER 171,715 53,957 226,992 240,757 +69,042 +186,800 +13,765
ADMINISTRATION............
======================================================================================================================
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND
MAINTENANCE FUND

Operation and maintenance........ 2,804 2,692 2,692 2,692 -112 ............... ...............
Offsetting collections........... ............... -2,692 ............... ............... ............... +2,692 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD 2,804 ............... 2,692 2,692 -112 +2,692 ...............
O&M FUND..................
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, POWER MARKETING 208,794 57,123 265,450 279,215 +70,421 +222,092 +13,765
ADMINISTRATIONS...........
======================================================================================================================
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION

Federal Energy Regulatory 210,000 220,400 220,400 220,400 +10,400 ............... ...............
Commission......................
FERC revenues.................... -210,000 -220,400 -220,400 -220,400 -10,400 ............... ...............

Economic Regulation--Office of ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Hearings and Appeals............
======================================================================================================================
GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF 24,419,197 24,213,307 24,317,857 25,074,256 +655,059 +860,949 +756,399
ENERGY....................
(Total amount (24,263,197) (23,920,307) (24,281,857) (25,038,256) (+775,059) (+1,117,949) (+756,399)
appropriated).........
(Advance appropriations (36,000) (36,000) (36,000) (36,000) ............... ............... ...............
from previous years)..
(Advance (36,000) (257,000) ............... ............... (-36,000) (-257,000) ...............
appropriations, fiscal
year 2007)............
(Emergency (84,000) ............... ............... ............... (-84,000) ............... ...............
appropriations).......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
Section 301. Language is included under section 301 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, 2004
(Public Law 108-137).
Section 302. Language is included under section 302 which
prohibits the use of funds for severance payments under the
worker and community transition program. A similar provision
was contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2004.
Section 303. Language is included under section 303 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, 2004.
Section 304. Language is included 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, 2004.
Section 305. Language is included that prohibits the use of
funds by the Bonneville Power Administration to enter into
energy efficiency contracts outside its service area.
Section 306. This section requires the Secretary to compete
the management and operating contracts of certain Department of
Energy or National Nuclear Security Administration
laboratories.
Section 307. This section establishes certain notice and
competition requirements for Department of Energy user
facilities.
Section 308. The Committee provides a provision allowing
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration to authorize certain nuclear weapons production
plants, including the Nevada Test Site, to use not more than 4
percent of available fund for research, development and
demonstration activities. This provision has been carried in
previous Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts.
Section 309. Language is included specifically authorizing
intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year
2004 Intelligence Authorization Act (Public Law 108-381).
Section 310. Language is included that requires that waste
characterization at WIPP be limited to determining that the
waste is not ignitable, corrosive, or reactive. This
confirmation will be performed using radiography or visual
examination of a representative subpopulation of the waste.
Section 311. This section is included to require that all
the national security milestones in the Advanced Simulation
Computing program are achieved before congressionally directed
priorities are funded.
Section 312. Language is included under section 312
clarifying the cost-share requirements for a hydrogen fuel
project.
Section 313. This provision allows the Secretary to
authorize up to 8 percent of laboratory funds be used for
laboratory directed research and development.
Section 314. Language is included to ensure the funds
provided to the Department are available for payment of
Laboratory Directed Research and Development, Plant Directed
Research and Development and Site Directed Research and
Development activities.
Section 315. Language is included to ensure the funds
provided to the Department are available for direct and
indirect cost of research performed on behalf of other Federal
agencies.
Section 316. Language is included to limit funds from being
spent on unbudgeted NNSA complex reforms.

TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $65,472,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 65,472,000
House allowance......................................... 38,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 65,482,000

The Committee recommendation for the Appalachian Regional
Commission totals $65,482,000.
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.
Consistent with the administration's budget request, the
Committee recommendation does not include funding for ARC
highways. Funding for ARC development highways is provided
through the Highway Trust Fund in fiscal years 1999 through
2004 consistent with provision contained in the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (Public Law 102-240).
The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and
investment opportunities to the Appalachian region, and is
encouraged by the findings of 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. The Committee expects the ARC to continue
to be a prominent ATTP sponsor.

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $20,106,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 22,032,000
House allowance......................................... 22,032,000
Committee recommendation................................ 22,032,000

An appropriation of $22,032,000, the amount of the request,
is recommended for fiscal year 2006.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by
the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act (Public
Law 100-180). 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, 2005.................................... $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 6,000,000
House allowance......................................... 6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,000,000
for the Delta Regional Authority, an increase of $6,000,000
above the request.
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.

Denali Commission

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $66,464,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 2,562,000
House allowance......................................... 2,562,000
Committee recommendation................................ 67,000,000

The Committee recommendation includes $67,000,000 for the
Denali Commission.
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.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

salaries and expenses

gross appropriation

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $657,475,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 693,376,000
House allowance......................................... 714,376,000
Committee recommendation................................ 734,376,000

revenues

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $530,079,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 559,643,000
House allowance......................................... 580,643,000
Committee recommendation................................ 598,643,000

net appropriation

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $128,142,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 134,564,000
House allowance......................................... 134,564,000
Committee recommendation................................ 136,564,000

Fee Recovery.--The Committee recommendation includes bill
language providing for a 1 year extension of the authority to
continue the fee recovery percentage used in fiscal year 2005.
This language requires the NRC to recover 90 percent of its
budget authority, less the appropriation derived from the
Nuclear Waste fund and the amount necessary to implement
Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), by
assessing license and annual fees.
New Reactor Licensing.--The Committee recommends
$20,000,000 to support the preparatory activities and pre-
application consultations for expected combined license
applications beginning fiscal year 2008. The investment over 2
years includes accelerating efforts update NRC's regulatory
infrastructure, training and preparing new technical staff and
putting into place the infrastructure for additional NRC staff.
The Committee urges the NRC to utilize these resources in a
manner to ensure the effective and timely consideration of new
combined license applications. The Committee expects three to
five applications to be submitted in the next 2 years.
Security and Personnel.--The Committee recommends an
additional $21,000,000 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
be used to conduct site-specific assessments of spent fuel
pools at each of the nuclear reactor sites consistent with the
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences study. The
Committee expects the NRC to provide written updates as to its
findings and any changes to the current regulations as a result
of the assessments. The Committee directs the NRC to allocate
$4,000,000 to supporting the establishment of Department of
Homeland Security's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office and to
use $5,600,000 to meet the salary and benefits requirements
consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
(Public Law 108-447).
The Committee recommendation for the NRC is $734,376,000.
This amount is offset by estimated revenues of $598,643,000
resulting in a net appropriation of $136,564,000.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

gross appropriation

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $7,458,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 8,316,000
House allowance......................................... 8,316,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,316,000

revenues

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $6,712,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 7,485,000
House allowance......................................... 7,485,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,485,000

This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee
recommends an appropriation of $7,485,000 for fiscal year 2006.

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Appropriations, 2005.................................... $3,152,000
Budget estimate, 2006................................... 3,608,000
House allowance......................................... 3,608,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,608,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,608,000 for
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-203) 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.

Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the Inspector General

Appropriations, 2004....................................................
Budget estimate, 2005................................... $9,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

The Office of the Inspector General, for fiscal year 2006,
proposes to appropriate funds for TVA's IG out of TVA's
revenues beginning in 2006. The Committee has not included the
administration's proposal to establish a congressionally-funded
Office of the Inspector General to over the Tennessee Valley
Authority. The Committee believes the current relationship
between the Inspector General and the TVA Board is working well
and sees no reason to change that relationship.

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:
Section 501. The provision prohibits the transfer of
unexpended balances of appropriations to another Federal
department, agency or instrumentality of the U.S. Government.

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 Committee recommends funding for the following programs
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal
year 2006:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action program; Middle Rio Grande ESA Collaborative
Program; Bank Stabilization on Upper Yazoo Project, MS; Lower
Mississippi River Museum Interpretative Site, MS; Missouri and
Middle Mississippi Enhancement Project; Lake Champlain Canal
Dispersal Barrier Study, Vermont and New York;
Bureau of Reclamation: Water 2025, Norman, OK Feasibility
Study; Water Desalination Act of 1996; Rio Grande Collaborative
Water Operations Team;
Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply
Activities: Hydrogen Technology, Solar Energy, Wind Energy,
Hydropower, Geothermal Technology Biomass and Biorefinery R&D,
Intergovernmental Activities, Department Energy Management
Programs, Program Direction, Facilities and Infrastructure,
Weatherization;
Office of Nuclear Energy;
Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal,
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Research;
Office of Environment, Safety and Health;
Non-Defense Environmental Management;
Federal Lab Consortium;
Office of Science;
Department of Administration; Office of Inspector General;
Office of Economic Impact and Diversity;
National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons
Activities; Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors;
Office of the Administrator;
Defense Environmental Management, Defense Site Acceleration
Completion;
Other Defense Activities;
Defense Nuclear Waste Fund;
Office of Security and Performance Assurance;
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
Power Marketing Administrations: Southeastern,
Southwestern, Western Area; and
Energy Information Administration.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 16, 2005,
the Committee ordered reported, en bloc, H.R. 2419, an Act
making appropriations for energy and water development for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute, and H.R. 2360, an Act making
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute, both subject to further amendment and
subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 28-0,
a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Cochran
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Allard
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu

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.
With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the
Committee that it is necessary to dispense with these
requirements in order to expedite the business of the
Senate. deg.

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992, PUBLIC LAW 102-580

TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 101. * * *

* * * * * * *

SEC. 103. VISITOR CENTERS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront
Interpretive Site--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish
and operate in accordance with this subsection an
interpretive facility (including a museum and
interpretive site) in Vicksburg, Mississippi, which
shall be known as the ``Lower Mississippi River Museum
and Riverfront Interpretive Site''.
(2) Location of museum.--The museum shall be
located on [property currently held by the Resolution
Trust Corporation in the vicinity of the Mississippi
River Bridge] riverfront property in Vicksburg,
Mississippi. Title to the property shall be transferred
to the Secretary at no cost.

* * * * * * *

(7) Authorization of appropriations.--[There is]
(A) In general.--There is authorized to be
appropriated [$2,000,000 to carry out this
subsection, including acquiring and restoring
under paragraph (2) the property held by the
Resolution Trust Corporation and planning,
designing, and constructing the museum and
riverfront interpretive site under this
subsection.] $15,000,000 to plan, design, and
construct generally in accordance with the
conceptual plan to be prepared by the Corps of
Engineers.
(B) Funding.--The planning, design, and
construction of the Lower Mississippi River
Museum and Riverfront Interpretive Site shall
be carried out using funds appropriated as part
of the Mississippi River Levees feature of the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project,
authorized by the Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat.
534, chapter 569).

* * * * * * *

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996, PUBLIC LAW 104-303

TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--Except as provided in
this subsection, the following projects for water resources
development and conservation and other purposes are authorized
to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance
with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the
respective reports designated in this subsection:
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(31) Marmet lock, kanawha river, west virginia.--
The project for navigation, Marmet Lock, Kanawha River,
West Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated
June 24, 1994, at a total cost of [$229,581,000]
$358,000,000. The costs of construction of the project
are to be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the
general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts
appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

* * * * * * *

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999, PUBLIC LAW 106-53

* * * * * * *

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. * * *

* * * * * * *

SEC. 514. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:

* * * * * * *

(e) Compliance With Applicable Law.--In carrying out the
plan and the activities described in subsections (b) and (c),
the Secretary shall comply with any applicable Federal law,
including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(f) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any
project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest
may include a Regional or National nonprofit entity with the
consent of the affected local government.
(g) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal
funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any
single locality.
[(f)] (h) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of the project shall be 35 percent which may
be in cash, by the provision of lands, easements,
rights-of-way, relocations or disposal areas, by in-
kind services to implement the project, or by any
combination of the foregoing. Land needed for a project
under this authority may remain in private ownership
subject to easements satisfactory to the Secretary
necessary to assure achievement of the project
purposes.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost
of any 1 activity described in subsection (b) shall not
exceed $5,000,000.
(3) Operation and maintenance.--The operation and
maintenance of the project shall be a non-Federal
responsibility.
(g) (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the
cost of carrying out this section $30,000,000 [for the period
of fiscal years 2000 and 2001] per year, and such authority
shall extend until Federal fiscal year 2015.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 593. CENTRAL NEW MEXICO.

(a) Definition of Central New Mexico.--In this section, * *
*

* * * * * * *

(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section [$25,000,000]
$50,000,000 for the period beginning with fiscal year 2000, to
remain available until expended.

* * * * * * *

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000, PUBLIC LAW 106-541

* * * * * * *

TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. * * *

* * * * * * *

SEC. 214. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

(a) In General.--In fiscal years 2001 through [2005] 2006,
the Secretary, after public notice, may accept and expend funds
contributed by non-Federal public entities to expedite the
evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction of the Department
of the Army.

* * * * * * *

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. * * *

* * * * * * *

SEC. 529. LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.

(a) * * *
(b) Participation in Project.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated [$10,000,000] $20,000,000
to carry out this section.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 547. BLUESTONE, WEST VIRGINIA.

(a) In General.--The project for flood control, Bluestone
Lake, Ohio River basin, West Virginia, authorized by section 4
of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), is
modified to authorize construction of hydroelectric generating
facilities at the project by the Tri-Cities Power Authority of
West Virginia under the terms and conditions of the agreement
referred to in subsection (b).
(b) Agreement.--
(1) Agreement terms.--The Secretary and the
Secretary of Energy, acting through the Southeastern
Power Administration, shall enter into a binding
agreement with the Tri-Cities Power Authority that
contains mutually acceptable terms and conditions and
under which the Tri-Cities Power Authority agrees to
each of the following:
(A) To design and construct the generating
facilities referred to in subsection (a) within
[4 years] 5 years after the date of such
agreement.
(B) To reimburse the Secretary for--
(i) the cost of approving such
design and inspecting such
construction;
(ii) the cost of providing any
assistance authorized under subsection
(c)(2); and
(iii) the redistributed costs
associated with the original
construction of the dam and dam safety
[if all parties agree with the method
of the development of the chargeable
amounts associated with hydropower at
the facility] assurance project.
(C) To release and indemnify the United
States from any claims, causes of action, or
liabilities that may arise from such design
[and construction], construction, and operation
and maintenance of the facilities referred to
in subsection (a), including any liability that
may arise out of the removal of the facility if
directed by the Secretary.
(2) Additional terms.--The agreement shall also
specify each of the following:
(A) The procedures and requirements for
approval and acceptance of design,
construction, and operation and maintenance of
the facilities referred to in subsection (a).
(B) The rights, responsibilities, and
liabilities of each party to the agreement.
(C) The amount of the payments under
subsection (f) and the procedures under which
such payments are to be made.
(3) Operation and ownership.--The Tri-Cities Power
Authority shall be the owner and operator of the
hydropower facilities referred to in subsection (a).
(c) Other Requirements.--
(1) Prohibition.--[No] Unless otherwise provided,
no Federal funds may be expended for the planning,
design, construction, and operation and maintenance of
the facilities referred to in subsection (a) [prior to
the date on which such facilities are accepted by the
Secretary under subsection (d)].
(2) Reimbursement.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, if requested by the Tri-Cities Power
Authority, the Secretary may provide, on a reimbursable
basis, assistance in connection with the [design]
planning, design, and construction of the generating
facilities referred to in subsection (a).
(d) Completion of Construction.--
[(1) Transfer of facilities.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, upon completion of the
construction of the facilities referred to in
subsection (a) and final approval of such facilities by
the Secretary, the Tri-Cities Power Authority shall
transfer without consideration title to such facilities
to the United States, and the Secretary shall--
[(A) accept the transfer of title to such
facilities on behalf of the United States; and
[(B) operate and maintain the facilities.
[(2) Certification.--The Secretary may accept title
to the facilities pursuant to paragraph (1) only after
certifying that the quality of the construction meets
all standards established for similar facilities
constructed by the Secretary.]
(1) Approval.--The Secretary shall review the
design and construction activities for all features of
the hydroelectric project that pertain to and affect
stability of the dam and control the release of water
from Bluestone Dam to ensure that the quality of
construction of those features meets all standards
established for similar facilities constructed by the
Secretary.
[(3)] (2) Authorized project purposes.--The
operation and maintenance of the facilities shall be
conducted in a manner that is consistent with other
authorized project purposes of the Bluestone Lake
facility[.], except that hydroelectric power is no
longer a project purpose of the facility so long as
Tri-Cities Power Authority continues to exercise its
responsibilities as the builder, owner, and operator of
the hydropower facilities at Bluestone Dam. Water flow
releases and flood control from the hydropower
facilities shall be determined and directed by the
Corps of Engineers.
(3) Coordination.--Construction of the
hydroelectric generating facilities shall be
coordinated with the dam safety assurance project
currently in the design and construction phases.
(e) Excess Power.--Pursuant to any agreement under
subsection (b), the Southeastern Power Administration shall
market the excess power produced by the facilities referred to
in subsection (a) [in accordance with section 5 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s; 58 Stat.
890)].
(f) Payments.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Southeastern Power
Administration, may pay, in accordance with the terms of the
agreement entered into under subsection (b), out of the
revenues from the sale of power produced by the generating
[facility of the interconnected systems of reservoirs operated
by the Secretary] facilities under construction under such
agreements and marketed by the Southeastern Power
Administration--
(1) to the Tri-Cities Power Authority all
reasonable costs incurred by the Tri-Cities Power
Authority in the [design] planning, design and
construction of the facilities referred to in
subsection (a), including the capital investment in
such facilities and a reasonable rate of return on such
capital investment; and
(2) to the [Secretary] Tri-Cities Power Authority,
in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered
into under subsection (b) out of the revenues from the
sale of power produced by the generating [facility of
the interconnected systems of reservoirs operated by
the Secretary] facilities under construction under such
agreements and marketed by the Southeastern Power
Administration, all reasonable costs incurred by the
[Secretary] Tri-Cities Power Authority in the operation
and maintenance of [facilities referred to in
subsection (a)] such facilities.
(g) Authority of Secretary of Energy.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Secretary of Energy, acting through
the Southeastern Power Administration, is authorized--
[(1) to construct such transmission facilities as
necessary to market the power produced at the
facilities referred to in subsection (a) with funds
contributed by the Tri-Cities Power Authority; and]
(1) to arrange for the transmission of power to the
market or to construct such transmission facilities as
necessary to market the power produced at the
facilities referred to in subsection (a) with funds
contributed by the Tri-Cities Power Authority; and
(2) to repay those funds, including interest and
any administrative expenses, directly from the revenues
from the sale of power produced by [such facilities of
the interconnected systems of reservoirs operated by
the Secretary] the generating facility and marketed by
the Southeastern Power Administration.
(h) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section affects any
requirement under Federal or State environmental law relating
to the licensing or operation of the facilities referred to in
subsection (a).
(i) Tri-Cities Power Authority Defined.--In this section,
the ``Tri-Cities Power Authority'' refers to the entity
established by the City of Hinton, West Virginia, the City of
White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, and the City of Philippi,
West Virginia, pursuant to a document entitled ``Second Amended
and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement'' approved by the
Attorney General of West Virginia on February 14, 2002.

* * * * * * *

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001, PUBLIC LAW 106-554

* * * * * * *

DIVISION B

TITLE I

Sec. 101. * * *

* * * * * * *

Sec. 108. Environmental Infrastructure. (a) Technical,
Planning, and Design Assistance.--Section 219(c) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(19) Marana, arizona.--Wastewater treatment and
distribution infrastructure, Marana, Arizona.

* * * * * * *

(d) Additional Assistance for Critical Resource Projects.--
Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(45) Washington, d.c., and maryland.--$15,000,000
for the project described in subsection (c)(1),
modified to include measures to eliminate or control
combined sewer overflows in the Anacostia River
watershed.

* * * * * * *

``(70) Washington, greene, westmoreland, and
fayette counties, pennsylvania.--$8,000,000 for water
and wastewater infrastructure, Washington, Greene,
Westmoreland, and Fayette Counties, Pennsylvania.''.

* * * * * * *

(72) Alpine, california.--$10,000,000 is authorized
for a water transmission main, Alpine, CA.

* * * * * * *

TITLE III--COLORADO UTE SETTLEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000

SEC. 301. * * *

SEC. 303. MISCELLANEOUS.

The Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988
(Public Law 100-585; 102 Stat. 2973) is amended by adding at
the end the following:

* * * * * * *

``SEC. 17. COLORADO UTE SETTLEMENT FUND.

``(a) Establishment of Fund.--There is hereby established
within the Treasury of the United States a fund to be known as
the `Colorado Ute Settlement Fund'.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Colorado Ute Settlement Fund such
funds as are necessary to complete the construction of the
facilities described in sections 6(a)(1)(A) and 15(b) [within 7
years of the date of enactment of this section. Such funds are
authorized to be appropriated for each of the first 5 fiscal
years beginning with the first full fiscal year following the
date of enactment of this section] for each of fiscal years
2006 through 2012.

* * * * * * *

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004, PUBLIC LAW 108-
137

* * * * * * *

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers--Civil

Sec. 123. Gwynns Falls Watershed, Baltimore, Maryland. The
Secretary of the Army shall implement the project for ecosystem
restoration, Gwynns Falls, Maryland, [in accordance with the
Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources-Gwynns Falls Watershed
Feasibility Report prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the
City of Baltimore, Maryland.] in accordance with the
``Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources-Gwynns Falls Watershed
Study'' report prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the City
of Baltimore, Maryland, dated September 2002.

* * * * * * *

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 108-447

* * * * * * *

DIVISION C--ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

* * * * * * *

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

* * * * * * *

General Provisions, Department of the Interior

Sec. 201. * * *

* * * * * * *

Sec. 207. Animas-La Plata Non-Indian Sponsor Obligations.
In accordance with the nontribal repayment obligation specified
in Subsection 6(a)(3)(B) of the Colorado Ute Indian Rights
Settlement Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-585), as amended by the
Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 (Public Law 106-
554), the reimbursable cost upon which the cost allocation
shall be based shall not exceed $43,000,000, plus interest
during construction for those parties not utilizing the up
front payment option, of the first $500,000,000 (January 2003
price level) of the total project costs. Consequently, the
Secretary may forgive the obligation of the non-Indian sponsors
relative to the $163,000,000 increase, and any effects of
inflation thereon, in estimated total project costs that
occurred in 2003.

* * * * * * *

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR
ON TERROR, AND TSUNAMI RELIEF, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 109-13

* * * * * * *

TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS AND TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

Sec. 6001. * * *

* * * * * * *

DESALINATION ACT EXTENSION

Sec. 6015. Section 8 of Public Law 104-298 (The Water
Desalination Act of 1996) (110 Stat. 3624) as amended by
section 210 of Public Law 108-7 (117 Stat. 146) is amended by--
(1) in paragraph (a) by striking ``2004'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``[2005]'' 2010; and
(2) in paragraph (b) by striking ``2004'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``[2005]'' 2010.

* * * * * * *

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 \1\ bill allocation \1\ bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in the
Budget Resolution for 2006: Subcommittee on Energy
and Water:
Discretionary..................................... 31,245 31,245 31,155 \1\ 31,118
Projections of outlays associated with the
recommendation:
2006.............................................. .............. ........... .............. \2\ 20,026
2007.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 9,167
2008.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 1,832
2009.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 106
2010 and future years............................. .............. ........... .............. 81
Financial assistance to State and local governments NA 450 NA 186
for 2006............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2006
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+
or -)
Item 2005 Budget estimate House allowance Committee --------------------------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2005
appropriation Budget estimate House allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers--Civil

General investigations........... 143,344 95,000 100,000 180,000 +36,656 +85,000 +80,000
Hurricane Disasters 400 ............... ............... ............... -400 ............... ...............
Assistance (emergency)......
Construction..................... 1,781,720 1,637,000 1,900,000 2,086,664 +304,944 +449,664 +186,664
Hurricane Disasters 62,600 ............... ............... ............... -62,600 ............... ...............
Assistance (emergency)......
Flood control, Mississippi River 321,904 270,000 290,000 433,336 +111,432 +163,336 +143,336
and tributaries, Arkansas,
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and
Tennessee.......................
Hurricane Disasters 6,000 ............... ............... ............... -6,000 ............... ...............
Assistance (emergency)......
Operation and maintenance........ 1,943,428 1,979,000 2,000,000 2,100,000 +156,572 +121,000 +100,000
Offsetting collection........ ............... -181,000 ............... ............... ............... +181,000 ...............
Hurricane Disasters 145,400 ............... ............... ............... -145,400 ............... ...............
Assistance (emergency)......
Storm damage--(Public Law 108- 10,000 ............... ............... ............... -10,000 ............... ...............
324--Sec. 401) (emergency)......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and 2,098,828 1,798,000 2,000,000 2,100,000 +1,172 +302,000 +100,000
maintenance...............

Regulatory program............... 143,840 160,000 160,000 150,000 +6,160 -10,000 -10,000
FUSRAP........................... 163,680 140,000 140,000 140,000 -23,680 ............... ...............
Flood control and coastal ............... 70,000 ............... 43,000 +43,000 -27,000 +43,000
emergencies.....................
Hurricane Disasters 148,000 ............... ............... ............... -148,000 ............... ...............
Assistance (emergency)......
General expenses................. 165,664 162,000 152,021 165,000 -664 +3,000 +12,979
Office of Assistant Secretary of 3,968 ............... 4,000 ............... -3,968 ............... -4,000
the Army (Civil Works)..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, title I, Department 5,039,948 4,332,000 4,746,021 5,298,000 +258,052 +966,000 +551,979
of Defense--Civil.........
======================================================================================================================
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR

Central Utah Project Completion
Account

Central Utah project construction 30,560 31,668 31,668 31,668 +1,108 ............... ...............
Fish, wildlife, and recreation 15,345 946 946 946 -14,399 ............... ...............
mitigation and conservation.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 45,905 32,614 32,614 32,614 -13,291 ............... ...............
Program oversight and 1,720 1,736 1,736 1,736 +16 ............... ...............
administration..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Central Utah project 47,625 34,350 34,350 34,350 -13,275 ............... ...............
completion account........

Bureau of Reclamation

Water and related resources...... 852,605 801,569 832,000 899,569 +46,964 +98,000 +67,569
Offsetting collection........ ............... -30,000 ............... ............... ............... +30,000 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, water and related 852,605 771,569 832,000 899,569 +46,964 +128,000 +67,569
resources.................

Central Valley project 54,628 52,219 52,219 52,219 -2,409 ............... ...............
restoration fund................
California Bay-Delta restoration. ............... 35,000 35,000 37,000 +37,000 +2,000 +2,000
Policy and administration........ 57,688 57,917 57,917 57,917 +229 ............... ...............
Drought conditions Nevada (Public 5,000 ............... ............... ............... -5,000 ............... ...............
Law 108-324) (emergency)........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Bureau of 969,921 916,705 977,136 1,046,705 +76,784 +130,000 +69,569
Reclamation...............
======================================================================================================================
Total, title II, Department 1,017,546 951,055 1,011,486 1,081,055 +63,509 +130,000 +69,569
of the Interior...........
======================================================================================================================
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy supply and conservation... 1,806,936 1,749,446 1,763,888 1,945,330 +138,394 +195,884 +181,442

Clean coal technology:
Deferral of unobligated -257,000 257,000 257,000 257,000 +514,000 ............... ...............
balances, fiscal year 2005..
Deferral of unobligated ............... ............... -257,000 -257,000 -257,000 -257,000 ...............
balances, fiscal year 2007..
Rescission................... ............... -257,000 ............... ............... ............... +257,000 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Clean coal -257,000 ............... ............... ............... +257,000 ............... ...............
technology................

Fossil Energy Research and 571,854 491,456 502,467 641,646 +69,792 +150,190 +139,179
Development.....................
Advance appropriations, ............... 257,000 ............... ............... ............... -257,000 ...............
fiscal year 2007............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Fossil Energy 571,854 748,456 502,467 641,646 +69,792 -106,810 +139,179
Research and Development..

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale 17,750 18,500 18,500 21,500 +3,750 +3,000 +3,000
Reserves........................

Elk Hills school lands fund...... 72,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 +12,000 ............... ...............
Strategic petroleum reserve...... 169,710 166,000 166,000 166,000 -3,710 ............... ...............
Northeast home heating oil 4,930 ............... ............... ............... -4,930 ............... ...............
reserve.........................
Energy Information Administration 83,819 85,926 86,426 85,926 +2,107 ............... -500
Non-defense site environmental 439,601 349,934 319,934 353,219 -86,382 +3,285 +33,285
clean up........................
Uranium enrichment 495,015 591,498 591,498 561,498 +66,483 -30,000 -30,000
decontamination and
decommissioning fund............
Science.......................... 3,599,871 3,462,718 3,666,055 3,702,718 +102,847 +240,000 +36,663
Nuclear Waste Disposal........... 343,232 300,000 310,000 300,000 -43,232 ............... -10,000

Departmental administration...... 238,503 279,976 252,909 280,976 +42,473 +1,000 +28,067
Miscellaneous revenues....... -121,024 -123,000 -123,000 -123,000 -1,976 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net appropriation.......... 117,479 156,976 129,909 157,976 +40,497 +1,000 +28,067

Office of the Inspector General.. 41,176 43,000 43,000 43,000 +1,824 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
Atomic Energy Defense Activities

National Nuclear Security
Administration:
Weapons activities........... 6,331,590 6,630,133 6,181,121 6,554,024 +222,434 -76,109 +372,903
Transfer from Department (300,000) ............... ............... ............... (-300,000) ............... ...............
of Defense approps......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Weapons (6,631,590) (6,630,133) (6,181,121) (6,554,024) (-77,566) (-76,109) (+372,903)
activities (program
level)................

Defense nuclear 1,409,033 1,637,239 1,500,959 1,729,066 +320,033 +91,827 +228,107
nonproliferation............
Emergency appropriations 84,000 ............... ............... ............... -84,000 ............... ...............
(H.R. 1268).............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense 1,493,033 1,637,239 1,500,959 1,729,066 +236,033 +91,827 +228,107
nuclear
nonproliferation......

Naval reactors............... 801,437 786,000 799,500 799,500 -1,937 +13,500 ...............
Office of the Administrator.. 353,350 343,869 366,869 343,869 -9,481 ............... -23,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, National Nuclear 8,979,410 9,397,241 8,848,449 9,426,459 +447,049 +29,218 +578,010
Security Administration...

Defense site environmental 6,808,319 6,015,044 6,468,336 6,366,771 -441,548 +351,727 -101,565
cleanup.........................
Other defense activities......... 687,149 635,998 702,498 665,001 -22,148 +29,003 -37,497
Defense nuclear waste disposal... 229,152 351,447 351,447 277,000 +47,848 -74,447 -74,447
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Atomic Energy 16,704,030 16,399,730 16,370,730 16,735,231 +31,201 +335,501 +364,501
Defense Activities........
======================================================================================================================
Power Marketing Administrations

Operation and maintenance, 5,158 38,313 38,313 38,313 +33,155 ............... ...............
Southeastern Power
Administration..................
Offsetting collection........ ............... -38,313 -32,713 -32,713 -32,713 +5,600 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, O&M, Southeastern 5,158 ............... 5,600 5,600 +442 +5,600 ...............
Power Administration......

Operation and maintenance, 29,117 31,401 31,401 33,166 +4,049 +1,765 +1,765
Southwestern Power
Administration..................
Offsetting collection........ ............... -28,235 -1,235 -3,000 -3,000 +25,235 -1,765
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, O&M, Southwestern 29,117 3,166 30,166 30,166 +1,049 +27,000 ...............
Power Administration......

Construction, rehabilitation, 171,715 393,419 379,654 523,919 +352,204 +130,500 +144,265
operation and maintenance,
Western Area Power
Administration..................
Offsetting collection........ ............... -335,300 -148,500 -279,000 -279,000 +56,300 -130,500
Offsetting collection (Public ............... -4,162 -4,162 -4,162 -4,162 ............... ...............
Law 98-381).................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, O&M, Western Area 171,715 53,957 226,992 240,757 +69,042 +186,800 +13,765
Power Administration......

Falcon and Amistad operating and 2,804 2,692 2,692 2,692 -112 ............... ...............
maintenance fund................
Offsetting collection........ ............... -2,692 ............... ............... ............... +2,692 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Falcon and 2,804 ............... 2,692 2,692 -112 +2,692 ...............
Amistad O&M fund..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Power Marketing 208,794 57,123 265,450 279,215 +70,421 +222,092 +13,765
Administrations...........
======================================================================================================================
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission

Salaries and expenses............ 210,000 220,400 220,400 220,400 +10,400 ............... ...............
Revenues applied................. -210,000 -220,400 -220,400 -220,400 -10,400 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
Total, title III, 24,419,197 24,213,307 24,317,857 25,077,259 +658,062 +863,952 +759,402
Department of Energy......
Appropriations......... (24,263,197) (23,920,307) (24,281,857) (25,041,259) (+778,062) (+1,120,952) (+759,402)
Advance appropriations (36,000) (36,000) (36,000) (36,000) ............... ............... ...............
from previous years...
Advance appropriations, (36,000) (257,000) ............... ............... (-36,000) (-257,000) ...............
fiscal year 2007......
Emergency (84,000) ............... ............... ............... (-84,000) ............... ...............
appropriations........
======================================================================================================================
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission.. 65,472 65,472 38,500 65,482 +10 +10 +26,982
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 20,106 22,032 22,032 22,032 +1,926 ............... ...............
Board...........................
Delta Regional Authority......... 6,000 6,000 6,000 12,000 +6,000 +6,000 +6,000
Denali Commission................ 66,464 2,562 2,562 67,000 +536 +64,438 +64,438

Nuclear Regulatory Commission:...
Salaries and expenses........ 657,475 693,376 714,376 734,376 +76,901 +41,000 +20,000
Revenues..................... -530,079 -559,643 -580,643 -598,643 -68,564 -39,000 -18,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 127,396 133,733 133,733 135,733 +8,337 +2,000 +2,000

Office of Inspector General.. 7,458 8,316 8,316 8,316 +858 ............... ...............
Revenues..................... -6,712 -7,485 -7,485 -7,485 -773 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 746 831 831 831 +85 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
Total, Nuclear Regulatory 128,142 134,564 134,564 136,564 +8,422 +2,000 +2,000
Commission................

Nuclear Waste Technical Review 3,152 3,608 3,608 3,608 +456 ............... ...............
Board...........................
Tennessee Valley Authority: ............... 9,000 ............... ............... ............... -9,000 ...............
Office of Inspector General.....
Offset....................... ............... -9,000 ............... ............... ............... +9,000 ...............
======================================================================================================================
Total, title IV, 289,336 234,238 207,266 306,686 +17,350 +72,448 +99,420
Independent agencies......
======================================================================================================================
Grand total................ 30,766,027 29,730,600 30,282,630 31,763,000 +996,973 +2,032,400 +1,480,370
Appropriations......... (30,489,627) (29,437,600) (30,246,630) (31,727,000) (+1,237,373) (+2,289,400) (+1,480,370)
Emergency (461,400) ............... ............... ............... (-461,400) ............... ...............
appropriations........
Advance appropriations (36,000) (36,000) (36,000) (36,000) ............... ............... ...............
from previous years...
Advance appropriations, (36,000) (257,000) ............... ............... (-36,000) (-257,000) ...............
fiscal years 2006 and
2007..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------