- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 688
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-395
======================================================================
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 2001
_______
August 30, 2000.--Ordered to be printed
Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of January 6, 1999
_______
Mr. Domenici, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 4733]
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and water
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, 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 2001
Budget estimates considered by Senate................... $23,153,068,000
Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................ 22,918,441,000
The bill as reported to the Senate--
Below the budget estimate, 2001..................... 234,627,000
Over enacted bill, 2000............................. 1,271,394,000
========================================================
__________________________________________________
C O N T E N T S
----------
TITLE I
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
Corps of Engineers--Civil:
Page
General investigations................................... 10
Construction, general.................................... 31
Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries......... 51
Operation and maintenance, general....................... 56
Flood control and coastal emergencies.................... 80
Regulatory program....................................... 80
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.......... 81
General expenses......................................... 82
TITLE II
Department of the Interior:
Central Utah project completion account...................... 84
Bureau of Reclamation: Water and related resources........... 84
Bureau of Reclamation loan program account................... 96
Central Valley project restoration fund...................... 99
California bay-delta ecosystem restoration................... 99
Policy and administrative expenses........................... 100
TITLE III
Department of Energy:
Energy Supply................................................ 102
Renewable energy resources............................... 102
Nuclear energy programs.................................. 106
Environment, safety, and health.......................... 110
Energy support activities................................ 110
Environmental management (nondefense)........................ 110
Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund.. 111
Nuclear waste fund........................................... 111
Science...................................................... 112
High energy physics...................................... 112
Nuclear physics.......................................... 112
Biological and environmental research.................... 113
Basic energy sciences.................................... 113
Other energy research programs........................... 114
Fusion energy sciences................................... 115
Departmental administration.................................. 115
Miscellaneous revenues................................... 115
Inspector General............................................ 115
Atomic energy defense activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapon activities.................................... 116
Defense nuclear nonproliferation..................... 124
Naval reactors....................................... 129
Office of the Administrator.......................... 129
Other defense related activities:
Defense environmental restoration and waste
management......................................... 130
Defense facilities closure projects.................. 134
Defense environmental management privatization....... 134
Other defense activities............................. 135
Defense nuclear waste disposal....................... 139
Power marketing administrations:
Operations and maintenance, Southeastern Power
Administration......................................... 142
Operations and maintenance, Southwestern Power
Administration......................................... 142
Construction, rehabilitation, operations and maintenance,
Western Area Power Administration...................... 142
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission......................... 143
General provisions........................................... 164
TITLE IV
Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.............................. 167
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board...................... 167
Delta Regional Authority..................................... 168
Denali Commission............................................ 168
Nuclear Regulatory Commission................................ 168
Office of Inspector General.................................. 169
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board......................... 169
TITLE V
Fiscal year 2000 supplemental: Cerro Grande fire activities...... 170
TITLE VI
Rescission....................................................... 171
TITLE VII
General provisions............................................... 172
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the
Senate......................................................... 173
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 174
Budgetary impact statement....................................... 181
Purpose
The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for
the fiscal year 2001 beginning October 1, 2000, and ending
September 30, 2001, for energy and water development, and for
other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources
development programs and related activities of the Department
of the Army, Civil Functions--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Civil Works Program in title I; for the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the
Department of Energy's energy research activities (except for
fossil fuel programs and certain conservation and regulatory
functions), including environmental restoration and waste
management, and atomic energy defense activities of the
National Nuclear Security Administration in title III; and for
related independent agencies and commissions, including the
Appalachian Regional Commission, Denali Commission, and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in title IV.
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations
The fiscal year 2001 budget estimates for the bill total
$23,153,068,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The
recommendation of the Committee totals $22,918,441,000. This is
$234,627,000 below the budget estimates and $1,271,394,000 over
the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.
subcommittee budget allocation
The Energy and Water Development Subcommittee allocation
under section 302(b)(1) of the Budget Act totals
$22,470,000,000 in budget authority and $22,229,000,000 in
outlays for fiscal year 2001. The bill as recommended by the
Committee is within the subcommittee allocation for fiscal year
2001 in budget authority and outlays.
Bill Highlights
atomic energy defense activities
The amount recommended in the bill includes $13,410,379,000
for atomic energy defense activities. Major programs and
activities include:
Weapon activities....................................... $4,883,289,000
Defense nuclear nonproliferation........................ 908,967,000
Naval reactors.......................................... 694,600,000
Other defense activities................................ 579,463,000
Defense waste management and environmental restoration.. 4,635,763,000
Defense facilities closure projects..................... 1,082,297,000
Defense environmental privatization..................... 324,000,000
energy supply
The bill recommended by the Committee provides a total of
$691,520,000 for energy research programs including:
Renewable energy resources.............................. $444,117,000
Nuclear energy.......................................... 262,084,000
nondefense environmental management
An appropriation of $309,141,000 is recommended for
nondefense environmental management activities of the
Department of Energy.
science
The Committee recommendation also provides a net
appropriation of $2,870,112,000 for general science and
research activities in life sciences, high energy physics, and
nuclear physics. Major programs are:
High energy physics research............................ $677,030,000
Nuclear physics......................................... 350,274,000
Basic energy sciences................................... 914,582,000
Biological and environmental R&D........................; 444,000,000
Fusion energy sciences.................................. 227,270,000
Other energy research................................... 174,900,000
regulatory and other independent agencies
Also recommended in the bill is $162,700,000 for various
regulatory and independent agencies of the Federal Government.
Major programs include:
Appalachian Regional Commission......................... $66,400,000
Delta Regional Authority................................ 20,000,000
Denali Commission....................................... 30,000,000
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.................... 175,200,000
Nuclear Regulatory Commission........................... 481,900,000
water resources development
Corps of Engineers:
General investigations.............................. $139,219,000
Construction........................................ 1,361,449,000
Flood control Mississippi River and tributaries..... 324,450,000
FUSRAP.............................................. 140,000,000
Operations and maintenance.......................... 1,862,471,000
Corps of Engineers, regulatory activities........... 120,000,000
Bureau of Reclamation:
California Bay-Delta restoration....................................
Central Valley project restoration fund............. 38,382,000
Water and related resource.......................... 655,192,000
Central Utah project completion..................... 39,940,000
The Committee has recommended appropriations totaling
approximately $4,892,696,000 for Federal water resource
development programs. This includes projects and related
activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Civil and the
Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior. The
Federal water resource development program provides lasting
benefits to the Nation in the area of flood control, municipal
and industrial water supply, irrigation of agricultural lands,
water conservation, commercial navigation, hydroelectric power,
recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement.
Water is our Nation's most precious and valuable resource.
It is evident that water supply in the near future will be as
important, if not more so, than energy. There is only so much
water available. Water cannot be manufactured. Our Nation
cannot survive without water, and economic prosperity cannot
occur without a plentiful supply.
While many areas of the country suffer from severe
shortages of water, others suffer from the other extreme--an
excess of water which threatens both rural and urban areas with
floods. Because water is a national asset, and because the
availability and control of water affect and benefit all States
and jurisdictions, the Federal Government has historically
assumed much of the responsibility for financing of water
resource development.
The existing national water resource infrastructure in
America is an impressive system of dams, locks, harbors,
canals, irrigation systems, reservoirs, and recreation sites
with a central purpose--to serve the public's needs.
Our waterways and harbors are an essential part of our
national transportation system--providing clean, efficient, and
economical transportation of fuels for energy generation and
agricultural production, and making possible residential and
industrial development to provide homes and jobs for the
American people.
Reservoir projects provide hydroelectric power production
and downstream flood protection, make available recreational
opportunities for thousands of urban residents, enhance fish
and wildlife habitat, and provide our communities and
industries with abundant and clean water supplies which are
essential not only to life itself, but also to help maintain a
high standard of living for the American people.
When projects are completed, they make enormous
contributions to America. The benefits derived from completed
projects, in many instances, vastly exceed those contemplated
during project development. In 1999, flood control projects
prevented $21,200,000,000 in damages, and U.S. ports and
harbors annually handle about $600,000,000,000 in international
cargo generating over $14,500,000,000 in tax revenues, nearly
$515,000,000,000 in personal income, contributing
$783,000,000,000 to the Nation's gross domestic product, and
$1,600,000,000,000 in business sales.
subcommittee hearings
The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the
Committee on Appropriations held three sessions in connection
with the fiscal year 2001 appropriation bill. Witnesses
included officials and representatives of the Federal agencies
under the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
In addition, the subcommittee received numerous statements
and letters from Members of the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives, Governors, State and local officials and
representatives, and hundreds of private citizens of all walks
of life throughout the United States. Information, both for and
against many items, was presented to the subcommittee. The
recommendations for fiscal year 2001 therefore, have been
developed after careful consideration of available data.
votes in the committee
By a vote of 28 to 0 the Committee on July 18, 2000,
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
The Committee recommendation for the Corps of Engineers
totals $4,104,589,000. This is $40,889,000 above the budget
request for fiscal year 2001, but is $21,971,000 below the
appropriation for the current year.
budget constraints
The budget allocation for non-Defense discretionary
programs contained in the Energy and Water Development for
fiscal year 2001 are severely constrained and require
reductions of $625,000,000 below the budget request for fiscal
year 2001. Faced with these budget realities, the Committee has
had to make tough decisions and choices in the development of
the Corps of Engineers budget request for fiscal year 2001.
However, while the budget resources for non-Defense
discretionary programs continue to decline, the number of
requests of the subcommittee continue to increase. This year
the Committee received nearly 1,000 requests for funding for
water projects within the Corps' civil works program. Many
supported the funding level in the budget request, but a
majority of the requests made of the Committee sought increases
over the budgeted amounts or new items not contained in the
President's budget for fiscal year 2001.
To compound pressures on the budget this year, the
Committee was faced with the recently enacted Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (WRDA 99). That legislation authorized
construction of many new projects, extended credit and
reimbursement authorities, and significantly expanded new
mission and responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers into
areas which historically have been a State and local
responsibility. The best example of this is the environmental
and other infrastructure authorities which the Committee
estimates will cost over $800,000,000. It should also be
pointed out that the backlog of authorized but unfunded
projects totals $45,000,000,000 to $50,000,000,000.
It is clear that, with the ever increasing level of
authorized projects, the expansion of the Corps' areas of
responsibility, and the continued reductions in non-Defense
discretionary funding available to the Committee, the projects
which the Committee is able to fund will have extended
completion schedules and delayed benefits both to the local
areas involved and to the Nation as a whole. These extended
completion schedules and delayed benefits projected by the
fiscal year 2001 budget are estimated at over $4,000,000,000 in
benefits foregone and nearly $500,000,000 in increased project
costs, a significant portion of which State and local sponsors
will have to fund.
The Committee is concerned about the Corps' incursion into
non-traditional areas of responsibility and areas where the
private sector has demonstrated capability and capacity to
perform. Programs such as school modernization, while important
and well intended, should be pursued only after careful review
and consultation with the Congress, in full compliance with
applicable procedures and regulations, and mindful of the
private sector's capability to perform the work in question.
Further, the Committee believes the Corps should not be
unduly constrained in carrying out its traditional role in
providing inherently governmental engineering and environmental
services to other Federal agencies or in assisting States
consistent with existing law.
management reforms
Earlier this year, following unsubstantiated allegations by
a Corps of Engineers' employee and several press stories, the
Secretary of the Army announced a number of Civil Works program
management reforms. The Committee feels that the efforts of the
Department of the Army and the Executive Branch to consult with
the Congress prior to implementing these significant reforms
was totally inadequate. As the result of Congressional concern,
the Secretary of the Army agreed to withhold implementation for
a reasonable period of time to allow for consultation. As yet,
there has been little or no substantive dialogue regarding the
need for or the impact of the proposed reforms on the historic
role of the Corps of Engineers in the development of
professional, impartial recommendations related to water
resource development projects.
While the Committee does not take issue with the need for
civilian oversight of the top Corps commanders, this oversight
and management must not infringe on the responsibilities of the
Corps, as a whole, to develop and finalize recommendations
that, to the greatest extent possible, are balanced,
representing the best solution possible to meet development
needs and protect the environment. The Committee believes that
a number of the reforms proposed by the Secretary of the Army
fundamentally change the Corps' ability to provide such
balance, and interject political or other considerations much
earlier in the process thus jeopardizing the objectivity and
balance which existing water resource development procedures
require.
Further, the Committee believes that the executive branch's
insistence that reform of the Corps of Engineers be based
solely on the findings of the Inspector General's investigation
of allegations of misconduct, which addresses the allegations
of a single individual, is too narrow in scope to be meaningful
to the issue of management of the Corps as an organization.
Other studies and investigations, such as the National Research
Council study of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Navigation
Study, initiated by the Secretary of the Army; and an
investigation by the House Appropriations Committee, will
address basic, systemic issues of the Corps management process.
The Committee feels it important to have the results of these
reviews before making conclusions as to what reforms should to
be instituted.
Finally, the Committee has not proceeded with legislative
language which would prohibit reform of the Corps management
structure with the expectation that the Executive Branch would
engage the Congress in a meaningful dialogue as to what reforms
should be instituted in the near term. However, there are
indications that the Secretary of the Army and elements of the
Executive Branch still plan to proceed with the original
reforms irrespective of Congressional desires and views on the
matter. The Committee has not included legislative language in
this measure, but will reassess the need for such language as
the process moves forward.
basis of committee recommendation
Specifically, in development of the fiscal year 2001
funding recommendation for the Corps of Engineers, the
Committee is not able to include any new construction starts,
has recommended only a limited number of new study starts, and
has had to reduce numerous funding levels below the amount
requested in the budget in an effort to restore balance to the
water resource program of the Corps, and to address high
priority requests made to the Committee--all within a budget
allocation for non-Defense discretionary program that is
$625,000,000 below the budget request for fiscal year 2001. The
limited resources available have been focused on on-going
projects where the Corps has contractual commitments. While the
Committee has not been able to fund projects at the optimum
level, it has endeavored to provide sufficient funding on each
project to mitigate delays and increased costs, to the greatest
extent possible, across the entire Corps' civil works program.
Finally, the Committee received numerous requests to
include project authorizations in the energy and water
development appropriations bill. In an effort to support and
honor congressional authorizing committees jurisdiction, the
Committee has not included new project authorizations.
general investigations
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $161,994,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 137,700,000
House allowance......................................... 153,327,000
Committee recommendation................................ 139,219,000
The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance
are shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation
Type of Project title Federal Allocated --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
project cost to date Investigations Planning Investigations Planning Investigations Planning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
(N)ALABAMA RIVER BELOW CLAIBORNE 2,617 740 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
LOCK AND DAM, AL
(FDP)BALDWIN COUNTY WATERSHEDS, AL 750 170 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
(N)BAYOU LA BATRE, AL 600 170 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
(N)BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE 15,035 456 521 ........... 521 ........... 521 ...........
RIVERS, AL
(FDP)BREWTON AND EAST BREWTON, AL 750 170 50 ........... 50 ........... 50 ...........
(SPE)CAHABA RIVER WATERSHED, AL 1,150 150 50 ........... 50 ........... 50 ...........
COOSA RIVER, AL ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 150 .............. ...........
(N)DOG RIVER, AL 1,651 919 250 ........... 250 ........... 250 ...........
(FDP)LUBBUB CREEK, AL 600 86 50 ........... 50 ........... .............. ...........
LUXAPALILA CREEK, LAMAR 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
COUNTY, AL
(SPE)VILLAGE CREEK, JEFFERSON 1,423 746 250 ........... 250 ........... 250 ...........
COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM WATERSHED)
ALASKA
(N)AKUTAN HARBOR, AK 612 504 108 ........... 108 ........... 108 ...........
(N)AKUTAN HARBOR, AK 9,600 ........... .............. 150 .............. 150 .............. 150
ANCHOR POINT HARBOR, AK 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 50 ...........
(FDP)ANIAK, AK 676 256 50 ........... 50 ........... 50 ...........
(SP)BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE 600 86 150 ........... 150 ........... 150 ...........
REDUCTION, AK
(SPE)CHANDALAR RIVER WATERSHED, 500 86 50 ........... 50 ........... .............. ...........
VENETIE INDIAN, AK
(E)CHENA RIVER WATERSHED, AK 777 477 50 ........... 50 ........... 50 ...........
CRAIG HARBOR, AK 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(N)DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR, AK 1,850 70 422 ........... 422 ........... 700 ...........
(N)DOUGLAS HARBOR EXPANSION, AK 316 207 109 ........... 109 ........... 109 ...........
(N)DOUGLAS HARBOR EXPANSION, AK 4,000 ........... .............. 50 .............. 50 .............. 50
(N)FALSE PASS HARBOR, AK 4,800 ........... .............. 250 .............. 250 .............. 250
FIRE ISLAND, AK 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(N)GASTINEAU CHANNEL 500 86 50 ........... 50 ........... .............. ...........
MODIFICATION, AK
HAINES HARBOR, AK 200 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 200 ...........
(E)KENAI RIVER WATERSHED, AK 900 150 50 ........... 50 ........... 50 ...........
KETCHIKAN HARBOR, AK 200 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 200 ...........
KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, AK 200 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 150 ...........
(E)MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK 900 100 100 ........... 100 ........... .............. ...........
MEKORYUK HARBOR, AK 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(E)NAKNEK RIVER WATERSHED, AK 500 100 50 ........... 50 ........... .............. ...........
(N)NAPASKIAK HARBOR, AK 250 ........... 69 ........... 69 ........... .............. ...........
(N)PERRYVILLE HARBOR, AK 160 20 120 ........... 120 ........... 120 ...........
(N)PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK 400 229 107 ........... 107 ........... 107 ...........
(N)QUINHAGAK HARBOR, AK 290 ........... 100 ........... 100 ........... 50 ...........
SAINT GEORGE HAROBR 600 ........... .............. ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
IMPROVEMENT, AK
(E)SHIP CREEK WATERSHED, AK 474 319 53 ........... 53 ........... 53 ...........
SITKA HARBOR, AK 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(N)SKAGWAY HARBOR MODIFICATION, 450 86 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
AK
(N)UNALAKLEET HARBOR, AK 300 ........... 74 ........... 74 ........... 74 ...........
(N)UNALASKA HARBOR, AK 450 241 209 ........... 209 ........... 209 ...........
(N)UNALASKA HARBOR, AK 9,000 ........... .............. 58 .............. 58 .............. 58
(N)VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK 451 408 43 ........... 43 ........... 43 ...........
(N)VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK 451 ........... .............. 150 .............. 150 .............. 150
WHITTIER BREAKWATER, AK 200 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 169 ...........
AMERICAN SAMOA
(N)TUTUILA HARBOR, AS 400 125 275 ........... 275 ........... 275 ...........
ARIZONA
COLONIAS ALONG THE U.S./MEXICO ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 260 .............. ...........
BORDER, AZ AND TX
(FDP)GILA RIVER, NORTHEAST PHOENIX 1,985 1,723 212 ........... 212 ........... 212 ...........
DRAINAGE AREA, AZ
(SPE)LITTLE COLORADO RIVER, AZ 1,675 150 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
(E)PIMA COUNTY, AZ 1,100 100 75 ........... 175 ........... 75 ...........
(E)RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ 1,100 150 290 ........... 290 ........... 290 ...........
(FC)RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ 18,200 129 .............. 250 .............. 375 .............. 250
(E)RIO SALADO ESTE, AZ 800 100 175 ........... 175 ........... 175 ...........
(E)RIO SALADO OESTE, AZ 800 100 175 ........... 400 ........... 175 ...........
SANTA CRUZ RIVER (GRANT RD. TO ........... ........... .............. ........... 300 ........... .............. ...........
LOWELL RD.), AZ
(E)SANTA CRUZ RIVER (PASEO DE LAS 1,350 338 100 ........... 335 ........... 100 ...........
IGLESIAS), AZ
(E)TRES RIOS, AZ 55,250 43 .............. 250 .............. 500 .............. 250
(FC)TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ 19,400 600 .............. 432 .............. 800 .............. 432
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS RIVER LEVEES, AR ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 400 .............. ...........
(N)ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION 5,800 919 753 ........... 753 ........... 753 ...........
STUDY, AR AND OK
(FDP)MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR 840 593 247 ........... 247 ........... 247 ...........
(FC)NORTH LITTLE ROCK, DARK 19,500 25 .............. 200 .............. 200 .............. 500
HOLLOW, AR
(N)RED RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, 2,800 2,182 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS, AR
SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR ........... ........... .............. ........... 900 ........... .............. ...........
(COM)WHITE RIVER BASIN 2,000 ........... 500 ........... .............. ........... 500 ...........
COMPREHENSIVE, AR AND MO
(N)WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION, AR ........... ........... .............. ........... 300 ........... .............. ...........
WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOW 850 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 850 ...........
STUDY, AR
CALIFORNIA
(E)ALISO CREEK MAINSTEM, CA 1,100 50 50 ........... 500 ........... 50 ...........
(FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA 329,300 18,896 .............. 3,285 .............. 3,285 .............. 3,285
(FC)ARROYO PASAJERO, CA 159,600 100 .............. 500 .............. 500 .............. 500
(E)BOLINAS LAGOON ECOSYSTEM 11,250 ........... .............. 300 .............. 300 .............. 300
RESTORATION, CA
(FDP)CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CA 1,000 75 175 ........... 175 ........... 175 ...........
COAST OF CALIFORNIA STORM AND ........... ........... .............. ........... 500 ........... .............. ...........
TIDAL WAVE STUDY, CA
HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 200 .............. ...........
RESTORATION, CA
HUNTINGTON BEACH, BLUFFTOP ........... ........... .............. ........... 211 ........... .............. ...........
PARK, CA
(E)LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA 1,975 272 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
(FC)LLAGAS CREEK, CA 19,000 250 .............. 240 .............. 240 .............. 700
(SPE)LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA 1,100 75 225 ........... 225 ........... 225 ...........
(N)LOS ANGELES HARBOR MAIN ........... ........... .............. 375 .............. 750 .............. 375
CHANNEL DEEPENING, CA
(FC)LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA 15,000 215 .............. 325 .............. 325 .............. 325
MALIBU CREEK, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 400 ........... .............. ...........
MARE ISLAND, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 500 .............. ...........
MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA ........... ........... .............. ........... 500 ........... .............. ...........
CREEK, CA
(SPE)MATILIJA DAM, CA 1,100 75 150 ........... 150 ........... 150 ...........
(E)MIDDLE CREEK, CA 16,250 ........... .............. 160 .............. 160 .............. 160
(SPE)MOJAVE RIVER FORKS DAM, CA 1,100 205 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
(E)MORRO BAY ESTUARY, CA 600 186 250 ........... 250 ........... 900 ...........
(E)MUGU LAGOON, CA 700 262 250 ........... 250 ........... 250 ...........
(FC)MURRIETA CREEK, CA 19,500 ........... .............. 300 .............. 750 .............. 300
(FDP)N CA STREAMS, DRY CREEK, 400 129 150 ........... 150 ........... 150 ...........
MIDDLETOWN, CA
(E)N CA STREAMS, LOWER SACRAMENTO 1,970 821 237 ........... 237 ........... 237 ...........
RVR RIPARIAN REVEGETATI
(E)N CA STREAMS, MIDDLE CREEK, CA 1,095 1,005 90 ........... 90 ........... 90 ...........
(E)N CA STREAMS, SUISUN MARSH, CA 1,100 60 65 ........... 65 ........... 65 ...........
(E)NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH 1,806 1,219 300 ........... 300 ........... 300 ...........
RESTORATION, CA
(E)NAPA VALLEY WATERSHED 1,100 100 50 ........... 50 ........... 50 ...........
MANAGEMENT, CA
(FDP)NCS, LOWER CACHE CREEK, YOLO 1,970 745 300 ........... 500 ........... 300 ...........
COUNTY, WOODLAND AND VIC,
(E)NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA 9,750 120 .............. 350 .............. 350 .............. 350
NEWPORT BAY (LA-3 SITE ........... ........... .............. ........... 800 ........... .............. ...........
DESIGNATION STUDY), CA
(E)NEWPORT BAY/SAN DIEGO CREEK 1,220 332 381 ........... 381 ........... 381 ...........
WATERSHED, CA
ORANGE COUNTY COAST BEACH ........... ........... .............. ........... 475 ........... .............. ...........
EROSION, CA
(E)ORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA RIVER 1,175 186 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
BASIN, CA
(FC)PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE, 9,300 3,494 .............. 600 .............. 600 .............. 1,200
CA
(E)PAJARO RIVER BASIN STUDY, CA 1,100 100 50 ........... 50 ........... 50 ...........
PENINSULA BEACH (CITY OF LONG ........... ........... .............. ........... 250 ........... .............. ...........
BEACH), CA
(E)PINE FLAT DAM, FISH AND 16,250 86 .............. 300 .............. 300 .............. 300
WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION,
(N)PORT OF STOCKTON, CA 1,350 125 150 ........... 150 ........... 150 ...........
(FDP)POSO CREEK, CA 1,050 62 150 ........... 500 ........... 150 ...........
(FC)RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 16,250 120 .............. 200 .............. 200 .............. 200
(N)REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA 1,610 196 250 ........... 250 ........... 250 ...........
(E)RUSSIAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM 3,677 459 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
RESTORATION, CA
(SPE)SACRAMENTO--SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, 5,940 5,366 300 ........... 300 ........... 300 ...........
CA
(E)SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN 15,500 8,913 1,500 ........... 3,000 ........... 1,500 ...........
COMPREHENSIVE BASIN STUDY,
(FDP)SAN ANTONIO CREEK, CA 800 75 125 ........... 125 ........... 125 ...........
(FDP)SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA 850 186 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHORELINE, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 325 ........... .............. ...........
(N)SAN DIEGO HARBOR, NATIONAL 1,600 143 125 ........... 125 ........... 125 ...........
CITY, CA
(N)SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CA 1,110 626 250 ........... 700 ........... 250 ...........
SAN GABRIEL RIVER TO NEWPORT ........... ........... .............. ........... 150 ........... .............. ...........
BAY, CA
(FDP)SAN JACINTO RIVER, CA 1,000 75 225 ........... 225 ........... 225 ...........
SAN JOAQUIN R BASIN, STOCKTON 9,750 ........... .............. 150 .............. 150 .............. ...........
METRO AREA, FARMINGTON D
(RCP)SAN JOAQUIN R BASIN, STOCKTON 804 704 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
METRO AREA, FARMINGTON D
(E)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, 2,375 150 150 ........... 150 ........... 150 ...........
CONSUMNES AND MOKELUMNE
RIVERS,
(FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, 1,100 60 65 ........... 65 ........... 65 ...........
CORRAL HOLLOW CREEK, CA
(FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, 1,100 60 65 ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
FRAZIER CREEK, CA
(FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, 1,611 1,431 180 ........... 180 ........... 180 ...........
STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA, C
(FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, 1,600 125 150 ........... 300 ........... 150 ...........
TUOLUMNE RIVER, CA
(FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, WEST 747 534 213 ........... 213 ........... 213 ...........
STANISLAUS COUNTY, CA
(E)SAN JUAN CREEK WATERSHED 1,470 1,420 50 ........... 200 ........... 50 ...........
MANAGEMENT, CA
(FDP)SAN JUAN CREEK, SOUTH ORANGE 1,100 50 50 ........... 50 ........... 50 ...........
COUNTY, CA
(FDP)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 800 75 170 ........... 170 ........... 170 ...........
(E)SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA 2,800 613 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
(E)SANTA ROSA CREEK WATERSHED, CA 1,216 481 300 ........... 300 ........... 300 ...........
SOLANA BEACH, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... 350 ........... .............. ...........
(FC)SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY 46,100 1,379 .............. 200 .............. 200 .............. 200
STREAMS, CA
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SPECIAL ........... ........... .............. ........... 1,882 ........... .............. ...........
AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS, CA
(FDP)STRONG AND CHICKEN RANCH 800 125 150 ........... 300 ........... 150 ...........
SLOUGHS, CA
(FDP)SUTTER BASIN, CA 1,350 125 150 ........... 150 ........... 150 ...........
(E)TAHOE BASIN, CA AND NV 1,200 235 150 ........... 150 ........... 150 ...........
(SPE)TIJUANA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL 1,100 170 205 ........... 500 ........... 205 ...........
RESTORATION, CA
(FC)TULE RIVER, CA 14,000 180 .............. 400 .............. 400 .............. 400
(FC)UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA 55,000 1,541 .............. 500 .............. 500 .............. 500
(FDP)UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA 1,845 661 300 ........... 300 ........... 300 ...........
(E)UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER 1,100 186 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
WATERSHED, CA
(N)VENTURA HARBOR SAND BYPASS, CA 1,300 362 400 ........... 400 ........... 400 ...........
(FDP)WHITE RIVER AND DEER CREEK, CA 1,050 63 150 ........... 150 ........... 150 ...........
WESTMINISTER, CA 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CA ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 500 .............. ...........
(FC)YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA 22,200 200 .............. 400 .............. 400 .............. 400
COLORADO
(RCP)CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND 1,350 510 250 ........... 250 ........... 250 ...........
BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS, CO
FOUNTAIN CREEK AND 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
TRIBUTARIES, CO
ZUNI AND SUN VALLEY REACHES, 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, CO
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN
MARIANA ISLANDS
(N)NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, CNMI 100 ........... 100 ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
CONNECTICUT
(E)COASTAL CONNECTICUT ECOSYSTEM 357 242 80 ........... 80 ........... 80 ...........
RESTORATION, CT
DELAWARE
(N)C&D; CANAL, BALTIMORE HBR CONN 3,750 3,650 .............. 100 .............. 100 .............. 100
CHANNELS, DE AND MD (DEEPE
DELAWARE COAST FROM BETHANY ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 33 .............. ...........
BEACH TO SOUTH BETHANY, DE
DELAWARE COASTLINE PROTECTION, 803 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 428 ...........
DE AND NJ
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, 803 100 .............. ........... .............. 124 .............. ...........
ROOSEVELT INLET/LEWES BEACH,
D
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 304 .............. ...........
BROADKILL BEACH, DE
FLORIDA
(FDP)BISCAYNE BAY, FL 3,420 1,572 543 ........... 543 ........... 543 ...........
(FDP)HILLSBOROUGH RIVER, FL 600 86 114 ........... 114 ........... 114 ...........
(N)LAKE WORTH INLET, PALM BEACH 600 86 114 ........... 114 ........... 114 ...........
COUNTY, FL
(N)MILE POINT, FL 600 86 114 ........... 114 ........... 114 ...........
(N)PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL 932 772 160 ........... 160 ........... 160 ...........
(FDP)WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER, FL 550 86 114 ........... 114 ........... 114 ...........
GEORGIA
(FDP)ALLATOONA LAKE, ETOWAH RIVER, 525 279 90 ........... 90 ........... 90 ...........
GA
(E)ALLATOONA LAKE, LITTLE RIVER, 350 172 40 ........... 40 ........... 40 ...........
GA
(FDP)AUGUSTA, GA 1,700 299 500 ........... 500 ........... 500 ...........
(N)BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA 35,957 2,276 .............. 50 .............. 50 .............. 50
(E)INDIAN, SUGAR, ENTRENCHMENT 1,100 86 50 ........... 50 ........... 50 ...........
AND FEDERAL PRISON CREEKS,
(E)LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS 1,100 86 50 ........... 50 ........... 50 ...........
CREEKS, GA
(FDP)LUBBUB CREEK, GA 600 86 50 ........... .............. ........... 50 ...........
(E)METRO ATLANTA WATERSHED, GA 2,230 1,731 499 ........... 499 ........... 499 ...........
(E)SAVANNAH HARBOR ECOSYSTEM 1,690 430 450 ........... 450 ........... 450 ...........
RESTORATION, GA
(N)SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA 144,302 211 .............. 100 .............. 100 .............. 100
(COM)SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN 3,020 650 400 ........... 400 ........... 400 ...........
COMPREHENSIVE, GA AND SC
(E)UTOY, SANDY AND PROCTOR 1,100 86 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
CREEKS, GA
HAWAII
(E)ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI 900 134 140 ........... 140 ........... 140 ...........
(N)BARBERS POINT HARBOR 23,200 327 .............. 173 .............. 173 .............. 173
MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI
HAWAII WATER MANAGENMENT, HI 500 100 .............. ........... .............. ........... 200 ...........
(N)HONOLULU HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, 750 418 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
OAHU, HI
(N)KAHULUI HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, 700 175 150 ........... 150 ........... 150 ...........
MAUI, HI
(N)KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR 900 100 40 ........... 40 ........... 40 ...........
MODIFICATIONS, HAWAII, HI
KIHEI AREA EROSION, HI 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
WAIKIKI EROSION CONTROL, HI 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
IDAHO
(FDP)BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID 800 100 165 ........... 165 ........... 165 ...........
GOOSE CREEK, OAKLEY, ID 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(FDP)KOOTENAI RIVER AT BONNERS 400 50 60 ........... 60 ........... 60 ...........
FERRY, ID
(FDP)LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, ID 800 100 165 ........... 165 ........... 165 ...........
PAYETTE AND SNAKE RIVER, ID 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
ILLINOIS
(E)ALEXANDER AND PULASKI 9,750 ........... .............. 200 .............. 200 .............. 200
COUNTIES, IL
(FC)DES PLAINES RIVER, IL 31,700 261 .............. 400 .............. 400 .............. 400
(FDP)DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE 1,500 ........... 250 ........... 750 ........... 250 ...........
II)
ILLINOIS BEACH STATE PARK, IL ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 325 .............. ...........
(E)ILLINOIS RIVER ECOSYSTEM 2,305 377 500 ........... 500 ........... 500 ...........
RESTORATION, IL
(FDP)KANKAKEE RIVER BASIN, IL AND 1,770 987 300 ........... 600 ........... 300 ...........
IN
(SPE)PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, 1,060 479 400 ........... 400 ........... 400 ...........
IL
(E)ROCK RIVER, IL AND WI 1,760 158 700 ........... 700 ........... 700 ...........
(RCP)UPPER MISS AND ILLINOIS NAV 59,980 57,875 2,105 ........... 2,105 ........... 2,105 ...........
IMPROVEMENTS, IL, IA, MN, MO
(N)UPPER MISS AND ILLINOIS NAV ........... 5,418 .............. 4,707 .............. 4,707 .............. 4,707
IMPROVEMENTS, IL, IA, MN, MO
(SPE)UPPER MISS RVR SYS FLOW 6,650 5,477 888 ........... 888 ........... 888 ...........
FREQUENCY STUDY, IL, IA, MN,
M
(N)WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL 4,950 150 .............. 300 .............. 300 .............. 300
(FC)WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL 18,750 173 .............. 310 .............. 310 .............. 310
INDIANA
INDIANA HARBOR ENVIRONMENTAL ........... ........... .............. ........... 500 ........... .............. ...........
DREDGING, IN
(N)JOHN T MYERS LOCKS AND DAM, IN 230,000 476 .............. 2,210 .............. 2,210 .............. 2,210
AND KY
LITTLE CALUMET RIVER (CADDY ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 250 .............. ...........
MARSH DITCH), IN
OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 300 .............. ...........
ACCESS, IN
WHITE RIVER, MUNCIE, IN ........... ........... .............. ........... 250 ........... .............. ...........
IOWA
(FDP)DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, 1,385 439 400 ........... 600 ........... 400 ...........
IA
(FDP)INDIAN CREEK, COUNCIL BLUFFS, 350 100 80 ........... 80 ........... 80 ...........
IA
KANSAS
(RCP)TOPEKA, KS 1,287 897 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
(FC)TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO 25,600 847 .............. 353 .............. 353 .............. 353
UPPER TURKEY RUN CREEK, KS 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(E)WALNUT AND WHITEWATER RIVER 2,100 86 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
WATERSHEDS, KS
KENTUCKY
(FDP)BANKLICK CREEK, KY 850 100 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
(N)GREENUP LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO 238,800 ........... .............. 1,300 .............. 1,300 .............. 1,300
RIVER, KY AND OH
(FDP)LICKING RIVER, CYNTHIANA, KY 850 365 260 ........... 260 ........... 260 ...........
(E)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, 850 100 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY
(FDP)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, MILL 850 367 250 ........... 250 ........... 250 ...........
CREEK BASIN, KY
(FDP)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, 1,784 1,523 161 ........... 161 ........... 161 ...........
SOUTHWEST, KY
(N)OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM SYSTEMS 45,300 39,648 4,141 ........... 4,141 ........... 4,141 ...........
STUDY, KY, IL, IN, PA, WV
(FDP)OHIO RIVER SHORELINE, PADUCAH, ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 400 .............. ...........
KY
LOUISIANA
(E)AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES 2,100 100 200 ........... 400 ........... 200 ...........
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER, BAYOUS 500 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 250 ...........
CHENE, BOENF AND BLACK, LA
(N)CALCASIEU LOCK, LA 2,900 429 339 ........... 339 ........... 339 ...........
(FDP)CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA 2,100 100 100 ........... 300 ........... 100 ...........
HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(N)INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY LOCKS, 5,380 4,694 686 ........... 686 ........... 686 ...........
LA
(FC)JEFFERSON PARISH, LA 153,800 ........... .............. 215 .............. 500 .............. 215
(FC)LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA 60,000 ........... .............. 200 .............. 200 .............. 200
(E)LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA 17,500 1,500 1,750 ........... 1,750 ........... 1,750 ...........
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA
(FC)ORLEANS PARISH, LA 71,200 ........... .............. 164 .............. 300 .............. 164
(FDP)ST BERNARD PARISH URBAN FLOOD 1,700 100 100 ........... 500 ........... 100 ...........
CONTROL, LA
ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
CONTROL, LA
PLAQUEMINES PARISH URBAN FLOOD 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
CONTROL, LA
(FDP)WEST SHORE, LAKE 1,850 1,504 346 ........... 346 ........... 346 ...........
PONTCHARTRAIN, LA
MARYLAND
(E)ANACOSTIA RIVER FEDERAL 3,000 2,167 500 ........... 500 ........... 500 ...........
WATERSHED IMPACT ASSESSMENT,
M
(FDP)ANACOSTIA RIVER, PG COUNTY 1,453 954 455 ........... 455 ........... 455 ...........
LEVEE, MD AND DC
(FDP)BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN, GWYNNS 1,232 1,164 68 ........... 68 ........... 68 ...........
FALLS, MD
(FC)CUMBERLAND, MD 750 ........... .............. 700 .............. 700 .............. 700
(E)EASTERN SHORE, MD 1,200 186 400 ........... 400 ........... 400 ...........
(E)LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY 460 304 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
WATERSHED, MATTAWOMAN, MD
(E)LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY 650 132 250 ........... 250 ........... 250 ...........
WATERSHED, ST MARY'S, MD
(E)PATUXENT RIVER, PRINCE GEORGES 3,250 43 .............. 100 .............. 100 .............. 100
COUNTY, MD
(E)SMITH ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL 5,655 ........... .............. 100 .............. 100 .............. 100
RESTORATION, MD
MASSACHUSETTS
(E)BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED 1,627 888 310 ........... 310 ........... 310 ...........
RESTORATION, MA AND RI
(N)BOSTON HARBOR, MA (45-FOOT 1,100 100 150 ........... 150 ........... 150 ...........
CHANNEL)
(E)COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS 600 ........... 100 ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MA
MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 500 .............. ...........
BOSTON, MA
(E)SOMERSET AND SEARSBURG DAMS, 382 82 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
DEERFIELD RIVER, MA AND VT
MICHIGAN
BELL ISLE SHORELINE, DETROIT, 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
MI
MUSKEGON LAKE, MI ........... ........... .............. ........... 250 ........... .............. ...........
GREAT LAKES NAVIGATION SYSTEM, 1,000 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 500 ...........
MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA,
AND WI
(N)SAULT STE MARIE (REPLACEMENT 130,600 1,488 .............. 1,000 .............. 1,000 .............. 1,000
LOCK), MI
MINNESOTA
(E)UPPER MISS RIVER WATERSHED 1,310 100 250 ........... 250 ........... 250 ...........
MGMT, LAKE ITASCA TO L/D 2,
MISSISSIPPI
PEARL RIVER WATERSHED, MS ........... ........... .............. ........... 50 ........... .............. ...........
MISSOURI
(FC)CHESTERFIELD, MO 19,825 ........... .............. 250 .............. 250 .............. 250
(RCP)KANSAS CITY, MO AND KS 2,460 950 312 ........... 312 ........... 312 ...........
(COM)MISSOURI AND MIDDLE 500 ........... 500 ........... .............. ........... 500 ...........
MISSISSIPPI RIVERS
ENHANCEMENT PROJE
(RCP)MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, 1,570 1,136 220 ........... 220 ........... 220 ...........
UNITS L455 AND R460-471, MO
(FC)RIVER DES PERES, MO 17,400 530 .............. 330 .............. 330 .............. 330
(N)ST LOUIS HARBOR, MO AND IL 15,524 3,201 .............. 265 .............. 265 .............. 265
(FC)ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO 6,000 245 .............. 445 .............. 445 .............. 445
(FC)SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, 6,500 ........... .............. 170 .............. 170 .............. 170
KANSAS CITY, MO
MONTANA
LOWER YELLOWSTONE RIVER ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. 100
DIVERSION DAM, MT
(COM)YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT 2,000 ........... 500 ........... .............. ........... 500 ...........
NEBRASKA
(FC)ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE 19,000 100 .............. 275 .............. 275 .............. 275
(FDP)LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND 2,431 1,944 217 ........... 217 ........... 217 ...........
TRIBUTARIES, NE
(FC)SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, 12,350 176 .............. 220 .............. 220 .............. 220
NE
NEVADA
(E)LOWER LAS VEGAS WASH WETLANDS, 1,400 1,100 100 ........... 100 ........... 500 ...........
NV
(FC)TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV 39,200 6,186 .............. 500 .............. 500 .............. 500
(E)WALKER RIVER BASIN, NV 1,360 300 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
NEW HAMPSHIRE
MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN 2,000 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 500 ...........
NEW JERSEY
(E)BARNEGAT BAY, NJ 6,000 ........... .............. 50 .............. 50 .............. 50
(SP)BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 450 .............. ...........
HARBOR INLET, NJ
(SP)BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG 563 172 .............. ........... .............. 391 .............. 390
HARBOR INLET, NJ
(SP)DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 222 .............. ...........
OAKWOOD BEACH, NJ AND DE
(SP)DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, REEDS ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 135 .............. ...........
BEACH TO PIERCES POINT
(SP)DELWARE BAY COASTLINE, VILLAS ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 155 .............. ...........
AND VICINITY, NJ AND DE
(SP)GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET TO ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 150 .............. ...........
TOWNSENDS INLET, NJ
(SP)LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS TO CAPE 723 200 .............. ........... .............. 345 .............. 350
MAY POINT, NJ
(FDP)LOWER SADDLE RIVER, NJ ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 100 .............. ...........
(SP)MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 150 .............. ...........
INLET, NJ
(E)NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL 1,540 1,322 218 ........... 218 ........... 218 ...........
WATERWAY, ENV RESTORATION, NJ
(FDP)PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 300 .............. ...........
(SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK 1,375 293 550 ........... 550 ........... 550 ...........
BAY, LEONARDO, NJ
(SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK 1,775 1,484 291 ........... 291 ........... 291 ...........
BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ
(FDP)SHREWSBURY RIVER AND 1,500 86 120 ........... 120 ........... 120 ...........
TRIBUTARIES IN MONMOUTH
COUNTY, N
(FDP)SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER 2,800 2,280 450 ........... 450 ........... 450 ...........
BASIN, NJ
(E)STONY BROOK, NJ 1,500 86 120 ........... 120 ........... 120 ...........
(FDP)UPPER PASSAIC RIVER AND TRIBS, 800 356 300 ........... 300 ........... 300 ...........
LONG HILL, MORRIS COUNT
(FDP)UPPER ROCKAWAY RIVER, MORRIS 1,400 356 300 ........... 300 ........... 300 ...........
COUNTY, NJ
(FDP)WOODBRIDGE AND RAHWAY, NJ 1,500 246 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
NEW MEXICO
(FDP)ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE 920 846 50 ........... 50 ........... 50 ...........
AND TRIBUTARIES, NM
(COM)RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO AND 2,000 ........... 500 ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
TX
SANTA CRUZ DAM SEDIMENT STUDY, 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
NM
(E)SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE 1,450 586 330 ........... 330 ........... 330 ...........
REDUCTION STUDY, ALBUQUERQUE,
N
NEW YORK
ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK ........... ........... .............. ........... 1,000 ........... .............. ...........
MONITORING PROGRAM, NY
(N)ARTHUR KILL CHANNEL, HOWLAND 221,800 6,253 .............. 347 .............. 347 .............. 347
HOOK MARINE TERMINAL, NY
(FDP)AUSABLE RIVER BASIN, ESSEX AND 800 179 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
CLINTON COUNTIES, NY
(FDP)BOQUET RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, 800 179 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
ESSEX COUNTY, NY
(FDP)BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY 800 150 250 ........... 450 ........... 250 ...........
BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL ........... ........... .............. ........... 100 ........... .............. ...........
DREDGING, NY
(FDP)CLINTON COUNTY, NY 1,500 86 150 ........... 150 ........... 150 ...........
(E)FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY 1,614 708 520 ........... 520 ........... 520 ...........
(E)HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY 6,100 86 800 ........... 800 ........... 800 ...........
AND NJ
(N)HUDSON RIVER HABITAT 6,000 86 .............. 50 .............. 50 .............. 50
RESTORATION, NY
(N)HUDSON RIVER HABITAT 2,399 1,213 50 ........... 50 ........... 50 ...........
RESTORATION, NY
(N)HUDSON RIVER, HUDSON, NY 1,500 86 120 ........... 120 ........... 120 ...........
(SP)JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND 1,000 ........... 50 ........... 50 ........... 50 ...........
PLUMB BEACH, ARVERNE, NY
(SP)JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND 1,850 1,554 296 ........... 296 ........... 296 ...........
PLUMB BEACH, NY
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY ........... ........... .............. ........... 200 ........... .............. ...........
(FDP)LINDENHURST, NY 800 174 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
MONTAUK POINT, NY 450 163 .............. ........... 200 ........... 287 ...........
(N)NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY 400,000 2,030 .............. 2,528 .............. 2,528 .............. 2,528
HARBOR, NY AND NJ
(N)NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE 1,200 616 259 ........... 259 ........... 259 ...........
AREAS, NY
(SP)NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, 1,800 659 300 ........... 300 ........... 300 ...........
BAYVILLE, NY
(SPE)ONONDAGA LAKE, NY 1,670 1,014 250 ........... 250 ........... 250 ...........
(E)SAW MILL RIVER AND 800 150 50 ........... 100 ........... 50 ...........
TRIBUTARIES, NY
SAW MILL RIVER AT ELMSFORD/ ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 750 .............. ...........
GREENBURGH, NY
(E)SOUTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, NY 2,100 225 90 ........... 90 ........... 90 ...........
(SP)SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, 2,000 1,266 400 ........... 400 ........... 400 ...........
NY
(E)SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN WATER 3,250 52 .............. 100 .............. 100 .............. 100
MANAGEMENT, NY, PA AND MD
(E)UPPER DELAWARE RIVER 1,300 150 776 ........... 776 ........... 776 ...........
WATERSHED, NY
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, ........... ........... .............. ........... 50 ........... .............. ...........
NY
NORTH CAROLINA
BOGUE BANKS, NC ........... ........... .............. ........... 250 ........... .............. ...........
(E)CURRITUCK SOUND, NC 1,100 ........... 100 ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(SP)DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC 2,247 2,197 50 ........... 50 ........... 300 ...........
(SP)DARE COUNTY BEACHES, HATTERAS ........... ........... .............. ........... 500 ........... .............. ...........
AND ORACOKE ISLAND, NC
(E)LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC 1,470 356 600 ........... 600 ........... 600 ...........
(N)MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC 84,557 9,250 .............. 250 .............. 250 .............. 250
(FDP)NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC 1,100 100 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
NORTH DAKOTA
(SPE)DEVILS LAKE, ND 3,733 2,856 50 ........... 2,050 ........... .............. 4,000
(FC)GRAFTON, PARK RIVER, ND ........... 50 .............. 900 .............. 900 .............. 900
OHIO
(E)ASHTABULA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL ........... 516 .............. 384 .............. 384 .............. 384
DREDGING, OH
(FDP)BUTLER COUNTY, OH 850 ........... 100 ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(FDP)COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN AREA, OH 1,600 358 600 ........... 600 ........... 600 ...........
(E)HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV 556 200 306 ........... 306 ........... 306 ...........
RESTORATION, MONDAY CREEK, OH
(E)HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV 700 50 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
RESTORATION, SUNDAY CREEK, OH
MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL ........... ........... .............. ........... 500 ........... .............. ...........
DREDGING, OH AND PA
(E)MUSKINGUM BASIN SYSTEM STUDY, 1,600 100 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
OH
OHIO RIVER FLOW COMMODITY ........... ........... .............. ........... 200 ........... .............. ...........
STUDY, OH
(FDP)RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 600 100 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
SANDUSKY RIVER, TIFFIN, OH 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
STEUBENVILLE, OH ........... ........... .............. ........... 175 ........... .............. ...........
WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH, 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
IN AND MI
OKLAHOMA
(E)CIMARRON RIVER AND 2,600 86 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
TRIBUTARIES, OK, KS, NM AND
CO
(E)SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER 4,100 86 200 ........... 700 ........... 200 ...........
RESOURCE STUDY, OK
(FDP)WARR ACRES, OK 1,100 86 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
OREGON
(N)COLUMBIA RIVER NAVIGATION 1,800 877 .............. 923 .............. 923 .............. 923
CHANNEL DEEPENING, OR AND WA
(E)TILLAMOOK BAY AND ESTUARY 1,808 452 274 ........... 274 ........... 274 ...........
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR
(COM)WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, 2,284 1,973 210 ........... 210 ........... 210 ...........
OR
(E)WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL 1,100 86 114 ........... 114 ........... 114 ...........
DREDGING, OR
(E)WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN 1,515 165 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
RESTORATION, OR
PENNSYLVANIA
(FDP)BLOOMSBURG, PA 1,152 534 441 ........... 441 ........... 441 ...........
(E)LOWER WEST BR, SUS RIVER, ENV 1,030 601 250 ........... 250 ........... 250 ...........
RESTORATION, BUFFALO CRE
NEW CASTLE, PA 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(E)TURTLE CREEK BASIN, UPPER 432 366 66 ........... 66 ........... 66 ...........
TURTLE CREEK ENV RESTORATION
PUERTO RICO
(FC)RIO GUANAJIBO, PR 21,200 1,434 .............. 441 .............. 441 .............. 441
RHODE ISLAND
(E)RHODE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM 1,200 286 191 ........... 191 ........... 191 ...........
RESTORATION, RI
(E)RHODE ISLAND SOUTH COAST, 540 486 54 ........... 54 ........... 54 ...........
HABITAT REST AND STRM DMG
REDU
SOUTH CAROLINA
(RCP)ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL 3,100 1,202 581 ........... 581 ........... 581 ...........
WATERWAY, SC
BROAD RIVER BASIN, SC 200 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 200 ...........
(E)CHARLESTON ESTUARY, SC 1,600 100 150 ........... 150 ........... 150 ...........
(SP)PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC 468 249 219 ........... 219 ........... 219 ...........
WACCAMAW RIVER, SC 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
(E)YADKIN--PEE DEE RIVER 9,750 ........... .............. 50 .............. 50 .............. 50
WATERSHED, SC AND NC
SOUTH DAKOTA
JAMES RIVER, SD 1,500 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 500 ...........
TENNESSEE
(FDP)DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN 1,350 125 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
(E)DUCK RIVER WATERSHED, TN 375 186 50 ........... 50 ........... 50 ...........
(E)FRENCH BROAD WATERSHED, TN 1,565 300 500 ........... 500 ........... 500 ...........
(E)NORTH CHICKAMAUGA CREEK, TN 650 398 50 ........... 50 ........... 50 ...........
TEXAS
(FDP)BOIS D'ARC CREEK, BONHAM, TX 1,100 86 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
(FDP)BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, 1,610 450 230 ........... 230 ........... 230 ...........
WHITE OAK BAYOU, TX
(N)CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, 1,100 400 456 ........... 456 ........... 456 ...........
LAQUINTA CHANNEL, TX
(N)CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, 4,021 1,337 1,008 ........... 1,008 ........... 1,008 ...........
TX
(FC)DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, 89,029 8,460 .............. 100 .............. 100 .............. 100
TRINITY RIVER, TX
FREEPORT AND VINCITY, 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
HURRICANE/FLOOD PROTECTION,
TX
(N)GIWW MODIFICATIONS, TX 7,490 86 195 ........... 195 ........... 195 ...........
(RCP)GIWW, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT 4,370 2,396 500 ........... 500 ........... 500 ...........
O'CONNOR, TX
(N)GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS 6,007 5,279 728 ........... 728 ........... 728 ...........
RIVER, TX
(N)GIWW, MATAGORDA BAY, TX ........... ........... .............. 100 .............. 200 .............. 100
(RCP)GIWW, PORT O'CONNOR TO CORPUS 4,510 1,488 653 ........... 653 ........... 653 ...........
CHRISTI BAY, TX
(FC)GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX 166,657 5,976 .............. 434 .............. 434 .............. 434
(E)GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO 2,500 344 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
RIVER BASINS, TX
(FC)HUNTING BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX 90,488 1,000 .............. 100 .............. 337 .............. 500
(E)LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX 9,825 514 600 ........... 1,500 ........... 600 ...........
(E)MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX 1,560 857 300 ........... 300 ........... 300 ...........
(E)NORTH BOSQUE RIVER, TX ........... ........... .............. 50 .............. 50 .............. 50
(E)NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS 19,500 360 .............. 164 .............. 164 .............. 1,000
CHRISTI, TX
(FDP)NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX 975 430 280 ........... 280 ........... 280 ...........
(FC)PECAN BAYOU, BROWNWOOD, TX 5,540 ........... .............. 100 .............. 100 .............. 100
(FC)RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX 77,100 338 .............. 100 .............. 700 .............. 100
(N)SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX 3,515 643 544 ........... 544 ........... 544 ...........
(E)SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, 4,835 86 114 ........... 114 ........... 114 ...........
TX
(FC)SOUTH MAIN CHANNEL, TX 150,050 6,359 .............. 574 .............. 574 .............. 574
(E)SULPHUR RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL 580 295 50 ........... 50 ........... 50 ...........
RESTORATION, TX
(FDP)UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX 9,310 7,487 500 ........... 1,100 ........... 1,100 ...........
UTAH
(FDP)PROVO AND VICINITY, UT 1,495 595 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
VIRGINIA
(N)AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, 1,168 826 342 ........... 342 ........... 342 ...........
VA
(N)AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, 22,168 ........... .............. 200 .............. 200 .............. 200
VA
CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, VA ........... ........... .............. ........... 170 ........... .............. ...........
(E)ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENVIR 1,301 1,054 247 ........... 247 ........... 247 ...........
RESTORATION, HAMPTON ROAD
(N)JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA 9,795 168 .............. 277 .............. 277 .............. 277
(FDP)JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, 1,100 100 200 ........... 200 ........... 200 ...........
VA AND NC (SECTION 216)
LAKE MERRIWEATHER, GOSHEN DAM ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 150 .............. ...........
AND SPILLWAY, VA
(E)LOWER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER 700 100 300 ........... 300 ........... 300 ...........
BASIN, VA
NEW RIVER BASIN, VA, NC, AND ........... ........... .............. ........... 200 ........... .............. ...........
WV
(N)NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, 3,050 1,213 1,188 ........... 1,188 ........... 1,188 ...........
CRANEY ISLAND, VA
(E)POWELL RIVER WATERSHED, VA 1,477 1,022 165 ........... 165 ........... 165 ...........
(E)POWELL RIVER, STRAIGHT, REEDS 5,000 ........... .............. 200 .............. 200 .............. 200
AND JONES CREEK, VA
(E)PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY 775 396 205 ........... 205 ........... 205 ...........
WATERSHED, VA
(E)RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, EMBREY 697 440 257 ........... 257 ........... 257 600
DAM, VA
WASHINGTON
(E)BELLINGHAM BAY, WA 400 50 60 ........... 60 ........... 60 ...........
(FC)CENTRALIA, WA 56,000 3,440 .............. 250 .............. 500 .............. 1,750
(E)CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA 700 86 150 ........... 150 ........... 150 ...........
(E)DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER 50,825 ........... .............. 222 .............. 222 .............. 222
BASIN, WA
(FC)HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA 40,456 2,779 .............. 600 .............. 600 .............. 1,500
LAKE WALLULA NAVIGATION 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
CHANNEL, COLUMBIA RIVER, WA
(RCP)LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA 2,566 1,271 350 ........... 350 ........... 790 ...........
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 100 ...........
RESTORATION, WA AND OR
(SP)OCEAN SHORES, WA 850 150 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
(N)PUGET SOUND CONFINED DISPOSAL 2,124 1,348 250 ........... 250 ........... 250 ...........
SITES, WA
(E)PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE 700 86 65 ........... 65 ........... 65 ...........
HABITAT RESTORATION, WA
(FDP)SKAGIT RIVER, WA 2,547 1,495 270 ........... 270 ........... 270 ...........
(E)SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA 600 110 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
(E)STILLAGUAMISH RIVER BASIN, WA 31,100 ........... .............. 225 .............. 225 .............. 225
(E)TRI-CITIES AREA RIVERSHORE 800 269 250 ........... 250 ........... 250 ...........
ENHANCEMENT, WA
WEST VIRGINIA
ERICSON/WOOD COUNTY PUBLIC ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 500 .............. ...........
PORT, WV
(FC)ISLAND CREEK AT LOGAN, WV 13,546 1,975 .............. 200 .............. 200 .............. 200
(FC)LOWER MUD RIVER, WV 18,750 600 .............. 650 .............. 650 .............. 650
(FDP)MERCER COUNTY, WV 414 307 107 ........... 107 ........... 107 ...........
WEIRTON PORT, WV ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. 750 .............. ...........
WISCONSIN
FOX RIVER, WI ........... ........... .............. ........... 250 ........... .............. ...........
SAXON HARBOR, WI 100 ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... 50 ...........
WYOMING
(E)JACKSON HOLE RESTORATION, WY 8,000 ........... .............. 100 .............. 100 .............. 300
MISCELLANEOUS
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION ........... ........... 2,300 ........... 2,200 ........... 1,500 ...........
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES ........... ........... 700 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA ........... ........... 400 ........... 400 ........... 400 ...........
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT ........... ........... 9,000 ........... 8,200 ........... 8,000 ...........
SERVICES
GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION ........... ........... .............. ........... 600 ........... .............. ...........
PROGRAM
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES ........... ........... 500 ........... 500 ........... 500 ...........
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES ........... ........... 500 ........... 500 ........... 500 ...........
NATIONAL SHORELINE ........... ........... 300 ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS ........... ........... 8,900 ........... 8,000 ........... 7,900 ...........
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES ........... ........... 6,500 ........... 5,600 ........... 6,700 ...........
PRECIPITATION STUDIES ........... ........... 400 ........... 400 ........... 400 ...........
(NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE)
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC ........... ........... 300 ........... 300 ........... 300 ...........
INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ........... ........... 26,000 ........... 25,000 ........... 23,000 ...........
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ........... ........... 100 ........... 100 ........... 100 ...........
INFORMATION CENTERS
STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL ........... ........... 800 ........... 700 ........... 700 ...........
SURVEY)
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ........... ........... 800 ........... 700 ........... 700 ...........
TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS ........... ........... 650 ........... 650 ........... 650 ...........
TECHNOLOGY CENTER
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED ........... ........... -23,250 ........... -35,971 ........... -35,050 ...........
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE AND
CARRYOVER BALANCES
==================================================================================================================
TOTAL, GENERAL ........... ........... 101,569 36,181 105,076 48,151 92,552 46,667
INVESTIGATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPE OF PROJECT:
(N) NAVIGATION
(BE) BEACH EROSION CONTROL
(FC) FLOOD CONTROL
(MP) MULTIPURPOSE, INCLUDING POWER
(SP) SHORELINE PROTECTION
(FDP) FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
(RCP) REVIEW OF COMPLETED PROJECT
(RDP) REVIEW OF DEFERRED PROJECT
(COMP) COMPREHENSIVE
(SPEC) SPECIAL
Fire Island, AK.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for a
reconnaissance study of the need for a causeway to Fire Island,
AK in an effort to relieve transportation pressure at Anchorage
International Airport.
Kotzebue Small Boat Harbor, AK.--An appropriation of
$150,000 is included for the Corps to undertake a study of the
need for harbor facilities at Kotzebue, AK. Currently, there
are no harbor facilities to serve the community and residents
are forced to tie their boats directly to the beach.
Saint George Harbor Improvement, AK.--The Committee
understands that large waves are entering the entrance and
inner harbor area at Saint George Harbor in Alaska making
ingress and egress into the harbor almost impossible.
Therefore, the Committee has included $200,000 for a
feasibility study that will look at ways to reduce wave action
in the inner harbor, but more importantly, to create a safe
entrance channel wave environment into the harbor.
Sitka Harbor, AK.--The Committee has included $100,000 for
a reconnaissance study of possible modifications to the western
channel breakwater in Sitka Harbor, AK.
Whittier, AK, Breakwater.--The Committee has provided
$169,000 for the Corps to investigate the need for a breakwater
at Whittier, AK to protect the boat launch facility.
Luxapalila Creek, AL.--The Committee has recommended an
appropriation of $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
initiate and complete a reconnaissance study to determine the
Federal interest in the Luxapalila Creek flood control project
in Alabama.
North Little Rock, Dark Hollow, AR.--The Committee has
included $500,000 for the Corps to continue on an expedited
basis the preconstruction engineering and design for the North
Little Rock, Dark Hollow, AR flood control project.
White River Minimum Flows, AR.--The Committee
recommendation includes $850,000 for the White River Minimum
Flows Study in Arkansas. This work is required in order to
develop a water allocation and environmental restoration plan
to provide sufficient minimum flows from the White River Basin
Lakes to sustain trout fisheries and to provide for aquatic
ecosystem enhancements.
Llagas Creek, CA.--The Committee has included $700,000 for
the Corps to expedite the preconstruction engineering and
design on the Llagas Creek, CA flood control project.
Pajaro River at Watsonville, CA.--The Committee is aware
that the preconstruction engineering and design on the Pajaro
River at Watsonville, CA project was already underway when the
Pajaro River Mainstem study was funded in fiscal year 2000.
Because of the interrelationship of the two projects, both
studies were combined and now are funded in Pajaro River at
Watsonville. In a effort to maintain the schedule of this
important flood control project, the Committee has provided an
additional $600,000 over the budget request to continue the
effort on the General Reevaluation Report, including a
evaluation of the Pajaro River Mainstem.
San Joaquin River Basin, Farmington Dam, CA.--Severe budget
constraints do not allow the Committee to include funding for
the San Joaquin River Basin, Farmington Dam planning and
design. However, the Corps is urged to work cooperatively with
the project sponsor and other non-governmental organizations
with experience in wetland restoration in an effort to explore
options to accomplishing this work.
City of Westminster, CA.--An amount of $100,000 is
recommended by the Committee to initiate and complete a
reconnaissance study of flood damage prevention measures for
protection of flood prone areas within the City of
Westminister, California.
Fountain Creek and Tributaries, CO.--The Committee is aware
that recent floods along Fountain Creek in Colorado caused an
estimated $100,000,000 in damages to roads, bridges,
residential and other improvements. In an effort to begin to
address solutions to the flooding problem, the Committee has
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and
complete a reconnaissance study to determine the Federal
interest in potential solutions for flood control.
Delaware Coastline Protection, DE and NJ.--The Committee
recommendation of $428,000 for the Delaware Coastline
Protection project includes $124,000 for the Corps to complete
preconstruction engineering and design of the Roosevelt Inlet
to Lewes Beach reach, and $304,000 to complete the
preconstruction engineering and design of the Broadkill Beach
segment of the project.
Hawaii Water Management Study.--An important part of
Hawaii's water resource system are antiquated ditches developed
by sugar companies to deliver water through portions of the
Hawaiian islands. The Hawaii Water Management Study includes
development of a plan to increase the efficiency of various
existing delivery systems. The Committee recommendation
includes $200,000 for the Corps to continue previous efforts to
study these systems and to assist the State in diversification
by helping to define the cost of repairing and maintaining
selected ditch systems.
Goose Creek Watershed, Oakley, ID.--An amount of $100,000
is recommended for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a
reconnaissance study to determine possible flood damage
reduction, water conservation, ecosystem restoration and other
related needs along the Goose Creek watershed near Oakley, ID.
Upper Turkey Creek Basin, KS.--The Committee has provided
$100,000 for the Upper Turkey Creek Basin, KS study for the
Corps to complete the reconnaissance phase investigation. The
study will examine a full range of structural and nonstructural
measures to reduce recurring flood damages from overflow for
the Turkey Creek channel in the upper portion of the Basin.
Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bouef and Black, LA.--The
Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
undertake activities necessary to determine if the deepening of
the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bourf and Black navigation
channel is technically sound, environmentally acceptable and
economically justified. The Corps should complete its
determination as soon a possible using funds provided herein
and other available funds.
Hurricane Protection, LA.--Recent hurricanes and tropical
storms impacting coastal areas of the United States have
highlighted the concerns regarding the need for adequate
coastal flood damage protection. The State of Louisiana and
many local governments there have expressed concern that the
current hurricane protection measures do not provide adequate
protection for large storm events. If such storms were to
impact the coastal area of Louisiana, extreme damages and loss
of life could be anticipated. In order to address these
concerns, the Committee has included $100,000 for the Corps to
review currently authorized hurricane protection projects and
determine if modifications are required to provide a higher
level of protection.
Urban Flood Control Studies, LA.--The Committee has
provided $100,000 each for the Plaquemines Parish and St.
Charles Parish Urban Flood Control studies. The funds will be
used by the Corps to initiate reconnaissance studies of flood
control measures in the Parishes.
Belle Isle Shoreline, Detroit, MI.--The Committee
recommendation includes $100,000 for the Belle Isle Shoreline,
Detroit, Michigan study. The funding will be used to initiate
and complete a Section 905(b) analysis, and to prepare a study
management plan, if appropriate.
Sault Ste Marie, Lock Replacement, MI.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,000,000 to continue preconstruction
engineering and design of a replacement lock at Sault Ste Marie
in Michigan.
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, NJ.--An amount
of $390,000 in recommended to complete preconstruction
engineering and design on the Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg
Harbor Inlet, NJ project.
Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, NJ.--The Committee
has recommended inclusion of $350,000 for the Corps to complete
preconstruction engineering and design of the Lower Cape May
Meadows, Cape May Point, NJ shore protection project.
Rio Grande River Basin, NM.--The Committee recommendation
includes $600,000 for the Rio Grande River Basin study in New
Mexico. The funding will allow the Corps to undertake studies
focused on a Geographic Information System for the acequia
system in New Mexico, regional water planning within New
Mexico, and detailed analyses of water conveyance and delivery,
and ecosystem degradation, including fish mobility studies, on
the Rio Grande River mainstem from San Acacia Diversion Dam to
Elephant Butte Reservoir. These studies are to be performed
under the authority of Section 729 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986.
Santa Cruz Dam Sediment Study, NM.--The Committee has
included $100,000 for the Corps to undertake a reconnaissance
study of causes and potential solutions to sediment buildup
behind Santa Cruz Dam in New Mexico.
Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, NV.--An amount of $500,000 is
provided for the Corps to advance the completion of the Las
Vegas Wash Wetlands feasibility report. The Committee expects
the Corps to make every effort to complete the feasibility
phase as soon as practicable.
Hudson-Raritan Estuary, NY and NJ.--The Committee urges the
Secretary to include in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, NY and NJ,
study an evaluation of environmental restoration measures in
the Lower Passaic River, from Dundee Dam to Newark Bay.
Montauk Point, NY.--The Committee understands the combined
forces of storm induced erosion and long term constant erosion
threaten the historic Montauk Point lighthouse in New York.
Further, the Committee understands that the State is now
prepared to support the effort and has funds available.
Therefore, the Committee has recommended $287,000 for the Corps
to develop alternative solutions to the erosion threatening the
lighthouse, and complete the feasibility report.
Sandusky River, Tiffin, OH.--An appropriation of $100,000
is recommended for the Sandusky River, Tiffin, Ohio study. The
funds will be used by the Corps to initiate and complete a
reconnaissance study of possible solutions or improvements to
flood damage protection works along the Sandusky River in the
vicinity of Tiffin, OH.
Western Lake Erie Basin, OH, IN, and MI.--The Committee has
provided $100,000 for the Corps to prepare a Section 905(b)
report, and, if appropriate, to develop a study management plan
for the Western Lake Erie Basin study. The study will address
measures to improve flood control, navigation, water quality,
and other water resource needs in a comprehensive manner in the
western Lake Erie Basin of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan.
New Castle, PA.--The Committee has included $100,000 for
the Corps to undertake a Section 905(b) study of water and
related improvements along Neshanock Creek in the vicinity of
New Castle, PA.
Broad River Basin, SC.--The Santee, Cooper, and Congaree
reconnaissance study, completed in 1997, identified a need for
site specific investigations in each sub-basin. The Broad River
Basin is one of the upper four sub-basins in the Santee,
Cooper, and Congaree Basin and includes portions of 18
counties. The Committee has included $200,000 for the Corps to
initiate and complete a reconnaissance study of potential
solutions to flooding in the Broad River Basin.
Waccamaw River, SC.--An appropriation of $100,000 is
provided for the Corps to initiate and complete a
reconnaissance study of flooding along the Waccamaw River in
South Carolina.
Freeport and Vicinity Hurricane Flood Protection, TX.--The
Committee is aware of the change in existing conditions and new
hurricane data that may severely impact the existing Freeport
Harbor and Vicinity Hurricane Flood Protection, TX project.
Therefore, the Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps to
initiate and complete a reconnaissance study to determine the
need to reconstruct the existing Federal project to reflect
current conditions and future threats from hurricane events.
Upper Trinity River Basin, TX.--The Committee has provided
$1,100,000 for the continuation of the Upper Trinity River
Basin, TX feasibility study. The additional funding over the
amount included in the budget request will allow initiation of
the Big Fossil Creek Watershed study.
Lake Wallula Navigation Channel, Columbia River, WA.--The
Committee has included $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
undertake a study to determine if Federal assumption of
maintenance of the Lake Wallula navigation channel is
economically justified and environmentally acceptable.
Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration, WA and OR.--The
Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000 for the Corps
to initiate a reconnaissance study of the ecosystem restoration
opportunities along the Lower Columbia River. The Committee
understands that the Columbia River Channel Deepening project,
the lower Columbia River Estuary Plan Implementation Team, and
the ``All H'' paper os Salmon Recovery, have identified
possible restoration opportunities. Therefore, a comprehensive
ecosystem restoration study would serve as a catalyst to bring
together and implement current efforts by a number of
governmental and private organizations.
Saxon Harbor, WI.--The Committee has included $50,000 for
the Corps to initiate a reconnaissance study of the operation
of the completed project at Saxon Harbor, WI.
Planning assistance to States.--The Committee has provided
$6,700,000 for the Corps of Engineers' planning assistance to
States program. The Corps is to work with the city of Laurel,
MT to provide appropriate assistance to ensure reliability in
the city's Yellowstone River water source. The Committee has
included in the recommendation $200,000 for the Corps of
Engineers to assist the city of Memphis, TN in developing a
master plan for riverfront development within the city along
the Mississippi River.
Flood Plain Management Services.--Within the $8,000,000
recommended for Flood Plain Management Services, the Committee
has included $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a
flood plain management study at Glendive, Montana.
construction, general
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,385,032,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 1,346,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,378,430,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,361,449,000
An appropriation of $1,361,449,000 is recommended for
ongoing construction activities.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of Total Federal Allocated to Budget House Committee
project Project title cost date estimate allowance recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
(N)BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, VICINITY OF JACKSO 18,950 3,404 2,000 2,000 2,000
(N)MOBILE HARBOR, AL 331,021 29,964 499 499 499
(MP)WALTER F GEORGE POWERHOUSE AND DAM, AL AND GA (MAJOR REH 38,700 643 3,000 3,000 3,000
(MP)WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA (MAJOR REHAB) 31,200 6,398 2,500 2,500 2,500
ALASKA
(N)CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK 6,050 652 1,312 1,312 1,312
GALENA, AK 4,100 1,100 .............. .............. 3,000
(N)KAKE HARBOR, AK 18,000 12,492 5,508 5,508 5,508
(N)ST PAUL HARBOR, AK 22,925 8,818 5,616 5,616 5,616
(N)OUZINKIE HARBOR, AK 8,500 4,200 .............. .............. 3,000
ARIZONA
(E)RIO SALADO, PHOENIX AND TEMPE REACHES, AZ 61,630 3,957 2,000 .............. ..............
ARKANSAS
(N)MCCLELLAN--KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR 651,000 610,530 3,300 3,300 3,300
(N)MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR 242,000 138,341 20,000 25,000 34,000
(MP)OZARK POWERHOUSE, AR (MAJOR REHAB) 51,800 .............. 1,230 .............. ..............
RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR .............. .............. .............. 2,000 ..............
CALIFORNIA
(FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA 72,200 26,288 10,000 10,000 10,000
(FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS) 97,500 2,400 5,000 .............. ..............
BERRYESSA CREEK, CA .............. .............. .............. 1,000 ..............
(FC)CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA 21,900 12,556 100 100 100
(FC)GUADALUPE RIVER, CA 78,500 73,416 3,500 3,500 7,000
IMPERIAL BEACH, CA .............. .............. .............. 800 ..............
(FC)KAWEAH RIVER, CA 23,500 3,616 500 3,000 500
(FC)LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA 150,000 140,179 9,821 9,821 7,821
(FC)LOWER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA 4,810 3,325 1,485 1,485 1,485
(FC)MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA 32,550 30,750 760 760 760
(FC)MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA 91,800 18,907 500 500 500
(FC)MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA 14,900 11,786 2,000 2,000 2,000
(FC)NAPA RIVER, CA 91,000 17,712 4,000 4,000 4,000
NORCO BLUFFS, CA 11,250 5,580 .............. .............. 3,225
(FC)SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA 179,900 111,611 3,300 5,000 4,000
(FC)SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA 20,000 10,372 4,100 4,100 4,100
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA .............. .............. .............. 250 ..............
(FC)SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA 16,330 8,050 4,000 4,000 4,000
(FC)SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA 883,000 651,880 18,000 23,000 15,000
(N)SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA 5,450 450 5,000 5,000 5,000
STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA, CA .............. .............. .............. 5,000 ..............
(FC)SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY) 30,900 872 1,000 1,000 1,000
SURFSIDE-SUNSET AND NEWPORT BEACH, CA .............. .............. .............. 5,000 ..............
(FC)UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA 5,720 4,055 1,665 1,665 1,665
(FC)WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 17,700 15,925 1,775 1,775 1,775
DELAWARE
DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HELOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, DE .............. .............. .............. 3,000 3,000
(SP)DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE 13,000 5,343 254 254 254
FLORIDA
BREVARD COUNTY, FL .............. .............. .............. 5,000 6,000
(N)CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL 133,750 35,885 847 847 847
(FC)CEDAR HAMMOCK, WARES CREEK, FL 12,300 760 200 200 200
(E)CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL 2,109,274 515,696 92,423 80,423 65,510
(SP)DADE COUNTY, FL 177,300 67,185 3,058 8,000 3,058
(SP)DUVAL COUNTY, FL 111,200 20,527 3,800 3,800 3,800
(E)EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL 74,792 14,351 20,525 20,525 15,525
(E)HILLSBORO AND OKEECHOBEE AQUIFER, FL 13,500 .............. 4,562 .............. ..............
(MP)JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, FL AND GA (MAJOR R 30,600 15,266 4,500 4,500 4,500
(E)KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL 224,800 64,300 20,000 20,000 16,000
(SP)MANATEE COUNTY, FL 43,600 5,898 200 200 200
(N)MANATEE HARBOR, FL 25,185 6,614 10,828 10,828 9,828
(SP)MARTIN COUNTY, FL 35,800 5,870 2,419 2,419 2,419
(N)MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL 49,059 20,620 6,591 6,591 6,591
(N)PALM VALLEY BRIDGE, FL 18,700 5,839 4,000 7,500 4,000
(N)PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL 25,449 2,621 706 706 706
(SP)PINELLAS COUNTY, FL 167,200 43,090 1,321 1,321 1,321
ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL .............. .............. .............. 4,000 ..............
ST. LUCIE INLET, FL .............. .............. .............. 5,000 ..............
TAMPA HARBOR, FL .............. .............. .............. 300 ..............
GEORGIA
(MP)BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB) 33,700 3,024 2,455 2,455 2,455
(N)LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA AND SC 3,167 671 1,500 1,500 1,500
MAYO'S BAR LOCK AND DAM, GA 1,500 .............. .............. .............. 400
(FC)OATES CREEK, RICHMOND COUNTY, GA (DEF CORR) 11,208 9,536 332 .............. 332
(MP)RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC 619,570 601,852 2,666 2,666 2,666
(MP)THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB) 69,700 23,707 5,000 5,000 5,000
HAWAII
(FC)IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF CORR) 14,807 1,023 239 239 239
(N)KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI 5,039 1,268 3,437 3,437 3,437
(N)MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI 11,446 3,499 325 325 325
ILLINOIS
(N)CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR) 23,728 2,301 2,100 2,100 2,100
(E)CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL 2,130 1,400 400 400 400
(SP)CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL 170,071 45,319 19,192 19,192 18,192
(FC)EAST ST LOUIS, IL 37,861 28,643 900 900 900
EAST ST LOUIS INTERIOR FLOOD CONTROL .............. .............. .............. 150 ..............
(N)LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH 69,994 20,396 5,750 5,750 5,750
(FC)LOVES PARK, IL 21,000 12,985 4,010 4,010 4,010
(FC)MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL 503,828 29,141 2,800 7,800 5,600
(N)MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL AND MO 740,700 730,071 1,400 1,400 1,400
(N)OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY 1,000,000 429,016 38,142 38,142 53,142
(E)UPPER MISS RVR SYSTEM ENV MGMT PROGRAM, IL, IA, MN, MO 532,740 197,875 18,000 21,000 17,000
INDIANA
(FC)FORT WAYNE METROPOLITAN AREA, IN 35,991 34,903 1,088 1,088 1,088
(N)INDIANA HARBOR, IN (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY) 60,000 1,860 3,291 3,291 3,291
INDIANA SHORELINE EROSION, IN .............. .............. .............. 1,000 ..............
INDIANAPOLIS CENTRAL WATERFRONT, IN .............. .............. .............. 7,000 4,000
(FC)INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN 12,746 1,067 934 934 934
(FC)LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN 134,509 70,566 5,343 8,843 5,343
(FC)OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ACCESS, IN 15,500 .............. 1,500 .............. ..............
(FC)PATOKA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB) 7,200 2,000 5,200 5,200 5,200
IOWA
(N)LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB) 24,600 .............. 3,210 .............. ..............
(N)LOCK AND DAM 12, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB) 15,500 1,972 5,260 5,260 4,300
(E)MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION, IA, NE, K 84,500 51,523 12,000 12,000 10,000
(FC)MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS AND MO 140,518 99,956 4,400 4,400 4,650
(FC)PERRY CREEK, IA 45,400 32,064 7,178 7,178 7,178
KANSAS
(FC)ARKANSAS CITY, KS 27,800 8,372 5,100 5,100 5,100
KENTUCKY
(MP)BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN 161,199 160,199 1,000 1,000 1,000
(FC)DEWEY LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY) 14,700 5,788 3,832 3,832 3,832
(N)KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY 533,000 49,090 14,900 19,000 27,700
(N)MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND IN 268,000 35,356 14,000 18,000 14,000
(FC)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY 13,524 3,717 4,000 4,000 4,000
SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY, KY .............. .............. .............. 4,000 ..............
LOUISIANA
(FC)COMITE RIVER, LA 107,200 9,131 10,000 10,000 10,000
(N)INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA 575,000 44,155 14,349 14,349 16,349
GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LA .............. .............. .............. 500 ..............
(N)J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA 1,893,651 1,714,647 18,040 21,040 18,040
(FC)LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE PROTECT 525,000 401,564 3,100 8,100 10,000
(FC)LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) 80,000 73,534 1,414 2,414 1,414
MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET, LA .............. .............. .............. 500 ..............
(N)MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, L 176,000 25,766 719 719 719
(FC)NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) 173,000 145,078 1,800 1,800 1,800
(FC)SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA 399,000 168,343 47,260 47,260 69,000
(FC)WEST BANK VICINITY OF NEW ORLEANS, LA 199,000 56,218 8,065 7,565 8,065
MARYLAND
(E)ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD AND DC 12,000 8,049 3,951 3,951 3,951
(SP)ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD 16,900 .............. 2,500 .............. 1,500
(SP)ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD 270,300 34,795 185 185 185
(N)BALTIMORE HARBOR ANCHORAGES AND CHANNELS, MD AND VA 21,000 675 5,000 .............. ..............
(E)CHESAPEAKE BAY ENV RESTORATION AND PROTECTION, MD, VA 900 292 608 608 1,058
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA .............. .............. .............. 500 4,000
(E)POPLAR ISLAND, MD 320,000 48,618 19,190 19,190 17,190
MASSACHUSETTS
(N)CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, MA (MAJOR REHAB) 31,400 4,350 8,600 8,600 8,600
(FC)TOWN BROOK, QUINCY AND BRAINTREE, MA 32,850 32,750 100 100 100
MINNESOTA
(N)LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN (MAJOR REHAB) 16,200 2,584 5,000 5,000 5,000
(FC)MARSHALL, MN 8,010 6,698 1,312 1,312 1,312
(N)PINE RIVER DAM, CROSS LAKE, MN (DAM SAFETY) 10,200 6,327 3,873 3,873 3,873
MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, MS 20,000 19,200 .............. .............. 2,000
(N)PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS 47,101 26,720 6,663 6,663 6,663
(N)WOLF AND JORDAN RIVERS, MS 2,740 1,403 1,337 1,337 1,337
PEARL RIVER VICINITY OF WALKIAH BLUFF, MS AND LA 1,000 .............. .............. .............. 1,000
MISSOURI
(FC)BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO 216,000 170,092 10,500 10,500 14,500
(FC)CAPE GIRARDEAU, JACKSON, MO 36,694 30,502 2,350 2,350 2,350
(FC)MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO 29,232 17,090 3,000 3,000 3,000
(N)MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO 274,327 192,971 6,500 6,500 6,500
(FC)STE GENEVIEVE, MO 34,532 20,337 6,000 6,000 6,000
(MP)TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR (DAM SAFETY) 60,200 16,844 5,920 5,920 5,920
NEBRASKA
(FC)MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE AND SD 21,000 3,523 300 300 1,800
(FC)WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE 10,536 1,936 1,600 3,000 2,100
NEVADA
(FC)TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV 209,700 87,668 20,000 20,000 21,600
NEW JERSEY
BRIGANTINE INLET/GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET (ABSECON ISL) .............. .............. .............. 5,000 ..............
(SP)CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ 92,700 16,150 100 100 100
(N)DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA AND DE 224,000 20,101 29,756 29,756 26,756
(SP)GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ 393,000 31,529 5,100 5,100 5,100
(N)NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, PORT JERSEY CHANN 82,200 5,304 5,649 10,000 8,649
(FC)PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, N 19,300 3,224 1,700 1,700 1,700
PASSAIC RIVER STREAMBANK RESTORATION, NJ .............. .............. .............. 2,300 3,000
RAMAPO RIVER AT MAHWAH, NJ .............. .............. .............. 750 ..............
(FC)RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ 11,700 6,098 2,717 2,717 2,717
(FC)RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ 295,600 30,475 4,000 4,000 4,000
(SP)SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ 1,162,900 114,227 6,383 6,383 6,383
NEW MEXICO
(FC)ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM 66,000 12,631 900 900 900
(FC)ALAMOGORDO, NM 41,400 5,575 3,000 3,000 3,000
(FC)LAS CRUCES, NM 6,600 3,759 2,841 2,841 2,841
(FC)MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELE 46,800 9,406 600 600 600
(FC)RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE, 62,300 5,065 600 600 600
NEW YORK
(N)ARTHUR KILL CHANNEL, HOWLAND HOOK MARINE TERMINAL, NY 221,700 4,600 5,000 .............. ..............
(SP)ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, 101,000 14,942 500 500 500
(SP)EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET AND JAMAICA BAY, 64,000 44,944 1,000 1,000 1,000
(SP)FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY 236,000 35,117 500 1,500 500
(SP)FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY 573,100 53,424 3,000 3,000 3,000
(N)KILL VAN KULL AND NEWARK BAY CHANNEL, NY AND NJ 607,600 255,580 53,000 53,000 44,000
NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NY .............. .............. .............. 3,000 ..............
ONONDAGA LAKE, NY .............. .............. .............. 5,000 ..............
NORTH CAROLINA
(N)AIWW, REPLACEMENT OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY BRIDGES, NC 70,200 69,200 1,000 1,000 1,000
BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC .............. .............. .............. 4,200 4,200
(SP)CAROLINA BEACH AND VICINITY, NC 193,970 24,036 2,000 2,000 2,000
WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET, NC .............. .............. .............. 330 ..............
(N)WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC 248,100 30,660 40,600 40,600 33,600
NORTH DAKOTA
(FC)BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION, N 40,129 9,482 4,700 4,700 6,000
(FC)DEVILS LAKE EMERGENCY OUTLET, ND 76,600 11,600 24,000 .............. ..............
(MP)GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB) 37,122 11,909 5,300 5,300 5,300
(FC)GRAND FORKS, ND--EAST GRAND FORKS, MN 180,900 15,018 13,044 13,044 13,044
(FC)HOMME LAKE, ND (DAM SAFETY) 15,900 4,183 8,000 8,000 8,000
(FC)SHEYENNE RIVER, ND 30,890 26,113 2,600 2,600 2,600
OHIO
(FC)BEACH CITY LAKE, MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH (DAM SAFETY 3,500 2,603 897 897 897
LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, OH .............. .............. .............. 1,000 ..............
(FC)METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH 16,913 4,531 3,024 3,024 3,024
(FC)MILL CREEK, OH 163,000 99,642 500 500 500
(FC)WEST COLUMBUS, OH 97,000 69,834 6,000 10,000 11,000
OKLAHOMA
(FC)SKIATOOK LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) 9,700 663 2,400 2,400 2,400
(MP)TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) 39,800 9,135 4,500 4,500 4,500
OREGON
(MP)BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR AND WA (MAJOR REHAB) 110,800 45,414 6,110 6,110 6,110
(MP)COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA 75,860 32,714 5,000 5,000 5,000
(FC)ELK CREEK LAKE, OR 176,900 109,854 500 500 500
(FC)LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN BANK PROTECTION, OR AND WA 27,800 21,504 200 200 200
(E)WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR 72,900 6,054 8,200 8,200 8,200
PENNSYLVANIA
(FC)JOHNSTOWN, PA (MAJOR REHAB) 32,500 21,552 7,000 7,000 7,000
(N)LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA 705,000 128,696 35,000 35,000 55,000
(SP)PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT) 66,335 17,423 580 580 580
(FC)SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA 10,575 3,320 4,300 4,300 4,300
SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRON IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .............. .............. .............. 20,000 ..............
WILLIAMSPORT, PA .............. .............. .............. 446 ..............
(FC)WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING) 108,300 58,634 23,092 23,092 20,092
PUERTO RICO
(FC)ARECIBO RIVER, PR 12,500 3,102 4,102 4,102 5,402
(FC)PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR 430,300 388,179 9,590 9,590 9,590
(FC)RIO DE LA PLATA, PR 64,900 6,113 3,493 3,493 3,493
(FC)RIO GRANDE DE LOIZA, PR 150,700 2,713 743 .............. ..............
(FC)RIO NIGUA AT SALINAS, PR 8,900 1,088 198 .............. ..............
(FC)RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR 321,000 63,379 11,000 13,800 11,000
(N)SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR 26,400 18,408 6,940 6,940 6,940
SOUTH CAROLINA
(N)CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (DEEPENING AND WIDENING) 98,444 46,249 16,227 16,227 14,227
LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SC .............. .............. .............. 3,000 ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA
(FC)BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD 30,450 3,700 1,500 1,500 1,500
(E)CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD 108,000 2,286 4,000 4,000 4,000
(MP)PIERRE, SD 35,000 6,772 4,000 4,000 6,000
TENNESSEE
(E)BLACK FOX, MURFREE AND OAKLANDS SPRINGS WETLANDS, TN .............. .............. .............. 1,000 ..............
HAMILTON COUNTY, TN .............. .............. .............. 1,500 ..............
TEXAS
(FC)BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX 306,113 18,908 5,500 6,000 5,500
(N)CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX 27,378 20,425 6,104 6,104 6,104
(FC)CLEAR CREEK, TX 88,660 23,583 1,525 1,525 1,525
(FC)EL PASO, TX 116,300 106,550 5,200 5,200 5,200
(N)GIWW, ARANSAS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, TX 17,900 16,724 1,176 1,176 1,176
(N)HOUSTON--GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX 418,736 134,700 53,492 53,492 48,492
(N)NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER BARRIER, TX 42,795 7,822 9,000 9,000 9,000
RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX .............. .............. .............. 1,300 ..............
RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, TX .............. .............. .............. 900 ..............
(FC)SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX 154,500 152,409 900 900 900
(FC)SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX 220,087 86,486 11,820 11,820 11,820
UTAH
(FC)UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UT 9,660 2,309 800 800 800
VIRGINIA
(N)AIWW, BRIDGE AT GREAT BRIDGE, VA 24,054 7,639 8,492 8,492 8,492
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION, FRONT ROYAL, VA .............. .............. .............. 7,000 ..............
(MP)JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (MAJOR REHAB) 62,300 1,201 4,000 4,000 4,000
(N)NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (DEEPENING), VA 137,496 23,413 600 600 600
(FC)ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA 29,700 6,016 1,000 1,000 1,000
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) .............. .............. .............. 5,000 18,500
(SP)VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (REIMBURSEMENT) .............. .............. .............. 1,100 1,100
WASHINGTON
(E)COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR AND ID 1,376,330 624,524 91,000 80,000 81,000
(E)LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR 232,000 229,774 1,000 1,000 1,000
(FC)MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA 198,400 115,417 710 710 710
(FC)MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY) 80,918 78,918 2,000 2,000 2,000
(MP)THE DALLES POWERHOUSE (UNITS 1-14), WA AND OR (MAJOR REH 101,000 15,062 7,000 7,000 7,000
WEST VIRGINIA
(FC)BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY) 115,800 4,620 6,300 3,300 10,000
(FC)GREENBRIAR RIVER BASIN, WV 47,000 1,930 .............. 1,000 1,000
(FC)LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V 1,853,766 726,712 12,100 32,000 16,200
(N)LONDON LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV (MAJOR REHAB) 22,200 2,510 1,800 1,800 1,800
(N)MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV 313,000 33,802 6,500 6,500 10,200
(N)ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV AND OH 369,474 358,834 2,700 2,700 2,700
SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA, WV .............. .............. .............. 3,000 ..............
(FC)TYGART LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY) 9,500 4,608 4,293 4,293 4,293
WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL, WV AND PA .............. .............. .............. 3,000 ..............
(N)WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV 227,500 225,622 300 300 300
WISCONSIN
LAFARGE LAKE, KICKAPOO RIVER, WI .............. .............. .............. 2,000 2,000
MISCELLANEOUS
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206) .............. .............. 10,000 14,500 9,000
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM .............. .............. 3,000 3,000 4,000
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204) .............. .............. 4,000 4,000 2,000
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM .............. .............. 3,000 3,000 7,000
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM .............. .............. 5,000 5,000 5,000
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SEC. 14) .............. .............. 9,000 6,000 8,000
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION .............. .............. 19,200 19,200 19,200
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) .............. .............. 25,000 30,000 32,000
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD EXPENSE .............. .............. 45 45 45
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE .............. .............. 185 185 185
NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111) .............. .............. 300 300 300
NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107) .............. .............. 7,000 9,000 9,500
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONME .............. .............. 14,000 18,000 17,000
RECREATION MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .............. .............. 27,000 .............. ..............
RIVERINE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGA .............. .............. 20,000 .............. ..............
SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 103) .............. .............. 2,500 2,500 2,500
SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECT (SECTION 208) .............. .............. 200 600 200
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE AND CARRYOVER .............. .............. -165,253 -218,967 -166,253
BALANCES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL .............. .............. 1,346,000 1,378,430 1,361,449
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPE OF PROJECT:
(N) NAVIGATION
(BE) BEACH EROSION CONTROL
(FC) FLOOD CONTROL
(MP) MULTIPURPOSE, INCLUDING POWER
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, AR.--An appropriation of
$34,000,000 is recommended for the Montgomery Point Lock and
Dam, Arkansas project. This is an increase of $14,000,000 over
the budget request and, while a significant increase, is still
far below the amount needed to fund the project at an optimum
level.
Guadalupe River, CA.--The Committee recommendation for
Construction, General includes $7,000,000 for the Guadalupe
River, CA flood control project. This is an increase of
$3,500,000 over the budget request and will allow the Corps to
continue mitigation planning and implementation, and award
construction contracts on additional phases of the project.
Norco Bluffs, CA.--An amount of $3,225,000 is recommended
for the Norco Bluffs, California project. The Committee is
disappointed that the project will not be completed during the
current year as expected. The funding recommended should,
barring any unforseen complications, complete the project. The
Committee is aware that unforseen work has caused the project
cost to exceed the authorized limit, and, therefore, has
included a provision in the bill to raise project cost ceiling
in order that the project may be completed during fiscal year
2001 without further delay.
Sacramento River Bank Protection, CA.--The Committee has
provided an additional $700,000 for the Sacramento River Bank
Protection project in California. The $4,000,000 recommended
will allow the Corps to advance completion of this important
flood control project.
Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island,
Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach, DE.--An appropriation of
$3,000,000 is provided for the Delaware Coast from Cape
Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach
shoreline protection project. The Committee understands that
carryover fiscal year 2000 funding and the funding recommended
herein will allow the Corps to execute a project cost sharing
agreement with the non-Federal sponsor and proceed with the
first construction contract.
Central and Southern, Everglades, and Kissimmee River
Projects, FL.--In light of the severe budget constraints, the
Committee has had to make many difficult recommendations in
developing the funding levels for fiscal year 2001. Confronted
with a highly constrained budget environment and program
imbalances put forth in the President's budget request, the
Committee has recommended reductions to many important water
resource projects and programs, including the Everglades,
Kissimmee River and the Central and Southern projects.
Additional non-Defense discretionary budgetary resources will
be needed in future years if these projects are to proceed at
or near the desired schedule.
Mayo's Lock and Dam, GA.--The Committee recommendation
includes $400,000 for the Corps to provide technical assistance
for the reconstruction of the Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, GA
project.
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation, IA, NE, KS,
and MO.--Due to constrained budget allocations, the Committee
is only able to recommend $10,000,000 for the Missouri River
Fish and Wildlife, IA, NE, KS and MO project. This action is
taken without prejudice and does not indicate a diminution of
support for the project. The Committee directs that the funding
provided be prioritized to address critical habitat aimed at
the recovery of endangered species designated by the Endangered
Species Act.
Chicago Shoreline, IL.--The Committee has provided
$17,192,000 for the Chicago Shoreline project in Illinois. As
stated earlier, due to a highly constrained budget environment
and program imbalances put forth in the President's budget
request, the Committee has had to make many difficult choices
in developing the funding levels for fiscal year 2001.
Additional non-Defense discretionary budgetary resources will
be needed in future years if the project is to proceed at or
near the desired schedule.
Olmstead Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IL and KY.--An
appropriation of $53,142,000 is provided for the Olmstead Lock
and Dam, Illinois project. The administration's budget request
for fiscal year 2001 significantly under funded the
construction needs and the Committee has, therefore,
recommended an additional $15,000,000 in an effort to mitigate
delays on this important facility on the Nation's inland
waterway system. No funds are included for reimbursement of the
Claims and Judgement Fund.
White River, Indianapolis Central Waterfront, IN.--The
Committee has recommended an appropriation of $4,000,000 for
the Corps to continue construction on the White River,
Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana project. The Committee
regrets that budgetary constraints do not allow funding at a
more optimum level. Additional non-Defense discretionary
budgetary resources will be needed in future years if the
project is to proceed at or near the Corps' schedule.
Missouri River Levee System, IA, NE, KS and MO.--The
Committee has provided an increase of $250,000 for the Corps to
complete the General Reevaluation Report and to proceed with
plans and specifications for the L-142, Jefferson City, MO
feature of the Missouri River Levee System, IA, NE, KS, and MO
project.
Kentucky Lock and Dam, KY.--An appropriation of $27,700,000
is provided for the Kentucky Lock and Dam project in Kentucky
to help mitigate delays as the result of the less than optimum
funding level contained in the administration's budget request.
As stated on many other projects, additional non-Defense
discretionary budgetary resources will be needed in future
years if the project is to proceed at or near the desired
schedule.
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, LA.--Funding in the
amount of $16,349,000 is recommended for the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal Lock project in Louisiana. The recommended
appropriation provides the full budget request of $3,000,000
for community impact activities. The Committee urges the Corps
to continue construction of this project with the least
possible disruption to the surrounding community. The Committee
understands that the Corps of Engineers has finally determined
a formula for the allocation of construction costs as between
inland navigation and general cargo navigation. The Committee
supports this allocation of costs and notes that the proposed
formula is consistent with Committee direction to the Corps in
fiscal year 2000 and the authorized cost sharing on the
project.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--An appropriation of
$18,040,000 is recommended to continue construction related to
the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway project in Louisiana. The
Committee is informed that the proposed location of the
Regional Visitors Center in Shreveport and the expected public
visitation has resulted in the demand for a level of service
greater than originally anticipated. Therefore, the Committee
has included language in the bill which would allow the use of
available Construction, General funds in addition to those
provided in Public Law 104-206 to complete design and
construction of the visitors center at an estimated cost of
$6,000,000.
Southeast Louisiana, LA.--The Committee recommendation
includes an appropriation of $69,000,000 for continued
construction of the Southeast Louisiana flood protection
project.
Assateague Island, MD.--The Committee has provided
$1,500,000 for the Assateague Island project in Maryland which
Congress addressed in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation bill.
In approving the project last year, the Congress provided for
reimbursement by the National Park Service. The Committee
understands, however, that Corps constructed jetties at Ocean
City Inlet are disrupting the flow and supply of sediments
available to replenish the shoreline at Assateague Island
National Seashore. Given this, the Committee has included an
additional $1,500,000 to continue the project and allow the
Corps to proceed with initial sand placement.
Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, MD and VA.--The Committee
is aware that a healthy oyster population is essential to
improving water quality and restoring the Chesapeake ecosystem
as a whole. Further, the Committee understands that early data
indicates that manmade three dimension reefs stocked with
oyster spat show great promise in producing oysters that are
``disease tolerant'', and that these protected areas are
reproducing and building up adjacent oyster beds. In order to
increase the number of oyster beds and strengthen the Federal
involvement in this program, the Committee has recommended an
appropriation of $4,000,000 to continue this program in fiscal
year 2001. The funds provided are to be used to construct reefs
and related clean shell substrate for man-made three
dimensional oyster reefs in the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries in Maryland and Virginia which are preserved as
permanent sanctuaries, consistent with the recommendations of
the scientific consensus document on the Chesapeake Bay oyster
restoration dated June 1999.
Pearl River, Vicinity of Walkiah Bluff, MS and LA.--The
Committee is aware of emergency repairs to the weir at the
Pearl River in the vicinity of Walkiah Bluff in Mississippi and
Louisiana. These repairs were the result of design problems and
were beyond the scope of the work originally included as a part
of the project cooperation agreement. As a result, the non-
Federal sponsor should not have been required to share in the
cost of the emergency repairs. Therefore, the Corps is directed
to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor for their share of the
construction costs associated with emergency repairs in an
amount not to exceed $1,000,000.
Blue River Channel, Kansas City, MO.--The Committee has
provided $14,500,000, an increase of $4,500,000 over the budget
request, for the Corps to expedite work on the Blue River
Channel, Kansas City, Missouri flood control project.
Missouri National Recreation River, NE and SD.--The
Committee has provided $1,800,000 for the Missouri National
Recreational River, NE and SD project. This is $1,500,000 over
the budget request for fiscal year 2001 to expedite activities
related to the Ponca restoration project.
Delaware River Channel Deepening, NJ, PA, & DE.--Due to
constrained budget allocations, the Committee is only able to
recommend $26,756,000 for the Delaware River Channel Deepening,
NJ project. This action is taken without prejudice and does not
indicate a diminution of support for the project.
Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV.--The Committee has
provided $21,600,000 for the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes
project in Nevada to advance completion of this important flood
control project. In an effort to reduce alkali silica (ASR)
reactivity on concrete, the Corps of Engineers is urged to
consider incorporating the use of lithium salts, or other such
means, if appropriate, in test sections of the concrete to
demonstrate the effectiveness of these methods in ameliorating
the effects of ASR. The Committee recommendation includes
$1,600,000 for reimbursement of work performed by project non-
Federal sponsor in accordance with Section 211 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996.
Devils Lake Emergency Outlet, ND.--The Committee is aware
that the budget for fiscal year 2001 included a request of
$24,000,000 for construction of an outlet at Devils Lake in
North Dakota. Because of delays in proceeding with required
feasibility, and engineering and design work which is expected
to take a minimum of 18 months to complete, construction will
not be able to commence in fiscal year 2001 as originally
envisioned. Therefore, the Committee has not provided the
funding requested for construction. This action is recommended
without prejudice in recognition that Corps has authority to
use up to $10,000,000 of previously appropriated funds to
initiate construction of an outlet once certain conditions
mandated by Congress are met.
Flints Pond, Hollis, NH.--The Committee directs the Corps
to use $75,000 of available Construction general funds to
initiate and complete a decision document for the removal of
silt and aquatic growth from Flints Pond, Hollis, NH.
West Columbus, OH.--The Committee has provided an
additional $11,000,000 over the budget request for the West
Columbus, Ohio flood control project to allow the Corps to
continue construction on a more optimum schedule and to
mitigate delays due to the inadequate funding request proposed
in the administration's budget for fiscal year 2001.
Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, PA.--The
Committee has recommended $55,000,000 to continue construction
of the Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River navigation
project in Pennsylvania. While providing an increase of
$20,000,000 over the budget request, budget constraints do not
allow the Committee to reach the capability level of the Corps
which is significantly higher than the amount recommended
herein. Additional non-Defense discretionary budgetary
resources will be needed in future years if the project is to
proceed at or near the desired construction schedule.
Presque Isle, PA.--The full budget request of $580,000 is
recommended for the Presque Isle, PA project. The Committee
notes that Lake Erie is experiencing the lowest lake levels
since the 1960's and, as a result, annual sand nourishment
allocations necessary to replenish Presque Isle State Park
beaches in Erie County, PA have been reduced substantially.
Efficiencies in delivery, reductions in cost, and timely
completion are the primary goals in the ongoing beach
nourishment program at Presque Isle State Park. The Park's
North Pier, which can be used to stockpile sand for use in
future years, will play a vital role in meeting these goals.
The Committee believes that the Corps of Engineers should make
available any surplus project funds from fiscal years 2000 and
2001 for the improvement and maintenance of the North Pier at
Presque Isle State Park as appropriate.
Wyoming Valley, PA.--Due to constrained budget allocations,
the Committee is only able to recommend $18,092,000 for the
Wyoming Valley, PA project. This action is taken without
prejudice and does not indicate a diminution of support for the
project.
Virginia Beach, Hurricane Protection, VA.--An appropriation
of $18,500,000 is recommended to continue construction
activities on the Virginia Beach, Hurricane Protection project
in Virginia. Given the current budgetary constraints and the
fact that this project is nearly completed, the Committee urges
the Secretary of the Army and the administration to seek
opportunities to complete the Virginia Beach project in fiscal
year 2001 if at all possible. To this end, the Corps is
directed to consider allowing the city to use sand that will be
available from the deepening of a nearby channel which would be
less expensive for all parties, to review industry practices
and to schedule the work to maximize potential savings from
bidding efficiency, and to reprogram additional funding to the
project in fiscal year 2001 if the Corps, based on bids for the
work, finds it possible to complete sand placement.
Columbia River Fish Mitigation, WA and OR.--The Committee
recommends $79,000,000 to continue the Columbia River Fish
Mitigation project and $2,000,000 to address potential flooding
in Lewiston, Idaho, as a result of a weakened section of the
Federal levee embankment along the Snake River. This problem is
the direct result of the Corps of Engineers drawing the Lower
Granite Reservoir down in 1992 for a salmon-related
experiments. The Committee therefore directs that necessary
repairs to the levee embankment be begun immediately. The
recommended level of funding is necessary due to the severe
budget constraints. In addition, no part of any appropriation
contained herein shall be used to begin Phase II of the John
Day drawdown study or to start a study of the drawdown at
McNary Dam. The amount recommended includes funding over the
budget request for avian control studies.
Greenbrier River Basin, WV.--An appropriation of $1,000,000
is recommended to continue the Greenbrier River Basin project
in West Virginia. The additional funding will be used to
continue detailed design, complete the detailed project report,
and complete NEPA compliance for the Marlington, WV local
protection project.
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper
Cumberland River, WV-KY-VA.--The Committee has provided a total
of $16,200,000 for the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy
River and Upper Cumberland River project.
The Committee recommendation also includes $1,500,000 for
the Upper Mingo County, West Virginia, element; $1,600,000 for
the Kermit, Lower Mingo County (Kermit), WV, element; $400,000
for the Wayne County, WV, element; and $600,000 for the
McDowell County, WV, element.
Finally, $11,500,000 is provided for the Grundy, VA,
element.
Aquatic plant control program.--The Committee has included
$4,000,000 to continue the aquatic plant control program. In
light of severe budget constraints and the fact that this is a
nationwide program, the Committee believes it inappropriate to
earmark the small amount of funding available for fiscal year
2001. The appropriations are to undertake the highest priority
activities. The Committee recognizes that there is a shortage
of funding to harvest nuisance aquatic plants, while there are
other programs to aid aquatic plant control research.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps to place a higher
priority on actual plant harvesting and eradication through
funding provided in this account. Finally, in an effort to
maximize the use of the limited Federal funding, the Committee
recommends that harvesting and eradication be undertaken only
where a local sponsor agrees to provide at least 50 percent of
the cost of the work.
The Committee recommendation includes $400,000 for aquatic
weed control at Lake Champlain in Vermont. The Committee
recommendation also included $250,000, to be matched by an
equal amount by the State of South Carolina for aquatic plant
control activities in that State.
Dam Safety and Seepage Stability Correction Program.--The
Committee has recommended an appropriation of $7,000,000 for
the Dam Safety and Seepage Stability Correction Program, an
increase of $4,0000,000 over the budget request. While the
Committee prefers not to earmark funding for this program thus
allowing the Corps of Engineers the flexibility to respond to
the greatest need based on the potential risk to life and
property, the Corps' attention is directed to the need for
repairs to the Mississinewa Lake, IN and Waterbury Dam, VT
projects which have been brought to the Committee's attention.
Emergency streambank and shoreline protection, (sec. 14).--
The Committee has included $8,000,000 for the section 14,
emergency streambank and shoreline erosion protection program.
The Committee recommendation includes $600,000 for the Lake
Michigan Center, Muskegon, MI project; $40,000 to initiate the
planning and design analysis for the Belle Isle South Shore,
Detroit, MI project; $40,000 to initiate the planning and
design analysis for the Detroit River Shoreline, MI project
which addresses erosion from Riverfront Towers to the
Renaissance Center; $80,000, subject to a request by a non-
Federal sponsor, to initiate and complete a planning and design
analysis for the Tioga County, PA project; $780,000 to initiate
and complete construction of the Dayton Pike Bridge, North
Chickamauga Creek, TN project; $100,000 to initiate and
complete construction of the Pistol Creek, Marysville, TN
project, and $304,000 for the Bogachiel, WA project.
Small navigation projects (sec. 107).--The Committee has
recommended an appropriation of $9,500,000 for small navigation
projects under the section 107 program. The recommendation
includes $2,500,000 to initiate and complete construction of
the Port Hueneme, CA project; and $205,000 to complete the
feasibility phase of the Westport River, MA project if
determined to be in the Federal interest.
The Committee recommendation also includes $200,000 for the
Lake Shore Park, City of Milwaukee, WI navigation project. In
order to expedite construction of this project, the Committee
urges the Corps of Engineers to consider using the feasibility
and other study documents and designs developed by the State of
Wisconsin.
Small flood control projects (sec. 205).--The Committee
recommendation for section 205 small flood control projects is
$32,000,000.
The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 to initiate
and complete a detailed project report, and initiate the
feasibility phase of the Mare Island, CA project; $203,000 for
the Coyote Creek at Rock Springs, CA project to continue the
feasibility phase; $100,000 to complete the detailed project
report for the City of Folsom, Humbug and Willow Creeks, CA
project; $490,000 to initiate and complete plans and
specifications, and to initiate and complete construction of
the St. Joe River at St. Maries, ID; $100,000 to continue the
feasibility phase of the Coeur d'Alene River at Cataldo, ID
project; $130,000 to initiate the feasibility phase of the
Weiser River, ID project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility
phase of the Spy Run Creek, IN project; $100,000 to initiate
plans and specifications for the Montevideo, MN project;
$900,000 to complete plans and specifications for the
Breckenridge, MN project; $450,000 to complete the feasibility
phase and initiate plans and specifications for the Ada, MN
project; $100,000 to complete the feasibility phase of the
Yellowstone River at Glendive, MT project; $100,000 to initiate
the feasibility phase of the Tongue and Yellowstone Rivers at
Miles City, MT project; $500,000 to initiate construction of
the Mill Brook, Highland Park, NJ project; $200,000 to initiate
plans and specifications of the Poplar Brook, Monmouth, NJ
project; $25,000 to complete the feasibility phase of the Tawny
Run Creek, Springdale, PA project; $175,000 to complete the
feasibility phase of the Erwin, TN project; and $1,500,000 to
complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of
the Snoqualmie River at Snoqualmie, WA project.
The Committee is aware that an error during dredging of the
Cedar River in Washington has lead to significant environmental
impacts and that the Corps of Engineers has accepted
responsibility for the over dredging mistake. Further, the
Committee understands that the estimated mitigation costs of
$300,000 raises the cost of the project over Federal limit for
Section 205 projects. In order to ensure that the local sponsor
is not adversely impacted by the Federal mistake, the Committee
has included a provision in the bill to provide for
reimbursement for mitigation costs incurred by the City of
Renton, WA as a result of the over dredging of the Corps of
Engineers.
Aquatic ecosystem restoration (sec. 206).--The Committee
has recommended an appropriation of $9,000,000 for section 206
aquatic ecosystem restoration projects for fiscal year 2000.
The recommended funding level includes $350,000 to complete
the feasibility phase of the Hayden Diversion, Steamboat
Springs, CO project; $300,000 for the Lake Natoma, Highway 50
Pond, CA project; $352,000 to initiate plans and specifications
and construction of the Comite River at Hooper Road, LA
project; $400,000 plus $80,000 of carryover funds to complete
the feasibility phase and initiate plans and specifications and
construction of the Lake St. Clair, Metropolitan Beach, MI
project; $200,000 for environmental restoration studies outside
the superfund site, particularly tributaries of the Kalamazoo
River within Kalamazoo County, MI; $65,000 for Carson River
Watershed Bank Protection, NV, to initiate and complete the
Preliminary Restoration Plan, and to initiate the Environmental
Restoration Report; $65,000 for Steamboat Creek, Washoe County,
NV to initiate and complete the Preliminary Restoration Plan,
and to initiate the Environmental Restoration Report; Little
Sugar Creek, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, NC, $315,000 to
complete plans and specifications and initiate construction;
$286,000 to continue the feasibility phase of the Springfield
Millrace, OR project; $1,300,000 to complete plans and
specifications and initiate construction of the Nine Mile Run,
Pittsburgh, PA project; $100,000 to initiate and complete plans
and specifications for the Lonsdale Drive-In Restoration, RI
project; $500,000 to initiate and complete plans and
specifications for the Upper Jordan River restoration project;
$500,000 to complete the environmental restoration report and
initiate plans and specifications for the West Jordan, UT
project; $100,000 to initiate the environmental restoration
report for the Winooski River, VT project; $150,000 to complete
the environmental restoration report and related activities for
the Salmon Creek, WA project.
The Committee understands that there are sufficient
carryover funds to allow the Corps to continue work on the West
Lafayette, LA project.
The Committee funding recommendation supports the Corps
continued activities to evaluate the disposition of the John P.
Grace Memorial Bridge and the Silas N. Pearman Bridge as part
of the section 206 program.
Projects modifications for improvement of the environment
(sec. 1135).--The Committee recommendation includes $17,000,000
for section 1135 Project Modification for the Improvement of
the Environment Program.
The recommendation includes $2,000,000 to complete
construction of the Pine Flat Turbine Bypass, CA project;
$750,000 for the St. Louis, MO urban habitat restoration
project; $167,000 to initiate the feasibility phase of the
Rahway River Environmental Restoration, NJ project; and
$100,000 to improve the habitat of the Silvery Minnow in the
Rio Grande River between San Acacia and Elephant Butte Dam.
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries Arkansas, Illinois,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $309,416,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 309,000,000
House allowance......................................... 323,350,000
Committee recommendation................................ 324,450,000
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal Allocated to Current year House Committee
Project title cost date allocation Budget estimate allowance recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
SURVEYS:
GENERAL STUDIES:
ALEXANDRIA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO......... 3,150 619 519 750 750 750
DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA............... 3,500 500 275 1,100 1,100 1,100
SPRING BAYOU, LA............................. 2,600 96 96 100 100 100
COLDWATER RIVER BASIN ABOVE ARKABUTLA LAKE, 1,500 ............... ............... 350 350 350
MS..........................................
COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, 2,100 ............... ............... 100 .............. 100
MS..........................................
MEMPHIS METRO AREA, TN AND MS................ 2,075 419 416 657 657 657
BAYOU METO BASIN, AR......................... 125,000 5,717 1,917 6,500 6,500 6,500
MORGANZA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO........... 88,400 955 955 2,000 2,000 2,000
REELFOOT LAKE, TN AND KY..................... 20,152 432 430 318 368 368
WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN...................... 11,765 309 309 216 216 216
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA............... .............. ............... ............... 435 435 435
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS............... .............. ............... ............... 12,526 12,476 12,576
==================================================================================================
CONSTRUCTION
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN... 3,697,000 2,566,817 35,991 35,690 35,690 35,690
FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH (EIGHT MILE CREEK), AR.. 9,100 4,365 469 2,110 2,110 2,110
GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR............................. 208,000 17,542 2,875 22,800 22,800 17,800
HELENA AND VICINITY, AR.............................. 8,380 4,711 1,592 2,450 2,450 2,450
L'ANGUILLE RIVER BASIN, AR........................... 15,100 2,899 96 750 750 750
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND 2,117,000 878,478 28,647 40,621 37,621 42,483
TN..................................................
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO.......................... 389,000 369,028 4,682 3,195 4,195 3,195
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA............... 184,000 80,883 7,163 10,000 10,000 10,000
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA................................ 1,870,000 870,637 21,011 26,000 26,000 26,000
LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE, LA............... 19,500 10,978 8,595 5,500 5,500 5,500
MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, LA AND MS. 74,600 7,940 96 100 100 100
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA......................... 99,500 86,653 9,933 5,000 5,000 5,000
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA................ 168,310 127,338 8,529 2,330 2,330 2,330
YAZOO BASIN: (1,125,294) (429,975) (16,830) (11,195) (26,195) (11,195)
BACKWATER PUMP, MS............................... 190,343 11,804 905 500 500 1,000
BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS.......................... 110,000 94,622 2,998 3,500 3,500 4,500
DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL, MS................ 277,953 238,852 19,101 ............... 15,000 8,000
MAIN STEM, MS.................................... 199,543 34,605 19 25 25 25
REFORMULATION UNIT, MS........................... 32,408 28,560 1,499 300 300 300
TRIBUTARIES, MS.................................. 250,000 107,545 325 84 84 84
UPPER YAZOO PROJECT, MS.......................... 343,000 152,839 11,084 6,786 6,786 13,700
ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO........... 59,609 14,608 6,360 700 5,000 3,500
NONCONNAH CREEK, FLOOD CONTROL FEATURE, TN AND MS.... 17,925 12,842 2,388 2,000 2,000 2,000
WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN....................... 147,000 54,050 290 500 500 500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION......................... .............. ............... ............... 170,941 188,241 187,017
==================================================================================================
MAINTENANCE
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN... .............. ............... ............... 58,954 55,954 58,954
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR................... .............. ............... ............... 421 421 421
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR.................... .............. ............... ............... 442 442 442
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR................. .............. ............... ............... 407 407 407
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR................. .............. ............... ............... 10 10 10
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND .............. ............... ............... 6,160 6,160 10,260
TN..................................................
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO.......................... .............. ............... ............... 6,775 7,775 8,775
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND LA..... .............. ............... ............... 2,384 2,384 2,384
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR............................ .............. ............... ............... 1,070 1,070 1,070
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL.................... .............. ............... ............... 45 45 45
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY.................... .............. ............... ............... 25 25 25
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA............... .............. ............... ............... 1,499 1,499 1,499
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA................................ .............. ............... ............... 9,482 9,482 9,482
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA.................. .............. ............... ............... 210 210 210
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA................... .............. ............... ............... 56 56 56
BONNET CARRE, LA..................................... .............. ............... ............... 1,340 1,340 1,340
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA.................... .............. ............... ............... 389 389 389
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA............... .............. ............... ............... 5,739 5,739 5,739
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA......................... .............. ............... ............... 916 916 916
OLD RIVER, LA........................................ .............. ............... ............... 4,720 4,720 4,720
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA................ .............. ............... ............... 3,048 3,048 3,048
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS................................ .............. ............... ............... 626 626 626
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS.................... .............. ............... ............... 193 193 193
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS................................. .............. ............... ............... 480 480 480
YAZOO BASIN: .............. ............... ............... (24,185) (28,185) (24,185)
ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS............................... .............. ............... ............... 6,242 7,242 4,265
BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS.......................... .............. ............... ............... 137 137 4,500
ENID LAKE, MS.................................... .............. ............... ............... 3,376 4,376 4,214
GREENWOOD, MS.................................... .............. ............... ............... 1,007 1,007 1,007
GRENADA LAKE, MS................................. .............. ............... ............... 4,232 5,232 4,232
MAIN STEM, MS.................................... .............. ............... ............... 1,254 1,254 1,254
SARDIS LAKE, MS.................................. .............. ............... ............... 5,180 6,180 5,180
TRIBUTARIES, MS.................................. .............. ............... ............... 1,162 1,162 1,162
WILL M WHITTINGTON AUXILIARY CHANNEL, MS......... .............. ............... ............... 358 358 358
YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS......................... .............. ............... ............... 431 431 431
YAZOO CITY, MS................................... .............. ............... ............... 806 806 806
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO.................... .............. ............... ............... 202 202 202
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO.................................. .............. ............... ............... 7,000 7,000 7,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN.................... .............. ............... ............... 113 113 113
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN.................... .............. ............... ............... 1,085 1,085 1,085
MAPPING.............................................. .............. ............... ............... 1,129 1,129 1,129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, MAINTENANCE.......................... .............. ............... ............... 322,572 341,822 348,022
==================================================================================================
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE....... .............. ............... ............... -13,572 -18,472 -23,572
==================================================================================================
TOTAL, FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND .............. ............... ............... 309,000 323,350 324,450
TRIBUTARIES...................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPE OF PROJECT:
(N) NAVIGATION
(FC) FLOOD CONTROL
The Committee believes that it is essential to provide
adequate resources and funding to the Mississippi River and
Tributaries program in order to protect the large investment in
flood control facilities. Although much progress has been made,
considerable work remains to be done for the protection and
economic development of the rich national resources in the
Valley. The Committee expects the additional funds to be used
to advance ongoing studies, initiate new studies, and advance
important construction and maintenance work. In conjunction
with efforts to optimize use of the additional funding
provided, the Committee expects adjustments in lower priority
activities and non-critical work in order to maximize the
public benefit within the Mississippi River and Tributaries
program.
Lower Red River, South Bank Levees, LA.--The Committee is
aware that the Lower Red River, South Bank Levee and the Bayou
Rapides drainage structure and pumping plant, have served to
contain flows and reduce interior flooding from high river
stages on the Red River. The current age and badly deteriorated
condition of the structure threatens the integrity of the Lower
Red River, South Bank Levee and failure of the structure could
inundate approximately 60 percent of the City of Alexandria,
LA. Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to
expeditiously initiate construction of the replacement
structure and further directs the Corps to budget for
subsequent funding, through completion of the replacement
structure, through the maintenance category of the MR&T;
appropriations.
Greenville Inner Harbor, MS.--The Committee is aware that
Section 509 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
provided for the Federal maintenance dredging of the Greenville
Inner Harbor Channel in Mississippi following the determination
that such maintenance is economically justified,
environmentally acceptable, and that the channel was
constructed in accordance with applicable permits and
appropriate engineering design standards. Therefore, the
Secretary of the Army is directed to complete a feasibility
study in accordance with the provisions of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 utilizing available funding under the
Mississippi River and Tributaries appropriations.
Reelfoot Lake, TN and KY.--The Committee is aware of the
concerns of Kentucky interests regarding potential flooding
impacts. The Committee understands that local interests believe
that operation of the proposed new spillway would increase the
severity of flooding of adjacent lake lands over that which
occurs with the existing spillway and operation. The Committee,
therefore, has included a total of $368,000 for preconstruction
engineering and design of which $50,000 is for the Corps to
perform an analysis to determine and identify any potential
flooding impacts with the new spillway and its operation.
Mississippi River Channel Improvement.--The Committee is
aware of the critical importance of navigation and commerce to
the Nation, and that the lower Mississippi River is vital to
our Nation, serving as the primary commerce link between our
Nation's heartland and foreign and domestic markets. The
Committee understands that a 12-foot channel is authorized and
currently exists for much of the time below Cairo, Illinois.
The Committee urges the Corps to use available funds within the
Mississippi River and Tributaries appropriation, to evaluate
the current availability of a 12-foot navigation channel and
the feasibility of ensuring a dependable 12-foot navigation
channel on the lower Mississippi River below Cairo, Illinois.
Mississippi River Levees.--The Committee recommendation
includes additional funding to advance completion of
construction of high priority, critical levee and other flood
control facilities within the Mississippi River and Tributaries
program.
Yazoo basin, Big Sunflower River, MR&T.--The; Committee has
provided $1,000,000 for the Corps to expedite construction of
various features of the Big Sunflower River, MS, project.
Yazoo basin, demonstration erosion control, MR&T.--An;
appropriation of $8,000,000 is recommended for the
demonstration erosion control project, to continue a joint
effort by the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service in the Yazoo basin of the Mississippi. The
funds provided will permit the Corps to undertake construction
of additional flood water retarding structures, pipe and
culvert grade control structures, channel improvements, and
bank stabilization items in various watersheds. Design of
future work, acquisition of real estate and monitoring of
results will be accomplished for all watersheds in order to
facilitate work in fiscal year 2001 and for all future work as
required for completion of the total program.
St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, MO.--The Committee
has included $3,500,000 for construction activities on the St.
Johns and New Madrid Floodway in Missouri, including additional
funding to initiate construction of the New Madrid pumping
station.
Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower River, MS.--An appropriation of
$4,500,000 is recommended for the Big Sunflower River
maintenance portion of the Yazoo Basin feature. The Committee
understands the need to restore channel capacity in order to
alleviate flooding caused by deterioration of the channel as
originally constructed. Therefore, the Committee has provided
an additional $2,000,000 for the Corps to continue the
maintenance on the Big Sunflower river project.
Yazoo basin maintenance.--The Committee has been informed
of inadequate maintenance of road surfaces and slides on
Mississippi levees in the Yazoo basin. Additional levee
maintenance funding has been provided for the Corps to address
this and other problems.
operation and maintenance, general
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,853,618,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 1,854,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,854,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,862,471,000
The Committee recommendation for Operation and Maintenance
activities of the Corps of Engineers totals $1,862,471,000 for
fiscal year 2001.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget House Committee
Project title estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
ALABAMA--COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL................... 1,100 1,100 1,100
ALABAMA--COOSA RIVER, AL........................................ 5,355 5,355 5,355
BAYOU LA BATRE, AL.............................................. 1,999 1,999 1,999
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL.......................... 19,204 20,204 20,704
DAUPHIN ISLAND BAY, AL.......................................... 60 60 60
DOG AND FOWL RIVERS, AL......................................... 66 66 66
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL.................................. 4,734 4,734 4,734
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL............................... 50 50 50
MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM ``BILL'' DANNELLY LA........ 4,999 4,999 4,999
MOBILE HARBOR, AL............................................... 18,665 18,665 22,665
MOBILE AREA DIGITAL MAPPING, AL................................. .............. 150 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL................................... 350 350 350
ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL................................. 4,962 4,962 4,962
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL............................. 120 120 120
TENNESSEE--TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS........................ 23,547 24,547 24,547
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA......................... 7,373 7,373 7,373
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK............................................ 1,777 1,777 1,777
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK........................................... 1,364 1,364 1,364
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK........................................... 423 423 423
HOMER HARBOR, AK................................................ 191 191 191
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK............................... 35 35 35
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK............................................ 186 186 186
NOME HARBOR, AK................................................. 386 386 386
PETERSBURG HARBOR, AK........................................... 394 394 394
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK................................... 512 512 512
WRANGELL NARROWS, AK............................................ 2,438 2,438 3,838
ARIZONA
ALAMO LAKE, AZ.................................................. 1,166 1,166 1,166
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ............................... 69 69 69
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ............................................ 1,186 1,186 1,186
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ............................. 74 74 74
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ........................................... 168 168 168
ARKANSAS
BEAVER LAKE, AR................................................. 4,520 4,520 4,520
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR............................... 5,758 5,758 5,758
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR.......................................... 1,200 1,200 1,200
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR............................................ 4,565 4,565 4,565
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR..................................... 5,937 5,937 5,937
DEGRAY LAKE, AR................................................. 4,218 4,218 4,218
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR................................................ 1,058 1,058 1,058
DIERKS LAKE, AR................................................. 988 988 988
GILLHAM LAKE, AR................................................ 929 929 929
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR........................................... 5,933 5,933 5,933
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR.............................. 304 304 304
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR............................... 294 294 294
MCCLELLAN--KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR............ 19,988 19,988 19,988
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR............................................... 1,602 1,602 1,602
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR................................... 3,604 3,604 3,604
NIMROD LAKE, AR................................................. 1,416 1,416 1,416
NORFORK LAKE, AR................................................ 3,626 3,626 3,626
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR.............................................. 419 419 419
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA............................ 6,402 6,402 6,402
OZARK--JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR............................. 4,072 4,072 4,072
WHITE RIVER, AR................................................. 2,258 2,258 2,258
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR............................................ 125 125 125
CALIFORNIA
BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA............................................ 1,854 1,854 1,854
BODEGA BAY, CA.................................................. .............. 200 ..............
BUCHANAN DAM, H V EASTMAN LAKE, CA.............................. 1,580 1,580 1,580
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA...................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA........................... 3,403 3,403 3,403
CRESCENT CITY HARBOR, CA........................................ .............. 500 ..............
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA................... 4,437 4,437 4,687
FARMINGTON DAM, CA.............................................. 313 313 313
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA.................................... 1,616 1,616 1,616
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA..................................... 4,710 4,710 4,710
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA............................... 843 843 843
ISABELLA LAKE, CA............................................... 793 793 793
JACK D. MALTESTER CHANNEL (SAN LEANDRO MARINA), CA.............. .............. 1,500 ..............
LOS ANGELES--LONG BEACH HARBOR MODEL, CA........................ 170 170 170
LOS ANGELES--LONG BEACH HARBORS, CA............................. 3,910 3,910 3,910
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA............................ 3,956 3,956 3,956
MARINA DEL REY, CA.............................................. 5,335 5,335 5,335
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA....................................... 288 288 288
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA............................................ 251 251 251
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA............................................ 170 170 1,170
MOSS LANDING HARBOR, CA......................................... .............. 700 ..............
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA.............................................. 1,778 1,778 1,778
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA........................ 1,135 1,135 1,135
NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA.......................................... 40 40 40
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA.............................................. 8,118 8,118 8,118
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA............................................ 1,535 2,035 1,535
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA.............................................. 2,248 2,248 2,248
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA................................... 1,256 1,256 1,256
REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA......................................... .............. 400 ..............
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA............................................. 5,774 5,774 5,774
SACRAMENTO RIVER +30 FOOT PROJECT), CA.......................... 2,037 2,037 2,037
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA........... 1,113 1,113 1,113
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA...................... 163 163 163
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA.................... 2,382 2,382 2,382
SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, CA............. .............. 200 ..............
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY (DRIFT REMOVAL), CA................ 2,000 2,000 2,000
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA........................................ 2,573 2,573 2,573
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA........................................... 2,028 2,028 2,028
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA....................................... 3,086 3,086 3,086
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA........................................ 1,615 1,615 1,615
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA............................. 1,153 1,153 1,153
SUCCESS LAKE, CA................................................ 1,898 1,898 1,898
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA.......................................... 3,117 3,117 3,117
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA................................... 1,659 1,659 1,659
VENTURA HARBOR, CA.............................................. 2,240 3,440 2,240
YUBA RIVER, CA.................................................. 74 74 74
COLORADO
BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO............................................. 425 425 425
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO.............................................. 1,568 1,568 1,568
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO........................................... 707 707 707
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO............................... 67 67 67
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO....................................... 1,543 1,543 1,543
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO............................. 209 209 209
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO............................................... 619 619 619
CONNECTICUT
BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT............................................. 309 309 309
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT........................................ 399 399 399
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT.......................................... 269 269 269
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT.............................................. 819 819 819
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT....................................... 335 335 335
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT....................................... 344 344 344
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT.................................. 311 311 311
THOMASTON DAM, CT............................................... 581 581 581
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT.......................................... 506 506 506
DELAWARE
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, D.......... 19,707 14,757 14,707
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, D.......... 433 433 433
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE........................................... 3,217 3,217 3,217
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS (DRIFT REMOVAL), DC................ 910 910 910
POTOMAC RIVER BELOW WASHINGTON, DC.............................. 235 235 235
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC........................................... 38 38 38
FLORIDA
AIWW, NORFOLK, VA TO ST JOHNS RIVER, FL, GA, SC, NC &........... 1,660 1,660 1,660
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL............................................ 7,625 7,625 7,625
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL................................ 10,558 10,558 10,558
ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL................................. 1,000 1,000 1,000
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL........................................... 2,705 2,705 2,705
FORT PIERCE HARBOR, FL.......................................... 1,051 1,051 1,051
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL............................... 100 100 100
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, CALOOSAHATCHEE R TO ANCLOTE R,........... 147 147 147
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL............... 4,035 4,035 4,035
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL......................................... 7,755 7,755 7,755
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA......... 5,855 5,855 5,855
MANATEE HARBOR, FL.............................................. 3,080 3,080 3,080
MIAMI HARBOR, FL................................................ 1,323 1,323 1,323
MIAMI RIVER, FL................................................. .............. 4,000 ..............
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL......................................... 5,811 5,811 5,811
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL........................................... 4,577 4,577 4,577
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL.......................................... 50 50 50
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL............................................ .............. 2,000 ..............
PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL......................................... 46 46 46
PORT ST. JOE HARBOR, FL......................................... .............. 500 ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL................................... 600 600 600
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL................................... 3,340 3,340 5,340
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL............................. 50 50 50
ST PETERSBURG HARBOR, FL........................................ 3,280 6,580 3,280
TAMPA HARBOR, FL................................................ 6,308 6,308 6,308
WITHLACOOCHIE RIVER, FL......................................... 35 35 35
GEORGIA
ALLATOONA LAKE, GA.............................................. 4,520 4,520 5,520
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL &.......... 5,055 6,055 5,055
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA.............................. 2,460 2,460 2,460
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA............................................ 5,271 5,271 5,271
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA........................... 7,275 7,275 7,275
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA........................................ 7,489 7,489 7,489
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC........................................ 11,875 11,875 11,875
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA............................... 100 100 100
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC................................ 10,585 10,585 10,585
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC....................... 6,190 6,190 6,190
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA............................................. 13,869 14,369 13,869
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA................................ 650 650 650
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL.............................. 3,977 4,977 3,977
HAWAII
BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI........................................ 153 153 153
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI............................... 165 165 165
KAHULUI HARBOR, HI.............................................. 1,296 1,296 1,296
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI................................... 706 706 706
IDAHO
ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID............................................ 2,291 2,291 2,291
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID.................................. 2,689 2,689 2,689
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID............................... 73 73 73
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID............................................. 1,206 1,206 1,206
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID............................. 332 332 332
ILLINOIS
CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN............................. 4,758 4,758 4,758
CARLYLE LAKE, IL................................................ 5,112 5,112 5,112
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL.............................................. 2,762 2,762 2,762
CHICAGO RIVER, IL............................................... 362 362 362
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL....................................... 195 195 195
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI CANAL, IL.............................. 562 562 562
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND IN...................... 22,808 23,808 22,808
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND IN...................... 1,598 1,598 1,598
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL............................... 473 473 473
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL.................................. 2,081 2,081 2,081
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL..................................... 837 837 837
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL............................................ 5,209 5,209 5,209
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION).......... 39,842 43,842 39,842
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION).......... 14,499 14,499 16,999
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL................................... 43 43 43
REND LAKE, IL................................................... 3,904 3,904 3,904
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL.................... 97 97 97
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL............................................. 1,473 1,473 1,473
INDIANA
BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN............................................. 782 782 782
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN....................................... 1,937 1,937 1,937
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN............................................ 732 732 732
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN......................................... 864 864 864
INDIANA HARBOR, IN.............................................. 429 429 429
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN............................... 101 101 101
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN......................................... 824 824 824
MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN........................................ 806 1,206 806
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN........................................... 1,182 1,182 1,182
MONROE LAKE, IN................................................. 799 799 799
PATOKA LAKE, IN................................................. 731 731 731
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN................................... 42 42 42
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN.............................................. 749 749 749
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN.................... 62 62 62
IOWA
CORALVILLE LAKE, IA............................................. 2,952 2,952 2,952
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA............................... 738 738 738
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA............. 146 146 146
MISSOURI RIVER--RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS AND MO............... 5,250 5,250 5,950
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA AND NE................... 2,111 2,111 2,111
RATHBUN LAKE, IA................................................ 2,058 2,058 2,058
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA.............................. 3,827 5,071 4,827
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA............................................ 4,074 4,074 4,074
KANSAS
CLINTON LAKE, KS................................................ 1,621 1,621 1,621
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS.......................................... 1,197 1,197 1,197
EL DORADO LAKE, KS.............................................. 487 487 487
ELK CITY LAKE, KS............................................... 728 728 728
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS............................................. 1,429 1,429 1,429
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS.............................................. 908 908 908
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS............................... 36 36 36
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS.............................. 1,186 1,531 1,186
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS.............................................. 1,541 1,541 1,541
MARION LAKE, KS................................................. 1,354 1,354 1,354
MELVERN LAKE, KS................................................ 1,872 1,872 1,872
MILFORD LAKE, KS................................................ 1,906 1,906 1,906
PEARSON--SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS.............................. 1,074 1,074 1,074
PERRY LAKE, KS.................................................. 1,966 1,966 1,966
POMONA LAKE, KS................................................. 1,830 1,830 1,830
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS............................. 193 193 193
TORONTO LAKE, KS................................................ 673 673 673
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS........................................... 2,546 2,546 2,546
WILSON LAKE, KS................................................. 2,017 2,017 2,017
KENTUCKY
BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN......................... 10,330 10,330 10,330
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY........................................... 2,544 2,544 2,544
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY............................................ 1,497 1,497 1,497
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY............................................... 1,685 1,685 1,685
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY............................................. 1,542 1,542 1,542
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY............................................... 868 868 868
DEWEY LAKE, KY.................................................. 1,429 1,429 1,429
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY................................ 361 361 361
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY............................................... 1,890 1,890 1,890
GRAYSON LAKE, KY................................................ 1,366 1,366 1,366
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY..................................... 1,079 1,079 1,079
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY............................................ 2,917 2,917 2,917
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY............................... 123 123 123
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY.............................................. 1,149 1,149 1,149
KENTUCKY RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS 5-14, KY.......................... .............. 750 ..............
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY........................................... 1,357 1,357 1,357
LICKING RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY............................. 21 21 21
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY........................................... 714 714 714
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY.......................... 100 100 100
NOLIN LAKE, KY.................................................. 2,285 2,285 2,285
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN AND OH.................... 31,813 31,813 31,813
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN AND OH................. 6,007 6,007 6,007
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY............................................ 1,016 1,016 1,016
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY............................................ 1,827 1,827 1,827
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY........................................... 1,048 1,048 1,048
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY............................. 5,892 5,892 5,892
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY............................................. 1,211 1,211 1,211
LOUISIANA
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L.......... 14,026 14,026 14,026
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA...................................... 570 570 570
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA...................................... 509 509 509
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA................. 726 726 726
BAYOU PIERRE, LA................................................ 25 25 25
BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA..................................... 735 735 735
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA............................. 48 48 48
BAYOU TECHE, LA................................................. 132 132 132
CADDO LAKE, LA.................................................. 127 127 127
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA.................................... 12,117 12,117 12,117
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA............................................ 5,354 5,354 5,354
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA.................................. 19,478 19,478 21,478
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA...................................... 3,175 3,175 3,175
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA............................... 268 268 268
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA................................. 8,907 10,907 11,907
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA...................................... 559 559 559
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA......................................... 108 108 108
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA............................................. 1,933 1,933 1,933
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA......................... 2,773 2,773 2,773
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO,........... 63,359 63,359 63,359
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA.............................. 11,286 11,286 11,286
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA................................... 80 80 80
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA................................... 2,000 2,000 2,000
WALLACE LAKE, LA................................................ 233 233 233
WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO B DULAC, LA.............. 45 45 45
MAINE
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME................................... 1,060 1,060 1,060
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME................... 17 17 17
UNION RIVER, ME................................................. .............. 900 ..............
WELLS HARBOR, ME................................................ 1,455 1,455 2,205
MARYLAND
BALTIMORE HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), MD............................ 455 455 455
BALTIMORE HARBOR (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS),.......... 710 710 710
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS +50 FOOT), MD..................... 16,354 16,354 16,354
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV................................. 141 141 141
HONGA RIVER AND TAR BAY, MD..................................... 55 55 55
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD............................... 327 327 327
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV............................... 1,616 1,616 1,616
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD.............. 1,810 1,810 1,810
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD................................... 450 450 450
RHODES POINT TO TYLERTON, MD.................................... 70 70 70
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD............................. 140 140 140
ST JEROME CREEK, MD............................................. 175 175 175
TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, MD.......................................... 5,801 6,801 5,801
TWITCH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE RIVER, MD......................... 75 75 75
UPPER THOROFARE, MD............................................. 220 220 220
WICOMICO RIVER, MD.............................................. 740 740 740
MASSACHUSETTS
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA............................................. 368 368 368
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA.............................................. 439 439 439
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA............................................ 361 361 361
CAPE COD CANAL, MA.............................................. 8,787 8,787 8,787
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA................... 213 213 213
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA........................................... 147 147 147
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA......................................... 267 267 267
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA.......................................... 462 462 462
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA............................... 125 125 125
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA............................................. 390 390 390
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA............................................ 461 461 461
NEW BEDFORD AND FAIRHAVEN HARBOR, MA............................ 310 310 310
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER,........... 480 480 480
PLYMOUTH HARBOR, MA............................................. 500 500 500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA................................... 3,113 3,113 3,113
SALEM HARBOR, MA................................................ 200 200 200
TULLY LAKE, MA.................................................. 436 436 436
WEST HILL DAM, MA............................................... 647 647 647
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA.............................................. 342 342 342
MICHIGAN
ALPENA HARBOR, MI............................................... 203 203 203
ARCADIA HARBOR, MI.............................................. 85 85 85
BLACK RIVER, PORT HURON, MI..................................... 306 306 306
CEDAR RIVER HARBOR, MI.......................................... .............. 1,000 ..............
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI................................... 458 458 458
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI........................................... 118 118 118
DETROIT RIVER, MI............................................... 2,342 2,342 2,342
DULUTH ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY................................... .............. .............. 320
FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI............................................ 130 130 130
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI.......................................... 1,264 1,264 1,264
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI.............................................. 905 905 905
INLAND ROUTE, MI................................................ 33 33 33
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI............................... 205 205 305
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI........................................... 256 256 256
LELAND HARBOR, MI............................................... 168 168 168
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI............................................ 663 663 663
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI............................................. 272 272 272
MANISTIQUE HARBOR, MI........................................... 239 239 239
MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND WI..................................... 174 174 174
MONROE HARBOR, MI............................................... 695 695 695
NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI.......................................... .............. 150 ..............
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI............................................ 603 603 603
PENTWATER HARBOR, MI............................................ 450 450 450
PORTAGE LAKE HARBOR, MI......................................... 1,974 1,974 1,974
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI................................... 275 275 275
ROUGE RIVER, MI................................................. 417 417 417
SAGINAW RIVER, MI............................................... 1,453 1,453 1,453
SEBEWAING RIVER (ICE JAM REMOVAL), MI........................... 10 10 10
SOUTH HAVEN HARBOR, MI.......................................... 481 481 481
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI.............................................. 996 996 996
ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI............................................ 1,194 1,194 1,194
ST MARYS RIVER, MI.............................................. 20,502 20,502 23,502
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI.................... 3,197 3,197 3,197
WHITE LAKE HARBOR, MI........................................... 290 290 290
MINNESOTA
BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD........................ 178 178 178
DULUTH--SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI.............................. 5,310 5,310 5,310
DULUTH ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY STUDY, MN......................... .............. 320 ..............
GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MN......................................... 186 186 186
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN............................... 154 154 154
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN........................ 453 453 453
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN............................................. 196 196 196
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION).......... 42,765 42,765 42,765
ORWELL LAKE, MN................................................. 315 315 315
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN................................... 25 25 25
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN.......................................... 101 101 101
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN............... 2,805 2,805 2,805
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN................... 64 64 64
TWO HARBORS, MN................................................. 208 208 208
MISSISSIPPI
BILOXI HARBOR, MS............................................... 801 801 801
CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS....................................... 122 122 122
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS.................................. 150 150 150
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS............................................. 2,500 2,500 2,500
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS............................... 360 360 360
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS........................................ 133 133 133
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS.............................................. 955 955 955
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS........................................... 3,406 5,406 5,406
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA.......................................... 250 250 250
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS............................................. 645 645 645
YAZOO RIVER, MS................................................. 115 115 115
MISSOURI
CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO....................................... 184 184 295
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO..................... 5,196 5,196 5,196
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO............................................. 2,015 2,015 2,015
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO............................ 7,688 7,688 7,688
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO............................... 473 473 473
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO..................................... 854 854 854
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO............................................ 931 931 931
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO.......... 13,384 13,384 13,384
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO........................................... 259 354 354
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO......................................... 2,065 2,065 2,065
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO................................... 26 26 26
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO............................................. 1,160 1,160 1,160
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MO.................. 401 401 401
STOCKTON LAKE, MO............................................... 3,486 3,486 3,486
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO............................................. 6,485 6,485 6,485
UNION LAKE, MO.................................................. 10 10 10
MONTANA
FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT........................................ 3,620 3,620 3,620
LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT................................... 2,273 2,273 2,273
NEBRASKA
GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE AND SD............... 6,151 6,151 6,241
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE.......................................... 2,198 2,198 2,198
MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL, NE, IA, KS, MO,........... 709 709 709
MISSOURI RIVER BASIN COLLABORATIVE WATER PLANNING (NWK.......... 125 125 125
MISSOURI RIVER BASIN COLLABORATIVE WATER PLANNING (NWO.......... 125 125 125
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, NE....................... 721 721 721
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE.................................. 796 796 796
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NE............................. 327 327 327
NEVADA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV............................... 34 34 34
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA.................................... 522 522 522
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV.............................. 193 193 193
NEW HAMPSHIRE
BLACKWATER DAM, NH.............................................. 389 389 389
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH....................................... 412 412 412
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH.......................................... 478 478 478
HOPKINTON--EVERETT LAKES, NH.................................... 984 984 984
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH............................................ 554 554 554
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH AND ME............... .............. .............. 250
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH......................................... 469 469 469
NEW JERSEY
BARNEGAT INLET, NJ.............................................. 1,400 1,400 1,400
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ........................................... 580 580 580
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ.................................... 19 19 19
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA AND DE.......... 16,355 16,355 17,855
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ................. 3,180 3,180 3,180
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ............................ 2,005 2,005 2,005
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ................... 120 120 120
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ......................... 425 425 425
RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ........................ 140 140 140
RARITAN RIVER, NJ............................................... 120 120 120
SALEM RIVER, NJ................................................. 278 278 278
SHREWSBURY RIVER, MAIN CHANNEL, NJ.............................. 175 175 175
NEW MEXICO
ABIQUIU DAM, NM................................................. 1,315 1,315 1,315
COCHITI LAKE, NM................................................ 1,766 1,766 3,266
CONCHAS LAKE, NM................................................ 1,037 1,037 1,537
GALISTEO DAM, NM................................................ 305 305 305
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM............................... 50 50 50
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM............................................ 445 445 445
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM..................................... 846 846 1,026
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM............................. 73 73 73
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM.............................................. 313 313 313
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL, NM..................... .............. .............. 1,250
NEW YORK
ALMOND LAKE, NY................................................. 468 468 468
ARKPORT DAM, NY................................................. 257 257 257
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY..................... 2,966 2,966 2,966
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY.............................................. 176 176 176
DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY.............................................. 310 310 310
EAST RIVER, NY.................................................. 750 750 750
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY......................................... 2,250 2,250 2,250
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY............................................ 473 473 473
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY............................ 340 340 340
FIRE ISLAND INLET, NY........................................... 1,000 1,000 1,000
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY...................................... 490 490 490
GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY............................................. 1,540 1,540 1,540
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY........................................ 1,265 1,265 1,265
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT)........................................ 2,485 2,485 2,485
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C;).......................................... 1,340 1,340 1,340
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY............................... 460 460 460
JAMAICA BAY, NY................................................. 1,410 1,410 1,410
JONES INLET, NY................................................. 200 200 200
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY........................... 2,190 2,190 2,190
MORICHES INLET, NY.............................................. 980 980 980
MT MORRIS LAKE, NY.............................................. 1,958 1,958 1,958
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY............................ 6,720 6,720 6,720
NEW YORK HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), NY AND NJ...................... 5,030 5,030 5,030
NEW YORK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS),........... 740 740 740
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY............................................. 12,319 12,319 12,319
OSWEGO HARBOR, NY............................................... 353 353 353
PORTCHESTER HARBOR, NY.......................................... 200 200 200
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY................................... 3,038 3,038 3,038
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY............................................ 725 725 725
SAG HARBOR, NY.................................................. 1,600 1,600 1,600
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY............................................ 2,000 2,000 2,000
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY.................... 739 739 739
STURGEON POINT HARBOR, NY....................................... 15 15 15
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY.................... 564 564 564
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY.......................................... 517 517 517
NORTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC.............................. 5,831 5,831 5,831
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC............................... 1,500 1,500 1,500
BEAUFORT HARBOR, NC............................................. 350 350 350
BOGUE INLET AND CHANNEL, NC..................................... 627 627 627
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC............................ 897 897 897
CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC........................................ 1,430 1,430 1,430
FALLS LAKE, NC.................................................. 1,276 1,276 1,276
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC............................... 22 22 22
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC....................................... 455 455 455
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC..................................... 4,995 4,995 4,995
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC..................... 45 45 45
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC........................................ 4,737 4,737 4,737
NEW RIVER INLET, NC............................................. 825 825 825
NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC................... 610 610 610
PAMLICO AND TAR RIVERS, NC...................................... 139 139 139
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC................................... 64 64 64
ROANOKE RIVER, NC............................................... 100 100 100
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC.............................. 1,742 1,742 1,742
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC........................................... 8,405 8,405 8,405
NORTH DAKOTA
BOWMAN--HALEY LAKE, ND.......................................... 241 241 241
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND................................ 8,513 8,563 8,563
HOMME LAKE, ND.................................................. 153 153 153
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND............................. 1,230 1,230 1,230
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND............................................... 401 401 401
SOURIS RIVER, ND................................................ 292 292 292
OHIO
ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH............................................. 790 790 790
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH............................................ 750 750 750
BERLIN LAKE, OH................................................. 3,270 3,270 3,270
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH........................................... 1,309 1,309 1,309
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH........................................ 1,175 1,175 1,175
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH............................................ 3,915 3,915 5,915
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH............................................. 735 735 735
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH............................................. 745 745 745
DELAWARE LAKE, OH............................................... 777 777 777
DILLON LAKE, OH................................................. 709 709 709
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH............................................. 1,785 1,785 1,785
HURON HARBOR, OH................................................ 790 790 790
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH............................... 240 240 240
LORAIN HARBOR, OH............................................... 2,152 2,152 2,152
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.......................... 25 25 25
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH.......................... 1,033 1,033 1,033
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH......................................... 1,329 1,329 1,329
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH....................................... 7,993 7,993 7,993
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH............................ 544 544 544
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH............................................ 661 661 661
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH................................... 85 85 85
ROCKY RIVER HARBOR, OH.......................................... .............. .............. 590
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.......................... 30 30 30
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH............................................. 870 870 870
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH................... 174 174 174
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH............................................... 4,550 4,550 4,550
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH............................................. 350 350 350
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH................................ 565 565 565
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH....................................... 821 821 821
OKLAHOMA
ARCADIA LAKE, OK................................................ 417 417 417
BIRCH LAKE, OK.................................................. 480 480 480
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK............................................. 1,471 1,471 1,971
CANDY LAKE, OK.................................................. 18 18 18
CANTON LAKE, OK................................................. 2,656 2,656 2,656
COPAN LAKE, OK.................................................. 823 823 823
EUFAULA LAKE, OK................................................ 7,240 7,240 7,240
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK............................................ 5,954 5,954 5,954
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK............................................ 838 838 838
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK...................................... 209 209 209
HEYBURN LAKE, OK................................................ 557 557 557
HUGO LAKE, OK................................................... 1,639 1,639 1,639
HULAH LAKE, OK.................................................. 447 447 447
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK............................... 72 72 72
KAW LAKE, OK.................................................... 1,756 1,756 1,756
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK............................................... 6,435 6,435 6,435
MCCLELLAN--KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK............ 4,588 4,588 4,588
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK................................................ 2,353 2,353 2,353
OPTIMA LAKE, OK................................................. 63 63 63
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK................. 32 32 32
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK............................................. 1,160 1,160 1,160
ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIRS, OK.................. 4,001 4,001 4,001
SARDIS LAKE, OK................................................. 944 944 944
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK............................. 386 386 386
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK............................................... 947 947 947
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK........................................ 3,178 3,178 3,178
WAURIKA LAKE, OK................................................ 1,441 1,441 1,441
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK.................................. 3,297 3,297 3,297
WISTER LAKE, OK................................................. 729 1,229 1,429
OREGON
APPLEGATE LAKE, OR.............................................. 748 748 748
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR............................................. 332 332 332
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA.............................. 6,250 6,250 6,250
CHETCO RIVER, OR................................................ 435 435 435
COLUMBIA AND LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLA...... 16,274 16,274 18,874
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA.......................... 7,403 7,403 7,403
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, O.......... 357 357 357
COOS BAY, OR.................................................... 4,144 4,144 4,144
COQUILLE RIVER, OR.............................................. 316 316 316
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR.......................................... 919 919 919
COUGAR LAKE, OR................................................. 705 705 705
DEPOE BAY, OR................................................... 3 3 363
DETROIT LAKE, OR................................................ 672 672 672
DORENA LAKE, OR................................................. 580 580 580
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR............................................. 619 619 619
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR............................................. 1,277 1,277 1,277
GREEN PETER--FOSTER LAKES, OR................................... 1,050 1,050 1,050
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR............................................ 408 408 408
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR............................... 220 220 220
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA................................ 4,507 4,507 4,507
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR.......................................... 1,990 1,990 1,990
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR............................................. 2,919 2,919 2,919
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA.................................. 4,989 4,989 4,989
PORT ORFORD, OR................................................. 702 702 702
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR................................... 200 200 200
ROGUE RIVER, OR................................................. 641 641 641
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR............................. 67 67 67
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR............................................... 822 822 822
SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR............................................ 176 176 176
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR................... 134 134 134
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR....................................... 148 148 148
UMPQUA RIVER, OR................................................ 1,421 1,421 1,421
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR........................ 1,234 1,234 1,234
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR............................ 285 285 285
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR........................................... 646 646 646
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR...................................... 7,895 7,895 7,895
PENNSYLVANIA
ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA............................................. 6,905 6,905 6,905
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA............................................ 608 608 608
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA....................................... 216 216 216
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA............................................. 832 832 832
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA............................................. 2,121 2,121 2,121
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA........................................ 1,259 1,259 1,259
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA............................................. 1,785 2,035 1,785
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA.......................................... 1,491 1,491 1,491
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA........................................... 659 659 659
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA.............................. 903 903 903
ERIE HARBOR, PA................................................. 125 125 125
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA.................................... 713 713 713
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA........................................ 663 663 663
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA...................... 321 321 321
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA............................... 95 95 95
JOHNSTOWN, PA................................................... 13 13 13
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA.......................... 1,472 1,472 1,472
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA............................................. 1,778 1,778 1,778
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA......................................... 1,392 1,392 1,392
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA........................................... 14,293 14,293 14,293
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH AND WV........................ 22,407 22,407 22,407
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH AND WV..................... 218 218 218
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA................................... 88 88 88
PROMPTON LAKE, PA............................................... 437 437 437
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA................................................ 13 13 13
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA............................................... 3,533 4,783 3,533
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA............................................ 740 740 740
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA......................................... 2,644 2,644 2,644
STILLWATER LAKE, PA............................................. 334 334 334
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA.................... 70 70 70
TIOGA--HAMMOND LAKES, PA........................................ 2,382 3,352 2,382
TIONESTA LAKE, PA............................................... 1,788 1,788 1,788
UNION CITY LAKE, PA............................................. 258 258 258
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA......................................... 817 817 817
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA........................................ 517 517 517
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD.............................. 2,011 2,011 2,011
RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, RI................................. 584 584 584
SOUTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC.............................. 3,629 3,629 5,629
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC........................................... 7,145 7,145 7,145
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC............................. 3,235 3,235 3,235
FOLLY RIVER, SC................................................. 266 266 266
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC........................................... 5,234 5,234 5,234
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC............................... 26 26 26
MURRELLS INLET, SC.............................................. .............. .............. 1,000
PORT ROYAL HARBOR, SC........................................... 21 21 21
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC................................... 60 60 60
SHIPYARD RIVER, SC.............................................. 477 477 477
TOWN CREEK, SC.................................................. 398 398 398
SOUTH DAKOTA
BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD................................... 6,422 6,422 6,502
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD............................................. 496 496 496
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD..................................... 172 172 172
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD......................... 8,852 8,852 8,942
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN........................................ 580 580 580
MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND GAVINS PT, SD, MT.......... 586 586 586
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND.................................. 11,192 11,192 11,282
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD............................. 306 306 306
TENNESSEE
CENTER HILL LAKE, TN............................................ 6,070 6,070 6,070
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN....................................... 5,307 5,307 5,307
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN............................................ 1,900 1,900 1,900
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN.............................. 4,916 4,916 4,916
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN............................................ 4,191 4,191 4,191
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN............................... 5 5 5
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN............................ 3,278 3,278 3,278
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN.................................... 6,326 6,326 6,326
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN............................................. 14,484 14,484 14,484
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN........................................... 348 348 348
TEXAS
AQUILLA LAKE, TX................................................ 738 738 738
ARKANSAS--RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL--AREA VI............ 1,340 1,340 1,340
BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX.................................... 314
BARDWELL LAKE, TX............................................... 1,453 1,453 1,453
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX........................................ 1,810 1,810 1,810
BELTON LAKE, TX................................................. 3,103 3,103 3,103
BENBROOK LAKE, TX............................................... 1,975 1,975 1,975
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX........................................ 4,802 4,802 4,802
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX............................... 2,029 2,029 2,029
CANYON LAKE, TX................................................. 2,689 2,689 2,689
CHANNEL TO PORT MANSFIELD, TX................................... 2,627 2,627 2,627
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX................................. 5,036 5,036 5,036
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX.................................... 5,517 5,517 5,517
DOUBLE BAYOU, TX................................................ 805 805 805
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX...................... 10 10 10
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, TX...................... 2,801 2,801 2,801
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX............................................. 4,802 4,802 4,802
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX................................ 87 87 87
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX................................... 752 752 752
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX........................................ 1,573 1,573 1,573
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX.............................................. 2,433 2,433 2,433
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX.................................. 21,765 21,765 21,765
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX............................................ 1,203 1,203 1,203
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX........................................ 8,137 8,137 8,137
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX............................... 393 393 393
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX............................................ 1,144 1,144 1,144
JOE POOL LAKE, TX............................................... 759 759 759
LAKE KEMP, TX................................................... 201 201 201
LAVON LAKE, TX.................................................. 2,439 2,439 2,439
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX.............................................. 2,959 2,959 2,959
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX...................................... 4,315 4,315 4,315
MOUTH OF THE COLORADO RIVER, TX................................. 2,953 2,953 2,953
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX.......................................... 1,524 1,524 1,524
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX.................. 1,785 1,785 1,785
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX..................................... 1,005 1,005 1,005
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX.............................................. 941 941 941
PROCTOR LAKE, TX................................................ 1,709 1,709 1,709
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX................................... 75 75 75
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX............................................ 1,002 1,002 1,002
SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX..................................... 10,013 10,013 10,013
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX............................... 4,191 4,191 4,191
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX............................. 249 249 249
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX............................................. 2,773 2,773 2,773
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX....................................... 1,744 1,744 1,744
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX..................................... 371 371 371
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX......................... 2,007 2,007 2,007
TRINITY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX............................... 29 29 29
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESMENT................................ .............. .............. 1,500
WACO LAKE, TX................................................... 2,301 2,301 2,301
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX............................................ 1,208 1,208 1,208
WHITNEY LAKE, TX................................................ 4,680 4,680 4,680
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX.................................. 2,643 2,643 2,643
UTAH
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT............................... 55 55 55
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT............................. 305 305 305
VERMONT
BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT.......................................... 607 607 607
BURLINGTON HARBOR, VT........................................... .............. .............. 1,000
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY............................ 46 46 46
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT......................................... 561 561 561
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT...................................... 583 583 583
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT.............................................. 629 629 629
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT........................................... 464 464 464
VIRGINIA
APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA............................................ 593 593 593
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA......................... 1,750 1,750 1,750
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA......................... 1,325 1,325 1,325
CHANNEL TO NEWPORT NEWS, VA..................................... 120 120 120
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA.......................................... 877 877 877
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA............................... 1,465 1,465 1,465
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS HBR, VA (DRIFT REM........ 995 995 995
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA............................... 77 77 77
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA......................................... 4,294 4,294 4,294
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA AND NC..................................... 8,041 8,041 8,041
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA.......................... 1,525 1,525 1,525
LITTLE WICOMICO RIVER, VA....................................... 605 605 605
NORFOLK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS), V.......... 225 225 225
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA.............................................. 6,105 6,105 6,105
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA.............................. 406 406 406
OCCOQUAN RIVER,VA............................................... .............. 1,000 ..............
PAGAN RIVER, VA................................................. 145 145 145
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA............................................... 3,060 3,060 3,060
POTOMAC RIVER AT MT VERNON, VA.................................. 410 410 410
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA................................... 617 617 617
RUDEE INLET, VA................................................. 646 646 646
STARLINGS CREEK, VA............................................. 551 551 551
THIMBLE SHOAL CHANNEL, VA....................................... 204 204 204
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA........................... 1,185 1,185 1,185
WASHINGTON
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA............................................ 2,113 2,113 2,113
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA AND OR.......................... 3 3 3
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND SAND ISLAND, WA.............. 6 6 6
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA.......................... 1,212 1,212 1,212
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA............................. 9,820 10,470 11,920
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA........................................... 1,849 1,849 1,849
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA..................................... 6,094 6,094 6,094
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA............................... 146 146 146
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA.................................. 6,797 6,797 6,797
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA................................... 1,537 1,537 1,537
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA.................................. 4,291 4,291 4,291
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA............................... 2,821 2,821 2,821
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA............................................. 925 925 925
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA............................... 312 312 312
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA............................................ 2,440 2,440 2,440
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA................................... 316 316 316
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA............................ 967 967 967
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA............................................ 37 1,007 1,037
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA............................. 415 415 415
SEATTLE HARBOR, EAST WATERWAY CHANNEL DEEPENING, WA............. 100 100 450
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA.............................................. 714 714 714
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA......................................... 205 205 205
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA................... 56 56 56
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA...................................... 78 78 78
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR.............................. 3,432 3,432 3,432
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA.................................... .............. 650 ..............
WEST VIRGINIA
BEECH FORK LAKE, WV............................................. 1,137 1,137 1,137
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV.............................................. 1,689 3,200 1,689
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV............................................. 1,723 1,723 1,723
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV.............................................. 1,714 1,714 1,714
ELKINS, WV...................................................... 16 16 16
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV............................... 91 91 91
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV................................ 7,782 7,782 7,782
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY AND OH........................ 15,934 15,934 15,934
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY AND OH..................... 2,786 2,786 2,786
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV............................................. 1,934 1,934 1,934
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV...................................... 1,216 1,216 1,216
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV........................................... 1,526 1,526 1,526
SUTTON LAKE, WV................................................. 1,903 1,903 1,903
TYGART LAKE, WV................................................. 3,568 3,568 3,568
WISCONSIN
ASHLAND HARBOR, WI.............................................. 170 170 170
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI........................................ 735 735 735
FOX RIVER, WI................................................... 3,252 3,252 3,252
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI............................................ 1,640 1,640 1,640
KENOSHA HARBOR, WI.............................................. 925 925 925
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI............................................. 490 490 490
LA FARGE LAKE, WI............................................... 53 53 53
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI............................................ 738 738 738
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI............................................ 819 819 819
SHEBOYGAN HARBOR, WI............................................ 290 290 290
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI............ 1,534 1,534 1,534
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI.................... 28 28 28
TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI........................................... 537 537 537
WYOMING
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY......................................... 1,163 1,163 1,163
MISCELLANEOUS
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM.................................. 3,000 2,500 2,750
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION)............................ 3,000 1,500 1,500
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE.................................... 13,500 9,000 8,000
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM............ 1,166 500 1,016
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER)........... 8,000 6,500 7,000
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (DOTS) PROGRAM............ 2,100 1,500 1,500
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS PROGRAM FOR BUILDINGS AND LIFELINES.......... 600 500 500
GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELS........................... .............. 500 ..............
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION.......................... 975 575 575
MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR O&M........................................; 1,100 500 500
MONITORING OF COASTAL NAVIGATION PROJECTS....................... 2,000 1,000 1,700
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM..................................... 40 40 40
NATIONAL DAM SECURITY PROGRAM................................... 25 20 25
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS (NEPP)................. 6,000 5,000 3,000
PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PRO- GRAM.................. 1,650 415 415
PROTECTING, CLEARING AND STRAIGHTENING CHANNELS(SEC 3........... 50 50 50
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM (RMSP).................... 1,950 1,000 1,950
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT SEDIMENT DEMO PROGRAM.............. 1,500 1,500 ..............
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHABILITATION............. 675 500 675
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS....................................... 500 500 500
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS) PROGRAM............... 1,500 700 700
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS.................................. 4,600 4,000 4,000
WETLANDS FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY...................... 1,000 .............. ..............
ZEBRA MUSSEL CONTROL............................................ 700 700 700
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.................. -16,867 -37,941 -33,867
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.......................... 1,854,000 1,854,000 1,862,471
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee continues to believe that it is essential to
provide adequate resources and attention to operation and
maintenance requirements in order to protect the large Federal
investment. Yet current and projected budgetary constraints
require the Committee to limit the amount of work that can be
accomplished in the fiscal year. In order to cope with the
current situation, the Corps has had to defer or delay
scheduled maintenance activities.
Maintenance backlogs continue to grow with much of the
backlog being essential maintenance dredging needed to keep the
Nation's ports, harbors, and waterways open and able to
efficiently handle important national and international trade
activities. Yet the Committee is aware that out-year budget
planning guidance for the Corps of Engineers projects that the
current appropriations for their critical operation and
maintenance activities will continue to decline for the
foreseeable future. If additional resources are not made
available, the Committee will be forced to cut back on
services, and begin to terminate and close many projects and
activities.
The Committee is aware of the Corps' efforts to stretch the
limited resources to cover all of its projects and to effect
savings through a variety of means. As more and more projects
enter the inventory and budgetary constraints continue, it is
clear that the Corps will need to find innovative ways to
accomplish required maintenance work while reducing operational
and other costs. Adjustment in lower priority programs and
noncritical work should be made in conjunction with efforts to
optimize the use of the limited resources in order to maximize
the public benefit.
Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, AL.--An additional
$1,500,000 is recommended for the Black Warrior and Tombigbee
Rivers in Alabama for engineering and design for replacement
gates at Bankhead Lock, and to repair spillway gates at
Coffeeville Lock and Dam.
Mobile Harbor, AL.--The Committee has provided $22,665,000
for maintenance activities at Mobile Harbor in Alabama,
including an additional $4,000,000 to dredge the Arlington
Channel to a depth that is sufficient to support the navigation
needs of the U.S. Coast Guard. The Committee is aware the a new
Coast Guard buoy tender is scheduled to arrive at the Coast
Guard facility in fiscal year 2002 and the current channel
depth cannot accommodate the new vessel. Therefore, it is
critical that the Arlington Channel be deepened prior to the
arrival of the new buoy tender.
Dry Creek (Warm Springs) Lake and Channel, CA.--The
additional amount above the budget request for fiscal year 2001
for the Dry Creek (Warm Springs) Lake and Channel is provided
for the Corps to perform operations and maintenance of dam and
facilities miscellaneous repairs to facilities.
Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay,
DE.--The amount recommended by the Committee for the
Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, DE
project does not include funding proposed in the budget for
demolishing the St. George bridge contingent upon the
appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress resolving
policy issues related to the continued use of the bridge.
Canaveral Harbor, FL.--The Committee is aware that the
Corps of Engineers has not proceeded to implement section 310
of Public Law 106-53, and that the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works recently signed the project cooperation
agreement for the Brevard County, Florida storm damage
reduction project which is located just south of Canaveral
Harbor. Given that erosion of the Brevard County beach may be
in part the result of the navigation project, the Committee
directs the Corps to utilize funds appropriated herein to
determine if mitigation is warranted and to mitigate such
damage consistent with the intent of section 310. The Committee
believes that use of operation and maintenance funds is
consistent with section 201(e) of Public Law 104-303. It is not
intended that the mitigation assessment delay construction of
the Brevard County project.
Allatoona Lake, GA.--The Committee recommendation includes
an additional $1,000,000 for the Allatoona Lake, Georgia
project for the Corps to undertake additional high priority
maintenance and repair work, including camping facilities.
Red Rock Dam and Lake Red Rock, IA.--An appropriation of
$4,827,000 is provided for the Red Rock Dam and Lake Red Rock
project in Iowa for the Corps to repair scouring of the South-
East Des Moines levee.
Rock Island, Arsenal, IL.--The Committee is aware that the
Army's Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, and the Army Corps of
Engineers have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship with
the Corps providing installation support to the Arsenal and the
Arsenal providing engineering and manufacturing support to the
Corps and believes this relationship should continue.
Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Bouef, and Black, LA.--The
Committee is concerned about the safety and navigation problems
on the Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Buoef, and Black, LA
navigation project caused by ``fluff'' on the channel bottom.
The Corps is directed to take immediate action necessary to
resume safe, unimpeded navigation at the true authorized 20
foot depth. In addition, the Committee directs the Corps to
work with the Waterways Experiment Station to determine the
cause of this phenomenon and to develop and implement long term
solutions to this problem.
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA.--The Committee has provided
an additional appropriation of $2,000,000 over the budget
request for the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Louisiana for the
Corps to fabricate one set of spare miter gates at Leland
Bowman Lock.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--The Committee
understands that the lack of certified stoplogs for lock and
dam closures continues to be a key element causing deferral of
routine maintenance and creates the potential for inability to
make closure in the event of an urgent or emergency situation.
Therefore, the Committee has provided an additional $3,000,000
above the budget request for the Corps to expedite repairs to
lock and dam stoplogs, and to undertake other critical
maintenance work.
Belfast Harbor and Narraguagus River, ME.--The Corps is to
use $50,000 and $30,000 of available Operation and Maintenance
funding, respectively, to complete an environmental assessment
and initiate plans and specification for preparation for
maintenance dredging of Belfast Harbor and Narraguagus River,
ME projects.
Clinton Spillway, MI.--The Committee has included an
additional $100,000 under Inspection of Completed Projects, MI
for the Corps to conduct an evaluation to determine whether the
Clinton River Spillway in Michigan has a design deficiency
requiring remediation.
St. Marys River, Vidal Shoals, MI.--An additional amount of
$3,000,000 is recommended for the St. Marys project in Michigan
for the Corps to initiate and complete dredging of the Upper
St. Mary's (Vidal Shoals) reach for continued safe navigation.
Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis,
MN, IL (MVS Portion).--The Committee has included an additional
$2,500,000 for the Mississippi River Between Missouri River and
Minneapolis, MVS portion, project for the Corps to complete
emergency lift gate repairs necessary to avoid high water lock
closure.
Missouri River-Rulo to Mouth, MO.--An increase of $700,000
is provided in order to upgrade projects identified in the
Northwestern Division Comprehensive Plan necessary to
accommodate the needs of the public during the Lewis and Clark
Expedition Bicentennial celebration activities.
Caruthersville Harbor, MO.--The Committee recommendation
for the Caruthersville Harbor in Missouri includes an
additional $111,000 to perform necessary maintenance dredging
at the Harbor. The Committee understands that the work is
needed to improve conditions restricting industrial activities
in the area.
Gavins Point Dam, Lewis and Clark Lake, NE and SD.--The
Committee has provided an additional $90,000 above the budget
request for the Gavins Point Dam, Lewis and Clark Lake project
for additional work at the project in support of activities
related to the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration.
Delaware River, Philadelphia to the Sea, NJ, PA, and DE.--
The Committee has provided an additional $1,500,000 for the
Corps to continue construction of facilities to control erosion
of the shoreline in the vicinity of Pea Patch Island located in
the Delaware River east of Delaware City, DE.
Cochiti Lake, NM.--The recommendation includes an
additional $1,500,000 for the Corps to address impacts of
recent fires and to perform other essential maintenance work at
Cochiti Lake in New Mexico.
Upper Rio Grande water operation model, NM.--The Committee
has provide $1,250,000 for the Upper Rio Grande Water
Operations Model for the Corps to complete testing, continued
model refinement and data base development, and continue the
water operations review and EIS, including stakeholder
coordination and involvement, and data collection.
Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, ND.--The Committee
recommendation for the Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea project in
North Dakota includes $50,000 for the Corps to continue
mosquito control activities.
New York Harbor, NY.--The Committee is concerned about a
serious safety issue that exists at the entrance to the
authorized 45-foot Ambrose Channel. Submerged obstructions and
debris near the entrance to the channel were previously marked
by the Ambrose Light Tower. The light tower marked the entrance
to the navigation channel and, incidentally, marked the
submerged obstructions and debris. The Ambrose Light Tower was
seriously damaged by an incoming container ship and was
subsequently dismantled in 1999. The Coast Guard has located a
new light tower in anticipation of future deepening of the
channel. The obstructions are now marked by a buoy that may not
be considered an effective permanent solution for heavy weather
conditions. The Committee directs the Corps to prepare the
necessary documentation and to initiate removal of the
submerged obstructions and debris in the interest of improving
safe access to the navigation channel and to ensure the
authorized depths are maintained.
Rocky River Harbor, OH.--The Committee has included
$590,000 for the Rocky River Harbor project in Ohio for the
Corps to undertake and complete construction to repair to the
deteriorated East Breakwater.
Broken Bow Lake, OK.--The Committee recommends an
additional appropriation of $500,000 over the budget request
for the Corps to initiate a reallocation study and conduct
other activities which will address the need for allocation of
water to support the Mountain Fork trout fishery located
downstream of Broken Bow Dam in Oklahoma.
Wister Lake, OK.--The Committee has provided an additional
$700,000 above the budget request for the Corps to conduct a
reallocation study and prepare documentation necessary to
address the permanent seasonal pool increases at Wister Lake in
Oklahoma.
Columbia and Lower Willamette River Below Vancouver, OR and
WA.--The Committee recommendation includes an additional
$2,600,000 to continue repairs to the Astoria East Boat Basin.
Within the $18,874,000 recommended, the Committee has
included $500,000 to remove and reinstall the docks and
causeway in-kind.
Depoe Bay, OR.--The Committee has provided $360,000 for the
Corps to undertake work to halt the movement of a retaining
wall at Depoe Bay in Oregon.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, SC.--An additional
appropriation of $2,000,000 over the budget request is
recommended for the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway project in
South Carolina. The additional funding will enable the Corps of
Engineers to undertake bank stabilization in the area on the
AIWW from Little River to Bucksport.
Port Royal, SC.--The Corps is directed to use $50,000 of
available Operation and Maintenance, General funding to collect
data and develop a site management plan for ocean dredge
material disposal in accordance with the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 of the Port Royal, SC navigation
project.
Murrells Inlet, SC.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to dredge the entrance
channel at Murrells Inlet, SC.
Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration Activities,
SD.--The Committee has included additional funding to support
activities related to the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
Commemoration at several sites in South Dakota as follows: Big
Bend Dam, Lake Sharpe, $80,000; Fort Randell Dam, Lake Francis
Case, $90,000; and Oahe Dam, Lake Oahe, $90,000.
Texas Water Allocation Assessment, TX.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the Texas Water
Allocation Assessment. The assessment will enable the Corps to
assist the water regions in determining if existing water can
be better allocated to support more balanced water use in light
of future needs. The Committee understands that Texas regional
water planning groups are working together to explore water
supply opportunities in Texas to meet these future needs. The
Committee supports the Corps' involvement in addressing the
broad range of issues related to water supply throughout the
State and has recommended this funding to allow the Corps to
participate in this effort. Lake Whitney and Lake Sam Rayburn
are excluded from this reallocation assessment.
Burlington Harbor Breakwater, VT.--The Committee has
provided $1,000,000 for the Corps to complete repairs to the
breakwater end segments, and to initiate underwater
investigation and engineering and design work associated with
the repair of an additional 500-foot section of the south
breakwater, which preliminary investigations indicated are in
need of repair. If confirmed by underwater investigations,
funding is provided for construction of necessary repairs to
the mid-section of the breakwater.
Grays Harbor and Chehalis River. WA.--The Committee
recommendation included an additional $2,100,000 for continued
rehabilitation work on the North Jetty of the Grays Harbor and
Chehalis River, WA navigation project.
Quillayute River Navigation Project, WA.--In addition to
the work proposed in the budget request, the Committee has
recommended an increase of $1,000,000 to provide for necessary
minimum maintenance to keep the entrance channel open and the
harbor accessible.
In addition, the attention of the Corps of Engineers is
directed to the following projects in need of maintenance or
review and for which the Committee has received requests:
maintenance dredging at Helena Harbor and Osceola Harbor, AR
and maintenance and dredging at Union River, ME.
Funding Adjustments.--Severe budget constraints have made
it necessary for the Committee to recommended additional
reductions to program funding levels proposed in the budget
request. The Committee regrets having to take this actions in
order to bring the bill in compliance with the allocations
required by congressional budget caps, and to correct
programmatic imbalances proposed in the President's fiscal year
2001 request.
It is the Committee's understanding that the Civil Works
program of the Corps of Engineers is now funding the costs
related to national emergency preparedness activities
undertaken by the entire Corps of Engineers, both for civil
works and military construction. Severe budget constraints have
required the Committee to recommend a reduction in the Corps'
National Emergency Preparedness Programs. The Committee directs
that the funding for activities which primarily benefit the
military side of the Corps not be funded from the Civil Works
program.
The Committee has reduced the amount requested for ready
reserve status to $8,000,000, which is consistent with the
current year and the net cost to keep the dredge Wheeler in
ready reserve. If during the year, the need for the dredge
Wheeler does not materialize so that the amount appropriated
for ready reserve is insufficient to pay all ready reserve
costs, the Corps is directed to reduce hopper dredging work
proportionately based on capacity in order to keep the dredge
Wheeler in ready reserve.
The Committee notes that the report required by Section 237
of the Water Resource Development Act of 1996 addressing
whether the Federal hopper dredge Wheeler should be returned to
active status or continued in ready reserve, and if another
Federal hopper dredge should be placed in ready reserve status
has only recently been transmitted to the Congress. The
Committee believes that, given the policy implications, the
future status of dredge Wheeler or the recommendation of
placing another dredge in ready reserve should be carefully
reviewed and authorized by the appropriate authorizing
committees of the Congress before being implemented.
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
The Committee has been informed that severe erosion is
endangering the structural integrity of the seawall at Bethel,
AK and that the seawall may collapse threatening public
facilities including the village's fuel supply. The Committee
directs the Corps to utilize its emergency authorities to make
immediate repairs to protect the Federal investment in the
area, including the seawall and other public facilities. The
Corps should report back to the Committee as soon as possible
on its recommendations for a long-term solution to the erosion
problem.
regulatory program
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $117,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 125,000,000
House allowance......................................... 125,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 120,000,000
An appropriation of $120,000,000 is recommended for
regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers.
This appropriation provides for salaries and related costs
to administer laws pertaining to regulation of navigable waters
and wetlands of the United States in accordance with the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and the
Marine Protection Act of 1972.
The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, is directed to use $650,000 of appropriations
recommended for the regulatory program to continue the
cumulative impact study of the Yellowstone River in the
vicinity of Park County and Livingston, Montana. The Corps is
directed to undertake this task in cooperation with the
Governor's Yellowstone Task Force.
The Committee recommendation concurs with language
contained in the House passed bill which seeks to improve the
analysis and increase the information available to the public
and Congress regarding the costs of the regulatory program
nationwide permit program and permit processing times. The
language directs the Corps of Engineers to: (1) revise a cost
analysis of modified nationwide permits based on promulgated
rules rather than proposed rules; (2) prepare a plan to manage
and reduce backlog associated with new and replacement permits
issued on March 9, 2000, and develop criteria to measure
progress in reducing the backlog; (3) provide quarterly
reporting on program performance based on the above criteria;
(4) provide quarterly reporting, on a 1 year pilot basis, of
all Regulatory Analysis and Management System data for the
South Pacific and North Atlantic Divisions; (5) publish in
Division Office website decisions rendered under the
administrative appeals process and allow any appellant to keep
a verbatim record of the appeals conference; and (6) record in
its data base the dates of initial permit application or
notification.
formerly utilized sites remedial action program
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $150,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 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 2001. This is
the same as the amount requested.
The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
[FUSRAP] was transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the
Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, Public Law 105-62. The Committee is pleased that the
Department of Energy and the Corps of Engineers have finally
entered into an agreement on the functions of the program
assumed by the Corps. This should help eliminate any
uncertainties as the program moves forward.
The FUSRAP Program 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 defense production sites cleanup
program as part of the Corps of Engineers--Civil program.
The Committee recommendation includes up to $5,000,000 for
the Corps to determine the appropriate response action under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act to address FUSRAP-related contamination at the
Parks Township Shallow Land Disposal Area, Parks Township,
Armstrong County, PA; and to initiate remediation activities as
appropriate. The Committee understands that the Department of
Energy has determined that the site contains waste resulting
from activities which supported the Nation's early atomic
energy program.
general expenses
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $149,500,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 152,000,000
House allowance......................................... 149,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 152,000,000
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 recommends an appropriation of $152,000,000.
The Committee recommendation is based on a concern about
the ability of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide
adequate and effective executive direction and management of
its civil works program given the requested level of General
Expenses funding. The Corps has reorganized, reducing the
number of division offices and assigning increased
responsibilities to district offices. It has reduced its
headquarters staffing and has made great strides in refining
the headquarters mission to eliminate overlaps and redundant
review layers. These changes have been beneficial, resulting in
a more efficient and cost effective Corps.
General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil
Language included under Section 101 restates language
contained in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2000, Public Law 106-60, and earlier Energy and Water
Appropriations Acts which requires that no fully allocated
funding policy shall be applied to projects for which funds are
identified in the Committee report accompanying the fiscal year
2001 Act in certain accounts.
Language included under Section 102 restates language
contained in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2000, Public Law 106-60 which places a limit on credits
and reimbursements allowable per project and annually.
Language included under Section 103 restates language
contained in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2000, Public Law 106-60, and earlier Energy and Water
Appropriations Acts which prohibits the use of funds to revise
the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual when a Federal
official knows that such revisions provides for increase in
springtime water releases during spring heavy rainfall or snow
melt.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project Completion Account
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $39,233,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 39,940,000
House allowance......................................... 39,940,000
Committee recommendation................................ 39,940,000
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2001 to carry
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act
totals $39,940,000. An appropriation of $19,566,000 has been
provided for Central Utah project construction; $14,158,000 for
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation;
and $5,000,000 for the Utah reclamation mitigation and
conservation account. Finally, the Committee recommendation
provides $1,216,000 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, 2000.................................... $605,992,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 643,058,000
House allowance......................................... 635,777,000
Committee recommendation................................ 655,192,000
An appropriation of $655,192,000 is recommended by the
Committee for general investigations of the Bureau of
Reclamation.
The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the
following table along with the budget request.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Facility Facility
Project title Total Allocated to Resource operations, Resource operations, Resource operations,
Federal cost date management maintenance, management maintenance, management maintenance,
and and and and and and
development rehabilitation development rehabilitation development rehabilitation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIZONA
AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS ............ ............ ............ 6,762 ............ 6,762 ............ 6,762
SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT...........
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT........... 4,363,086 3,491,993 33,667 .............. 39,467 .............. 38,667 ..............
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY 451,578 410,172 1,068 10,315 1,068 10,315 1,068 10,315
CONTROL, TITLE I.................
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND 145,018 98,406 3,722 380 3,722 380 3,722 380
LEVEE SYSTEM.....................
HOPI/WESTERN NAVAJO WATER 2,000 ............ ............ .............. ............ .............. 1,000 ..............
DEVELOPMENT PLAN.................
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS ............ ............ 300 .............. 300 .............. 300 ..............
PROGRAM..........................
SOUTH CENTRAL ARIZONA ............ ............ 690 .............. 890 .............. 690 ..............
INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS 64,983 20,435 5,189 .............. 5,189 .............. 5,189 ..............
SETTLEMENT ACT...................
TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION.. 6,190 4,639 550 .............. 550 .............. 550 ..............
TUCSON AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND 1,000 600 300 .............. 300 .............. 300 ..............
REUSE STUDY......................
YUMA AREA PROJECTS................ ............ ............ 1,738 17,450 1,738 17,450 1,738 17,450
CALIFORNIA
CACHUMA PROJECT................... 38,197 36,681 666 401 666 401 666 401
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM. ............ ............ 1,293 .............. 1,793 .............. 793 ..............
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 20,000 1,500 500 .............. 500 .............. 824 ..............
RECYCLING PROJ...................
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:
AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, 2,824,760 536,086 4,740 10,708 10,240 10,708 4,740 10,708
AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT.....
DELTA DIVISION................ 352,157 220,117 14,636 4,706 14,636 4,706 14,636 4,706
EAST SIDE DIVISION............ ............ ............ 585 3,595 585 3,595 585 3,595
FRIANT DIVISION............... 477 198 4,170 2,531 4,170 2,531 4,170 2,531
MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS 721,442 372,716 11,824 1,009 11,824 1,009 11,824 1,009
REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, ............ ............ ............ 8,013 ............ 8,013 ............ 8,013
EXTRAORDINARY MAINT..........
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION..... 526,208 403,573 6,171 1,612 8,691 1,612 7,691 1,612
SAN FELIPE DIVISION........... 361,717 310,473 897 .............. 897 .............. 897 ..............
SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION.......... 287,301 83,037 2,608 .............. 2,608 .............. 2,608 ..............
SHASTA DIVISION............... 300,078 292,555 3,474 7,356 3,474 7,356 3,474 7,356
TRINITY RIVER DIVISION........ 357,451 326,856 7,116 4,791 7,116 4,791 7,116 4,791
WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS.... ............ ............ 897 6,490 897 6,490 897 6,490
WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN 1,553,060 579,294 6,385 5,447 7,385 5,447 6,385 5,447
LUIS UNIT....................
YIELD FEASIBILITY ............ ............ 1,800 .............. 1,800 .............. 1,800 ..............
INVESTIGATION................
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION 13,970 1,500 2,000 .............. 2,000 .............. 2,000 ..............
PROJECT..........................
LOS ANGELES AREA WATER RECLAMATION/ 69,970 69,230 740 .............. 740 .............. 740 ..............
REUSE PROJ.......................
MISSION BASIN BRACKISH GROUNDWATER ............ ............ ............ .............. 503 .............. ............ ..............
DESALTING DEMO...................
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER 20,000 1,500 2,000 .............. 5,000 .............. 2,000 ..............
RECYCLING PROJ...................
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER. 20,000 1,500 2,000 .............. 2,000 .............. 2,000 ..............
RECLAMATION PROJ.................
ORLAND PROJECT.................... ............ ............ ............ 617 ............ 617 ............ 617
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT....... 10,000 3,700 1,000 .............. 5,000 .............. 1,000 ..............
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION 172,590 50,300 7,500 .............. 7,500 .............. 7,500 ..............
PROGRAM..........................
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT......... 38,090 24,942 2,000 .............. 2,000 .............. 2,000 ..............
SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION 109,959 19,076 3,500 .............. 3,500 .............. 3,500 ..............
AND REUSE PROG...................
SOLANO PROJECT.................... ............ ............ 1,084 1,088 1,084 1,088 1,084 1,088
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS ............ ............ 624 .............. 624 .............. 624 ..............
PROGRAM..........................
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT, CASITAS DAM 37,182 27,600 ............ 5,500 ............ 5,500 ............ 5,500
COLORADO
ANIMAS-LAPLATA PROJECT, SECTIONS 5 ............ 69,856 2,000 .............. 2,000 .............. 2,000 ..............
AND 8............................
COLLBRAN PROJECT.................. ............ ............ 132 967 132 967 132 967
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT..... ............ ............ 355 7,381 355 7,381 355 7,381
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM... ............ ............ 188 .............. 188 .............. 188 ..............
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT.......... ............ ............ 102 16 102 16 102 16
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT........ ............ ............ 285 4,653 285 4,653 285 4,653
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP......... ............ ............ 412 507 412 507 412 507
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY ............ ............ 469 1,291 469 1,291 469 1,291
PROJECT..........................
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN ............ ............ 69 .............. 69 .............. 69 ..............
INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........
LOWER GUNNISON BASIN UNIT, CRBSCP, ............ ............ ............ 332 ............ 332 ............ 332
TITLE II.........................
MANCOS PROJECT.................... ............ ............ 42 22 42 22 42 22
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE ............ ............ ............ 2,058 ............ 2,058 ............ 2,058
II...............................
PINE RIVER PROJECT................ ............ ............ 90 58 90 58 90 58
PUEBLO DAM, FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ .............. ............ ..............
PROJECT..........................
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CLOSED ............ ............ 410 2,812 410 2,812 410 2,812
BASIN/CONEJOS DIV................
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT............... ............ ............ 287 23 287 23 287 23
IDAHO
BOISE AREA PROJECTS............... ............ ............ 1,746 5,683 1,746 5,683 1,746 5,683
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON 91,834 47,675 4,622 .............. 4,622 .............. 7,122 ..............
RECOVERY PROJECT.................
DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, 825 225 250 .............. 250 .............. 1,500 ..............
BOISE PROJECT....................
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...... ............ ............ 248 .............. 248 .............. 248 ..............
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS............ ............ ............ 3,466 1,841 3,766 1,841 3,466 1,841
MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAINWATER 1,791 71 288 .............. 288 .............. 288 ..............
MANAGEMENT PROJECT...............
KANSAS
KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..... ............ ............ 400 .............. 400 .............. 400 ..............
WICHITA PROJECT................... ............ ............ ............ 226 ............ 226 ............ 226
MONTANA
CANYON FERRY RESRVOIR............. 325 75 ............ .............. ............ .............. 325 ..............
FORT PECK RURAL COUNTY WATER 5,800 4,800 ............ .............. ............ .............. 1,500 ..............
SYSTEM...........................
FORT PECK, DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER 1,595 1,160 ............ .............. ............ .............. 435 ..............
SYSTREM..........................
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT.............. ............ ............ ............ 283 ............ 283 ............ 283
MILK RIVER PROJECT................ ............ ............ 325 512 325 512 325 512
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.... ............ ............ 251 .............. 251 .............. 251 ..............
ROCKY BOYS INDIAN WATER RIGHTS ............ ............ 16,000 .............. ............ .............. 16,000 ..............
SETTLEMENT.......................
NEBRASKA
MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT.............. ............ ............ 35 53 35 53 ............ 53
NORTH LOOP DIVISION, MIRDAN CANAL. 2,000 ............ ............ .............. ............ .............. ............ 1,750
NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM... ............ ............ 17 .............. 17 .............. 17 ..............
NEVADA
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM.. ............ ............ 800 .............. 800 .............. 1,500 ..............
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT............ ............ ............ 6,864 1,577 6,864 1,577 6,864 1,577
NEWLANDS PROJECT WATER RIGHTS FUND 7,000 1,500 ............ .............. ............ .............. 2,700 ..............
WALKER RIVER BASIN PROJECT........ ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ .............. 300 ..............
NEW MEXICO
CARLSBAD PROJECT.................. ............ ............ 2,345 607 2,345 607 2,345 857
EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY... ............ ............ ............ .............. 250 .............. 250 ..............
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT......... ............ ............ 2,604 8,480 2,604 8,480 6,362 8,480
NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ .............. 450 ..............
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE ............ ............ ............ 176 ............ 176 ............ 176
PROJECT..........................
RIO GRANDE PROJECT................ ............ ............ 947 2,287 947 2,287 947 2,287
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN ............ ............ 183 .............. 183 .............. 183 ..............
INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........
SO. NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS ............ ............ 238 .............. 238 .............. 238 ..............
INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAMS..........
TUCUMARI PROJECT.................. ............ ............ 18 5 18 5 18 5
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN ............ ............ 164 .............. 164 .............. 164 ..............
INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........
VELARDE COMMUNITY DITCH PROJECT... 29,464 25,584 3,880 .............. 3,880 .............. 3,880 ..............
NORTH DAKOTA
DAKOTA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..... ............ ............ 387 .............. 387 .............. 387 ..............
DAKOTA TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS ............ ............ 187 .............. 187 .............. 187 ..............
PROGRAM..........................
GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT, P-SMBP... 1,526,449 646,298 17,416 3,875 17,416 3,875 21,416 3,875
OKLAHOMA
ARBUCKLE PROJECT.................. ............ ............ ............ 168 ............ 168 ............ 168
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT............... ............ ............ ............ 535 ............ 535 ............ 535
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT............. ............ ............ ............ 232 ............ 232 ............ 232
NORMAN PROJECT.................... ............ ............ ............ 163 ............ 163 ............ 163
OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM... ............ ............ 234 .............. 234 .............. 234 ..............
W.C AUSTIN PROJECT................ ............ ............ ............ 262 ............ 262 ............ 262
WASHTIA BASIN PROJECT............. ............ ............ ............ 638 ............ 638 ............ 638
OREGON
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT............. ............ ............ 384 307 384 307 384 307
DESCHUTES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 1,990 990 500 .............. 500 .............. 1,000 ..............
PROJECT..........................
DESCHUTES PROJECT................. ............ ............ 294 137 294 137 294 137
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS........... ............ ............ 205 249 205 249 205 249
GRANDE RONDE WATER OPTIMIZATION 1,767 1,117 50 .............. 50 .............. 50 ..............
STUDY............................
KLAMATH PROJECT................... ............ ............ 10,837 348 10,837 348 10,837 348
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..... ............ ............ 601 .............. 601 .............. 601 ..............
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT ............ ............ 260 623 260 623 260 623
DIVISION.........................
TUALATIN PROJECT.................. ............ ............ 197 123 197 123 197 123
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY 250 ............ 100 .............. ............ .............. 100 ..............
FEASIBILITY STUDY................
UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT, PHASE III 790 640 100 .............. 100 .............. 100 ..............
STUDY............................
UMATILLA PROJECT.................. ............ ............ 571 1,723 571 1,723 571 1,723
SOUTH DAKOTA
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT.... 137,000 70,426 6,000 40 10,960 40 6,000 40
MNI WICONI PROJECT................ 375,970 157,221 23,570 6,165 27,570 6,165 23,570 6,165
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT.............. ............ ............ ............ 30 ............ 30 ............ 30
TEXAS
BALMORHEA PROJECT................. ............ ............ 31 .............. 31 .............. 31 ..............
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT............ ............ ............ ............ 131 ............ 131 ............ 131
NUECES RIVER PROJECT.............. ............ ............ ............ 393 ............ 393 ............ 393
PALMETTO BEND PROJECT............. ............ ............ ............ 546 ............ 546 ............ 546
SAN ANGELO PROJECT................ ............ ............ ............ 262 ............ 262 ............ 262
TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...... ............ ............ 346 .............. 596 .............. 346 ..............
UTAH
HYRUM PROJECT..................... ............ ............ 62 11 62 11 62 11
MOON LAKE PROJECT................. ............ ............ 15 5 15 5 15 5
NAVAJO SANDSTONE AQUIFER RECHARGE 875 250 250 .............. 250 .............. 250 ..............
STUDY............................
NEWTON PROJECT.................... ............ ............ 39 14 39 14 39 14
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS ............ ............ 230 .............. 230 .............. 230 ..............
PROGRAM..........................
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT............... ............ ............ 76 29 76 29 76 29
PROVO RIVER PROJECT............... ............ ............ 401 340 401 340 401 340
SCOFIELD PROJECT.................. ............ ............ 91 24 91 24 91 24
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS ............ ............ 235 .............. 235 .............. 235 ..............
PROGRAM..........................
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT......... ............ ............ 88 7 88 7 88 7
WEBER BASIN PROJECT............... 19,639 18,033 1,267 141 1,267 141 1,267 141
WEBER RIVER PROJECT............... ............ ............ 296 32 296 32 296 32
WASHINGTON
COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT............ ............ ............ 3,600 7,524 3,600 7,524 3,600 7,524
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM. ............ ............ 264 .............. 264 .............. 264 ..............
YAKIMA PROJECT.................... ............ ............ 523 7,483 523 7,483 523 7,483
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER 178,920 22,388 11,056 .............. 11,056 .............. 11,056 ..............
ENHANCEMENT PROJECT..............
WYOMING
KENDRICK PROJECT.................. ............ ............ 4 5,597 4 5,597 4 5,597
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT.............. ............ ............ 19 1,295 19 1,295 19 1,295
SHOSHONE PROJECT.................. ............ ............ 42 905 42 905 42 905
WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.... ............ ............ 70 .............. 70 .............. 70 ..............
VARIOUS
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY 75,000 35,886 11,085 .............. 11,085 .............. 11,085 ..............
CONTROL, TITLE II................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, ............ ............ 3,813 1,455 3,813 1,455 3,813 1,455
SECTION 5........................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, 90,440 56,153 7,135 .............. 7,135 .............. 7,135 ..............
SECTION 8, RFW...................
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY 61,000 40,435 150 .............. 75 .............. 150 ..............
IMPROVEMENT......................
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:
DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM. ............ ............ ............ 1,700 ............ 1,700 ............ 1,700
INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION ............ ............ ............ 51,600 ............ 51,600 ............ 51,600
SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING ............ ............ ............ 17,500 ............ 17,500 ............ 17,500
DAMS.........................
SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ............ ............ ............ 1,000 ............ 1,000 ............ 1,000
ACTION STUDIES...............
DEPARTMENTAL IRRIGATION DRAINAGE ............ ............ 3,000 .............. 2,000 .............. 2,500 ..............
PROGRAM..........................
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ............ ............ 500 .............. 1,900 .............. 5,000 ..............
PROGRAM..........................
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM..... ............ ............ 3,169 .............. 3,000 .............. 3,169 ..............
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER ............ ............ ............ 309 ............ 309 ............ 309
RESPONSE PROG....................
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY 162,153 71,320 12,179 .............. 12,179 .............. 12,179 ..............
IMPLEMENT. PROG..................
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY ............ ............ 1,824 .............. 1,000 .............. 874 ..............
COORDINATION.....................
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ............ ............ 2,155 .............. 1,500 .............. 1,755 ..............
ADMINISTRATION...................
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ............ ............ 30 4,740 30 3,892 30 4,240
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY ............ ............ ............ 1,400 ............ 1,000 ............ 1,000
PROGRAM..........................
GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES....... ............ ............ 1,842 .............. 1,700 .............. 1,842 ..............
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. ............ ............ 6,484 .............. 5,232 .............. 5,884 ..............
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS ............ ............ 13,729 .............. 13,729 .............. 7,981 ..............
PROGRAM..........................
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL ............ ............ ............ 506 ............ 506 ............ 506
OPERATIONS.......................
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE ............ ............ 1,300 .............. 1,300 .............. 1,300 ..............
FOUNDATION.......................
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM... ............ ............ 8,500 .............. 7,680 .............. 8,200 ..............
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ............ ............ 1,254 .............. 884 .............. 1,254 ..............
WATER MARKETING..................
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM ............ ............ 169 865 96 538 169 865
MANAGEMENT.......................
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM-- ............ ............ 3,232 25,667 3,232 27,417 3,232 25,667
OTHER PROJ.......................
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES............ ............ ............ 1,023 473 1,023 473 1,023 473
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM.. ............ ............ 464 .............. 436 .............. 464 ..............
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION.... ............ ............ 4,914 .............. 4,696 .............. 4,914 ..............
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT ............ ............ 3,743 .............. 3,743 .............. 3,743 ..............
ACT--TITLE XXVIII................
RECREATION, FISH AND WILDLIFE ............ ............ 2,766 .............. 1,891 .............. 2,766 ..............
PROGRAM ADMIN....................
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY:
ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT 21,727 13,802 1,225 .............. 1,000 .............. 1,225 ..............
RESEARCH PROGRAM.............
APPLIED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 99,967 64,783 3,249 .............. 3,242 .............. 3,249 ..............
DEVELOPMENT..................
DESALINATION RESEARCH 21,300 ............ 300 .............. 300 .............. 1,300 ..............
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM..........
HYDROELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE 4,044 584 660 .............. 215 .............. 660 ..............
PROT/EHNANCE.................
TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM 8,199 3,091 283 .............. 283 .............. 283 ..............
WATERSHED/RIVER SYSTEMS 19,996 6,313 933 .............. 933 .............. 933 ..............
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM...........
SITE SECURITY..................... ............ ............ ............ 1,043 ............ 754 ............ 1,043
SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION.... ............ ............ 263 .............. 257 .............. 263 ..............
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES.... ............ ............ 1,840 .............. 1,000 .............. 1,000 ..............
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND ............ ............ 1,460 .............. 3,960 .............. 1,960 ..............
REUSE PROGRAM....................
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES- ............ ............ 50 .............. 50 .............. 50 ..............
TECH SUPPORT....................
WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION ............ ............ 7,605 .............. 6,600 .............. 7,100 ..............
PROGRAM..........................
WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT.............. ............ ............ 3,750 .............. 3,595 .............. 3,250 ..............
UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON ............ ............ -31,120 .............. -49,686 .............. -41,720 ..............
ANTICIPATED DELAYS...............
FY 2000 RESCISSION--P.L. 106-113.. ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ .............. ............ ..............
NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTER.......... ............ ............ ............ .............. ............ .............. ............ ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED ............ ............ 353,822 289,236 346,655 289,122 364,856 290,336
RESOURCES..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Limitations and Reductions
Severely constrained spending limits imposed by the
Congressional Budget Resolution have made it most difficult for
the Committee to formulate a balanced Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. In order
to adhere to the subcommittee's allocations, address the
critical ongoing activities, correct program imbalances
contained in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget, and
respond to the numerous requests of the Members, the Committee
finds it necessary to recommend numerous reductions and
adjustments to funding levels proposed in the budget. Finally,
the Committee regrets that many worthwhile projects could not
be recommended for funding because of the lack of authorization
and the shortfall in resources.
The Committee received numerous requests to include project
authorizations in the Energy and Water Development
appropriations bill. However, in an effort to support and honor
congressional authorizing committees' jurisdiction, the
Committee has not included new project authorizations.
Central Arizona project, Arizona.--The Committee has
recommended an appropriation of $38,667,000 for the central
Arizona project. This is $5,000,000 over the budget request for
fiscal year 2001. The Committee recommendation includes
$27,600,000 for the Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project and
$1,900,000 for the San Carlos Project. The Committee urges the
Secretary of the Interior to proceed with rehabilitation of the
facilities of the Federal San Carlos Project pursuant to the
San Carlos Project Act of 1924, as amended. The Committee
believes the Bureau of Reclamation should consider using the
San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District to perform this
work, if appropriate, and urges the Bureau of Reclamation to
work cooperatively with the District in this regard.
Hopi/Western Navajo Water Development Study, AZ.--The
Committee has included $1,000,000 for the Bureau to initiate a
comprehensive study of the water development requirements to
serve the municipal and industrial needs on the Hopi and
Western Navajo Indian Reservations.
Almost all domestic municipal and industrial water in the
area is supplied from groundwater, primarily from the ``N''
aquifer which is a finite resource. Concerns about the adequacy
and impacts of continued reliance on groundwater have led to a
number of studies of alternative water supply projects,
including pipelines from Lake Powell, new well fields, and
development of surface supplies near the southwest corner of
the Navajo Reservation. These studies have been conducted by
the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, the Department of the Interior,
and others involved in ongoing negotiations to settle the
various Indian water rights claims in the Little Colorado
watershed. However, a comprehensive water development plan is
needed to identify the most cost-effective projects to meet the
objectives of providing good quality, reliable municipal and
industrial water to the major communities on the Hopi
Reservation, and the western Navajo Reservation, and to
minimize impacts to environmental resources, including but not
limited to, springs flowing from the ``N'' aquifer.
Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, CA.--The
Committee recommendation for the Sacramento River Division
includes $9,303,000, an increase of $1,520,000 over the budget
request. The recommendation includes an additional $1,000,000
fish passage improvements at Red Bluff Dam; and $520,000 for
the captive broodstock program.
Salton Sea Study, CA.--The Committee is aware of ongoing
efforts by the Bureau of Reclamation to complete a feasibility
study identifying potential options to stabilize and reclaim
the Salton Sea. The authorizing legislation for this study
(Public Law 105-372) expressly prohibits consideration of any
option that relies on the importation of new or additional
water from the Colorado River. The Committee is concerned that,
in preparing its Draft EIS, the Bureau has expended funds to
evaluate the potential use of flood flows from the Colorado
River for the Salton Sea despite the clear prohibition
expressed in the authorizing legislation, and the potential
impacts to other lower Colorado River basin States. The
Committee intends to carefully monitor this matter, and expects
the Bureau to abide by the prohibitions expressed in Public Law
105-372.
Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project, ID, OR,
and WA.--The Committee has provided an increase of $2,500,000
over the budget request for acquisition of water to increase
streamflows through flow augmentation to aid in salmon and
steelhead recovery. The Committee directs that any water
acquired from these or any other funds provided herein will be
acquired in compliance with existing State water law and only
from willing sellers.
Canyon Ferry Reservoir, MT.--The Committee recommendation
includes $325,000 to deepen Broadwater Bay once environmental
compliance work has been completed.
Fort Peck Rural Water System, MT.--The Committee has
recommended $1,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to
complete construction of the Fort Peck County Rural Water
System, MT project.
Fort Peck, Dry Prairie Rural Water System, MT.--An amount
of $435,000 is included for the Bureau to continue planning on
the Fort Peck, Dry Prairie rural water system in Montana.
Mirdan Canal, North Loup Division, NE.--The Committee
understands that in May 1999 the Mirdan delivery canal of the
North Loup project in Nebraska experienced major subsidence
problems, and that in order to provide continued service the
Twin Loup Reclamation District has undertaken temporary
repairs. Further, the Bureau of Reclamation has completed a
Technical Memorandum Report on the subsidence, and based on
that report has recommended that approximately 3,300 feet of
the canal be replaced. The estimated cost of the repair work is
$2,000,000, and the Committee understands that the Bureau has
$250,000 available in fiscal year 2000 to allow completion of
technical studies and contract specifications. The Committee
has provided $1,750,000 for fiscal year 2001 for the Bureau of
Reclamation to complete the canal repairs.
Garrison Diversion Project, ND.--The Committee has included
$25,291,000, an increase of $4,000,000, for the Garrison
Diversion, ND project. The additional funds will allow the
Bureau of Reclamation to continue development of municipal,
rural, and the industrial Indian water systems. The
recommendation includes an additional $2,000,000 each for State
and Indian municipal, rural and industrial programs.
Jamestown Reservoir, ND.--Except for the 14 boat docks
receiving the 1999 temporary permits by the Stutsman County
Park Board, the Bureau of Reclamation's managing partner, the
Committee recognizes and supports the Resource Management Plan
(RMP) issued by the Reclamation's Dakotas Area Office for
Jamestown Reservoir in North Dakota. The Committee encourages
the Bureau of Reclamation to take necessary steps to implement
the RMP and to continue efforts to eliminate the private
exclusive use of public lands at their reservoirs. The 14 docks
shall be made a non-transferable permanent life estate to the
annual permitee under the conditions that (1) that the docks
meet Bureau of Reclamation design and construction standards
for health and safety, (2) that the docks continue as removable
features, (3) that the Reclamation continues appropriate
maintenance within the lands excluded for the Jamestown
reservoir, (4) that the Reclamation continues, through its
managing partner, to provide an annual nontransferable permit
based on fair market value, and (5) that the permitees continue
to accept all liability associated with the structure and its
use.
Further, the Committee encourages the Bureau of Reclamation
to take the actions necessary to meet the increasing public
recreation needs at Jamestown and at other facilities by
locating public boat docks in the immediate vicinity of
existing private docks. Nothing in this provision shall modify
and/or amend any other existing law, projects or reservoirs.
Eastern New Mexico Water Supply, NM.--An amount of $250,000
is recommended for the Eastern New Mexico Water Supply project
to allow for feasibility study completion by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Jicarilla Water System Study, NM.--The Committee directs
that $200,000 of the funds recommended for the Native American
Affairs Program be used to undertake studies, in consultation
and cooperation with the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, of the most
feasible method of developing a safe and adequate municipal,
rural and industrial water supply for the residents of the
Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation in New Mexico.
Middle Rio Grande Project, NM.--An appropriation of
$14,842,000 is recommended for the Middle Rio Grande Project in
New Mexico.
The Committee recommendation provides the full budget
request for acquisition of water for endangered species
purposes; and an increase of $500,000 over the budget request
for research, monitoring, and modeling evapotranspiration from
open water and riparian vegetation to provide water use
information for use in daily water management activities. The
Bureau is to work cooperatively with the interagency workgroup
on these activities.
The Committee has provided $258,000 for the Bureau to
implement a program for the transplant of minnow larvae and
young-of-year and related monitoring activities (including fish
relocation, transplant site evaluation, collection and spawning
of adults, stocking larvae, collecting eggs, rearing stocking
juveniles, and monitoring stocked fish). The Committee
understands that there will be matching funds for these
activities by State and local entities.
The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for habitat
conservation and restoration activities along the middle Rio
Grande River valley from below Cochiti Dam to the headwaters of
Elephant Butte Lake. The Bureau is to continue to work with
interested parties to evaluate and define the scope of the
habitat and restoration measures to be undertaken in order to
ensure that proposed work compliments, rather than duplicates,
other ongoing activities.
Finally, all parties, Tribal, State and local governments,
Federal agencies, and water users, are to be commended for
their efforts to address the complex issues related to recovery
activities along the Rio Grande in New Mexico. But more can and
must be done to establish a single entity, reflecting the range
of interests, along the Rio Grande if the recovery effort is to
be successful and to ensure the efficient use of available
resources. Further, a single comprehensive group will ensure
that activities undertaken are based on sound science and
contribute directly to silvery minnow recovery. Future funding
will be dependent upon a program plan for recovery activities
that is supported by State and local governments, Federal
agencies, Tribes, and water users. Coming to consensus will not
be easy and will surely take time to reach, but in the long
term will result in success in species recovery with minimum
impacts to all parties. To this end, the attention of all
parties is directed to the successful effort on the Upper
Colorado to address the endangered species issues in that
region.
Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, NM.--The Committee has
provided $450,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to complete all
remaining feasibility studies for the Navajo-Gallup Water
Supply project in New Mexico. The feasibility report, which
includes costs, benefits, environmental analysis, and
recommendations on a potential project, is needed in order to
proceed with a project construction authorization. The
Committee understands that the Navajo Tribe and the City of
Gallup have agreed to a plan, which was begun last year, to
complete this work over about a 2-year period, and to support
construction of what ever project may be supported at the
conclusion of the feasibility phase.
Upper Colorado River Endangered Species Program.--The
Committee recommendation for the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Species Program includes the full budget request for
habitat conservation and restoration activities in the San Juan
River Basin proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation.
Lake Mead and Las Vegas Wash, NV.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation to continue development of a comprehensive project
plan for the restoration of wetlands and associated water
resource issues at Lake Mead and Las Vegas Wash in Nevada.
Newlands Project Water Rights Fund, NV.--The Committee has
included $2,700,000 for the Newlands Water Rights Fund
authorized by the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights
Settlement Act to be utilized to pay for purchasing and
retiring water rights in the Carson Division of the Newlands
Reclamation Project.
Walker River Basin Project, NV.--An appropriation of
$300,000 is recommended for the Bureau of Reclamation to begin
the preparation of an EIS for water rights acquisition in the
basin, recovery of the Walker Lake ecosystem and recovery of
the Lahontan cutthroat trout fishery.
Tooele Wastewater Reuse Project, UT.--The Committee directs
the Bureau of Reclamation to use available funds, estimated to
be $43,614, to complete the Federal share of the Tooele
Wastewater Reuse, UT project as provided under title XVI of
Public Law 102-575.
Columbia Basin Project, WA.--The Committee is aware that
the Bureau of Reclamation suspended publication of annual crop
reports for the 1993 through 1998, but is currently compiling
data for a 1999 crop report which is to be published later this
year. The Committee supports the efforts of the Bureau of
Reclamation to resume publishing these reports again. To the
extent practicable, the Committee believes that the Bureau
should compile crop reports for the Columbia Basin Project for
the period of 1993 through 1998 and make them available to
interested parties.
Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.--An additional
$500,000 is provided for the Bureau of Reclamation to
participate with the City of Espanola, NM in a feasibility
study to investigate opportunities to reclaim and reuse
municipal wastewater, and naturally impaired surface and
groundwater.
Drought Emergency Assistance.--The Committee has included
$5,000,000 for Drought Emergency Assistance. The additional
funding over the budget request is required due to continuing
severe drought conditions that currently exist in New Mexico
and several other western States. The funding provided herein
shall be used in accordance with Section 202 of Public Law 106-
60.
bureau of reclamation loan program account
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $11,577,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 9,369,000
House allowance......................................... 9,369,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,369,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,369,000,
the same as the budget request, for the small reclamation
program of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Under the Small Reclamation Projects Act (43 U.S.C. 422a-
422l), loans and/or grants can be made to non-Federal
organizations for construction or rehabilitation and betterment
of small water resource projects.
As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this
account records the subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans, as well as administrative expenses of this program.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--LOAN PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation
Project title Federal Allocated --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cost to date Investigations Planning Investigations Planning Investigations Planning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOAN PROGRAM
CALIFORNIA
CASTROVILLE IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY 14,284 11,864 1,300 ........... 1,300 ........... 1,300 ...........
PROJECT...............................
CHINO BASIN DESALINATION PROJECT....... ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
SALINAS VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION....... 9,557 8,200 800 ........... 800 ........... 800 ...........
SAN SEVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT........ 28,100 15,681 6,844 ........... 6,844 ........... 6,844 ...........
TEMESCAL VALLEY PROJECT................ ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
VARIOUS
LOAN ADMINISTRATION.................... ........... ........... 425 ........... 425 ........... 425 ...........
FISCAL YEAR 2000 RESCISSION--PUBLIC LAW ........... ........... .............. ........... .............. ........... .............. ...........
106-113...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, LOAN PROGRAM.............. ........... ........... 9,369 ........... 9,369 ........... 9,369 ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
central valley project restoration fund
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $42,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 38,382,000
House allowance......................................... 38,382,000
Committee recommendation................................ 38,382,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $38,382,000,
the same as the budget request for the Central Valley project
restoration fund.
The Central Valley project restoration fund was authorized
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of
Public Law 102-575. This fund was established to provide
funding from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration,
improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife
restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of
California. Revenues are derived from payments by project
beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project
beneficiaries include several required by the act (Friant
Division surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to
non-CVP users, and tiered water prices) and, to the extent
required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation
and restoration payments.
California bay-delta ecosystem restoration
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $60,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 60,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The CALFED Program was established in May 1995 for the
purpose of developing a comprehensive, long-term solution to
the complex and interrelated problems in the San Francisco Bay-
Delta area of California. The program's focus is on the health
of the ecosystem and improving water management. In addition,
this program addresses the issues of uncertain water supplies,
aging levees, and threatened water quality.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2001
proposes language which would extend, through the
appropriations process, the funding authority for the CALFED
program. The Committee has consistently expressed concern
regarding the duplication and overlap of CALFED activities with
Central Valley Improvement Act programs and other activities
funded under various other programs within the Bureau of
Reclamation, and that the appropriate authorizing committees of
the Congress should thoroughly review and specifically
authorize the CALFED program. The Committee believes that it is
essential the committees of jurisdiction in these complicated
matters have the opportunity to develop legislation to address
these issues. While some hearings have been held, no
authorization has been enacted. Therefore, the Committee is not
able to recommend an appropriation for fiscal year 2001.
However, the Committee understands that there is significant
funding in the pipeline which will allow activities to continue
in fiscal year 2001.
Working Capital Fund
Boise Project Office Replacement.--The Committee has been
informed that the Boise Project Office, which was built in
1912, does not meet current building codes and is inadequate
for modern day technology, and is in serious need of
replacement. The Committee would not object to the Bureau of
Reclamation using the Working Capital Fund to replace the
facility if justified based on a normal lease, purchase
analysis required by OMB. Further, the Committee understands
that the proposed replacement facility will be jointly funded
by the U.S. Geologic Survey who would share the new office
space.
policy and administrative expenses
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $47,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 50,224,000
House allowance......................................... 47,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 50,224,000
The Committee recommendation for general administrative
expenses is $50,224,000. This is the same as the budget
request.
The policy and administrative expenses program provides for
the executive direction and management of all reclamation
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in
Washington, DC, Denver, CO, and five regional offices. The
Denver office and regional offices charge individual projects
or activities for direct beneficial services and related
administrative and technical costs. These charges are covered
under other appropriations.
General Provision--Department of the Interior
Language is included under Section 203 which limits to not
more than $7,687,000, adjusted for inflation, funding for the
Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program.
In the past, the Committee has expressed concern about the
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program's increased funding
requirements and the steadily expanding scope of its
activities. In fiscal year 2001 the requested funding level
continued the upward trend and as a result, the Committee
included language in Section 203 that limits the funding level
from power revenues for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management
Program to no more than $7,687,000, adjusted for inflation. The
Committee encourages the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management
Program to prioritize its work based on project importance and
to seek additional funding from outside non-Federal sources if
necessary.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Title III provides for the Department of Energy's defense
and nondefense functions, the power marketing administrations,
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
safeguards and security budget amendment
The President submitted a safeguards and security budget
amendment as reflected in House Document 106-251 on June 6,
2000. The amendment's intent is to reorganize all safeguards
and security functions at the Department under the Office of
Security and Emergency Operations. The effect of the amendment
would be to impose centralized Department-wide management of
security costs and operations, including the security of
nuclear weapons, nuclear secrets, nuclear materials and defense
nuclear facilities. The Committee views the amendment to be
inconsistent with the requirements of the National Nuclear
Security Administration Act enacted as part of Public Law 106-
65, which gives the Administrator of the NNSA authority over
and responsibility for safeguards and security for all programs
and activities within the NNSA. As such, the Committee has not
considered the budget amendment.
The Committee has sought to accurately represent the
President's budget request, including the safeguards and
security amendment, in the report and accompanying tables. The
Committee concurs with, and has recommended the amounts
requested for safeguards and security and has reflected those
amounts within each of the individual program lines as proposed
in the original budget request.
contractor travel
For fiscal year 2000, the conference agreement included a
statutory provision limiting reimbursement of Department of
Energy management and operating contractors for travel expenses
to no more than $150,000,000 and required contractor travel to
be consistent with the rules and regulations for Federal
employees. The substantial reduction in allowable travel
reimbursements has successfully imposed efficiencies into the
system for managing contractor travel and has produced cost
savings due to the use of standard Federal travel rules.
However, the Committee is concerned that the fiscal year 2000
travel ceiling has caused an unintended reduction in
programmatic and scientific travel that is necessary for
fulfilling the Department's mission. The Committee
recommendation limits contractor travel for fiscal year 2001 at
the level proposed by the administration--$200,000,000--and
believes that to be an appropriate level for travel, but still
well below the previous baseline.
laboratory directed research and development
The Committee views laboratory directed research and
development (LDRD) as an integral and essential component of
the Department's ability to respond to changing needs and
requirements. The LDRD program is necessary to maintain the
preeminence of the national laboratories in the areas of
science and engineering, and significantly strengthens the
laboratories ability to attract and retain the best scientific
talent. In fiscal year 2000, Congress limited LDRD expenditures
to 4 percent for defense programs and eliminated the use of
LDRD funding within environmental management programs. The
Department has testified that the reduction of LDRD funding
produced serious and negative impacts to ongoing research,
resulted in lost knowledge and capabilities to meet future
national defense needs, and caused the cancellation of
important weapons related research.
The administration has proposed that LDRD funding be
restored to at least 6 percent for fiscal year 2001. Both the
Department's Stockpile Stewardship Program Review (the 30-day
review) of November, 1999, and the Laboratory Operations Board
Report of January, 2000, recommended restoring LDRD to the
previous level. The Committee strongly endorses the
administration's proposal. Furthermore, the Committee strongly
endorses the use of funds within the environmental management
program for the purpose of LDRD as a way to strengthen the
nation's clean-up efforts substantially. Investments in science
and technology in this area have successfully reduced the long-
term clean-up and mortgage costs of our nation's most
contaminated sites. Finally, the Committee has included a
provision to establish an analogous program within the nuclear
weapons production plants to attract and retain the highest
quality people through a variety of activities, including the
development of new production and design concepts and the
establishment of intern and cooperative student programs. All
of these efforts will be critical to maintaining the
Department's most valuable assets--its people.
Energy Supply
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $637,962,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 730,692,000
House allowance......................................... 616,482,000
Committee recommendation................................ 691,520,000
\1\ Reflects reductions totaling $22,203,000 contained in budget
amendment H. Doc. 106-251 for Safeguards and Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
renewable energy resources
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $362,240,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 454,817,000
House allowance......................................... 390,519,000
Committee recommendation................................ 444,117,000
\1\ Reflects reductions totaling $1,783,000 contained in budget
amendment H. Doc. 106-251 for Safeguards and Security.
The Committee recommendation provides $444,117,000, for
renewable energy resources, an increase of $81,877,000 over the
current year appropriation.
The Committee is unable to draw conclusions regarding the
full extent or affects of global climate change. However, in
the face of uncertainty regarding global climate change and the
human health effects of atmospheric pollution, prudence merits
consideration be given to energy production technologies that
reduce the emission of pollutants that accumulate in the
atmosphere.
In that regard, the Committee considers the
administration's use of base-year metrics, that is: the
recommendation that the United States reduce its emissions of
certain pollutants to 1990 levels, to be an inappropriate
metric. The Committee recommends that the accumulation of
pollutants in the atmosphere be considered in terms of their
historical concentrations; not their annual production rates
since it is the concentration levels not the rate of
accumulation which are alleged to have global climate change
implications.
When considered in those terms, the commitments made in
Kyoto will have a negligible effect on the concentration of
CO2 and other pollutants in the atmosphere. If
prudence merits the development of new energy production
technologies, it also requires a recognition that existing
technology does not provide a means to meet increasing global
energy requirements while stabilizing the production of
atmospheric pollutants and certainly does not provide a means
to reduce atmospheric pollution concentrations.
The Committee has modified the request for low emission
energy technologies; including hydro, renewable, and nuclear,
with the view toward post 2010 application of new technologies.
As a result, with few exceptions, the Committee recommends
basic research that will provide significant improvements over
existing technologies rather than on the deployment or
incremental improvement of commercial or near commercial
technologies. The Committee is well aware of the proposition
that appropriated funds can demonstrate the reliable operation
of low emission technologies before they become commercially
attractive. In a few cases, the Committee has provided funds
for just such demonstrations. However, in general, the
Committee expects non-Federal financing to support the final
stages of product development and all stages of market
development.
Solar building technology research.--The Committee
recommends $4,500,000 to fund solar building technology
development. The Committee does not support new activities in
solar lighting and technology coordination.
Photovoltaic energy systems.--The Committee recommends
$76,500,000 for photovoltaic energy systems. Within that
amount, $18,000,000 is provided for fundamental research
including: $5,500,000 for measurement and characterization,
$7,000,000 for basic research/university programs, and
$3,500,000 for high-performance advanced research. $24,000,000
is provided for advanced materials and devices. $32,500,000 is
provided for technology development including: $10,000,000 for
manufacturing R&D;, $15,200,000 for systems engineering and
reliability, and $3,300,000 to be allocated to the PV building
integrated R&D;, partnerships for technology introduction, and
million solar roof initiative. No funds are provided for the
international clean energy initiative. Of the amount provided
for systems engineering and reliability, $2,000,000 shall be
used to continue the ongoing research in photovoltaics
conducted by the Southeast and Southwest photovoltaic
experiment stations.
Concentrating solar power.--The Committee recommends
$14,000,000 for concentrating solar power. Within that amount,
$3,200,000 is provided for distributed and dispatchable power
system development, and $10,800,000 is provided for advanced
components and system research.
Biomass/biofuels--power systems.--The Committee recommends
$47,600,000 for biomass/bio-fuels--power systems. $2,000,000 is
provided for thermochemical conversion. $32,600,000 is provided
for systems development, but the total does not include funds
requested for new initiatives within that area. $2,000,000 is
provided for the feedstock development base program. No funds
are provided for the regional biomass energy program.
$11,000,000 is provided for the bioenergy/bioproducts
initiative.
Within the amount provided for systems development,
$1,000,000 is provided for the continuation of biomass research
at the Energy and Environmental Research Center on the
integration of biomass with fossil fuels for advanced power
systems transportation fuels. The Iowa switch grass project is
fully funded at a level of $6,200,000.
The recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the McNeil
biomass plant in Burlington, Vermont, $395,000 for the Vermont
Agriculture Methane project, and $1,000,000 for the University
of Louisville to continue research into the commercial
viability of refinery construction for the production of P-
series fuels.
The Committee directs the Department to accelerate the
large-scale biomass demonstration at the Winona, Mississippi
site and provide a report on its progress by December 31, 2000.
Biomass/biofuels--transportation.--The Committee
recommendation includes $43,750,000 for biomass/biofuels
transportation. $32,000,000 is provided for ethanol production,
$1,750,000 is provided for renewable diesel alternatives,
$3,000,000 is provided for feedstock production, and $7,000,000
is provided for the bioenergy/bioproducts initiative.
Wind.--The Committee recommendation includes $43,617,000
for wind energy systems. Within that amount, $20,500,000 is
provided for applied research, and $16,500,000 is provided for
turbine research including: $7,100,000 for the next generation
turbine project, $3,000,000 for advanced turbine concepts,
$300,000 to conduct small wind turbine projects, $100,000 for
the cold weather turbine project, $5,000,000 for turbine
research and testing and $3,617,000 for cooperative research
and testing.
Renewable energy production incentive.--The Committee
recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the renewable energy
production incentive.
Renewable program support.--The Committee recommendation
includes $3,000,000 for technical analysis and assistance
within renewable program support.
International renewable programs.--The Committee strongly
supports the U.S. international joint implementation program
funded in this account and recommends only $6,000,000 for that
purpose. No funds are recommended for the international clean
energy initiative. The Committee supports efforts to increase
international market opportunities for the export and
deployment of advanced clean energy technologies--end-use
efficiency, fossil, renewable, and nuclear energy technologies.
The Administration should improve the Federal Government's role
in the national and international development, demonstration,
and deployment of advanced clean energy technologies by
establishing an interagency working group jointly chaired by
the Departments of Energy and Commerce and the U.S. Agency for
International Development. This working group should also
include representation from the Departments of State and
Treasury, Environmental Protection Agency, Export-Import Bank,
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Trade and Development
Agency, and other departments and agencies, as appropriate. The
Administration should also consult with the private sector and
other interest groups on the export and deployment of clean
energy technologies through the establishment of an advisory
panel. Progress on the international deployment of clean energy
technologies should be reported annually to Congress by March
1. The Administration should analyze technology, policy, and
market opportunities for further international clean energy
program development and provide Congress a 5-year strategic
plan by June 1, 2001. This plan should be developed in
consultation with the advisory panel.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.--The Committee
recommendation includes $4,000,000, an increase of $2,100,000,
for capital equipment and general plant projects at the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Geothermal.--The Committee recommends $28,000,000 for
geothermal technology development, including $3,000,000 for
GeoPowering the West. The Committee recognizes drilling
technology improvements as the area most likely to achieve
enhanced economic viability of geothermal energy and provides
$13,000,000 for that purpose, an increase of $3,500,000 over
the request. No funds are provided for small-scale
verification, the international clean energy initiative, or
industry support.
Hydrogen research.--The Committee strongly supports
research and development of hydrogen technology and recognizes
it to be one of the most promising and cost effective energy
sources for the future. The Committee recommends $30,950,000,
an increase of $6,950,000 over the budget request and
$6,100,000 more than last year's enacted level. The
recommendation includes $350,000 for the Montana Trade Port
Authority in Billings, MT to continue the ongoing resource
inventory, feasibility study, and development of a Solid Waste
Hydrogen Fuel Cell manufacturing capability, and $250,000 for
the gasification of Iowa switch grass and its use in fuel cells
and $1,500,000 for the ITM Syngas project.
The Committee encourages demonstration of a dedicated fleet
of vehicles powered by hydrogen.
Hydropower.--The Committee commends the Department of
Energy for recognizing the benefits of and developing advanced
``fish-friendly'' turbines for hydro-electric generation. The
Committee recommendation includes $5,500,000 for that effort.
Renewable Indian energy resources.--The Committee
recommendation includes $6,600,000 for renewable Indian energy
resource development including: $1,000,000 to complete the Nome
diesel efficiency project; $2,300,000 for the Power Creek
hydroelectric project; $2,000,000 for the Swan Lake Intertie;
and $1,300,000 for the Indian River hydroelectric turbine
upgrades.
Electric energy systems and storage.--The Committee
recommendation includes $59,000,000 for electric energy systems
and storage including: $12,000,000 for transmission
reliability; $41,000,000 for high-temperature superconducting
research and development; and $6,000,000 for energy storage
systems. The Committee strongly supports the Department's high
temperature superconductivity research and development program,
which promises to revolutionize the generation, transmission
and conditioning of electricity. The Committee has added
$9,000,000 to accelerate the development, commercialization,
and application of high temperature superconductor technologies
through joint efforts among DOE laboratories, universities, and
industry. The Committee directs Los Alamos and Oak Ridge
National Laboratories, based on their advances in coating
deposition technologies for these materials, to lead and
support this effort by improving their own capabilities,
including equipment, facilities, and technical expertise.
The Committee recommendation of $12,000,000 for
transmission reliability represents a $9,000,000 increase over
last year's enacted level, and shall be used as follows:
$500,000 for the completion of the distributed power
demonstration begun last year at the Nevada Test Site for the
purpose of developing and validating interconnection standards;
and $11,500,000 for power system reliability. The Committee
notes that with modern supercomputers, it is possible to
simulate the electric grid system, and accurately predict,
avoid or respond to local, regional and national outages. Such
simulation capabilities could prove highly useful in evaluating
options for electric power generation and distribution. As
such, the Committee urges the Department to begin a research
program to develop solutions for grid reliability issues
through the use of advanced computer simulation capabilities
available within the national laboratories.
Renewable program direction.--The Committee recommendation
includes $18,000,000 for program direction within this account;
an increase of $180,000 over the current year.
nuclear energy programs
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $288,700,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 288,286,000
House allowance......................................... 231,815,000
Committee recommendation................................ 262,084,000
\1\ Reflects reductions totaling $20,159,000 contained in budget
amendment H. Doc. 106-251 for Safeguard and Security.
The Committee recommendation provides $262,084,000 for
nuclear energy, a decrease of $26,616,000 from the current year
appropriation.
Nuclear energy presently contributes almost 22 percent of
our nation's electrical power and emits no atmospheric
pollutants. And, new nuclear technologies promise tremendous
benefits from an environmental, safety, and cost standpoint.
The United States has not yet determined how it will dispose of
spent nuclear fuel, and the Committee does not underestimate
the technical and social challenges entailed in this challenge.
However, unlike the emissions of coal, gas, and fuel oil
plants, the byproducts of fission can be contained. In making
its recommendations for low emission energy technologies, the
Committee seeks to achieve a prudent balance among technologies
that may assist in the future reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions.
Advanced radioisotope power systems.--The Committee
recommends $34,200,000 for advanced radioisotope power systems.
In making its recommendation, the Committee is providing an
additional $3,000,000 in order to maintain the infrastructure
necessary to support future national security activities and
NASA missions to explore deep space and the surfaces of
planets.
Nuclear energy plant optimization.--The recommendation
includes $5,000,000, the same amount as the request for the
nuclear energy plant optimization program.
Nuclear energy research initiative.--The Committee
recommends $41,500,000 for the nuclear energy research
initiative and encourages the Department to pursue reactor
based transmutation in coordination with studies of accelerator
based transmutation.
The Committee believes any opportunity to expand the
prospects for building new nuclear power plants around the
world is dependent on developing the next generation of plants.
In recent Congressional testimony, a senior utility executive
expressed the view that the next nuclear plant to be built in
the United States would likely be a small, modular design. Such
``generation IV'' plants would have improved safety, minimized
proliferation risks, reduced nuclear waste, and much lower
costs. The DOE's nuclear energy research initiative has begun
some of the promising research for developing such innovative
advanced nuclear reactor designs. While the Committee
encourages the DOE's Generation IV activities, it is clear that
unless the Department initiates a rigorous, open planning
process to define the technologies needed and the research that
must be conducted, this effort will not lead to a program that
can usher next generation nuclear technologies into reality.
Therefore the Committee recommends $4,500,000 to develop a road
map for the commercial deployment of a next generation power
reactor that will, to the extent possible, have the following
characteristics: superior economics, no possibility of a core
melt-down and/or no requirement for a public evacuation plan,
substantially reduced production of high level waste, highly
proliferation resistant fuel and waste, and substantially
improved thermal efficiency. The road map should contain an
assessment of all available technologies; a summary of actions
needed for the most promising candidates to be considered as
viable options within the next 5 to 10 years with consideration
of regulatory, economic, and technical issues; and an
evaluation of opportunities for public/private partnerships.
The road map and supporting technical studies should lead to a
report by March 2003 providing a recommendation for a preferred
technology and a conceptual design for the selected option for
purposes of cost estimating to determine if the selected option
is economically competitive.
The Committee also directs the use of $1,000,000 from
within available funds for the preparation of a detailed
assessment that analyzes and describes the changes needed to
existing ALWR designs in order for such designs to be
considered viable in the U.S. marketplace within the next 5 to
10 years, considering the regulatory, economic, and
technological development issues that would need to be
resolved.
The primary purpose of the joint United States-Russian
program for the development of an advanced reactor is the
design and eventual construction of a demonstration reactor in
Russia for the purpose of surplus weapons plutonium
disposition. However, it is important that the United States
take full advantage of the development of this attractive
technology for a possible next generation nuclear power reactor
for United States and foreign markets. Therefore, the Committee
instructs the Department to explore opportunities to develop
and exploit this technology for commercial purposes. To further
this purpose, the bill includes $1,000,000 for the Office of
Nuclear Energy to begin planning and implementation of
initiatives such as, but not limited to, commercial fuel
development and testing, licensing interaction with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, plant cost evaluations, and waste
disposal assessments.
The Committee is aware that recent improvements in reactor
design might make feasible small modular reactors with
attractive characteristics for remote communities that
otherwise must rely on shipments of relatively expensive and
sometimes environmentally undesirable fuels for their electric
power. To be acceptable, such a reactor would have to be
inherently safe, be relatively cost effective, have intrinsic
design features which would deter sabotage or efforts to divert
nuclear materials, have infrequent re-fuelings, and be largely
factory constructed and deliverable to remote sites. The
Committee recommendation provides $1,000,000 for the Department
to undertake a study to determine the feasibility of and issues
associated with the deployment of such small reactors and
provide a report to Congress by May, 2001.
Fast flux test facility.--The Committee has provided
$44,010,000 to keep the FFTF in hot standby until the
Department of Energy determines whether the facility should be
decommissioned or restarted.
Nuclear facilities management.--The Committee has provided
$74,000,000, the amount of the budget request. The Committee
recommends the name of the budget line be changed from
``Termination costs'' to ``Nuclear facilities management'' to
reflect more accurately and more adequately the use of these
funds.
Isotopes.--The Committee recommendation includes
$16,715,000, the same as the budget request, for isotope
support. The Committee recommends $4,500,000 for the Isotope
Production Facility at LANSCE, the amount needed for completion
of the facility.
Uranium Programs.--The Committee directs that the uranium
programs activity be transferred from the Office of Nuclear
Energy to the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management, beginning in fiscal year 2001. Therefore, the
Committee recommendation provides no funds within nuclear
energy for this purpose. Instead, the Committee recommendation
provides $23,800,000 under defense environmental management,
and $38,600,000 under non-defense environmental management for
uranium program activities. The Committee believes that these
activities are an integral part of the Department's response to
the environmental issues at the gaseous diffusion plant sites
in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee and that these activities are
better managed by a single organization. The Committee remains
concerned that the Department has not fully characterized all
of the waste at the gaseous diffusion plants and has not
produced a plan that accurately represents both the total costs
and timetable for clean-up. The Department is instructed to
provide a plan to this Committee by December 31, 2000,
detailing how it intends to apply resources, including funds
received from the U.S. Enrichment Corporation under memoranda
of agreement, the uranium enrichment D&D; fund, and new
appropriations, to assure that the depleted uranium tailings
conversion project remains on track to meet the schedule
provided in Public Law 105-204.
Program Direction.--The Committee recognizes that this
appropriation changes the programmatic responsibilities of the
Offices of Defense Programs, Nuclear Energy, and Environmental
Management. Nevertheless, the Committee expects each office to
apply the Program Direction funds appropriated for the use of
each office to carry out these purposes without need for
additional shifting of funds between the offices. Should
additional Program Direction funds be required, the Committee
will entertain reprogramming requests from the Department to
move programmatic funds to Program Direction to support
personnel and other needs directly related to the successful
execution of the affected programs.
Domestic energy fuel cycle.--The Committee is very
concerned that the front end of the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle,
particularly the conversion and mining industries, are under
severe market pressures and that elements could be lost in the
very near term. Current market condition may well be related to
the large amounts of excess material transferred to the United
States Enrichment Corporation at the time of the privatization,
to material brought into the United States under the Russian
HEU agreement, and to liquidation of other inventories. The
Committee directs the Secretary to work with the President and
other Federal agencies to ensure that current laws with respect
to the privatization of USEC and with respect to the
implementation of the Russian HEU agreement and their impact on
United States domestic capabilities are carried out. In
addition, the Secretary is instructed to take timely measures
to ensure that conversion capability is not lost in the United
States. The Committee expects that any such measures will not
interfere with the implementation of the Russian HEU agreement
and the important national security goals it is accomplishing.
The Committee directs the Secretary to undertake an
evaluation and make specific recommendations on the various
options to sustain a domestic uranium enrichment industry in
the short and long term to be delivered to Congress no later
than December 31, 2000. The Secretary's evaluation shall
include recommendations for dealing with the Portsmouth
facility and its role in maintaining a secure and sufficient
domestic supply of enriched uranium. Further, this
investigation should consider the technological viability and
commercial feasibility of all proposed enrichment technologies
including various centrifuge options, AVLIS and SILEX
technologies or other emerging technology. The evaluation
should also consider the role of the Federal Government in
developing and supporting the implementation and regulation of
these new technologies in order to secure a reliable and
competitive source of domestic nuclear fuel. The Committee
expects to be notified by the Department of its need for
additional funding or decision to reprogram funding in order to
carry out its priorities with regard to domestic enrichment
industry.
environment, safety, and health
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $38,998,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 39,904,000
House allowance......................................... 35,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 38,321,000
The Committee recommendation includes $38,321,000 for non-
defense environment, safety, and health which includes
$18,998,000, the same amount as the current year, for program
direction.
energy support activities
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $9,600,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 9,137,000
House allowance......................................... 8,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,450,000
Technical information management.--The Committee
recommendation for the technical information management program
is $8,450,000.
environmental management
(nondefense)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $332,350,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 282,812,000
House allowance......................................... 281,001,000
Committee recommendation................................ 309,141,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
The Committee recommendation provides $309,141,000 for non-
defense environmental management, an increase of $23,140,000
over the original budget request.
The non-defense environmental management program is
responsible for managing and addressing the environmental
legacy resulting from nuclear energy and civilian energy
research programs, primarily the Office of Science within the
Department of Energy. Research and development activities of
DOE and predecessor agencies generated waste and other
contaminants which pose unique problems, including
unprecedented volumes of contaminated soils, water and
facilities. The funding requested and provided here supports
the Department's goal of cleaning up as many of its
contaminated sites as possible by 2006 in a safe and cost-
effective manner.
Site completion.--The Committee recommendation provides
$54,721,000 for site completion. The recommendation does not
include funds requested for the removal of the Atlas tailings
pile, which has not been authorized.
Post 2006 completion.--The Committee recommendation
provides $178,244,000, including $29,600,000 transferred from
the Office of Nuclear Energy for uranium programs activities
and an additional $9,000,000 to support depleted uranium
conversion at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant.
uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $249,247,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 294,588,000
House allowance......................................... 301,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 297,778,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
The Committee recommendation provides $297,778,000,
including a $5,260,000 general reduction from the original
budget request for the uranium enrichment and decontamination
and decommissioning fund. The uranium enrichment
decontamination and decommissioning fund was established in
accordance with title XI of Public Law 102-486, the National
Energy Policy Act of 1992. The funds provided for the
environmental cleanup of the Department's uranium enrichment
plants, two of which are currently leased to the USEC, and the
cleanup of uranium mill tailings and thorium piles resulting
from production and sales to the Federal Government for the
Manhattan project and other national security purposes.
The Committee remains concerned by the growing backlog and
gap between the amount of claims approved for payment and the
funding requested by the Department to pay those claims. The
problem is compounded by an estimated $130,000,000 of
additional potential claims in future years. Since these
payments go to reimburse operating uranium and thorium
licensees for their costs of cleanup related to Federal
activities, the Committee believes the Department should be
doing more to ensure additional funds are available to make
timely payments for approved claims.
nuclear waste fund
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $239,601,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 318,574,000
House allowance......................................... 213,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 59,175,000
The Committee recommendation includes $351,175,000 for
nuclear waste disposal, the same as the current year
appropriation. Of that amount, $59,175,000 is derived from the
nuclear waste fund, and $292,000,000 shall be available from
the ``Defense nuclear waste disposal'' account.
The proposed funding level as provided by the Committee is
intended to allow the Department to meet the programmatic
milestone associated with making a site recommendation in
fiscal year 2001.
The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the State of
Nevada and $5,887,000 for affected units of local government in
accordance with the statutory restrictions contained in the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
science
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $2,787,627,000
Budget estimate, 2001..................................\1\ 3,162,639,000
House allowance......................................... 2,830,915,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,870,112,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
Severely constrained spending limits for fiscal year 2001
have forced the Committee into very difficult decisions
regarding many otherwise outstanding programs and initiatives
under the Office of Science. In order to adhere to the
subcommittee's allocation, address critical ongoing research
and development efforts, and balance congressional priorities
with those of the administration, the Committee regrets that it
is not able to recommend many of the substantial increases
requested for programs, and in some cases, had to cut programs
below current year levels. Furthermore, the Committee regrets
that it cannot recommend funding for many worthwhile new
initiatives.
high energy physics
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $707,890,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 709,272,000
House allowance......................................... 714,730,000
Committee recommendation................................ 677,030,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
Due to severe budget restraints, the Committee
recommendation provides $677,030,000 for high energy physics, a
reduction of $30,860,000 from the current year appropriation.
The Committee strongly supports the goals of the high
energy physics program and reductions to the accounts are made
without prejudice and as a result of the severe budget
constraints within which it must provide funding. As such, the
Committee directs the Department to allocate the resources
provided in full consultation with the field and without
prejudice to any site.
nuclear physics
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $352,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 365,069,000
House allowance......................................... 369,890,000
Committee recommendation................................ 350,274,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
Due to severe budget restraints, the Committee
recommendation for nuclear physics is $350,274,000, a reduction
of $19,616,000 from the original request. The Committee
recommendation does not provide $5,957,000 requested for the
waste treatment program and directs the Department to achieve
efficiencies in waste treatment by charging the costs to users
where appropriate, or handling such costs within existing
operational budgets. Due to budget constraints, funding for new
research initiatives is reduced by $5,659,000, and funding for
increased facility operations is reduced by $8,000,000.
biological and environmental research
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $441,500,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 438,454,000
House allowance......................................... 404,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 444,000,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
The Committee recommendation includes $444,000,000 for
biological and environmental research including $2,500,000 for
construction of the laboratory for Comparative and Functional
Genomics at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The recommendation
for research is at the same level as the current year
appropriation. The Committee recommendation does not provide
$1,200,000 requested for waste management and directs the
Department to achieve efficiencies in waste management by
charging the costs to users where appropriate, or handling such
costs within existing operational budgets. The recommendation
does not include the proposed $9,507,000 increase to fund new
initiatives to image the expression of genes in cells and does
not support the development of new infrastructure and
facilities to support this initiative. Due to severe budget
constraints, the recommendation includes $4,735,000 requested
for new initiatives in the Microbial Cell Project, a reduction
of $5,000,000 from the request; and continues the free air
carbon dioxide experiments at the current year level.
Low dose effects program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $20,135,000, of which $11,682,000 is within biological
and environmental research and $8,453,000 is within defense
environmental restoration and waste management science and
technology for the low dose effects program.
Medical Applications.--The Committee recognizes the
University of Missouri-Columbia's commitment to building a
state-of-the-art cancer research and treatment program and
provides $3,000,000 to expand the Federal investment in the
University's nuclear medicine and cancer research capital
program begun by the Committee last year, focusing on the
enhancement of the campus' clinical cancer treatment and
research facilities.
basic energy sciences
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $783,127,000
Budget estimate, 2001..................................\1\ 1,003,920,000
House allowance......................................... 791,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 914,582,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
The Committee recommendation includes $914,582,000 for
basic energy sciences, an increase of $131,455,000 over the
current year appropriation.
Materials sciences.--The Committee recommendation provides
$408,363,000 for materials sciences, a $3,363,000 increase over
the current year appropriation and $47,748,000 below the budget
request. The Committee recommendation includes the amount of
the request, $9,815,000, for the Department's Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. The Committee
recommendation does not provide $8,073,000 requested for waste
management and directs the Department to achieve efficiencies
in waste management by charging the costs to users where
appropriate, or handling such costs within existing operational
budgets. The Committee recommendation does not include
$8,000,000 for the SPEAR 3 upgrade at the Stanford Synchrotron
Radiation Laboratory. The Committee recommendation includes
$203,596,000 for facility operations, the same amount as the
current year and $23,675,000 below the request.
Spallation neutron source.--The Committee recommendation
provides $241,000,000 to continue the Spallation Neutron Source
(SNS), including $221,900,000 for construction and $19,100,000
for other activities related to the project. The amount
represents a $121,900,000 increase over current year
construction funding. The Committee recognizes the importance
the SNS offers in advancing the frontiers of science and
technology and the opportunities it will provide for future
scientific and industrial research and development for the
United States. The design and construction of this next-
generation, accelerator-based, neutron scattering facility,
located at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is a
collaborative effort involving six DOE national laboratories
(Argonne, Brookhaven, Jefferson, Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos,
and Oak Ridge). Due to the allocated budget constraints, the
Committee is unable to provide the full budget request. The
Committee endorses and supports the SNS as it enters the
construction phase and hopes additional resources can be made
available so as to limit any impact on the project's schedule
and cost.
Nanotechnology.--The Committee strongly supports the
Department's role in the government-wide investment in
nanotechnology and recognizes it may revolutionize the ability
to craft highly specialized materials with unique properties.
The Department has requested an increase of $36,140,000 over
the current year appropriation for new initiatives in this
areas. Due to severe budget constraints, the Committee
recommendation provides only $20,140,000 for new initiatives in
nanoscale science, engineering, and technology research, a
reduction of $16,000,000 from the request, but a significant
increase over last year. The reductions in nanotechnology
research are taken from the following sub accounts: $8,000,000
from materials sciences; $7,000,000 from chemical sciences; and
$1,000,000 from engineering and geosciences.
Energy biosciences.--Due to severe budget constraints, the
Committee recommendation does not provide funding for the
$2,440,000 in new research initiatives for microbial cell
research, as funding is already provided under biological and
environmental research.
other energy research programs
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $166,060,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 211,362,000
House allowance......................................... 171,930,000
Committee recommendation................................ 174,900,000
The Committee recommendation provides $174,900,000 for
other energy research programs, an increase of $8,840,000 over
the current year appropriation.
Advanced Scientific Computing Research.--The Committee
recommendation provides $139,970,000 for advanced scientific
computing research, an increase of $7,970,000 over the current
year level of funding. The Department requested an increase of
$50,611,000 over current year spending to support substantial
new investments in scientific computing. The Committee
recognizes the need for enhanced scientific computing
capabilities within the Department's science programs, but is
unable to support such a large increase given current budget
constraints. The Committee recommendation does not provide
$11,963,000 requested for the laboratory technology research
program, and instead provides the entire recommended amount of
$139,970,000 to mathematical, information, and computational
sciences, an increase of $20,899,000 over current year funding,
and directs the Department to accordingly initiate the most
important new scientific computing initiatives.
fusion energy sciences
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $250,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 243,907,000
House allowance......................................... 255,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 227,270,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is
$227,270,000, a reduction of $22,730,000 from the current year
appropriation. While, in the past, the Committee has supported
increases above the level of the request for this program,
severe budget constraints and shortfalls elsewhere in the
Department's request necessitate the reduction at this time.
departmental administration
(gross)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $205,581,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 214,421,000
House allowance......................................... 153,527,000
Committee recommendation................................ 210,128,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(miscellaneous revenues)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $106,887,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 128,762,000
House allowance......................................... 111,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 128,762,000
inspector general
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $29,500,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 33,000,000
House allowance......................................... 31,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,988,000
The Committee has provided $28,988,000 for the Office of
the Inspector General.
recommendation summary
Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in
the table at the end of this title.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
The atomic energy defense activities programs of the
Department of Energy are divided into two separate categories--
National Nuclear Security Administration and Other Defense
Related Activities.
As a result of the enactment of the National Nuclear
Security Administration Act, the Committee recommends a new
account structure that includes the following separate
appropriation accounts for the NNSA: weapons activities;
defense nuclear nonproliferation; naval reactors; and Office of
the Administrator.
Under Other Defense Related Activities, the Committee has
included separate appropriation accounts as follows: defense
environmental restoration and waste management; defense
facilities closure projects; defense environmental management
privatization; other defense activities; and defense nuclear
waste disposal. Descriptions of each of these accounts are
provided below.
National Nuclear Security Administration
Weapons Activities
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $4,427,052,000
Budget estimate, 2001..................................\1\ 4,639,225,000
House allowance......................................... 4,579,684,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,883,289,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
Weapons activities support the Nation's national security
mission of nuclear deterrence by preserving nuclear weapons
technology and competence in the laboratories and maintaining
the reliability and safety of the weapons in the enduring
nuclear stockpile. The United States continues to retain
strategic nuclear forces sufficient to deter future hostile
countries from seeking a nuclear advantage. In the past,
confidence in the nuclear weapons stockpile was assured through
a combination of underground nuclear and laboratory testing.
Since October 1992 the United States has maintained a
moratorium on underground nuclear testing and has explored
other means to assure confidence in the safety, reliability,
and performance of nuclear weapons.
The mission of weapons activities is to maintain the
safety, security, and reliability of the Nation's enduring
nuclear weapons stockpile within the constraints of a
comprehensive test ban, utilizing a science-based approach to
stockpile stewardship and management in a smaller, more
efficient weapons complex. Future nuclear stewards will rely on
scientific understanding and expert judgment, rather than on
underground nuclear testing and the development of new weapons,
to predict, identify, and correct problems affecting the safety
and reliability of the stockpile. Enhanced experimental
capabilities and new tools in computation, surveillance, and
advanced manufacturing will become necessary to certify weapon
safety, performance, and reliability without underground
nuclear testing. Weapons will be maintained, modified, or
retired and dismantled as needed to meet arms control
objectives or remediate potential safety and reliability
issues.
As new tools are developed and validated, they will be
incorporated into a smaller, more flexible and agile weapons
complex infrastructure for the future. Traditionally, the
activities of the three weapons laboratories and the Nevada
test site have been regarded separately from those of the
weapons production plants. However, all stockpile stewardship
and management activities will achieve a new, closer linkage to
each other under the NNSA.
During the CTBT debate last year, there was strong
testimony from committed and well respected public servants
that the science-based stockpile stewardship program was
underfunded and under stress. Thereafter, the Secretary of
Energy ordered a comprehensive internal 30-Day review of
stockpile stewardship. The Review generally concluded that the
Stockpile Stewardship Program was ``on track'', but that
``additional pressures such as increased security requirements,
newly discovered stockpile issues, and resource limitations
have collectively forced the program, overall, to be `wound too
tight' with too little program flexibility for contingencies.''
The Committee is concerned that the program is not on schedule,
given the current budget, to develop the tools, technologies
and skill-base to refurbish our weapons and certify them for
the stockpile. As such, the Committee recommendation provides
substantial increases across many weapons programs.
A successful Stockpile Stewardship Program requires at
least four things: qualified and motivated nuclear-weapons
experienced personnel, modern and well maintained facilities,
the special experimental and computational facilities needed
for stewardship in the absence of testing, and a sound
management structure. The Committee remains very concerned that
each year the nation continues to lose to retirement our most
experienced weapons designers and engineers and our most highly
skilled technicians. Recruiting and retaining the next
generation of nuclear weapons stewards has been made more
difficult by resource constraints, fewer opportunities for
exploratory research, and diminished morale from a perceived
lack of trust in the nuclear weapons scientists.
Furthermore, DOE has failed to keep good modern facilities.
The 30-Day Review said this has ``resulted in a huge bow wave
of deferred improvements. For example, 70 percent of the
facilities at Y-12, 80 percent of the facilities at the Kansas
City Plant, 40 percent of the facilities at the Pantex Plant,
and 40 percent of the facilities at the Savannah River tritium
facilities are more than 40 years old.'' The Committee
recommendation provides substantial increases for facility
modernization.
The Committee continues to be concerned that the Department
has experienced tremendous difficulty in constructing its
special experimental and computational facilities within budget
and within schedule. The National Ignition Facility is only the
most recent example. If the new NNSA is implemented consistent
with the law, it will resolve a number of long-standing
management problems within the Department's weapon activities.
The Department has changed the manner in which it presents
the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the stockpile
stewardship program. In recent years, the program request was
structured along two primary control levels--stockpile
stewardship and stockpile management. For the upcoming year,
the Department proposes a new budget and reporting structure
based on the three elements of its integrated stockpile
stewardship program: directed stockpile work, campaigns, and
readiness in technical base and facilities. The Committee
commends the Department for its more detailed and transparent
budget structure and directs the Department to submit future
requests that clearly identify the required funding for each
program element under directed stockpile work, each campaign,
and each program element under readiness in technical base and
facilities.
directed stockpile work
An appropriation of $906,603,000 is recommended for
directed stockpile work of the NNSA, an increase of $87,427,000
over the budget request.
Directed stockpile work encompasses all activities that
directly support specific weapons in the nuclear stockpile as
directed by the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan. These
activities include current maintenance and day-to-day care of
the stockpile as well as planned refurbishments as outlined by
the stockpile life extension program (SLEP). This category also
includes research, development and certification activities in
direct support of each weapon system, and long-term future-
oriented research and development to solve either current or
projected stockpile problems.
Stockpile research and development.--The Committee
recommends $268,300,000, an increase of $25,000,000 over the
request, to support B61, W80, and W76 life extension
development activities and to support additional sub-critical
experiments at the Nevada test site. The recommendation
includes an additional $6,000,000 for a cooperative research
effort with the Department of Defense regarding defeat of hard
and deeply buried targets.
Stockpile maintenance.--The Committee recommends
$282,994,000, an increase of $25,000,000 over the request, to
support life extension operations on the W87, and development
and engineering activities for the B61, W80, and W76.
Stockpile evaluation.--The Committee recommends
$171,710,000, an increase of $20,000,000 over the request, to
eliminate the testing backlog, and for joint test equipment
procurements.
Production plants.--From the additional funds provided
within directed stockpile maintenance and evaluation,
$4,000,000 is intended for the Kansas City Plant; $8,000,000 is
intended for the Pantex Plant; $8,000,000 is intended for the
Y-12 Plant; and $3,000,000 is intended for the Savannah River
Site.
campaigns
An appropriation of $1,352,239,000 is recommended for the
campaigns of the NNSA, an increase of $100,935,000 over the
budget request.
Campaigns encompasses focused scientific and technical
efforts to develop and maintain critical capabilities needed to
enable continued certification of the stockpile for the long
term. The efforts are technically challenging, multi-function
efforts that have definitive milestones, specific work plans,
and specific end dates. The Committee notes, however, that
campaigns must not become so focused on short-term milestones
that long range research and maintenance of core capabilities
are compromised.
Primary certification.--The Committee recommends
$51,400,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the request, to
support sub-critical experiments and other activities necessary
to support the required delivery date for a certified pit.
Advanced radiography.--The Committee recommends
$58,000,000, an increase of $15,000,000 over the request, to
support research, development and conceptual design for an
advanced hydrodynamic test facility including further
development and evaluation of proton radiography techniques.
Enhanced surveillance.--The Committee recommends
$106,651,000, an increase of $17,000,000 over the request, to
support the accelerated deployment of test and diagnostic
equipment to monitor and assess the health of the stockpile.
From the additional funds provided, $3,000,000 is intended for
the Kansas City plant; $7,000,000 is intended for the Pantex
plant; $4,000,000 is intended for the Y-12 plant; and
$1,000,000 for the Savannah River site.
ICF ignition and high yield, Project 96-D-111 National
Ignition Facility.--The Committee recommends $74,100,000, the
amount of the budget request.
The original fiscal year 2001 baseline estimate for the
National Ignition Facility (NIF) included a total project cost
of $1,198,900,000 and other related costs of $833,100,000, for
total project related costs of $2,032,000,000. The Secretary of
Energy has indicated that construction problems and delays will
cause total project related costs to escalate to
$3,257,500,000, an increase of $1,225,500,000.
The Conference Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2000
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act directed the
Secretary to complete and certify a new cost and schedule
baseline for NIF and submit that certification to the
Committees by June 1, 2000. The Secretary indicated by letter
dated June 1, 2000 a desire to continue with the project on an
interim baseline, and requested additional time for final
certification of the revised baseline. The interim baseline
proposes increased construction funding of $135,000,000 in
fiscal year 2001; $180,000,000 in fiscal year 2002;
$179,100,000 in fiscal year 2003; $150,000,000 in fiscal year
2004; $130,000,000 in fiscal year 2005; $110,000,000 in fiscal
year 2006; $33,000,000 in fiscal year 2007; and $4,000,000 in
fiscal year 2008. Furthermore, associated operational costs are
projected to exceed the current baseline by a total of
$304,400,000 during the construction period.
The Secretary has stated that NIF remains a cornerstone
requirement of the Stockpile Stewardship Program and should be
completed despite an estimated $1,225,500,000 cost escalation.
However, the Department previously acknowledged that current
mission requirements were already potentially exceeding the
available budget for the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).
The Department's 30-Day Review of the SSP noted that
``additional pressures such as increased security requirements,
newly discovered stockpile issues, and resource limitations
have collectively forced the program, overall, to be `wound too
tight' with too little program flexibility for contingencies.''
In light of this problem, the Committee questions whether NIF
is essential to the Stockpile Stewardship program at a cost of
$3,257,500,000. Furthermore, the Administration has failed to
request an increase in the overall weapons activities budget or
identify current activities that could be scaled back or
eliminated in order to accommodate the increased cost of NIF
over the next 8 years.
The Department recently submitted a proposed reallocation
of $135,000,000 within weapons activities to support a revised
baseline for fiscal year 2001. Although the revised budget
request would see the project through the immediate future, the
Committee remains concerned that the Department has failed to
develop a path forward for NIF that properly balances the
scientific importance of NIF with the overall needs of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program over the next 10 to 15 years. For
example, the Committee believes the Department has failed to
examine adequately options for NIF that involve completing a
subset of the 192 beams as soon as possible (either 48 or 96),
bringing the reduced NIF into operation, and performing the
necessary scientific and technical tests to evaluate whether a
192 beam NIF is cost effective or programmatically required.
Furthermore, all options should be analyzed for the potential
impacts and risks they impose on the rest of the weapons
programs and the ability of the Department to complete the full
suite of required facilities at other sites and laboratories
around the complex. Until these important issues can be
resolved to the satisfaction of the Committee, it will only
recommend funding for the project as requested in the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget submission.
While the future of the NIF project is uncertain, it is
essential that the Department continue to support and maintain
the ongoing work at the Omega, ``Z'', and NIKE facilities and
efforts in diagnostics, target fabrication and cryogenic target
development. These other elements of the ICF program not only
enable the goals of NIF, but have important roles in meeting
the overall goals of Stockpile Stewardship. With significant
delays in NIF, increased use of existing facilities and the
continued development of the supporting activities are
essential to the long term success of the program.
ICF Ignition and High Yield, Petawatt Laser.--The Committee
recommendation includes $2,500,000 within available funds for
fiscal year 2001 to transfer the Petawatt Laser from Lawrence
Livermore National Lab to the University of Nevada-Reno (UNR).
The Committee directs the Department to facilitate an agreement
between UNR and Lawrence Livermore National Lab to achieve
operational status of the Petawatt Laser as soon as possible.
Pit manufacturing readiness.--As part of the stockpile
stewardship plan, the Department made a commitment to produce
the hardware necessary to replace all parts of any warhead in
the nuclear stockpile--evidenced by a requirement to
manufacture a certifiable W88 pit by December 2001. The
Committee is alarmed that resources previously appropriated to
support pit production in fiscal year 2000 were redirected to
other work within the program. The Committee believes the
Department has failed to give the pit production program
sufficient priority and management attention, resulting in the
program now being behind schedule and over cost. The Committee
directs the NNSA to provide a report to the Committees of
jurisdiction in the House and the Senate by December 1, 2000,
that includes the following: (1) a description of the program
requirements for production of the W88 pit; (2) a proposed
production schedule that is consistent with the programmatic
needs of the Department of Defense; (3) a detailed description
of the budget required to meet production on the proposed
schedule; (4) a description of the number and kinds of non-
nuclear tests and computations necessary for certification of
the W88 pit; (5) a proposed certification schedule that is
consistent with the programmatic needs of the Department of
Defense; and, (6) a detailed description of the budget required
to meet certification on the proposed schedule. The report
should contain specific dates and milestones against which
progress shall be measured.
The Committee recommendation provides $123,038,000 for pit
manufacturing readiness, an increase of $15,000,000 over the
budget request. The Committee intends this level of funding to
be sufficient to allow the NNSA to complete pit production on a
revised schedule that still meets commitments to the Department
of Defense. The Committee has also provided an additional
$10,000,000 to support the primary certification campaign, as
described earlier in the report. If the NNSA Administrator
believes, after completing the above described review and
report, that the $25,000,000 in funding above the current
budget request is not sufficient to meet required production
and certification schedules, the Committee strongly urges the
submission of a supplemental appropriations request for fiscal
year 2001.
Secondary readiness.--The Committee recommends $25,000,000,
an increase of $10,000,000 over the request, to address
facility planning, technology, critical skills, and
capabilities required for full-scale secondary production at
the Y-12 Plant, Tennessee.
Tritium readiness.--The Committee recommends a total of
$133,000,000, a decrease of $19,000,000 from the request,
including $58,000,000 for support of the commercial light water
reactor program and $75,000,000 for construction. The Committee
recommendation does not include within this campaign
$19,000,000 requested to support accelerator production of
tritium as a back-up technology. That funding is provided under
advanced accelerator applications within Other Defense
Activities.
Cooperative agreements.--The Committee recognizes that
cooperative agreements with university systems are important
resources for developing essential technical data for stockpile
stewardship. The Committee notes the current cooperative
research and development agreement with the University of
Nevada system will expire on March 31, 2001 and urges the
Department to renew the agreement for another 2-year period at
a level consistent with prior year funding.
readiness in technical base and facilities
An appropriation of $2,263,947,000 is recommended for
readiness in technical base and facilities, an increase of
$171,289,000 over the original budget request. Readiness in
technical base and facilities encompasses efforts to provide
for the physical infrastructure and operational readiness
required to conduct the directed stockpile work and campaign
activities at the laboratories, the test site and the
production plants.
Operations of facilities.--The Committee recommends
$1,449,721,000, an increase of $136,289,000 above the budget
request. The recommendation includes an additional $10,000,000
for operation of pulsed power facilities, and an additional
$20,000,000 for microsystems and microelectronics activities in
support of planned stockpile refurbishments at Sandia National
Laboratories. The recommendation includes an additional
$7,000,000 for planning for a replacement of the CMR facility
at Los Alamos National Laboratory; and an additional
$43,000,000 for replacement of critical equipment and
infrastructure repairs and upgrades throughout the weapons
production complex in the following amounts: $20,000,000 at the
Kansas City Plant, Missouri; $13,000,000 at the Pantex Plant,
Texas; $8,000,000 at the Y-12 Plant, Tennessee; and $2,000,000
at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina.
The Committee recommendation includes $44,205,000
associated with the nuclear emergency search team and
$12,084,000 associated with the accident response group. The
administration's budget requested funding for these items under
the Office of Security and Emergency Operations. The Committee
recommendation provides the requested funding within readiness
in technical base and facilities, under the responsibility of
the NNSA, as required by Public Law 106-65.
Material recycle and recovery.--The Committee recommends
$37,018,000, an increase of $15,000,000 over the request, to
maintain restart schedules for hydrogen fluoride and wet
chemistry operations at the Y-12 Plant, Tennessee.
Uranium-233.--The Committee recommendation includes
$15,000,000 to process uranium-233 stored in building 3019 in
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to obtain thorium-229 needed for cancer
treatment and to down-blend uranium-233 with uranium-238. By
blending the high-assay uranium-233 with uranium-238, the NNSA
will ensure that the assay of the resultant depleted uranium
will be below safety and safeguard limits. In order to meet the
quality, cost, and schedule requirements with the commercial
use of the extremely short-lived actinium-225, the Committee
recommends that the Department utilize a well qualified
contractor for this project. In order for the cancer treatment
project to receive the required private financing in a timely
manner, the NNSA shall transition the responsibility and
control of the nuclear material processing and the medical
isotope extraction to a commercial contractor to achieve the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required Good Manufacturers
Practice (GMP) material availability by April 2001. This
material required on April 2001 must be produced by the long-
term production process to demonstrate FDA reliability and
quality.
Special Projects.--The Committee recommends $53,297,000, an
increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee
recommendation provides $3,000,000 for the final year of
funding for the American Textiles Partnership (AMTEX), and
$2,000,000 to support a program in partnership with university
systems to meet the needs of the NNSA and address the concerns
of the Chiles Commission by forming a transitional pipeline of
qualified students into the defense programs of the NNSA. The
Committee recommendation fully funds the budget request for
educational support activities.
Construction projects.--The Committee recommends an
appropriation of $154,085,000, an increase of $15,469,000, for
construction projects under Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities.
Project 01-D-103 Preliminary project design and
engineering, various locations.--The Committee recommends
$29,500,000, an increase of $15,000,000 over the request.
Within the amount provided, $20,000,000 shall be used to
complete Title I and II design and provide supporting
infrastructure upgrades to the Microsystems and Engineering
Sciences Applications facility, Sandia National Laboratories.
The Committee is pleased the Department established the
Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM) within
the Office of Chief Financial Officer. With the establishment
of this office, the Committee expects the Department to
strengthen its capabilities in the area of construction
management oversight. The Committee continues to support the
use of external independent reviews (EIRs) for all new line
item capital projects, conducted by non-proponent, recognized
professional project management firms and managed by OECM. EIRs
should be conducted prior to construction and after
establishing the final performance baseline, and shall include
an independent cost estimate, and required corrective action
plans and updates.
The Committee further notes the Department's proposed
request for Project Engineering and Design for certain of its
projects in the Defense area for fiscal year 2001, and that the
purpose is to achieve a 30-35 percent level of engineering
design for new construction projects, prior to providing data
to the Congress in support of construction funding. Such an
advanced design should provide a more mature technical and cost
baseline, ensuring greater likelihood of achieving project cost
and schedule adherence. Therefore, the requirement to restrict
the availability of funding for new project until an EIR has
been reviewed by the Committee can be lifted. OECM is to work
with the Committee to establish guidelines to ensure final
performance baselines are developed for each new project, that
EIRs are undertaken to validate these baselines, and procedures
are developed which make the availability of funding contingent
upon successful review and approval by OECM.
Technology transfer and industrial partnerships.--The
Committee recognizes that partnerships with industry may enable
the weapons complex to accomplish its missions more
efficiently. Such partnerships can provide access to new
technologies, new processes, or new business procedures that
improve the NNSA's mission capabilities. Since these
partnerships should support mission needs, they should be
accomplished within funds already designated for mission-
related work by the weapons laboratories and plants. The
Committee notes that the budget request includes $14,000,000 in
technology partnership funding and recommends that at least
$30,000,000 of the work supported by the NNSA be accomplished
through such partnerships. An annual report to the relevant
committees of Congress on the utilization of industrial
partnerships for these purposes shall be provided.
Technology Infrastructure.--The Committee notes that the
Senate National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001
approved a 3-year pilot program for national laboratories to
conduct a Technology Infrastructure Pilot Program. The
Committee recommends up to $3,000,000 from within available
funds, be utilized by the National Nuclear Security
Administration to initiate a pilot program to improve the
mission capabilities of its laboratories through development of
technology clusters in the regions near these facilities.
Defense directed energy activities.--The Committee
recognizes that the High Energy Laser Master Plan approved by
the Department of Defense (DOD) in March 2000, acknowledges the
vital role that the NNSA could play in meeting the
technological needs of the DOD in directed energy weapons
systems. The Committee strongly recommends that the NNSA work
to complete a comprehensive agreement with the DOD to ensure
that the expertise and technologies already existent at the
national laboratories are leveraged for these purposes.
Advanced Simulation and Computing.--The Committee
recommendation provides the full amount of the budget request,
including $55,675,000 for collaborations with university
partnerships, alliances, institutes, and fellowships. The
Committee understands that the Department's budget request
reassigned items to this category and reduced the operations
category accordingly, but did not clearly identify this change
in its submission to Congress. This error caused confusion
regarding the actual level of increase, which is 6.7 percent
above last year.
program direction
An appropriation of $224,071,000 is recommended for program
direction activities. This is the same as the original budget
request.
Program Direction provides funds for all Federal personnel-
related expenses for Defense Programs offices at the NNSA
headquarters and the field operations offices. It also provides
technical support throughout the Defense Programs complex in
the areas of environment, safety and health; safeguards and
security; NEPA compliance, and compliance with Federal and
State laws, and recommendations of the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $729,100,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 865,590,000
House allowance......................................... 861,477,000
Committee recommendation................................ 908,967,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
The Committee recommendation provides $908,967,000, an
increase of $2,932,000 over the original budget request.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities of the NNSA are
focused towards reducing the serious global danger of weapons
of mass destruction (WMD). The NNSA utilizes the highly
specialized scientific, technical, analytical, and operational
capabilities of the NNSA and its national laboratories as well
as other Department of Energy laboratories. Its mission is to
prevent the spread of WMD materials, technology and expertise;
detect the proliferation of WMD worldwide; reverse the
proliferation of nuclear weapons capabilities; dispose of
surplus materials in accordance with terms set forth in
agreements between the United States and Russia; and store
surplus fissile materials in a safe manner pending disposition.
The Committee continues to strongly support these important
national security programs.
Nonproliferation and verification research and
development.--The Committee recommends $245,990,000, an
increase of $20,000,000 over the original budget request. The
funding level recommended by the Committee provides significant
increases over the current year level for the NNSA to deliver
enhanced ground-based and space-based monitoring equipment to
support planned upgrades to existing treaty monitoring systems;
to deploy new detection technologies; and to meet urgent needs
for technology to respond to the threat of chem/bioterrorism
against civilians.
The Nonproliferation and Verification, Research and
Development program is essential for stable long-term research
and the development of unique science and technology
competencies needed for the increasing demands of arms control,
nonproliferation, domestic nuclear safeguards and security,
energy security, and emergency management.
The Committee has received the report from the
Nonproliferation and National Security Advisory Committee
reviewing the Nonproliferation and Verification Research and
Development Program. The Committee is pleased to see the
external peer review advisory committee found that the program
``addresses U.S. nonproliferation and national security
objectives in a manner consistent with Executive and
Congressional mandates,'' and that the ``technical quality of
the work in each program area is high.'' The advisory committee
highlighted and the Committee recognizes that the majority of
the program is primarily longer-term, developmental projects
with a very small research component. The Committee notes that
while not entirely competitively selected, over 20 percent of
program funds go to universities and industry primarily through
the national laboratories. The Committee believes that this is
an excellent way to ensure that work conducted at the national
laboratories and within universities and industry are closely
coupled and focused on meeting operational needs. Based on the
advisory committee's review, the developmental nature of the
program, and the percentage of program funds provided to
universities and industry, the Committee believes the
Department is satisfying the intent of the language in last
year's conference report.
Project 00-D-192 Nonproliferation and international
security center (NISC), Los Alamos National Laboratory.--The
Committee recommends $17,000,000 to accelerate construction and
completion of the facility.
Arms Control.--The Committee recommends $138,014,000 for
arms control and nonproliferation, an increase of $15,000,000
over the original budget request.
The Arms Control and Nonproliferation program is the focal
point within the Department of Energy which support the U.S.
arms control and nonproliferation policies, and provides
leadership and representation within the Department in the
international arms control and nonproliferation community. The
goal is to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation by
integrating the Department's assets and efforts, including
those of the national laboratories and contractors, by
providing technical support to the U.S. Government's foreign
policy and national security objectives.
The Committee recommendation provides $30,000,000 for the
nuclear cities initiative, an increase of $12,500,000 over the
budget request. The Committee remains concerned that progress
in restructuring of the Russian nuclear weapons complex is not
proceeding at a pace commensurate with the risks that this
complex presents to the United States. It is in our nation's
interest to take full advantage of instant opportunities to
achieve restructuring and downsizing of the Russian complex in
a manner that lessens the risk that Russian personnel
possessing critical skills will be recruited to other countries
interested in developing or improving their weapons programs.
The Committee recommendation provides $30,000,000 for
restructuring and commercialization efforts in the nuclear
cities in fiscal year 2001, and directs the NNSA to make the
availability of the funds provided in excess to the request
contingent on the development of a Russian plan outlining
specific, transparent and verifiable milestones that provide
the United States confidence that the downsizing and
restructuring is proceeding as planned. The Committee
recognizes that the end result of the restructuring should be a
self-sustaining, significantly smaller, complex and to that end
encourages development of commercial ventures that contribute
to this restructuring process. The Committee also recognizes
that contract research may facilitate progress towards the
final makeup of the complex, but recommends that contract
research should comprise no more than one-quarter of the
appropriated funds for U.S. assistance in Russia's efforts to
restructure that complex. In addition, the Committee recognizes
the importance of educational programs in non-proliferation
studies that can contribute to managing conversion of weapons
activities through approaches that minimize any risks of
proliferation of materials or expertise.
The recommendation provides $24,500,000 for the Initiative
for Proliferation Prevention, an increase of $2,000,000 over
the request. These programs contribute to the international
non-proliferation effort by engaging highly qualified and
knowledgeable scientists, engineers, and technicians from
Russia and the former states of the Soviet Union in cooperative
commercial and other high technology non-military activities.
The recommendation includes $3,000,000 for the Russian
Reactor Spent Fuel Acceptance Program.
Long-term nonproliferation program for Russia.--Independent
of the budget request for arms control, the Department
requested funding for a new series of initiatives referred to
collectively as the long-term nonproliferation program for
Russia. The initiative proposes to achieve a 20-year moratorium
on accumulation of separated plutonium from civil power
reactors by offering incentives, including a program for the
joint development of proliferation resistant reactor
technologies, the construction of a dry spent fuel storage
facility, and the exploration of permanent disposition options
for spent nuclear fuel and high level waste. Implementation of
the program is dependent on the Russians' adherence to a
commitment not to engage in nuclear cooperation with Iran
beyond the Bushehr Unit 1 project. The Committee commends the
administration on its efforts in this important area of
nonproliferation and endorses the overall concept. However, the
Committee remains concerned that the United States and Russia
have not completed an agreement to support the initiative, and
Russia has not moved to resolve issues regarding nuclear
cooperation with Iran. Pending resolution of these concerns,
the Committee recommendation does not provide at this time the
$70,000,000 requested for nonproliferation and the nuclear fuel
cycle.
The long-term nonproliferation program for Russia also
included additional funds for ongoing efforts in the area of
materials protection, control and accounting; and the
accelerated closure of serial production facilities within
Russian nuclear cities. The Committee supports the additional
funding for these ongoing programs and has considered them in
conjunction with the regular budget requests.
International materials protection, control, and
accounting.--The recommendation provides $173,856,000 for
international material protection, control, and accounting
[MPC&A;] activities, an increase of $24,000,000 over the
original budget request. The Committee continues to consider
these activities extremely important to reducing the threat
created by the breakup of the former Soviet Union. The
increased funding will allow for additional material
consolidation and control work, an expanded program of MPC&A; at
several Russian Navy sites, and expanded MPC&A; efforts within
defense-related and important civilian and regulatory sites in
Russia. The Committee continues to believe that these
activities are critical elements of the United States non-
proliferation efforts.
HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) Transparency
Implementation.--The Committee recommendation includes
$15,190,000, the amount of the budget request for the HEU
Transparency Implementation program of the Department of
Energy. This program is responsible for ensuring that the non-
proliferation aspects of the February 1993 agreement between
the United States and the Russian Federation are met. This
Agreement covers the purchase over 20 years of low enriched
uranium [LEU] derived from at least 500 metric tons of HEU
removed from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons. Under the
Agreement, conversion of the HEU components into LEU is
performed in Russian facilities. The purpose of this program is
to put into place those measures agreed to by both sides, that
permit the United States to have confidence that the Russian
side is abiding by the Agreement.
International Nuclear Safety.--The Committee recommendation
is $20,000,000, the full budget request for the International
Nuclear Safety program.
The purpose of the International Nuclear Safety program is
to improve nuclear power plant safety by transferring U.S.
technology, equipment, methods, know-how and experience in the
areas of training and simulators, operating and emergency
procedures , safety maintenance, safety system upgrades, fire
safety, reactor safety analysis to host country through joint
agreements with the U.S. Efforts a primarily focused in Russia
and the States of the Former Soviet Union.
The Committee supports DOE's efforts to use the experience
and expertise of scientists of the former Soviet Union to
address waste management and environmental remediation
challenges within the DOE complex. The International Centers
for Environmental Safety have demonstrated the potential for
realizing considerable cost savings through the selected use of
Russian expertise for that purpose.
Fissile Materials Disposition.--The Committee recommends
$251,367,000 for fissile materials disposition, an increase of
$27,932,000 over the budget request. This program is
responsible for the technical and management activities to
assess, plan, and direct efforts to provide for the safe,
secure, environmentally sound long-term storage of all weapons-
usable fissile materials and the disposition of fissile
materials declared surplus to national defense needs.
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 equal 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 commends
the administration for its substantial progress in completing
the United States/Russian plutonium disposition agreement.
The Committee recommendation includes $135,517,000 for U.S.
surplus materials disposition, the same as the original budget
request. The Committee recommendation includes a reduction of
$10,000,000 in projected savings from the NNSA's decision to
not pursue production of the lead test assemblies for MOX fuel
at the TA-55 facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The
Committee strongly urges the NNSA not to close out the LTA
operation at TA-55 until it has a workable commitment for LTA
production elsewhere. The Committee recommendation includes the
transfer of $37,932,000 associated with the highly enriched
uranium blend down project.
The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 to
support the joint United States-Russian program to develop an
advanced reactor to consume large quantities of excess weapons
plutonium. The primary purpose of the joint United States-
Russian program for the development of an advanced reactor is
the design and eventual construction of a demonstration reactor
in Russia for the purpose of surplus weapons plutonium
disposition. However, the United States must take full
advantage of the development of this attractive technology for
a possible next generation nuclear power reactor for United
States and foreign markets. Therefore, the Committee directs
the Department to explore opportunities to develop and exploit
this technology for commercial purposes. The Office of Nuclear
Energy should take the lead in planning and implementation of
initiatives to support this effort.
Preliminary studies, funded under the Department's
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program that involved
the Kurchatov Institute and Brookhaven National Laboratory,
explored the utilization of weapons-grade plutonium in thorium-
based fuel assemblies in light water reactors. These studies
suggest that plutonium may be consumed at rates well in excess
of other reactor designs and with greatly reduced impacts on
existing reactor safety and control systems. The Committee
encourages the Department to investigate this technology,
evaluate its feasibility as an additional alternative for the
disposition of weapons-surplus plutonium in light water reactor
designs that are utilized in significant numbers around the
world, and submit a report to the Committee no later than March
1, 2001.
program direction
The Committee recommendation includes $41,550,000 for
program direction within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, the
amount of the budget request.
Naval Reactors
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $677,600,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 673,083,000
House allowance......................................... 677,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 694,600,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
The Naval Reactors Program within the NNSA provides for the
design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval
nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores having long fuel
life, high reliability, improved performances, and simplified
operating and maintenance requirements. The nuclear propulsion
plants and cores cover a wide range of configurations and power
ratings suitable for installation in naval combatants varying
in size from small submarines to large surface ships. The
Committee recommendation is $694,600,000, an increase of
$17,000,000 over the budget request.
The Committee has provided an additional $17,000,000 to
optimize the program to shutdown prototype reactors and
complete all major inactivation work by fiscal year 2002. The
Committee supports this effort and urges the Department to
review the need for additional funding in future years, and to
take appropriate action to request additional resources as may
be needed in future budgets.
Office of the Administrator
Appropriations, 2000....................................................
Budget estimate, 2001...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ $10,000,000
The Committee has included $10,000,000 to cover the
expenses of the Office of the Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Legislation to create
the NNSA was only recently enacted, and the fiscal year 2001
budget request did not contain necessary funding for the
Administrator to carry out his management and oversight
responsibilities. In an effort to ensure appropriate and
effective oversight of the programs and activities under the
jurisdiction of the Administrator, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2001. The
Committee expects to be fully and currently informed of the
details of the makeup of the Office of the Administrator.
Further, the Committee expects that future budget request for
the Office of the Administrator will be developed by the
Administrator.
recommendation summaries
Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in
the table at the end of this title.
OTHER DEFENSE RELATED ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $4,467,308,000
Budget estimate, 2001..................................\1\ 4,562,057,000
House allowance......................................... 4,522,707,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,635,763,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,635,763,000
for Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
programs for fiscal year 2001. This is $84,236,000 over the
budget request.
The Department's environmental management program is
responsible for identifying and reducing health and safety
risks, and managing waste at sites where the Department carried
out nuclear energy or weapons research and production
activities which resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed
waste contamination. The environmental management program goals
are to eliminate and manage the urgent risk in the system;
emphasize health and safety for workers and the public;
establish a system that increases managerial and financial
control; and establish a stronger partnership between DOE and
its stakeholders. The ``Defense environmental restoration and
waste management'' appropriation is organized into two program
accounts, site/project completion and post-2006 completion to
reflect the emphasis on project completion and site closures.
Fiscal year 1999 budget request was the first fiscal year
that the environmental management program structure was aligned
with DOE's 2006 plan. All activities have been organized into
projects, which have more defined scopes, schedules, and costs
that support a defined end state at each specific site. In
addition, the environmental management budget is organized into
program decision units that focus on the end-date of the
project. Those decision units are site closure, site/project
completion, post-2006 completion; science and technology; and
program direction.
The Committee believes that the environmental management
program of the Department of Energy is beginning to turn the
corner in the cleanup effort. Leadership within the Department
has put in place initiatives which have produced greater
efficiencies, reduced cost growth on many projects, and
resulted in moving the program from the study phase to the
cleanup of facilities. The Committee believes that the program
recommended for fiscal year 2001 is within the acceptable range
and will meet all legal requirements and other agreements.
Budget constraints will continue to check future large
increases and additional efficiencies will be required.
However, even with these constraints, tremendous progress
continues to be made both in tangible, on-the-ground results
and in the business practices within the program. The Committee
expects the Department to continue to seek every opportunity to
bring about more efficiencies and tough businesslike approaches
to program execution. The Department should continue the
critical review of the need and requirement for each individual
support service contract, and duplicative and overlapping
organizational arrangements and functions.
While it is imperative that the Department's cleanup costs
be brought down, there are instances where relatively small
amounts of additional funding invested in the near-term offer
the potential for significant reductions in long-term budgetary
requirements. The Committee continues to be concerned with
growing landlord costs required to maintain buildings and
facilities that are ready for demolition, and the high costs
associated with temporarily storing and monitoring wastes that
are ready for permanent disposal. In order to reduce these
costs in the future, it is important that the Department
expedite demolition work, waste shipments, and permanent
storage whenever possible.
Site and Project Completion
An appropriation of $939,519,000 is recommended for site
and project completion activities, including $897,975,000 for
operation and maintenance, and $41,544,000 for construction.
This account will provide funding for projects that will be
completed by fiscal year 2006 at sites or facilities where a
DOE mission (for example, environmental management, nuclear
weapons stockpile stewardship, or scientific research) will
continue beyond 2006. These activities are focused on
completing projects by 2006 and distinguishes these projects
from the long-term projects or activities at the sites, such as
high level waste vitrification or the Department's other
enduring missions. The largest amount of funding requested is
for activities at the Hanford, WA, Savannah River, SC, and
Idaho sites. A significant amount of work is expected to be
completed at these sites by 2006, although environmental
management and other stewardship activities will continue
beyond 2006.
The Committee recommendation provides an additional
$10,000,000 to accelerate the stabilization of nuclear
materials under the 94-1 program at the Savannah River Site,
including expediting rack construction and testing for
Americium/Curium stabilization project, development of safety
documentation and other pre-operational activities to support
planned stabilization campaign, and continued operation of the
process for plutonium residues. The Committee recommendation
also reflects the transfer of $37,932,000 associated with the
highly enriched uranium blend down project to the fissile
materials disposition program within defense nuclear
nonproliferation, and a transfer of $22,500,000 to the science
and technology sub-account for technology validation and
verification activities.
The Committee urges the Department to consider a proposal,
if submitted, by the University of South Carolina's Center for
Water Research and Policy that would extend their current
partnership within the Savannah River Basin area.
Additional funding of $19,000,000 is provided for ongoing
environmental management activities and to maintain compliance
with relevant clean-up agreements at Hanford as follows:
$12,000,000 is provided for the K-basin spent nuclear fuel
project and should be used to accelerate activities associated
with disposal of the residual sludge that will remain after
removal and packaging of the spent fuel; and $7,000,000 is
provided to accelerate stabilization activities at the
plutonium finishing plant to support Defense Nuclear Facility
Safety Board milestone activities and reduce safety risks
associated with storing large quantities of plutonium-bearing
materials.
Post-2006 Completion
The Committee recommendation for Post-2006 completion
activities is $3,167,725,000, which includes $2,647,525,000 in
operating expenses, a $420,000,000 contribution to the UED&D;
fund and $99,732,000 for construction.
The Post-2006 completion request supports projects that are
projected to continue well beyond 2006. As cleanup is
completed, it will be necessary for environmental management to
maintain a presence at most sites to monitor, maintain, and
provide information on the continued residual contamination.
These activities are required to ensure the reduction in risk
to human health is maintained.
Of the amounts recommended, the Committee has included an
increase of $10,000,000 for environmental restoration work at
the Hanford Site to accommodate increased work, maintain the
compliance schedule, and continue the successful program to
cocoon the old production reactors. Within the $10,000,000
additional funds provided for Environmental Restoration at
Hanford, the Committee directs that up to $950,000 in hazard
mitigation funds be available to protect the health and safety
of workers and to ensure safe, controlled public access to the
105 B Reactor to preserve its status as a historic building
listed on the National Register.
A recent audit by the Environmental Protection Agency's
Inspector General concludes that Hanford is behind schedule on
several Tri-Party Agreement Milestones and this is increasing
the risk of major contamination. The Committee recommendation
provides an additional $25,000,000 to the Hanford tank program
to achieve compliance with the Tri-Party Agreement. This money
should be used to pump high-level radioactive waste into
double-shell tanks, protect the vadose zone, and ensure the
tank waste is treated and readied in a timely manner for
ultimate vitrification.
The Committee urges the Department to carry out the intent
of the legislation that created the separate Office of River
Protection by according to the Office and its manager the
autonomy and authorities needed to manage all aspects of the
tank waste cleanup effort at Hanford in an efficient and
streamlined manner. Specifically, the Office should have line
management responsibility for contracting, nuclear safety,
financial, program management, and other authority necessary to
manage the lank waste cleanup effort.
The Committee recommendation includes $23,800,000
transferred from the Office of Nuclear Energy for uranium
programs activities.
The Committee notes that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant,
as the world's only operating geological repository, has
elements that are analogous to all future repositories. While
WIPP does not store weapons grade materials, it is in a unique
position to serve as a test bed for development and
demonstration of transparency techniques and technologies for
repositories that can assist in implementing future arms-
reduction processes and reduce concerns over proliferation
vulnerabilities associated with storage or disposal of weapons-
grade materials in future repositories. The Committee
recommends $3,200,000 from within available funds for a
transparency demonstration projects at WIPP under the direction
of the Carlsbad Office to begin implementation of the plan for
this effort that was required by the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000.
Science and Technology
An appropriation of $252,948,000 is recommended for science
and technology activities related to the environmental waste
cleanup program, an increase of $56,400,000 over the original
budget request.
The Science and Technology Program provides new or improved
technologies and research results that reduce risks to workers,
the public and the environment; reduce cleanup costs; and/or
provide solutions to environmental problems that currently have
no solutions. New and improved technologies have the potential
to reduce environmental restoration and cleanup costs by an
estimated several billion dollars.
Of the amounts recommended, the Committee has included an
increase of $10,000,000 for the environmental management
science program; an increase of $8,000,000 for accelerated site
technology deployment; and an additional $5,500,000 for the
long term environmental stewardship program at the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), to
address technology issues related to site monitoring and
maintenance, environmental monitoring, application and
enforcement of institutional controls, and information
management. The Committee recommendation supports the
University Research Program in Robotics at an amount of
$4,350,000; and includes an additional $400,000 to begin
conceptual design of the Subsurface Geosciences Laboratory at
INEEL and expects the Department to include a request for final
design activities with its fiscal year 2002 budget request. The
Committee recommendation also reflects the transfer of
$22,500,000 from the ``Site/project completion'' sub-account to
the ``Science and technology'' sub-account, and additional
funding of $6,500,000 for the low dose radiation effects
program.
The Committee understands that the Department's
Environmental Management Deactivation and Decommissioning
mortgage is at least $4,000,000,000 and that the D&D; focus area
has helped deploy a number of new technologies that have been
cost effective in reducing this D&D; mortgage, and thereby
reducing risks to site workers, the public and the environment.
The Committee recommendation provides $20,372,000 for the D&D;
focus area, an increase of $2,000,000 over the request.
The Committee recommends that the current cooperative
agreement with the Waste-management Education and Research
Consortium be extended for a 5 year period at a level of
$2,500,000 annually to continue their support for environmental
education and technology development.
The Committee recognizes the work carried out by the
Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory [DIAL] for
the Department of Energy's Environmental Management Program.
This work has led to the development of instrumentation and
technology of value to the Department's cleanup effort. The
Committee recommendation supports DIAL at $6,000,000 for fiscal
year 2001, an increase of $1,500,000 over the budget request.
Upon successful completion of supplemental testing to which
the Department has committed funding, the Department is
directed to use $4,000,000 of available funds to continue its
evaluation, development and demonstration of the Advanced
Vitrification System and its application to waste cleanup at
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
The supplemental testing is to be completed by March 1, 2001,
and a report submitted to the Congress.
Program Direction
The Committee recommendation for program direction totals
$359,888,000, which is the same as the budget request.
Program direction provides the overall direction and
administrative support for the environmental management
programs of the Department of Energy.
Defense Facility Closure Projects
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,060,447,000
Budget estimate, 2001..................................\1\ 1,082,714,000
House allowance......................................... 1,082,297,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,082,297,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,082,297,000
for the site closure program.
The ``Site closure'' account includes funding for sites
where the environmental management program has established a
goal of completing the cleanup mission by the end of fiscal
year 2006. After the cleanup mission is complete at a site, no
further DOE mission is envisioned, except for limited long-term
surveillance and maintenance. This account provides funding to
cleanup the Rocky Flats, Fernald, Mound, Ashtabula, and
Battelle Columbus sites.
The Committee continues to believe that a closure fund,
which targets funding at specific facilities whose accelerated
closure in the near-term results in significantly reduced out-
year costs, is important in freeing up budgetary resources in
the longer term.
Defense Environmental Management Privatization
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $188,282,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 514,884,000
House allowance......................................... 259,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 324,000,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
An appropriation of $324,000,000 is recommended for the
environmental management privatization initiative. The
Committee recommendation provides $259,000,000 for the Tank
Waste Remediation System (TWRS) at Hanford, Washington;
$25,092,000 for Spent Nuclear Fuel Dry Storage in Idaho;
$65,000,000 for the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Facility;
and presumes the use of $25,092,000 in prior year balances.
The Department of Energy announced in May its decision to
terminate the privatization contract with BNFL for construction
and operation of the TWRS at Hanford. As a result of the
significant change in circumstances, the Department has
estimated a revised requirement of $370,000,000 in budget
authority for continuation of the TWRS project during fiscal
year 2001, composed of $259,000,000 in new appropriations and
the use of $111,000,000 appropriated to the project in previous
years. The Committee recognizes the tremendous importance of
this project to the total clean-up effort at Hanford, and
understands that the recommended funding will allow the
Department to maintain its ability to meet the Tri-Party
Agreement milestone for facility hot start by December 2007 and
other commitment dates within the proposed consent decree with
the State of Washington.
recommendation summaries
Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in
the table at the end of this title.
Other Defense Activities
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $309,199,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 575,617,000
House allowance......................................... 592,235,000
Committee recommendation................................ 579,463,000
\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for
Safeguards and Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligence
The Committee recommendation totals $38,059,000, an
increase of $2,000,000 over the current year appropriation.
The Office of Intelligence provides information and
technical analysis on international arms proliferation, foreign
nuclear programs, and other energy-related matters to
policymakers in the NNSA, the Department and other U.S.
Government agencies. The focus of the Department's intelligence
analysis and reporting is on emerging proliferant nations,
nuclear technology transfers, foreign nuclear materials
production, and proliferation implications of the breakup of
the former Soviet Union.
security and emergency operations
The Committee recommendation for security and emergency
operations is $280,087,000, an increase of $156,987,000 over
the current year appropriation.
The Department submitted a fiscal year 2001 budget
amendment which consolidates DOE-wide safeguards and security
expenditures within the Office of Security and Emergency
Operations. The effect of the amendment would be to impose
centralized Department-wide management of security costs and
operations, including the security of nuclear weapons, nuclear
secrets, nuclear materials and nuclear facilities. The
amendment is inconsistent with section 3212(b)(6) of Public Law
106-65, which gives the Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration authority over, and responsibility for,
safeguards and security for all programs and activities of the
National Nuclear Security Administration. As such, the
Committee has not considered the budget amendment.
Nuclear Safeguards.--The Committee recommendation provides
$120,409,000 for nuclear safeguards, an increase of $3,157,000
from the current year appropriation. The Committee
recommendation provides $9,000,000 for critical infrastructure
protection, an increase of $6,900,000 over the current year
appropriation.
Security Investigations.--The Committee recommendation
provides $33,000,000, the amount of the budget request. The
amount provided includes an off-set of $20,000,000 from program
organizations that will be responsible for funding additional
security investigation requirements.
Emergency Management.--The Committee recommendation
provides $37,311,000 for emergency management. The amount
provided reflects the transfer of $44,205,000 associated with
the nuclear emergency search team and $12,084,000 associated
with the accident response group to the NNSA, as required by
Public Law 106-65. The Committee recommendation otherwise
provides the amount of the budget request.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation provides
$89,367,000 for program direction, the amount of the budget
request.
independent oversight and performance assurance
The Committee recommendation provides $14,937,000 for
independent oversight and performance assurance, the amount of
the budget request.
The independent oversight and performance assurance program
provides independent evaluation and oversight of safeguards,
security, emergency management and cyber security for the
Department at the Secretary's direction.
Counterintelligence
An appropriation of $45,200,000 is provided for the
counterintelligence activities of the Department of Energy.
This is an increase of $6,000,000 over the current years
appropriation.
The Counterintelligence program has the mission of
enhancing the protection of sensitive technologies,
information, and expertise against foreign intelligence,
industrial intelligence, and terrorist attempts to acquire
nuclear weapons information or advanced technologies from the
National Laboratories.
Advanced accelerator applications
The Committee recommendation includes $60,000,000 to
support advanced accelerator applications. That amount includes
$5,000,000 for research and development of technologies for
economic and environmentally sound refinement of spent nuclear
fuel at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.
The Committee is encouraged by the possibilities for
leveraging the work accomplished thus far in the accelerator
production of tritium (APT) program to accomplish a wide range
of science and technology missions. Importantly, advanced,
high-energy accelerators could be central to a future strategy
to transmute spent nuclear fuel into less toxic, shorter-lived
materials, thereby ensuring greater public acceptance of a
nuclear waste repository.
In order to pursue these important technology opportunities
while still completing necessary design work for a facility
capable of producing tritium to meet possible future defense
requirements, the Committee directs the Department to establish
an Office of Advanced Accelerator Applications (AAA) within the
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. The mission
of the AAA program shall include conducting scientific,
engineering research, development and demonstrations on: (1)
accelerator production of tritium as a back-up technology; (2)
transmutation of spent nuclear fuel and waste; (3) material
science; and (4) other advanced accelerator applications. The
Committee further directs that the Department transfer the APT
program from the Office of Defense Programs within the NNSA to
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology for
integration into the AAA office. AAA should assure that any
accelerator developed by the program will be capable of
producing tritium for the nation's nuclear stockpile, based on
requirements identified by the Office of Defense Programs. The
Committee encourages the participation of international
collaborators, industrial partners, and support for new
graduate engineering and science students and professors at
U.S. universities.
The Committee further directs the Department to provide the
Committee with a plan by March 1, 2001, that details how the
mission of the AAA program will be accomplished and the annual
level of funding required to support these missions. The
Department shall thereafter submit to Congress an annual report
of the progress in each of its mission areas.
environment, safety and health
The Committee recommendation provided $133,680,000 for
Environmental, Safety and Health activities including
$22,604,000 for program direction. The mission of the Office of
Environmental, Safety and Health is to protect the health and
safety of Department of Energy workers, the public, and the
environment and is to be the Department's independent advocate
for safety, health and the environment.
The Committee notes that the effective management, storage,
retrieval, and integration of environmental, scientific and
medical records is important to ensuring public health and
safety throughout the Department of Energy complex. Current
Department record keeping is managed at local offices using a
variety of methods and formats. Furthermore, current approaches
to digitization contain overlapping functions, are not
standardized, and may result in records with a very short
useful life. Integrated management of these records would
ensure data preservation and access, and may result in
substantial savings through reduced information technology
operations and maintenance costs. Therefore, the Committee
recommendation includes $5,000,000 to establish a program at
the University of Nevada-Las Vegas for Department-wide
management of electronic records.
The Committee raises a concern that the Department's
current program of medical screening and education at the
gaseous diffusion plants will not be sufficient to complete all
necessary screening and evaluation under the current contract
period. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to
ensure that all necessary screening and evaluation of workers,
both current and former, is adequate and that those workers
with an elevated risk of lung cancer will receive a lung scan.
The Committee recommendation also provides $1,750,000 for the
University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky to
undertake epidemiological studies of workers to identify
exposure pathways, and $880,000 to provide medical screening
for workers employed at the Amchitka Nuclear Weapons Test Site.
For nearly 50 years, the State of Nevada has been the
principal location for the testing of the nuclear weapons
stockpile. The Committee is aware that the State of Nevada has
identified deficiencies in its Cancer Registry, Vital
Statistics, and Birth Defects Registry activities. The
Committee recommendation makes available up to $1,000,000 from
within available funds to allow for the enhancement of these
long-term health surveillance activities.
Energy Employees Compensation Initiative.--The
Administration proposed to establish an occupational illness
compensation program for current and former workers at the
Department's nuclear facilities. The Committee recommendation
includes $17,000,000 for this initiative, the same as the
budget request, within Environment, Safety and Health, and
makes the appropriation contingent upon enactment of
authorizing legislation.
Worker and Community Transition
The Committee has provided an appropriation of $24,500,000
for these activities for fiscal year 2001. This is the same as
the budget request and the level recommended by the Senate
authorizing committee.
The Worker and Community Transition budget provides funding
for activities associated with enhanced benefits beyond those
required by contract, existing company policy or collective
bargaining agreements at defense nuclear facilities. The goals
of the program are to mitigate the impacts on workers and
communities from contractor work force restructuring, and to
assist community planning for all site conversions, while
managing the transition to the reduced work force that will
better meet ongoing mission requirements through the
application of best business practices.
Under the USEC Privatization Act, the Department has a
responsibility to mitigate the impact of layoffs at the
Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, gaseous diffusion
plants. On February 3, 2000, USEC announced its intention to
reduce its workforce at the two plants by 850 positions with
workers separating in July 2000. In light of the adverse
economic conditions in these communities, the Office of Worker
and Community Transition developed worker separation benefits,
in consultation with stakeholders, to encourage voluntary
separations and mitigate the impact on separating workers.
These effort required the utilization of all available funds,
including prior year uncosted funds. The Committee recognizes
that the need to divert funding to gaseous diffusion plant
workers at Portsmouth and Paducah during the current fiscal
year made it impossible for the Office of Worker and Community
Transition to provide a full portfolio of community grants.
Under the circumstances, the Committee supports the
Department's decision to divert these funds, but expects
communities that were denied funding this year be granted
priority status in fiscal year 2001. These communities include
the Nevada Test Site; Miamisburg, Ohio; Oak Ridge, Tennessee;
Pinellas, Florida; Hanford, Washington, northern and central
New Mexico and the Savanah River Site in South Carolina.
The Committee strongly objects to the Department's decision
to remove the requirement that management and operating
contracts at DOE sites include provisions for economic
development activities in the communities surrounding such
sites. The Committee directs the Department to include, to the
greatest extent practicable, a requirement that such
contractors make a significant financial contribution to local
area economic development, job creation activities, and other
community activities. The Department should develop such
requirements in consultation with the local elected officials
representing the impacted communities.
Office of Hearings and Appeals
An appropriation of $3,000,000 is recommended for the
Office of Hearings and Appeals. The Office of Hearings and
Appeals conduct all of the Department's adjudicative process
and provides various administrative remedies as may be
required. The goal is to promote successful and uninterrupted
DOE operations through the deliberate, expeditious and
equitable resolution of all claims of adverse impact emanating
from the operations of the Department.
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $111,574,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 112,000,000
House allowance......................................... 200,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 292,000,000
The Committee recommends $292,000,000 for defense nuclear
waste disposal, an increase of $180,000,000 over the current
year appropriation.
Since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
amended, the nuclear waste fund has incurred costs for
activities related to disposal of high-level waste generated
from the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of
Energy. At the end of fiscal year 1998, the balance owed by the
Federal Government to the nuclear waste fund was approaching
$1,500,000,000 (including principal and interest). The
``Defense nuclear waste disposal'' appropriation was
established to ensure payment of the Federal Government's
contribution to the nuclear waste repository program. Through
fiscal year 1999, a total of $1,176,830,000 has been
appropriated to support nuclear waste repository activities
attributable to atomic energy defense activities.
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES
Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in
the table at the end of this title.
Power Marketing Administrations
Public Law 95-91 transferred to the Department of Energy
the power marketing functions under section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 and all other functions of the Department
of the Interior with respect to the Bonneville Power
Administration, Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern
Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the
Bureau of Reclamation, now included in the Western Area Power
Administration.
All power marketing administrations except Bonneville are
funded annually with appropriations, and related receipts are
deposited in the Treasury. Bonneville operations are self-
financed under authority of Public Law 93-454, the Federal
Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974, which
authorizes Bonneville to use its revenues to finance operating
costs, maintenance and capital construction, and sell bonds to
the Treasury if necessary to finance any remaining capital
program requirements.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request provides authority for
the use of offsetting collections from the sale of electricity
to finance purchase of power and wheeling expenses previously
funded by direct appropriations.
The Committee is aware that in response to FERC Order No.
2000 concerning Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs),
efforts are underway throughout the PMAs' marketing territories
to explore and pursue formation of RTOs. The PMAs are actively
participating in those efforts. We understand that if a PMA
ultimately participates in an RTO, the impacts on certain PMA
employees could be significant. The Committee encourages the
PMA Administrators to use whatever administrative authorities
are at their disposal with regard to accrued leave, seniority,
health and retirement benefits, and other related matters to
ensure that PMA employees have an equitable opportunity to
compete for jobs in the RTOs. If it becomes apparent that
existing administrative tools are inadequate to address these
matters, legislative action may be necessary.
bonneville power administration fund
The Bonneville Power Administration is the Federal electric
power marketing agency in the Pacific Northwest, a 300,000-
square-mile service area that encompasses Oregon, Washington,
Idaho, western Montana, and small portions of adjacent Western
States in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville markets
hydroelectric power from 29 Corps of Engineers and Bureau of
Reclamation projects, as well as thermal energy from non-
Federal generating facilities in the region. Bonneville also
markets and exchanges surplus electric power interregionally
over the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie with
California, and in Canada over interconnections with utilities
in British Columbia.
Bonneville constructs, operates, and maintains the Nation's
largest high-voltage transmission system, consisting of over
15,000 circuit-miles of transmission line and 324 substations
with an installed capacity of 21,500 megawatts.
Public Law 93-454, the Federal Columbia River Transmission
System Act of 1974, placed Bonneville on a self-financed basis.
With the passage in 1980 of Public Law 96-501, the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act,
Bonneville's responsibilities were expanded to include meeting
the net firm load growth of the region, investing in cost-
effective, regionwide energy conservation, and acquiring
generating resources to meet these requirements.
Borrowing authority.--A total of $3,750,000,000 has been
made available to Bonneville as permanent borrowing authority.
Each year the Committee reviews the budgeted amounts Bonneville
plans to use of this total and reports a recommendation on
these borrowing requirements. For fiscal year 2001, the
Committee recommends an additional increment of $331,200,000 in
new borrowing authority, the same as the budget request, for
transmission system construction, system replacement, energy
resources, fish and wildlife, and capitol equipment programs.
Repayment.--During fiscal year 1999, Bonneville will pay
the Treasury $595,000,000, of which $164,000,000 is to repay
principal on the Federal investment in these facilities.
Limitation on direct loans.--The Committee recommends that
no new direct loans be made in fiscal year 2001.
Budget revisions and notification.--The Committee expects
Bonneville to adhere to the borrowing authority estimates
recommended by the Congress and promptly inform the Committee
of any exceptional circumstances which would necessitate the
need for Bonneville to obligate borrowing authority in excess
of such amounts.
Language in included in the bill which specifically
approves the expenditure of funds to initiate work on the Nez
Perce Tribe resident fish substitution program, and the Couer
D'Alene Tribe trout production facility.
The Committee is aware of and supports BPA's efforts to
replace outdated microwave communications systems with fiber
optics. Given the potential benefits, BPA is urged to continue
efforts related to open-access policy.
The Committee is aware that in response to FERC's Order
2000 respecting Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO),
efforts are underway in the Pacific Northwest to explore and
pursue formation of an RTO. The Bonneville Power Administration
is actively participating in those efforts. The Committee
understands that if BPA ultimately participates in an RTO, the
impacts on BPA Transmission Business Line employees could be
significant. The Committee encourages the BPA Administrator to
use available administrative authorities with regard to accrued
leave, seniority, health and retirement benefits, and other
related matters to ensure that BPA Transmission Business Line
employees have an equitable opportunity to compete for jobs in
the RTO. If it becomes apparent that existing administrative
tools are inadequate to address these matters, legislative
action may be necessary.
operation and maintenance, southeastern power administration
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $39,579,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 3,900,000
House allowance......................................... 3,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,900,000
The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric
power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 10
Southeastern States. There are 23 projects now in operation
with an installed capacity of 3,092 megawatts. Southeastern
does not own or operate any transmission facilities and carries
out its marketing program by utilizing the existing
transmission systems of the power utilities in the area. This
is accomplished through transmission arrangements between
Southeastern and each of the area utilities with transmission
lines connected to the projects. The utility agrees to deliver
specified amounts of Federal power to customers of the
Government, and Southeastern agrees to compensate the utility
for the wheeling service performed.
The Committee concurs with the financing of purchased power
and wheeling costs as proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget
request.
operation and maintenance, southwestern power administration
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $27,891,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 28,100,000
House allowance......................................... 28,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,100,000
The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing
agent for the power generated at Corps of Engineers'
hydroelectric plants in the six-State area of Kansas, Oklahoma,
Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana with a total installed
capacity of 2,158 megawatts. It operates and maintains some
1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating projects, and
24 substations, and sells its power at wholesale primarily to
publicly and cooperatively owned electric distribution
utilities.
The Committee concurs with the financing of purchased power
and wheeling costs as proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget
request.
construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance western area
power administration
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $192,602,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 164,916,000
House allowance......................................... 160,930,000
Committee recommendation................................ 164,916,000
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 16,727 miles
of high-voltage transmission lines with 257 substations.
Western distributes power generated by 55 plants with a maximum
operating capacity of 10,576 megawatts.
Western, through its power marketing program, must secure
revenues sufficient to meet the annual costs of operation and
maintenance of the generating and transmission facilities,
purchased power, wheeling, and other expenses, in order to
repay all of the power investment with interest, and to repay
that portion of the Government's irrigation and other nonpower
investments which are beyond the water users' repayment
capability. Under the Colorado River Basin power marketing
fund, which encompasses the Colorado River Basin, Fort Peck,
and Colorado River storage facilities, all operation and
maintenance and power marketing expenses are financed from
revenues.
The Committee concurs with the financing of purchased power
and wheeling costs as proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget
request.
falcon and amistad operating and maintenance fund
Creation of the Falcon and Amistad operating and
maintenance fund was directed by the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, fiscal years 1994-95. This legislation also
directed that the fund be administered by the Administrator of
the Western Area Power Administration for use by the
Commissioner of the United States Section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission to defray operation, maintenance,
and emergency costs for the hydroelectric facilities at the
Falcon and Amistad Dams in Texas.
The Committee recommendation is $2,670,000, the same as the
budget request.
recommendation summaries
Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in
the table at the end of this title.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $174,950,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 175,200,000
House allowance......................................... 175,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 175,200.000
salaries and expenses--revenues applied
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $174,950,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 175,200,000
House allowance......................................... 175,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 175,200,000
The Committee recommendation provides $175,200,000 for the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Revenues are
established at a rate equal to the amount provided for program
activities, resulting in a net appropriation of zero.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates key
interstate aspects of the electric power, natural gas, oil
pipeline, and hydroelectric industries. FERC chooses regulatory
approaches that foster competitive markets whenever possible,
assures access to reliable service at a reasonable price, and
gives full and fair consideration to environmental and
community impacts in assessing the public interest of energy
projects. Due to major changes in the energy sector over the
past decade, FERC will be shifting away for its traditional
regulation of energy industries to combining its regulation of
energy markets into one program.
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current year Budget House Committee
Project title enacted estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY SUPPLY
RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
Renewable energy technologies:
Biomass/biofuels energy systems:
Power systems........................... 32,500 47,830 33,462 47,600
Transportation.......................... 39,500 54,110 46,160 43,750
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Biomass/biofuels energy 72,000 101,940 79,622 91,350
systems..............................
Biomass/biofuels energy research................ 26,740 26,740 26,740 26,740
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Biomass......................... 98,740 128,680 106,362 118,090
Geothermal technology development............... 24,000 26,970 26,925 28,000
Hydrogen research............................... 25,000 22,940 23,000 30,950
Hydrogen energy research........................ 2,970 2,970 2,970 2,970
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Hydrogen........................ 27,970 25,910 25,970 33,920
Hydropower...................................... 5,000 5,000 3,488 5,500
Solar energy:
Concentrating solar power................... 15,410 14,940 13,800 14,000
Photovoltaic energy systems................. 67,000 81,450 75,775 76,500
Photovoltaic energy research................ 2,847 2,847 2,847 2,847
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Photovoltaic.................... 69,847 84,297 78,622 79,347
Solar building technology research.......... 2,000 4,470 3,950 4,500
Solar photoconversion energy research....... 14,260 14,260 14,260 14,260
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Solar energy.................... 101,517 117,967 110,632 112,107
Wind energy systems............................. 33,000 50,140 36,900 43,617
Wind energy research............................ 283 283 283 283
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Wind............................ 33,283 50,423 37,183 43,900
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Renewable energy technologies...... 290,510 354,950 310,560 341,517
===============================================================
Electric energy systems and storage:
High temperature superconducting R&D........; 31,910 31,900 31,900 41,000
Energy storage systems...................... 3,500 5,000 4,000 6,000
Transmission reliability.................... 3,000 10,960 5,975 12,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Electric energy systems and storage 38,410 47,860 41,875 59,000
===============================================================
Renewable support and implementation:
Departmental energy management.............. .............. 4,988 2,000 2,000
International renewable energy program...... 4,000 11,460 4,000 6,000
Renewable energy production incentive 1,500 4,000 3,925 4,000
program....................................
Renewable Indian energy resources........... 4,000 5,000 2,000 6,600
Renewable program support................... 5,000 6,500 4,000 3,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Renewable support and 14,500 31,948 15,925 21,600
implementation...........................
===============================================================
National renewable energy laboratory............ 1,100 1,900 4,000 4,000
Program direction............................... 17,720 18,159 18,159 18,000
===============================================================
TOTAL, RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES......... 362,240 454,817 390,519 444,117
===============================================================
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Advanced radioisotope power system.............. 34,500 30,864 29,200 34,200
===============================================================
Isotopes: Isotope support and production........ 13,000 16,218 22,715 16,715
Construction: 99-E-201 Isotope production 7,500 500 500 4,500
facility (LANL)............................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Isotope support and production.. 20,500 16,718 23,215 21,215
Offsetting collections.......................... .............. .............. -8,000 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Isotopes........................... 20,500 16,718 15,215 21,215
===============================================================
University reactor fuel assistance and support.. 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
===============================================================
Research and development:
Civilian research and development........... 9,000 .............. .............. ..............
Nuclear energy plant optimization........... 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Nuclear energy research initiative.......... 22,500 34,903 22,500 41,500
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Research and development........... 36,500 39,903 27,500 46,500
===============================================================
Infrastructure:
ANL-West operations......................... .............. .............. 39,150 ..............
Fast flux test facility (FFTF).............. 28,000 38,524 39,000 44,010
Test reactor area landlord.................. 6,070 7,415 7,575 7,575
Construction:
99-E-200 Test reactor area 1,430 879 925 925
electrical utility upgrade, Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory, ID
95-E-201 Test reactor area fire and 1,500 458 500 500
life safety improvements, Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory, ID
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction............ 2,930 1,337 1,425 1,425
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Test reactor area 9,000 8,752 9,000 9,000
landlord.........................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Infrastructure............. 37,000 47,276 87,150 53,010
===============================================================
Nuclear facilities management................... 80,000 66,126 .............. 74,000
===============================================================
Termination activities:
EBR-II shutdown............................. .............. .............. 8,800 ..............
Disposition of spent fuel and legacy .............. .............. 16,200 ..............
materials..................................
Disposition technology activities........... .............. .............. 9,850 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Termination activities............. .............. .............. 34,850 ..............
===============================================================
Uranium programs................................ 43,500 47,779 .............. ..............
Program direction............................... 24,700 27,620 25,900 24,700
General reduction............................... .............. .............. .............. -3,541
===============================================================
TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY..................... 288,700 288,286 231,815 262,084
===============================================================
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH
Environment, safety and health.................. 20,000 19,906 15,002 20,000
Program direction............................... 18,998 19,998 19,998 18,998
General reduction............................... .............. .............. .............. -677
===============================================================
TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH..... 38,998 39,904 35,000 38,321
===============================================================
ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
Technical information management program........ 1,600 1,802 1,250 1,600
Program direction............................... 7,000 7,335 7,350 7,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Technical information management 8,600 9,137 8,600 8,600
program..................................
===============================================================
Transfer to OSHA................................ 1,000 .............. .............. ..............
General reduction............................... .............. .............. .............. -150
===============================================================
TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.......... 9,600 9,137 8,600 8,450
===============================================================
Subtotal, Energy supply................... 699,538 792,144 665,934 752,972
===============================================================
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law -1,155 .............. .............. ..............
106-113).......................................
Renewable energy research program............... -47,100 -47,100 -47,100 -47,100
General reduction............................... -6,000 .............. .............. ..............
Transfer from Geothermal and USEC............... -5,821 -12,000 .............. -12,000
Contractor travel savings....................... -1,500 .............. .............. ..............
Offset from revenue sharing..................... .............. -2,352 -2,352 -2,352
===============================================================
TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY...................... 637,962 730,692 616,482 691,520
===============================================================
NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Site closure.................................... 216,946 81,248 81,636 81,636
===============================================================
Site/project completion......................... 95,250 63,798 59,721 54,721
Construction: 93-E-900 Long-term storage of TMI- 2,500 .............. .............. ..............
2 fuel, INEL...................................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Site/project completion............ 97,750 63,798 59,721 54,721
===============================================================
Post 2006 completion............................ 18,922 137,766 139,644 178,244
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law -1,268 .............. .............. ..............
106-113).......................................
General reduction............................... .............. .............. .............. -5,460
===============================================================
TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL 332,350 282,812 281,001 309,141
MANAGEMENT...............................
===============================================================
URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND
DECOMMISSIONING FUND
Decontamination and decommissioning............. 220,198 264,588 .............. 273,038
Uranium/thorium reimbursement................... 30,000 30,000 .............. 30,000
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law -951 .............. .............. ..............
106-113).......................................
General reduction............................... .............. .............. .............. -5,260
===============================================================
TOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION 249,247 294,588 .............. 297,778
AND DECOMMISSIONING......................
===============================================================
URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund:
Decontamination and decommissioning......... .............. .............. 230,000 ..............
Uranium/thorium reimbursement............... .............. .............. 30,000 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Uranium enrichment D&D; fund........ .............. .............. 260,000 ..............
===============================================================
Other Uranium Activities:
Maintenance of facilities and inventories... .............. .............. 29,193 ..............
Pre-existing liabilities.................... .............. .............. 11,330 ..............
Depleted UF6 conversion project............. .............. .............. 12,877 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Other uranium activities........... .............. .............. 53,400 ..............
===============================================================
Subtotal, Uranium facilities maint AND .............. .............. 313,400 ..............
remediation..............................
===============================================================
Transfer from USEC.............................. .............. .............. -12,000 ..............
===============================================================
TOTAL, URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND .............. .............. 301,400 ..............
REMEDIATION..............................
===============================================================
SCIENCE
High energy physics:
Research and technology..................... 229,190 236,000 224,820 216,020
Facility operations......................... 450,000 440,872 457,510 428,610
Construction:
00-G-307 SLAC office building........... 2,000 5,200 5,200 5,200
99-G-306 Wilson hall safety 4,700 4,200 4,200 4,200
improvements, Fermilab.................
98-G-304 Neutrinos at the main injector, 22,000 23,000 23,000 23,000
Fermilab...............................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................ 28,700 32,400 32,400 32,400
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Facility operations......... 478,700 473,272 489,910 461,010
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, High energy physics............ 707,890 709,272 714,730 677,030
===============================================================
Nuclear physics................................. 352,000 365,069 369,890 350,274
===============================================================
Biological and environmental research........... 441,500 435,954 404,000 441,500
01-E-300 Laboratory for Comparative and .............. 2,500 .............. 2,500
Functional Genomics, ORNL..................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Biological and environmental 441,500 438,454 404,000 444,000
research.................................
===============================================================
Basic energy sciences:
Materials sciences.......................... 405,000 448,964 413,000 408,363
Chemical sciences........................... 209,582 219,090 209,000 216,229
Engineering and geosciences................. 37,545 40,304 38,000 39,816
Energy biosciences.......................... 31,000 33,662 31,000 28,274
Construction: 99-E-334 Spallation neutron 100,000 261,900 100,000 221,900
source (ORNL)..............................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Basic energy sciences.............. 783,127 1,003,920 791,000 914,582
===============================================================
Other energy research:
Advanced scientific computing research...... 132,000 179,817 137,000 139,970
Energy research analyses.................... 1,000 988 1,000 1,000
Multiprogram energy labs--facility support:
Infrastructure support.................. 2,160 1,023 1,160 1,160
Oak Ridge landlord...................... 11,800 7,475 10,711 10,711
Construction: MEL-001 Multiprogram 18,351 22,059 22,059 22,059
energy laboratory infrastructure
projects, various locations............
Multiprogram general purpose facilities:
Construction: 94-E-363 Roofing 749 .............. .............. ..............
improvements (ORNL)................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Multiprogram energy labs 33,060 30,557 33,930 33,930
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Other energy research...... 166,060 211,362 171,930 174,900
===============================================================
Fusion energy sciences program.................. 250,000 243,907 255,000 227,270
Safeguards and security......................... .............. 49,818 .............. ..............
===============================================================
Program direction:
Field offices............................... 78,748 82,929 82,062 78,307
Headquarters................................ 52,360 51,408 51,438 51,438
Science education........................... .............. 6,500 4,500 3,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Program direction.................. 131,108 140,837 138,000 132,745
===============================================================
Subtotal, Science......................... 2,831,685 3,162,639 2,844,550 2,920,801
===============================================================
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law -12,224 .............. .............. ..............
106-113).......................................
Contractor travel savings....................... -10,834 .............. .............. ..............
General reduction............................... -21,000 .............. -13,635 -50,689
===============================================================
TOTAL, SCIENCE............................ 2,787,627 3,162,639 2,830,915 2,870,112
===============================================================
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
Administrative operations:
Salaries and expenses:
Office of the Secretary................. 4,940 6,648 5,000 6,648
Board of contract appeals............... 838 878 878 878
Chief financial officer................. 26,000 30,748 28,000 30,748
Contract reform......................... 3,000 2,500 2,500 2,500
Congressional and intergovernmental 4,910 5,146 5,000 5,146
affairs................................
Economic impact and diversity........... 4,700 5,126 5,100 5,126
Field management........................ 1,000 .............. .............. ..............
General counsel......................... 20,750 22,724 21,800 22,724
International affairs................... .............. 9,400 7,000 9,400
Management and administration........... 98,000 78,882 77,800 78,882
Policy office........................... 14,000 6,688 6,600 6,688
Public affairs.......................... 3,700 4,150 3,900 4,150
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Salaries and expenses....... 181,838 172,890 163,578 172,890
Program support:
Minority economic impact.................... 1,700 1,498 1,500 1,500
Policy analysis and system studies.......... 350 406 422 422
Environmental policy studies................ 1,000 1,600 1,000 1,000
Scientific and technical training........... 450 .............. .............. ..............
Corporate management information program.... 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Program support................. 15,500 15,504 14,922 14,922
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative operations.......... 197,338 188,394 178,500 187,812
===============================================================
Cost of work for others......................... 34,027 34,027 34,027 34,027
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Departmental Administration..... 231,365 222,421 212,527 221,839
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law -784 .............. .............. ..............
106-113).......................................
Use of prior year balances and other adjustments -15,000 -8,000 -8,000 -8,000
Transfer from other defense activities.......... -10,000 .............. -51,000 ..............
General reduction............................... .............. .............. .............. -3,711
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental administration (gross) 205,581 214,421 153,527 210,128
Miscellaneous revenues.......................... -106,887 -128,762 -111,000 -128,762
===============================================================
TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net).. 98,694 85,659 42,527 81,366
===============================================================
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Office of Inspector General..................... 29,500 33,000 31,500 28,988
===============================================================
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
Stewardship operation and maintenance:
Core stockpile stewardship.................. 1,610,355 .............. .............. ..............
Stockpile management........................ 1,804,621 .............. .............. ..............
Directed stockpile work:
Stockpile research and development.......... .............. 243,300 243,300 268,300
Stockpile maintenance....................... .............. 257,994 266,994 282,994
Stockpile evaluation........................ .............. 151,710 162,710 171,710
Dismantlement/disposal...................... .............. 29,260 29,260 29,260
Production support.......................... .............. 149,939 149,939 149,939
Field engineering, training and manuals..... .............. 4,400 4,400 4,400
Safeguards and Security Amend. reduction.... .............. -17,427 .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Directed stockpile work......... .............. 819,176 856,603 906,603
Campaigns:
Primary certification....................... .............. 41,400 41,400 51,400
Dynamic materials properties................ .............. 64,408 64,408 64,408
Advanced radiography........................ .............. 43,000 43,000 58,000
Construction: 97-D-102 Dual-axis 61,000 35,232 35,232 35,232
radiographic hydrotest facility (LANL),
Los Alamos, NM.........................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Advanced radiography........ 61,000 78,232 78,232 93,232
Secondary certification and nuclear systems .............. 52,964 52,964 52,964
margins....................................
Enhanced surety............................. .............. 40,600 40,600 40,600
Weapons system engineering certification.... .............. 16,300 16,300 16,300
Certification in hostile environments....... .............. 15,400 15,400 15,400
Enhanced surveillance....................... .............. 89,651 89,651 106,651
Advanced design and production technologies. .............. 75,735 75,735 75,735
Inertial confinement fusion................. .............. 120,800 290,500 120,800
Construction:
96-D-111 National ignition facility, 248,100 73,469 74,100 74,100
LLNL...............................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Inertial confinement 248,100 194,269 364,600 194,900
fusion...........................
Defense computing and modeling.............. .............. 249,100 706,175 249,100
Construction:
01-D-101 Distributed information .............. 2,300 2,300 2,300
systems laboratory, SNL, Livermore,
CA.................................
00-D-103, Terascale simulation 8,000 4,900 5,000 5,000
facility, LLNL, Livermore, CA......
00-D-105 Strategic computing 26,000 56,000 56,000 56,000
complex, LANL, Los Alamos, NM......
00-D-107 Joint computational 1,800 6,700 6,700 6,700
engineering laboratory, SNL,
Albuquerque, NM....................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction............ 35,800 69,900 70,000 70,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense computing and 35,800 319,000 776,175 319,100
modeling.........................
Pit manufacturing readiness................. .............. 108,038 110,038 123,038
Secondary readiness......................... .............. 15,000 15,000 25,000
Materials readiness......................... .............. 40,511 40,511 40,511
Tritium readiness........................... .............. 77,000 77,000 58,000
Construction:
98-D-125 Tritium extraction 33,000 75,000 75,000 75,000
facility, SR.......................
98-D-126 Accelerator production of 36,000 .............. 25,000 ..............
Tritium, various locations.........
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction............ 69,000 75,000 100,000 75,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Tritium readiness....... 69,000 152,000 177,000 133,000
Safeguards and Security Amend. reduction.... .............. -52,204 .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Campaigns....................... 413,900 1,251,304 1,958,014 1,352,239
Readiness in technical base and facilities:
Operations of facilities.................... .............. 1,313,432 1,198,732 1,449,721
Program readiness........................... .............. 75,800 75,800 75,800
Special projects............................ .............. 48,297 31,297 53,297
Material recycle and recovery............... .............. 22,018 22,018 37,018
Containers.................................. .............. 7,876 7,876 7,876
Storage..................................... .............. 9,075 9,075 9,075
Advanced simulation and computing........... .............. 477,075 .............. 477,075
Safeguards and Security Amend. reduction.... .............. -220,867 .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and .............. 1,732,706 1,344,798 2,109,862
fac......................................
Construction:
01-D-103 Preliminary project engineering .............. 14,500 14,500 29,500
and design, various locations..........
01-D-124 HEU storage facility, Y-12 .............. 17,749 17,800 17,800
plant, Oak Ridge, TN...................
01-D-126 Weapons Evaluation Test .............. 3,000 3,000 3,000
Laboratory Pantex Plant, Amarillo, TX..
99-D-102 Rehabilitation of maintenance 3,900 .............. .............. ..............
facility, LLNL, Livermore, CA..........
99-D-103 Isotope sciences facilities, 2,000 4,975 5,000 5,000
LLNL, Livermore, CA....................
99-D-104 Protection of real property 2,400 2,786 2,800 2,800
(roof reconstruction-Phase II), LLNL,
Livermore, CA..........................
99-D-105 Central health physics 1,000 .............. .............. ..............
cailbration facility, LANL, Los Alamos,
NM.....................................
99-D-106 Model validation AND system 6,500 5,200 5,200 5,200
certification center, SNL, Albuquerque,
NM.....................................
99-D-108 Renovate existing roadways, 5,000 1,874 2,000 2,000
Nevada Test Site, NV...................
99-D-122 Rapid reactivation, various 11,700 .............. .............. ..............
locations..............................
99-D-125 Replace boilers and controls, .............. 13,000 13,000 13,000
Kansas City plant, Kansas City, MO.....
99-D-127 Stockpile management 17,000 23,566 23,765 23,765
restructuring initiative, Kansas City
plant, Kansas City, MO.................
99-D-128 Stockpile management 3,429 4,998 4,998 4,998
restructuring initiative, Pantex
consolidation, Amarillo, TX............
98-D-123 Stockpile management 21,800 30,767 30,767 30,767
restructuring initiative, Tritium
factory modernization and
consolidation, Savannah River, SC......
98-D-124 Stockpile management 3,150 .............. .............. ..............
restructuring initiative, Y-12
consolidation, Oak Ridge, TN...........
97-D-123 Structural upgrades, Kansas 4,800 2,864 2,918 2,918
City plant, Kansas City, KS............
96-D-102 Stockpile stewardship 2,640 .............. .............. ..............
facilities revitalization (Phase VI),
various locations......................
96-D-104 Processing and environmental 10,900 .............. .............. ..............
technology laboratory (SNL)............
95-D-102 Chemistry and metallurgy 15,000 13,337 13,337 13,337
research (CMR) upgrades project (LANL).
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................ 111,219 138,616 139,085 154,085
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Readiness in technical base 111,219 1,871,322 1,483,883 2,263,947
and fac..............................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Stewardship operation and 3,940,095 3,941,802 4,298,500 4,522,789
maintenance..........................
===============================================================
Inertial fusion................................. 227,600 .............. .............. ..............
===============================================================
Technology transfer/education:
Technology transfer......................... 14,500 .............. .............. ..............
Education................................... 18,600 .............. .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Technology transfer/education...... 33,100 .............. .............. ..............
===============================================================
Transportation safeguards division:
Operations and equipment.................... 60,000 79,357 79,357 79,357
Program direction........................... 31,812 36,316 36,316 36,316
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Transportation safeguards division. 91,812 115,673 115,673 115,673
===============================================================
Safeguards and security......................... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Construction:
99-D-132 SMRI nuclear material 11,300 .............. 18,043 18,043
safeguards and security upgrade project
(LANL), Los Alamos, NM.................
88-D-123 Security enhancements, Pantex 3,500 .............. 2,713 2,713
plant, Amarillo, TX....................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................ 14,800 .............. 20,756 20,756
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Safeguards and security........ 14,800 .............. 20,756 20,756
===============================================================
Safeguards and security (SO):
Operations and maintenance.................. .............. 356,840 .............. ..............
Construction:
99-D-132 SMRI nuclear material .............. 18,043 .............. ..............
safeguards and security upgrade
project, LANL, Los Alamos, MN..........
88-D-123 Security enhancements, Pantex .............. 2,713 .............. ..............
plant, 1Amarillo, TX...................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Construction................... .............. 20,756 .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Program direction............................... 209,000 204,154 216,871 224,071
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons activities.............. 4,516,407 4,639,225 4,651,800 4,883,289
===============================================================
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law -16,887 .............. .............. ..............
106-113).......................................
Use of prior year balances...................... -7,668 .............. .............. ..............
Contractor travel savings....................... -30,000 .............. -46,000 ..............
Directed savings................................ -5,000 .............. .............. ..............
General reduction............................... -29,800 .............. -26,116 ..............
===============================================================
TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES................. 4,427,052 4,639,225 4,579,684 4,883,289
===============================================================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Nonproliferation and verification, R&D..........; 215,000 216,550 215,000 245,990
Construction: 500-D-192 Nonproliferation and 6,000 7,000 7,000 17,000
international security center (NISC), LANL.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nonproliferation and 221,000 223,550 222,000 262,990
verification, R&D........................;
===============================================================
Arms control.................................... 281,000 119,915 141,514 138,014
International materials protection, control, and .............. 146,081 169,856 173,856
accounting.....................................
Long-term nonproliferation program for Russia... .............. 100,000 .............. ..............
HEU transparency implementation................. 15,750 15,166 15,190 15,190
International nuclear safety.................... 15,000 18,902 20,000 20,000
===============================================================
Fissile materials disposition................... 134,766 .............. .............. ..............
U.S. surplus materials disposition.......... .............. 117,912 139,517 135,517
Russian surplus materials disposition....... .............. 34,803 40,000 40,000
Program direction--MD....................... 7,343 9,878 .............. 9,918
Construction:
01-D-407 Highly enriched uranium (HEU) .............. .............. 20,932 27,932
blend down, Savannah River, SC.........
01-D-142 Immobilization and associated .............. 3,000 3,000 3,000
processing facility, various locations.
99-D-141 Pit disassembly and conversion 18,751 20,000 20,000 20,000
facility, various locations............
99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication 12,375 15,000 18,000 21,000
facility various locations.............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................ 31,126 38,000 61,932 71,932
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fissile materials 173,235 200,593 241,449 257,367
disposition..........................
===============================================================
Program direction............................... 89,000 41,383 51,468 41,550
Use of prior year balances...................... -49,000 .............. .............. ..............
Directed savings................................ -5,000 .............. .............. ..............
Contractor travel savings....................... -11,885 .............. .............. ..............
===============================================================
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION... 729,100 865,590 861,477 908,967
===============================================================
NAVAL REACTORS
Naval reactors development...................... 633,000 623,063 627,500 644,500
Construction:
GPN-101 General plant projects, various 9,000 11,400 11,400 11,400
locations..............................
01-D-200 Major office replacement .............. 1,300 1,300 1,300
building, Schenectady, NY..............
98-D-200 Site laboratory/facility 3,000 .............. .............. ..............
upgrade, various locations.............
90-N-102 Expended core facility dry cell 12,000 16,000 16,000 16,000
project, Naval Reactors Facility, ID...
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................ 24,000 28,700 28,700 28,700
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Naval reactors development.. 657,000 651,763 656,200 673,200
===============================================================
Program direction............................... 20,600 21,320 21,400 21,400
===============================================================
TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS..................... 677,600 673,083 677,600 694,600
===============================================================
Office of the Administrator..................... .............. .............. .............. 10,000
TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY 5,833,752 6,177,898 6,118,761 6,496,856
ADMINISTRATION...........................
===============================================================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE
MGMT.
Site/project completion:
Operation and maintenance................... 902,002 856,812 900,167 897,975
Construction:
01-D-402 Intec cathodic protection .............. 481 500 500
system expansion project, Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID............
01-D-407 Highly enriched uranium (HEU) .............. 27,932 .............. ..............
blend down, Savannah River, SC.........
99-D-402 Tank farm support services, F&H; 3,100 7,714 7,714 7,714
area, Savannah River site, Aiken, SC...
99-D-404 Health physics instrumentation 5,000 4,277 4,300 4,300
laboratory (INEL), ID..................
98-D-401 H-tank farm storm water systems 2,977 .............. .............. ..............
upgrade, Savannah River, SC............
98-D-453 Plutonium stabilization and 16,860 1,690 1,690 1,690
handling system for PFP, Richland, WA..
98-D-700 Road rehabilitation (INEL), ID. 2,590 .............. .............. ..............
97-D-450 Savannah River nuclear material 4,000 .............. .............. ..............
storage, Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC
97-D-470 Regulatory monitoring and 12,220 3,949 3,949 3,949
bioassay laboratory, Savannah River
site, Aiken, SC........................
96-D-406 Spent nuclear fuels canister 20,941 .............. .............. ..............
storage and stabilization facility,
Richland, WA...........................
96-D-464 Electrical AND utility systems 11,971 .............. .............. ..............
upgrade, Idaho chemical processing
plant (INEL), ID.......................
96-D-471 CFC HVAC/chiller retrofit, 931 12,512 12,512 12,512
Savannah River site, Aiken, SC.........
92-D-140 F&H; canyon exhaust upgrades, .............. 8,879 8,879 8,879
Savannah River, SC.....................
86-D-103 Decontamination and waste 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
treatment facility (LLNL), Livermore,
CA.....................................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................ 82,590 69,434 41,544 41,544
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Site/project completion........ 984,592 926,246 941,711 939,519
===============================================================
Post 2006 completion:
Operation and maintenance................... 2,511,997 2,453,735 2,548,033 2,647,993
Uranium enrichment D&D; fund contribution.... 420,000 420,000 420,000 420,000
Construction:
01-D-403 Immobilized high level waste .............. 1,300 1,300 1,300
interim storage facility, Richland, WA.
00-D-401 Spent Nuclear Fuel treatment 7,000 .............. .............. ..............
and storage facility Title I AND II,
Savannah River, SC.....................
99-D-403 Privatization Phase I 13,988 7,812 7,812 7,812
infrastructure support, Richland, WA...
97-D-402 Tank farm restoration and safe 20,516 46,023 46,023 46,023
operations, Richland, WA...............
94-D-407 Initial tank retrieval systems, 4,060 17,385 17,385 17,385
Richland, WA...........................
93-D-187 High-level waste removal from 8,987 27,212 27,212 27,212
filled waste tanks, Savannah River, SC.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................ 54,551 99,732 99,732 99,732
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Post 2006 completion........... 2,986,548 2,973,467 3,067,765 3,167,725
===============================================================
Science and technology.......................... 230,500 195,032 242,548 252,948
Safeguards and security......................... .............. 203,748 .............. ..............
Program direction............................... 339,409 347,881 355,000 359,888
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense environmental management 4,541,049 4,646,374 4,607,024 4,720,080
===============================================================
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law -17,041 .............. .............. ..............
106-113).......................................
Use of prior year balances/general reduction.... -40,000 -34,317 -34,317 -34,317
Contractor travel savings....................... -6,000 .............. .............. ..............
Pension refund.................................. -8,700 -50,000 -50,000 -50,000
Directed savings................................ -2,000 .............. .............. ..............
===============================================================
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRON. RESTORATION AND 4,467,308 4,562,057 4,522,707 4,635,763
WASTE MGMT...............................
===============================================================
DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS
Site closure.................................... 1,064,492 1,027,942 1,082,297 1,082,297
Safeguards and security......................... .............. 54,772 .............. ..............
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law -4,045 .............. .............. ..............
106-113).......................................
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS 1,060,447 1,082,714 1,082,297 1,082,297
===============================================================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION
Privatization initiatives, various locations.... 233,000 539,976 284,092 349,092
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law -718 .............. .............. ..............
106-113).......................................
Use of prior year balances...................... -44,000 -25,092 -25,092 -25,092
===============================================================
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. 188,282 514,884 259,000 324,000
PRIVATIZATION............................
===============================================================
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT... 5,716,037 6,159,655 5,864,004 6,042,060
===============================================================
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Other national security programs:
Intelligence................................ 36,059 35,010 36,059 36,059
Construction: 01-D-800 Sensitive .............. 1,975 2,000 2,000
compartmented information facility, LLNL,
Livermore, CA..............................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Intelligence.................... 36,059 36,985 38,059 38,059
Security and emergency operations:
Nuclear safeguards...................... 69,100 123,566 116,409 120,409
Security investigations................. 33,000 38,597 33,000 33,000
Emergency management.................... 21,000 91,773 90,000 37,311
Program direction....................... .............. 89,367 92,967 89,367
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Security and emergency 123,100 343,303 332,376 280,087
operations...........................
Counterintelligence......................... 39,200 44,328 45,200 45,200
Advanced accelerator applications........... .............. .............. .............. 60,000
Independent oversight and performance 3,000 .............. .............. ..............
assurance..................................
Program direction....................... 2,000 14,937 14,937 14,937
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Independent oversight....... 5,000 14,937 14,937 14,937
Environment, safety and health (Defense).... 73,231 85,963 80,559 111,076
Program direction--EH................... 24,769 22,604 22,604 22,604
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Environment, safety AND 98,000 108,567 103,163 133,680
health (Defense).....................
Worker and community transition............. 21,000 21,497 21,500 21,500
Program direction--WT................... 3,500 3,000 3,000 3,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Worker and community 24,500 24,497 24,500 24,500
transition...........................
National Security programs administrative 10,000 .............. 51,000 ..............
support....................................
Office of hearings and appeals.............. 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Other national security programs 338,859 575,617 612,235 599,463
Contractor travel savings....................... -1,115 .............. .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Other national security programs... 337,744 575,617 612,235 599,463
===============================================================
Subtotal, Other defense activities........ 337,744 575,617 612,235 599,463
===============================================================
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law -6,545
