- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 128
106th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 106-58
======================================================================
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 2000
_______
June 2, 1999.--Ordered to be printed
Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of May 27, 1999
_______
Mr. Domenici, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1186]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1186)
making appropriations for energy and water development for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes,
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2000
Budget estimates considered by Senate................... $21,996,026,000
Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................ 21,717,280,000
The bill as reported to the Senate--
Below the budget estimate, 2000..................... -278,746,000
Below enacted bill, 1999............................ -439,545,000
C O N T E N T S
----------
TITLE I
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
Corps of Engineers--Civil:
Page
General investigations................................... 8
Construction, general.................................... 25
Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries......... 43
Operation and maintenance, general....................... 48
Regulatory program....................................... 68
Flood control and coastal emergencies.................... 68
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.......... 68
General expenses......................................... 69
TITLE II
Department of the Interior:
Central Utah project completion account...................... 71
Bureau of Reclamation: Water and related resources........... 71
California bay-delta ecosystem restoration................... 84
Bureau of Reclamation loan program account................... 85
Central Valley project restoration fund...................... 87
Policy and administrative expenses........................... 87
TITLE III
Department of Energy:
Energy Supply Programs....................................... 89
Solar and renewable energy............................... 89
Nuclear energy programs.................................. 92
Environment, safety, and health.......................... 93
Energy support activities................................ 93
Environmental management (nondefense)........................ 95
Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund.. 95
Nuclear waste fund........................................... 95
Science...................................................... 96
High energy physics...................................... 96
Nuclear physics.......................................... 96
Biological and environmental research.................... 96
Basic energy sciences.................................... 97
Other energy research programs........................... 97
Fusion energy sciences................................... 97
Departmental administration.................................. 97
Miscellaneous revenues................................... 97
Office of Inspector General.................................. 98
Atomic energy defense activities............................. 98
Weapon activities........................................ 98
Defense environmental restoration and waste management... 105
Site and project completion.............................. 106
Defense facility closure projects........................ 109
Defense environmental management privatization........... 109
Other defense activities................................. 110
Defense nuclear waste disposal........................... 114
Power marketing administrations:
Operations and maintenance, Southeastern Power
Administration......................................... 115
Operations and maintenance, Southwestern Power
Administration......................................... 116
Construction, rehabilitation, operations and maintenance,
Western Area Power Administration...................... 116
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission......................... 117
Salaries and expenses--revenues applied...................... 117
TITLE IV
Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.............................. 128
Denali Commission............................................ 128
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board...................... 128
Nuclear Regulatory Commission................................ 129
Office of Inspector General.................................. 130
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board......................... 130
Tennessee Valley Authority................................... 130
TITLE V
Rescissions...................................................... 131
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the
Senate......................................................... 132
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 133
Budgetary impact statement....................................... 136
Purpose
The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for
the fiscal year 2000 beginning October 1, 1999, and ending
September 30, 2000, 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 in title III;
and for related independent agencies and commissions, including
the Appalachian Regional Commission and Appalachian regional
development programs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and
the Tennessee Valley Authority in title IV.
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations
The fiscal year 2000 budget estimates for the bill total
$21,996,026,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The
recommendation of the Committee totals $21,717,280,000. This is
$278,746,000 below the budget estimates and $439,545,000 under
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
$21,280,000,000 in budget authority and $20,868,000,000 in
outlays for fiscal year 2000. The bill as recommended by the
Committee is within the subcommittee allocation for fiscal year
2000 in budget authority and outlays.
Bill Highlights
atomic energy defense activities
The amount recommended in the bill includes $12,443,500,000
for atomic energy defense activities. Major programs and
activities include:
Stockpile stewardship................................... $2,351,800,000
Stockpile management.................................... 2,025,300,000
Nonproliferation and national security.................. 822,300,000
Other defense programs.................................. 1,872,000,000
Defense waste management and environmental restoration.. 4,551,676,000
Defense facilities closure projects..................... 1,069,492,000
Defense environmental privatization..................... 228,000,000
energy supply
The bill recommended by the Committee provides a total of
$715,412,000 for energy research programs including:
Solar and renewable energy.............................. $353,900,000
Nuclear fission R&D.....................................; 287,700,000
nondefense environmental management
An appropriation of $327,922,000 is recommended for
nondefense environmental management activities of the
Department of Energy.
science
The Committee recommendation also provides a net
appropriation of $2,725,069,000 for general science and
research activities in life sciences, high energy physics, and
nuclear physics. Major programs are:
High energy physics research............................ $691,090,000
Nuclear physics......................................... 330,000,000
Basic energy sciences................................... 854,545,000
Biological and environmental R&D........................; 429,700,000
Magnetic fusion......................................... 220,614,000
regulatory and other independent agencies
Also recommended in the bill is $300,050,000 for various
regulatory and independent agencies of the Federal Government.
Major programs include:
Appalachian Regional Commission......................... $71,400,000
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.................... 170,000,000
Nuclear Regulatory Commission........................... 465,400,000
water resources development
Corps of Engineers:
General investigations.............................. $125,459,000
Construction........................................ 1,113,227,000
Flood control Mississippi River and tributaries..... 315,630,000
Operations and maintenance.......................... 1,790,043,000
Corps of Engineers, regulatory activities........... 115,000,000
Bureau of Reclamation:
California Bay-Delta restoration.................... 50,000,000
Central Valley project restoration fund............. 37,346,000
Water and related resource.......................... 612,451,000
Central Utah project completion..................... 39,370,000
The Committee has also recommended appropriations totaling
approximately $4,560,951,000 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 1998, flood control projects
prevented $13,700,000,000 in damages, and U.S. ports and
harbors annually handle about $600,000,000,000 in international
cargo generating over $150,000,000,000 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.
The Department of Energy, the Bureau of Reclamation, and
the Army Corps of Engineers shall each report in detail on the
specific use of Year 2000 conversion emergency funds provided
by the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 1999 and any other act. Each report shall
demonstrate how all of the funds obligated as of January 1,
2000 were directly applied to the Year 2000 conversion of
federal information technology systems. For any funds which
were used for purposes other than the Year 2000 conversion, the
report shall explain the use of such funds and specify the
provision which gave the agency the authority to spend the
funds for other purposes. The report shall also estimate what
portion of the emergency funds were used for technology
upgrades which would have occurred in 1999 or 2000 even without
the Year 2000 crisis. The report shall be delivered to the
Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Senate Special
Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Senate Committee on
the Budget by May 15, 2000.
subcommittee hearings
The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the
Committee on Appropriations held three sessions in connection
with the fiscal year 2000 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. Testimony, both for and
against many items, was presented to the subcommittee. The
recommendations for fiscal year 2000, therefore, have been
developed after careful consideration of available data.
votes in the committee
By a vote of 27 to 1 the Committee on May 27, 1999,
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
general investigations
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $161,747,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 135,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 125,459,000
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Committee recommendation
Type of Project title Total Federal Allocated to ---------------------------------------------------------------
project cost date Investigations Planning Investigations Planning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
(N)ALABAMA RIVER BELOW CLAIBORNE LOCK AND DAM, AL 2,622 616 150 .............. 150 ..............
(FDP)BALDWIN COUNTY WATERSHEDS, AL 1,100 100 100 .............. 100 ..............
(N)BAYOU LA BATRE, AL 600 100 100 .............. 100 ..............
(N)BLACK WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL 15,035 310 170 .............. 170 ..............
(FDP)BREWTON AND EAST BREWTON, AL 1,100 100 100 .............. 100 ..............
(N)DOG RIVER, AL 1,668 618 350 .............. 200 ..............
(SPE)VILLAGE CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM 1,370 556 250 .............. 250 ..............
WATERSHED)
ALASKA
(N)AKUTAN HARBOR, AK 9,600 .............. .............. 75 .............. 75
(N)ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK 400 84 150 .............. 150 ..............
(FDP)ANIAK, AK 637 365 100 .............. 100 ..............
(SP)BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, AK 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
(N)BREVIG MISSION, AK 340 168 100 .............. 100 ..............
(FDP)CHANDALRR RIVER WATERSHED, AK 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
(E)CHENA RIVER WATERSHED, AK 777 577 115 .............. 115 ..............
(N)COASTAL STUDIES NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT, AK 2,000 994 220 .............. 220 ..............
(N)DOUGLAS HARBOR EXPANSION, AK 500 226 140 .............. 140 ..............
(N)FALSE PASS HARBOR, AK 300 .............. 150 .............. 100 ..............
(N)GASTINEAU CHANNEL, JUNEAU, AK 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
(E)KENAI RIVER WATERSHED, AK 900 100 128 .............. 128 ..............
(E)MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, AK 900 100 235 .............. 150 ..............
(E)NAKNEK RIVER WATERSHED, AK 500 84 120 .............. 120 ..............
(N)NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK 19,300 197 .............. 253 .............. 253
(N)PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK 400 184 150 .............. 150 ..............
(N)SEWARD HARBOR, AK 3,316 189 .............. 58 .............. 58
(E)SHIP CREEK WATERSHED, AK 650 150 230 .............. 230 ..............
(N)SKAGWAY HARBOR, AK 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
(N)VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK 471 283 150 .............. 150 ..............
(N)WRANGELL HARBOR, AK 8,700 50 .............. 284 .............. 284
AMERICAN SAMOA
(N)WESTERN DISTRICT HARBOR, AS 1,100 100 125 .............. 125 ..............
ARIZONA
(SPE)COLONIAS ALONG U.S.--MEXICO BORDER, AZ AND TX 1,675 1,365 200 .............. 200 ..............
(FDP)GILA RIVER, NORTHEAST PHOENIX DRAINAGE AREA, AZ 1,985 1,403 342 .............. 342 ..............
(FDP)GILA RIVER, SANTA CRUZ RIVER BASIN, AZ 1,375 1,175 200 .............. 200 ..............
(SPE)LITTLE COLORADO RIVER, AZ 250 100 50 .............. 50 ..............
(E)RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ 1,100 100 250 .............. 150 ..............
(FDP)RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ 1,933 1,670 263 .............. 263 150
(E)RIO SALADO, PHOENIX REACH, AZ 53,300 1,830 .............. 1,545 .............. 1,000
(E)RIO SALADO, TEMPE REACH, AZ 4,485 349 .............. 100 .............. 100
(E)SANTA CRUZ RIVER (PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS), AZ 1,350 100 200 .............. 200 ..............
(E)TRES RIOS, AZ 13,000 .............. .............. 50 .............. 50
(E)TRES RIOS, AZ 1,985 1,499 486 .............. 486 ..............
(FC)TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ 19,000 296 .............. 420 .............. 420
ARKANSAS
(FDP)ARKANSAS RIVER, FORT SMITH, AR 840 84 100 .............. 100 ..............
(FDP)MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR 840 421 200 .............. 200 ..............
(FDP)NORTH LITTLE ROCK, DARK HOLLOW, AR 1,350 462 .............. .............. 250 ..............
(N)WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO NEWPORT, AR 27,600 1,293 .............. 307 .............. 307
CALIFORNIA
(E)ALISO CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA 897 736 161 .............. 161 ..............
(FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA 28,510 16,672 .............. 5,000 .............. 3,000
(FC)ARROYO PASAJERO, CA 54,290 .............. .............. 150 .............. 150
(E)BOLINAS LAGOON ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA 967 635 200 .............. 100 ..............
(FC)HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA .............. 320 .............. 480 .............. 380
(FC)KAWEAH RIVER, CA 21,465 2,418 .............. 582 .............. 582
(E)LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA 1,100 150 200 .............. 100 ..............
(FDP)LLAGAS CREEK, CA 350 .............. .............. .............. 250 ..............
(FC)LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA 15,000 .............. .............. 250 .............. 250
(E)MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA 850 100 100 .............. .............. ..............
(N)MARE ISLAND STRAIT DREDGING EXPANSION, CA 1,100 100 50 .............. 50 ..............
(FDP)MARIN COUNTY SHORELINE, SAN CLEMENTE CREEK, CA 1,350 1,250 25 .............. 25 ..............
(N)MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA CREEK, CA 7,500 .............. .............. 50 .............. 50
(N)MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA CREEK, CA 1,825 1,725 100 .............. 100 ..............
(SPE)MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA 1,300 290 300 .............. 100 ..............
(E)MORRO BAY ESTUARY, CA 600 105 100 .............. .............. ..............
(E)MUGU LAGOON, CA 600 120 150 .............. 100 ..............
(FC)MURRIETA CREEK, CA 19,500 .............. .............. 100 .............. 100
(FDP)N CA STREAMS, DRY CREEK, MIDDLETOWN, CA 400 134 150 .............. 150 ..............
(E)N CA STREAMS, LOWER SACRAMENTO RVR RIPARIAN 1,970 949 200 .............. 200 ..............
REVEGETATI
(E)N CA STREAMS, MIDDLE CREEK, CA 1,095 625 150 .............. 100 ..............
(E)NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA 1,806 908 275 .............. 175 ..............
(E)NAPA VALLEY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA 1,100 100 50 .............. 50 ..............
(E)NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA 4,160 .............. .............. 200 .............. 100
(E)NEWPORT BAY/SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED, CA 1,170 120 140 .............. 140 ..............
(N)OAKLAND HARBOR, CA 77,300 725 .............. 400 .............. 400
(E)ORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA 850 100 100 .............. 100 ..............
(E)PINE FLAT DAM, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT 5,000 .............. .............. 100 .............. ..............
RESTORATION,
(N)PORT OF STOCKTON, CA 1,350 126 150 .............. 150 ..............
(FC)RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 16,250 10 .............. 200 .............. 200
(N)REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA 1,600 150 200 .............. 100 ..............
(E)RUSSIAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA 1,850 400 125 .............. 125 ..............
(SPE)SACRAMENTO--SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CA 5,940 5,354 200 .............. 200 ..............
(E)SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN 12,750 6,033 2,000 .............. 2,000 ..............
STUDY,
(FDP)SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA 850 100 100 .............. 100 ..............
(N)SAN DIEGO HARBOR (DEEPENING), CA 22,500 .............. .............. 50 .............. 50
(N)SAN DIEGO HARBOR (DEEPENING), CA 730 614 116 .............. 116 ..............
(N)SAN DIEGO HARBOR, NATIONAL CITY, CA 2,250 105 50 .............. 50 ..............
(E)SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CA 1,100 150 200 .............. 100 ..............
(E)SAN JOAQUIN R BASIN, PINE FLAT DAM, F&WL; 1,585 1,460 125 .............. 75 ..............
HABITAT RESTO
(RCP)SAN JOAQUIN R BASIN, STOCKTON METRO AREA, 706 240 150 .............. 150 ..............
FARMINGTON D
(E)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, CONSUMNES AND 850 100 50 .............. 50 ..............
MOKELUMNE RIVERS,
(FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, STOCKTON METROPOLITAN 1,611 1,231 200 .............. 200 ..............
AREA, C
(FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, TUOLUMNE RIVER, CA 1,600 125 150 .............. 150 ..............
(FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, WEST STANISLAUS 750 314 250 .............. 250 ..............
COUNTY, CA
(E)SAN JUAN CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA 1,470 1,056 414 .............. 414 ..............
(E)SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA 2,800 450 50 .............. 50 ..............
(FDP)SANTA MARGARITA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, CA 1,189 957 232 .............. 232 ..............
(E)SANTA ROSA CREEK WATERSHED, CA 1,152 392 200 .............. 150 ..............
(E)SANTA YNEZ RIVER, CA 1,100 .............. 100 .............. .............. ..............
(FC)SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA 40,700 711 .............. 500 .............. 500
(N)SOUTHAMPTON SHOAL CHANNEL AND EXTENSION, CA 1,110 260 70 .............. 70 ..............
(RCP)STRONG AND CHICKEN RANCH SLOUGHS, CA 800 84 500 .............. 250 ..............
(FDP)SUTTER BASIN, CA 1,100 84 60 .............. 60 ..............
(E)TAHOE BASIN, CA AND NV 1,200 225 150 .............. 500 ..............
(SPE)TIJUANA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA 1,100 110 250 .............. 250 ..............
(FC)TULE RIVER, CA 10,660 .............. .............. 150 .............. 600
(FC)UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA 60,000 533 .............. 300 .............. 300
(FDP)UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA 1,845 512 250 .............. 150 ..............
(E)UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSHED, CA 1,100 100 100 .............. 100 ..............
(N)VENTURA HARBOR SAND BYPASS, CA 1,000 205 100 .............. 100 ..............
(FDP)WHITE RIVER, POSO AND DEER CREEKS, CA 1,100 84 60 .............. 60 ..............
(FC)YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA 18,300 36 .............. 150 .............. 600
COLORADO
(RCP)CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK 1,100 240 340 .............. 340 ..............
RESERVOIRS, CO
CONNECTICUT
(E)COASTAL CONNECTICUT ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CT 600 250 200 .............. 150 ..............
DELAWARE
(SP)BETHANY BEACH, SOUTH BETHANY, DE 469 45 .............. .............. .............. 250
(N)C&D; CANAL, BALTIMORE HBR CONN CHANNELS, DE AND 69,800 3,150 .............. 500 .............. 500
MD (DEEPE
(SP)DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK 2,845 2,766 79 .............. 79 ..............
ISLAND, D
FLORIDA
(FDP)BISCAYNE BAY, FL 3,270 1,243 400 .............. 200 ..............
(N)LAKE WORTH INLET, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
MILE POINT, JACKSONVILLE, FL 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
(N)PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL 6,500 220 .............. 105 .............. 105
(N)ST LUCIE INLET, FL 18,400 932 .............. 188 .............. 188
GEORGIA
(FDP)AUGUSTA, GA 800 268 189 .............. 189 ..............
(N)BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA 32,966 1,857 .............. 469 .............. 469
(E)METRO ATLANTA WATERSHED, GA 2,230 1,318 480 .............. 650 ..............
(RCP)NEW SAVANNAH BLUFF LOCK AND DAM, GA AND SC 840 398 442 .............. 442 ..............
(N)SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA 141,482 516 .............. 100 .............. 100
(COM)SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, GA AND SC 3,100 527 500 .............. 350 ..............
HAWAII
(E)ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI 700 100 40 .............. 40 ..............
(N)BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI 30,000 .............. .............. 380 .............. 380
(N)HONOLULU HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, OAHU, HI 650 225 225 .............. 225 ..............
(N)KAHULUI HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, MAUI, HI 900 100 125 .............. 125 ..............
(N)KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR, HI (MODIFICATIONS) 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
IDAHO
(FDP)KOOTENAI RIVER AT BONNERS FERRY, ID 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
(FDP)LITTLE WOOD RIVER, ID 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
ILLINOIS
(FC)ALEXANDER AND PULASKI COUNTIES, IL 9,750 .............. .............. 375 .............. 150
(FC)DES PLAINES RIVER, IL 25,000 392 .............. 247 .............. 247
(RCP)ILLINOIS RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, IL 2,195 100 350 .............. 150 ..............
(FDP)KANKAKEE RIVER BASIN, IL AND IN 1,700 750 295 .............. 295 ..............
(SPE)PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL 1,060 569 300 .............. 300 ..............
(E)ROCK RIVER, IL AND WI 1,835 84 200 .............. 200 ..............
(SPE)UPPER MISS RVR SYS FLOW FREQUENCY STUDY, IL, 5,900 3,245 2,100 .............. 2,100 ..............
IA, MN, M
(RCP)UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND ILLINOIS NAV STUDY, IL, 59,980 51,294 6,700 .............. 6,700 ..............
IA, MN, MO
(N)WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL 4,950 .............. .............. 450 .............. 450
(FDP)WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL 600 166 201 .............. 201 ..............
INDIANA
(N)JOHN T MYERS LOCKS AND DAM, IN AND KY 230,000 .............. .............. 1,000 .............. 800
(FDP)MISSISSINEWA RIVER, MARION, IN 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
IOWA
(FDP)DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA 1,430 265 400 .............. 300 ..............
(FDP)INDIAN CREEK, COUNCIL BLUFFS, IA 350 84 90 .............. 90 ..............
KANSAS
(RCP)TOPEKA, KS 1,287 718 211 .............. 211 ..............
(FC)TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO 25,600 425 .............. 266 .............. 266
KENTUCKY
(FDP)AUGUSTA, KY 700 217 150 .............. 150 ..............
(N)GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS NAVIGATION DISPOSITION, 830 760 70 .............. 70 ..............
KY
(FDP)LICKING RIVER, CYNTHIANA, KY 600 200 150 .............. 150 ..............
(FDP)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, MILL CREEK BASIN, KY 850 351 304 .............. 304 ..............
(FDP)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, SOUTHWEST, KY 1,784 1,179 400 .............. 300 ..............
(N)OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM SYSTEMS STUDY, KY, IL, IN, 45,300 32,352 7,157 .............. 6,457 ..............
PA, WV
LOUISIANA
(FDP)CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
(N)CALCASIEU LOCK, LA 3,900 100 691 .............. 691 ..............
(N)CAMERON LOOP, CALCASIEU PASS, LA 1,100 .............. 300 .............. 300 ..............
(FC)EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA 85,400 1,966 .............. 134 .............. 134
(N)INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY LOCKS, LA 5,380 4,213 700 .............. 700 ..............
(FDP)JEFFERSON PARISH, LA 3,044 2,844 200 .............. 200 ..............
(FDP)LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA 2,857 2,442 415 .............. 415 ..............
(SP)LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA, LA 17,500 .............. .............. .............. 500 ..............
(FDP)ORLEANS PARISH, LA 2,700 2,475 225 .............. 225 ..............
ST. BERNARD PARISH, LA 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
(FDP)WEST SHORE, LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA 1,805 1,138 500 .............. 500 ..............
MARYLAND
(E)ANACOSTIA RIVER FEDERAL WATERSHED IMPACT 3,000 1,405 700 .............. 400 ..............
ASSESSMENT, M
(E)ANACOSTIA RIVER, NORTHWEST BRANCH, MD AND DC 6,500 .............. .............. 300 .............. 150
(FDP)ANACOSTIA RIVER, PG COUNTY LEVEE, MD AND DC 1,453 304 600 .............. 400 ..............
(FC)BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN, DEEP RUN/TIBER HUDSON, 7,340 42 .............. 400 .............. 200
MD
(FDP)BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN, GWYNNS FALLS, MD 1,232 992 200 .............. 200 ..............
(E)EASTERN SHORE, MD 1,200 100 100 .............. 100 ..............
(E)LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, MATTAWOMAN, MD 700 175 150 .............. 150 ..............
(FDP)PATUXENT RIVER, PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY, MD 1,650 1,497 153 .............. 153 ..............
(FC)PATUXENT RIVER, PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY, MD 9,750 .............. .............. 50 .............. ..............
(E)SMITH ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, MD 1,103 917 156 .............. 156 ..............
MASSACHUSETTS
(E)BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, MA AND 1,631 805 300 .............. 300 ..............
RI
MICHIGAN
DETROIT RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, MI 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
SAULT STE MARIE, MI 15,300 816 .............. .............. .............. 400
MISSOURI
(FDP)BALLWIN, ST LOUIS COUNTY, MO 580 166 150 .............. 150 ..............
(FC)BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO 12,000 1,305 .............. 377 .............. 377
(FC)CHESTERFIELD, MO 19,825 .............. .............. 320 .............. 100
(FDP)CHESTERFIELD, MO 1,079 879 200 .............. 200 ..............
(FC)FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MO 6,700 25 .............. 325 .............. 325
(RCP)KANSAS CITY, MO AND KS 2,460 750 315 .............. 315 ..............
(RCP)MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 AND 1,570 1,070 275 .............. 275 ..............
R460-471, MO
(RCP)ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO 800 230 285 .............. 285 ..............
(N)ST LOUIS HARBOR, MO AND IL 15,508 2,797 .............. 322 .............. 322
(FDP)SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO 709 651 58 .............. 58 ..............
NEBRASKA
(FC)ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE 16,250 .............. .............. 153 .............. 100
(FDP)ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE 910 838 72 .............. 72 ..............
(FDP)LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE 2,056 1,186 350 .............. 350 ..............
NEVADA
(FDP)CARSON RIVER, NV 1,100 84 16 .............. 16 ..............
(FDP)FALLON, NV 1,000 84 16 .............. 16 ..............
(E)LOWER LAS VEGAS WASH WETLANDS, NV 1,300 640 100 .............. 500 ..............
(E)LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE 13,000 .............. .............. 103 .............. ..............
RESERVATION,
(E)LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE 1,223 1,136 87 .............. 87 ..............
RESERVATION,
(FC)TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV 11,250 5,375 .............. 550 .............. 625
NEW JERSEY
(N)ARTHUR KILL EXTENSION TO PERTH AMBOY, NJ AND NY 800 100 100 .............. 100 ..............
(E)BARNEGAT BAY, NJ 1,350 842 400 .............. 400 ..............
(BE)GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET TO TOWNENDE INLET, NJ 1,026 600 .............. .............. 226 ..............
(E)NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, ENV 1,540 803 519 .............. 419 ..............
RESTORATION, NJ
(SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ 415 100 225 .............. 225 ..............
(SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ 1,775 1,209 320 .............. 320 ..............
(FDP)SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ 2,800 1,791 569 .............. 569 ..............
(FDP)UPPER PASSAIC RIVER AND TRIBS, LONG HILL, 800 184 200 .............. 200 ..............
MORRIS COUNT
(FDP)UPPER ROCKAWAY RIVER, MORRIS COUNTY, NJ 800 184 200 .............. 200 ..............
(FDP)WOODBRIDGE AND RAHWAY, NJ 1,500 100 100 .............. 100 ..............
NEW MEXICO
(FDP)ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE AND TRIBUTARIES, NM 870 796 50 .............. 50 ..............
(FDP)NORTH LAS CRUCES, NM 500 .............. .............. .............. 200 ..............
(E)RIO GRANDE WATER MANAGEMENT, NM, CO AND TX 650 50 50 .............. 50 ..............
(E)SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY, 1,200 230 250 .............. 250 ..............
ALBUQUERQUE, N
NEW YORK
(RCP)ADDISON, NY 1,105 384 150 .............. 150 ..............
(N)ARTHUR KILL CHANNEL, HOWLAND HOOK MARINE 45,400 5,145 .............. 1,312 .............. 1,312
TERMINAL, NY
(FDP)AUSABLE RIVER BASIN, ESSEX AND CLINTON 800 184 100 .............. 100 ..............
COUNTIES, NY
(FDP)BOQUET RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ESSEX COUNTY, NY 800 184 100 .............. 100 ..............
(FDP)BRONX RIVER BASIN,NY 800 100 100 .............. 100 ..............
(E)CHEMUNG RIVER BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, 1,500 450 100 .............. 100 ..............
NY AND PA
(E)FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY 1,590 436 600 .............. 400 ..............
(N)HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NY 6,000 .............. .............. 100 .............. ..............
(N)HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NY 2,399 1,213 100 .............. 100 ..............
(SP)JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, 1,000 .............. 50 .............. .............. ..............
ARVERNE, NY
(SP)JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY 1,850 1,411 166 .............. 166 ..............
(FDP)LINDENHURST,NY 800 184 100 .............. 100 ..............
(N)NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ 400,000 .............. .............. 2,534 .............. 2,534
(N)NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ 9,100 8,216 884 .............. 884 ..............
(N)NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE AREAS, NY 1,200 591 300 .............. 300 ..............
(SP)NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY 1,750 762 50 .............. 50 ..............
(SPE)ONONDAGA LAKE, NY 1,140 852 130 .............. 130 ..............
(E)OTSEGO LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NY 1,050 218 150 .............. 150 ..............
(E)SAWMILL RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NY 800 100 100 .............. 100 ..............
(E)SOUTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, NY 2,100 182 50 .............. 50 ..............
(SP)SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY 2,100 965 350 .............. 350 ..............
(FC)SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT, NY, 3,900 .............. .............. 60 .............. ..............
PA AND MD
(FDP)SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT, NY, 1,450 1,349 101 .............. 101 ..............
PA AND MD
(E)UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NY 1,300 539 300 .............. 200 ..............
NORTH CAROLINA
(FC)BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC .............. 4,100 .............. 850 .............. 850
JOHN KERR, NC AND VA (SEC. 216) (LOWER ROANOKE 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
RIVER)
(E)LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC 1,100 184 400 .............. 200 ..............
(N)MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC 88,557 9,250 .............. 350 .............. 100
(E)NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC 1,100 100 100 .............. 100 ..............
(E)TENNESSEE RIVER AND TRIBS, EASTERN BAND 712 314 398 .............. 398 ..............
CHEROKEE NATIO
(E)TENNESSEE RIVER AND TRIBS, FRANKLIN, MACON 518 319 199 .............. 199 ..............
COUNTY, NC
NORTH DAKOTA
(SPE)DEVILS LAKE, ND 3,733 2,775 300 .............. 300 ..............
OHIO
(E)ASHTABULA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH .............. .............. .............. 600 .............. 600
(FDP)COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN AREA, OH 1,600 100 400 .............. 300 ..............
(E)HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, MONDAY 750 225 100 .............. 100 ..............
CREEK, OH
(E)HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, SUNDAY 650 50 200 .............. .............. ..............
CREEK, OH
(N)MAUMEE RIVER, OH 2,100 .............. .............. 116 .............. 116
OREGON
(N)COLUMBIA RIVER NAVIGATION CHANNEL DEEPENING, OR 112,500 172 .............. 892 .............. 892
AND WA
(E)COLUMBIA SLOUGH, OR 1,004 909 95 .............. 95 ..............
(E)TILLAMOOK BAY AND ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM 1,100 110 200 .............. 100 ..............
RESTORATION, OR
(E)WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR AND WA 1,116 523 90 .............. 90 ..............
(COM)WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR 2,284 1,993 291 .............. 291 ..............
(E)WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR 1,515 150 300 .............. 100 ..............
PENNSYLVANIA
(FDP)BLOOMSBURG, PA 800 276 184 .............. 184 ..............
(E)CONEMAUGH RVR BASIN, NANTY GLO ENVIRONMENTAL 1,875 160 .............. 140 .............. 140
RESTORATI
(E)TURTLE CREEK BASIN, BRUSH CREEK ENV 432 82 191 .............. .............. ..............
RESTORATION, PA
(E)TURTLE CREEK BASIN, LYONS RUN ENV RESTORATION, 450 100 223 .............. .............. ..............
PA
(E)TURTLE CREEK BASIN, UPPER TURTLE CREEK ENV 432 177 255 .............. 255 ..............
RESTORATION
PUERTO RICO
(FC)RIO GUANAJIBO, PR 21,200 1,091 .............. 403 .............. 403
(FC)RIO NIGUA AT SALINAS, PR 8,900 625 .............. 463 .............. 463
RHODE ISLAND
(E)RHODE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, RI 1,200 168 177 .............. 177 ..............
(E)RHODE ISLAND SOUTH COAST, HABITAT REST AND SRTM 540 383 157 .............. 157 ..............
DMG REDU
SOUTH CAROLINA
(RCP)ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC 3,100 838 400 .............. 400 ..............
(E)CHARLESTON ESTUARY, SC 1,600 243 150 .............. 150 ..............
(SP)PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC 800 226 150 .............. 150 ..............
(E)SANTEE, COOPER, CONGAREE RIVERS--GOOSE CREEK 1,034 .............. .............. 68 .............. 68
RESERVOI
(E)YADKIN--PEE DEE RIVER WATERSHED, SC AND NC 9,750 .............. .............. 50 .............. ..............
(E)YADKIN--PEE DEE RIVER WATERSHED, SC AND NC 707 525 182 .............. .............. ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA
(FDP)JAMES RIVER, SD AND ND 900 .............. 100 .............. .............. ..............
(FC)WATERTOWN AND VICINITY, SD 10,790 288 .............. 95 .............. 95
TENNESSEE
(E)DUCK RIVER WATERSHED, TN 855 152 394 .............. 100 ..............
(E)NOLICHUCKY WATERSHED, TN 700 184 200 .............. 200 ..............
(E)NORTH CHICKAMAUGA CREEK, TN 650 246 288 .............. 188 ..............
TEXAS
(FDP)BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, WHITE OAK BAYOU, 2,100 450 300 .............. 300 ..............
TX
(N)CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX 5,931 762 672 .............. 672 ..............
(N)CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, LAQUINTA CHANNEL, 3,000 .............. .............. .............. 300 ..............
TX
(FC)CYPRESS CREEK, HOUSTON, TX 9,848 2,310 .............. 300 .............. 300
(FC)DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER, TX 96,000 6,567 .............. 1,553 .............. 1,553
(RCP)GIWW, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT O'CONNOR, TX 4,180 1,133 830 .............. 830 ..............
(N)GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX 5,330 4,259 770 .............. 770 ..............
(RCP)GIWW, PORT O'CONNOR TO CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TX 4,110 478 840 .............. 840 ..............
(N)GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY MODIFICATION, TX 200 .............. .............. .............. 200 ..............
(FC)GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX 163,735 5,040 .............. 560 .............. 560
(FC)HUNTING BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX 82,200 1,000 .............. 328 .............. 328
(E)MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX 1,490 599 300 .............. 300 ..............
(E)NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 2,370 515 100 .............. 50 ..............
(FDP)NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX 1,026 200 250 .............. 250 ..............
(E)ONION CREEK, TX 500 84 220 .............. 150 ..............
(FC)PECAN BAYOU, BROWNWOOD, TX 4,318 .............. .............. 62 .............. 62
(FC)RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX 72,307 178 .............. 100 .............. 100
(N)SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX 3,370 472 700 .............. 700 ..............
(FC)SOUTH MAIN CHANNEL, TX 144,310 5,630 .............. 600 .............. 600
(E)SULPHUR RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, TX 560 84 245 .............. 145 ..............
(FDP)UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX 8,235 7,109 720 .............. 720 ..............
VIRGIN ISLANDS
(N)CROWN BAY CHANNEL, VI 1,410 109 .............. 241 .............. 241
VIRGINIA
(N)AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA 1,168 525 370 .............. 370 ..............
(E)ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENVIR RESTORATION, 1,301 750 339 .............. 339 ..............
HAMPTON ROAD
(N)JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA 9,795 .............. .............. 195 .............. 195
(FC)JOHN H. KERR, VA AND NC 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
LOWER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN, VA 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
(N)NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA 3,050 350 1,050 .............. 750 ..............
(FDP)POQUOSON, VA 625 475 100 .............. 100 ..............
(E)POWELL RIVER WATERSHED, VA 1,477 700 240 .............. 240 ..............
(E)POWELL RIVER, ELY/PUCKETTS CREEK, VA .............. .............. .............. 250 .............. ..............
(E)PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY WATERSHED, VA 775 310 200 .............. 200 ..............
(E)RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, EMBREY DAM, VA 600 300 200 .............. 200 ..............
WASHINGTON
(FC)CENTRALIA, WA (1986 WRDA) 9,000 193 .............. 250 .............. 250
(E)DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA 983 831 152 .............. 152 ..............
(E)DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA 50,825 .............. .............. 20 .............. ..............
(FC)HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA 11,250 524 .............. 888 .............. 888
(RCP)LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA 889 491 100 .............. 100 ..............
(N)PUGET SOUND CONFINED DISPOSAL SITES, WA 2,124 1,433 300 .............. 300 ..............
(FDP)SKAGIT RIVER, WA 2,547 1,556 313 .............. 313 ..............
(E)SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA 600 84 66 .............. 66 ..............
(E)STILLAGUAMISH RIVER BASIN, WA 1,115 618 201 .............. 150 ..............
(E)TRI-CITIES AREA RIVERSHORE ENHANCEMENT, WA 800 100 200 .............. 150 ..............
WEST VIRGINIA
LOWER MUD RIVER, WV 1,950 94 .............. .............. .............. 500
ISLAND CREEK, LOGAN, WV 2,500 1,525 .............. .............. .............. 400
(N)KANAWHA RIVER NAVIGATION, WV 12,992 12,342 650 .............. 650 ..............
(FDP)MERCER COUNTY, WV 800 332 403 .............. 403 ..............
(E)NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER ENVIRON RESTORATION, 7,800 202 .............. 50 .............. 50
WV, MD
WHEELING WATERFRONT, WV 100 .............. .............. .............. 100 ..............
WYOMING
(E)JACKSON HOLE RESTORATION, WY 8,000 .............. .............. 340 .............. ..............
MISCELLANEOUS
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION .............. .............. 1,500 .............. 1,100 ..............
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES .............. .............. 100 .............. 100 ..............
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA .............. .............. 400 .............. 400 ..............
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES .............. .............. 9,000 .............. 8,500 ..............
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES .............. .............. 500 .............. 500 ..............
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES .............. .............. 1,900 .............. 1,000 ..............
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS .............. .............. 8,100 .............. 7,500 ..............
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES .............. .............. 6,500 .............. 6,300 ..............
PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER .............. .............. 400 .............. 400 ..............
SERVICE)
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM .............. .............. 300 .............. 300 ..............
SUPPORT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT .............. .............. 27,000 .............. 25,000 ..............
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS .............. .............. 100 .............. 100 ..............
STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY) .............. .............. 700 .............. 700 ..............
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS .............. .............. 700 .............. 700 ..............
TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS TECHNOLOGY CENTER .............. .............. 650 .............. 650 ..............
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .............. .............. -23,496 .............. -23,846 ..............
=================================================================================================
TOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS .............. .............. 102,362 32,638 95,262 30,197
135,000
125,459
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Proposed Funding Reductions
In order to comply with constraints on non-Defense domestic
discretionary spending put forth in the Congressional Budget
Resolution, it is necessary that the committee recommend
numerous reductions to budgeted new and ongoing studies and
planning projects for fiscal year 2000. The Committee has tried
to limit the impact of these reductions primarily by reducing
the increases proposed in the fiscal year 2000 budget over the
funding levels for fiscal year 1999, and by reducing the
numbers of projects with lower priority benefits from
proceeding into the next phase of the Corps' planning process.
This action will cause delays in addressing the water resource
needs around the country, but will allow most activities to
proceed in fiscal year 2000 although at a slower rate.
Akutan Harbor, Breakwater, AK.--The Committee understands
that feasibility studies for improvements at Akutan Harbor, AK
will continue with available funds. The Corps is to provide a
status report of the progress, expected completion date, and
possible recommendations not later than March 31, 2000.
North Little Rock, Dark Hollow, AR.--The Committee has been
made aware of the possible failure of the Redwood Tunnel, which
is a major drainage outlet for the City of North Little Rock,
AR. The Committee has included $250,000 for the Corps to
prepare a limited reevaluation report which is needed for
possible project authorization.
Rio de Flag, AZ.--The Committee has provided an additional
$150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction
engineering and design on the Rio de Flag project in Arizona.
This is in addition to the $263,000 contained in the budget
request for the Corps to complete feasibility studies for the
project.
Llagas Creek, CA.--The Committee has included $250,000 for
the Corps to initiate and complete a limited reevaluation
report on the Llagas Creek, CA project. A favorable limited
reevaluation will support legislation transferring project
construction authority from the Nation Resources and
Conservation Service to Corps of Engineers.
Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach County, FL.--The Committee has
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and
complete a reconnaissance study to address the water resource
problems related to Palm Beach Harbor in Florida.
Mile Point, Jacksonville, FL.--An amount of $100,000 is
included for a reconnaissance study to determine the source of
erosion and possible causes of sinkholes along the Mile Point
shoreline near Jacksonville, Florida.
Metro Atlanta Watershed, GA.--The Committee recommendation
for the Metro Atlanta Watershed study has been increased by
$170,000 for the Corps to prepare section 905(b) studies for
the Utoy, Sandy, and Proctor Creek watershed in metropolitan
Atlanta, Georgia area.
Kawaihae Deepdraft Harbor, HI.--The Committee has been
informed that a surge problem at the Kawaihae Deepdraft Harbor
in Hawaii is rendering the harbor unusable during many times of
the year. Therefore, the Committee has provided $100,000 for
the Corps to undertake a section 905(b) reconnaissance analysis
of the problem and to determine the Federal interest in
navigation improvements.
Mississinewa River, Marion, IN.--The Committee has included
$100,000 for the Corps to initiate and complete a
reconnaissance study of persistent flooding problems along the
Mississinewa River in the vicinity of Marion, Indiana.
Little Wood River, ID.--Included within the committee
recommendation is $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of
flooding problems at Gooding, Idaho. The Committee understands
that the existing flood protection works was constructed by the
WPA during the 1930's, is severely outdated and in need of
repair.
Calcasieu River Basin, LA.--An appropriation of $100,000 is
recommended for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a
reconnaissance level study of providing flood control and
environmental enhancement measures along the Calcasieu River
Basin in several parishes in southwestern Louisiana.
Louisiana Coastal Area, LA.--The Committee has recommended
$500,000 for the Corps to initiate feasibility level analysis
to address Louisiana's critical loss of coastal landscape.
St. Bernard Parish, LA.--The Committee has provided
$100,000 for a reconnaissance study of flood control measures
in St. Bernard Parish in Louisiana. Frequent heavy rains have
caused significant flooding and damages over the past nearly 20
years. The funding recommended will begin the process to
analyze needed improvements to reduce these repetitive damages
to developed areas.
Detroit River Environmental Dredging, MI.--The Committee
has included $100,000 for the Corps to undertake a section
905(b) study to evaluate the Federal interest in environmental
dredging of contaminated sediments in the Detroit River outside
of the Federal navigation channel.
Sault Ste Marie, Lock Replacement, MI.--The Committee
recommendation includes $400,000 to continue preconstruction
engineering and design of a replacement lock Sault Ste Marie in
Michigan.
Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, NV.--An amount of $400,000 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.
Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, NJ.--An
appropriation of $200,000 is recommended for the Great Egg
Harbor Inlet to Towsends Inlet New Jersey project for the Corps
to complete the feasibility study report on the project.
North Las Cruces, NM.--The Committee has included $200,000
for the Corps to undertake a Limited Reevaluation Report and,
if favorable, initiate the feasibility phase of a flood control
project at North Las Cruces in New Mexico. The Committee
understands that the City has committed to the project
financially and has been working with the Corps of Engineers to
develop a project. The Corps is also requested to evaluate the
advisability of including recreation into the project plan.
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, La Quinta Channel, TX.--The
Committee has recommended $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers
to develop a project study plan, and initiate feasibility
studies to determine the economic and environmental viability
of extending the authorized La Quinta, Texas navigation channel
by approximately two miles.
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Modifications, TX.--The
Committee understands that the Brazos River Floodgates and the
Colorado River Locks could be contributing to increased
navigation traffic accidents and associated delays on the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway. Therefore, an appropriation of $200,000,
$100,000 each for the Brazos Floodgates and Colorado Locks, is
recommended for the Corps to initiate studies to evaluate the
existing facilities and determine what operational or other
modifications may be needed, and to address associated
environmental issues.
Lower Rappahannock River Basin, VA.--The Committee
recommendation includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance study
which will focus on wetland protection and environmental
restoration for fish and wildlife purposes.
Island Creek at Logan, WV.--An appropriation of $500,000 is
recommended for the Island Creek at Logan, West Virginia
project. The funding is provided for the Corps to develop a
project management plan, complete a General Reevaluation Report
and initiate plans and specifications. The Committee
understands that the Logan County Commission has received a
commitment of financial support from the State of West Virginia
and has indicated a willingness to act as the non-Federal
sponsor for the project, which now allows the project to move
forward.
Lower Mud River, Milton, WV.--The Committee has included
$500,000 for the Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia project
for the Corps of Engineers to complete a Limited Reevaluation
Report (LRR) and, upon approval of the LRR and a National
Resources Conservation Service report as the decision document,
to proceed with detailed design.
Wheeling Waterfront, WV.--The Committee has provided
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a study of
waterfront development along the Ohio River at its confluence
with Wheeling Creek at Wheeling, West Virginia. The study is to
be conducted in conjunction with the Wheeling Area National
Heritage Corporation to determine future Corps involvement in
the Wheeling National Heritage Port project.
Planning assistance to States.--The Committee has provided
$6,300,000 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.
Other coordination programs.--The Committee recommendation
includes $7,500,000 for other coordination programs of the
Corps of Engineers. The Committee has not included funding for
``Presidential Initiatives'' proposed in the Corps' fiscal year
2000 budget request.
construction, general
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $1,429,885,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 1,239,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,113,227,000
An appropriation of $1,113,227,000 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 Committee
project Project title cost date estimate recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
(N)BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, VICINITY OF JACKSO 18,900 2,581 3,000 3,000
(N)MOBILE HARBOR, AL 305,568 29,134 700 700
(MP)WALTER F GEORGE POWERHOUSE AND DAM, AL AND GA (MAJOR REH 37,000 .............. 750 750
(MP)WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA (MAJOR REHAB) 30,800 6,072 3,600 3,600
ALASKA
(N)CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK 5,589 485 4,357 4,357
(N)COOK INLET, AK 9,450 7,272 500 1,700
(N)KAKE HARBOR, AK 18,000 11,810 2,568 2,568
(N)ST PAUL HARBOR, AK 14,349 5,687 500 1,400
ARIZONA
(FC)CLIFTON, AZ 16,100 15,455 645 645
ARKANSAS
(MP)DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, AR (MAJOR REHAB) 29,700 17,736 11,964 10,464
(N)MCCLELLAN--KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR 632,500 604,750 3,080 3,080
(N)MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR 242,000 107,349 20,000 33,000
CALIFORNIA
(FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (NATOMAS), CA 34,210 19,522 4,000 4,000
(FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA 47,600 17,919 17,000 15,000
(FC)CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA 43,800 23,231 500 500
(FC)GUADALUPE RIVER, CA 78,500 69,128 5,000 4,500
(N)HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA 12,300 9,100 3,200 3,000
(FC)LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA 150,000 93,050 30,000 38,000
(N)LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CA 116,200 106,415 9,785 4,785
(FC)LOWER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA 4,660 2,343 2,317 2,317
(FC)MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA 32,260 31,960 300 300
(FC)MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA 91,800 18,758 500 500
(FC)MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA 14,900 9,716 4,000 4,000
(FC)NAPA RIVER, CA 91,000 15,000 4,500 3,000
NORCO BLUFFS, CA 8,025 5,580 .............. 2,200
(FC)SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA 179,900 107,581 7,000 6,300
(FC)SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA 16,550 5,176 3,000 3,000
(FC)SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA 13,230 5,304 4,800 4,300
(FC)SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA 896,000 634,774 20,000 20,000
(N)SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA 5,360 400 4,960 4,500
(FC)SANTA PAULA CREEK, CA 36,000 19,805 14,800 14,800
(FC)SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY) 30,900 1,140 1,250 1,250
(FC)UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA 5,640 2,585 3,055 2,750
(FC)WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 24,700 16,087 7,700 7,000
DELAWARE
(BE)DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE 11,800 5,121 259 259
FLORIDA
(N)CANAVERAL HARBOR DEEPENING, FL 6,600 5,770 830 830
(N)CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL 124,470 33,634 2,750 2,750
(FC)CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL 2,586,300 476,045 52,300 45,300
(BE)DADE COUNTY, FL 163,300 62,897 2,000 2,000
(E)EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL 75,000 10,518 21,100 16,100
FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL 28,000 4,778 .............. 500
(MP)JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, FL AND GA (MAJOR R 35,600 10,370 6,000 6,000
(E)KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL 243,500 46,627 39,800 33,800
LAKE WORTH SAND TRANSFER PLANT, FL 4,500 282 .............. 500
(N)MANATEE HARBOR, FL 19,885 6,099 4,700 4,700
(N)MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL 47,566 20,999 15,000 13,000
(N)PALM VALLEY BRIDGE, FL 18,700 3,227 3,000 3,000
(BE)PINELLAS COUNTY, FL 144,600 41,083 2,000 2,000
GEORGIA
(MP)BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB) 32,900 1,816 3,650 3,350
(MP)HARTWELL LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB) 20,800 19,300 1,500 1,500
(MP)RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC 619,521 597,819 8,500 8,000
(MP)THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB) 69,700 18,475 8,000 7,500
HAWAII
(FC)IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF CORR) 14,297 835 219 219
(N)KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI 4,997 1,205 75 75
(N)MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI 11,329 3,266 272 272
ILLINOIS
(N)CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR) 24,500 965 1,600 1,600
(E)CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL 2,000 749 100 100
(BE)CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL 169,600 26,690 7,629 9,629
(FC)EAST ST LOUIS, IL 32,335 26,791 2,000 2,000
(N)LOCK AND DAM 24 PART 1, MISS RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH 25,000 15,920 3,844 3,444
(N)LOCK AND DAM 24 PART 2, MISS RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH 38,400 .............. 1,200 1,200
(N)LOCK AND DAM 25, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH 25,900 21,444 4,456 4,000
(FC)LOVES PARK, IL 22,500 11,802 3,888 3,588
(FC)MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL 489,000 25,396 2,500 2,500
(N)MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL AND MO 740,700 727,281 2,900 2,900
(N)OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY 1,020,000 372,148 28,634 38,634
(E)UPPER MISS RVR SYSTEM ENV MGMT PROGRAM, IL, IA, MO, MN 242,862 181,685 18,955 16,055
INDIANA
(FC)FORT WAYNE METROPOLITAN AREA, IN 37,021 32,804 4,000 3,600
(FC)LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN 131,000 63,330 3,900 3,900
(FDP)OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION (INDIANA SHORELINE), IN 4,378 3,060 .............. 1,000
(FC)PATOKA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB) 7,200 .............. 2,000 2,000
WHITE RIVER, INDIANAPOLIS CENTRAL WATERFRONT, IN 39,975 24,753 .............. 3,000
IOWA
(N)LOCK AND DAM 12, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB) 15,500 .............. 2,600 2,300
(N)LOCK AND DAM 14, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB) 20,000 15,908 4,092 3,792
(E)MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION, IA, NE, K 81,400 43,268 5,000 5,000
(FC)MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS AND MO 139,193 97,821 3,000 2,800
(FC)MUSCATINE ISLAND, IA 6,820 4,040 2,500 2,300
(FC)PERRY CREEK, IA 42,580 22,937 9,500 9,000
KANSAS
(FC)ARKANSAS CITY, KS 27,400 6,232 4,300 4,100
(FC)WINFIELD, KS 6,600 6,446 154 154
KENTUCKY
(MP)BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN 159,799 156,181 1,450 1,450
(FC)DEWEY LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY) 13,700 2,858 2,500 2,500
(N)KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY 533,000 24,948 7,750 9,750
(N)MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND IN 268,000 28,006 2,800 2,800
(FC)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY 12,115 2,227 3,251 3,000
LOUISIANA
(FC)ALOHA--RIGOLETTE, LA 7,078 6,497 581 581
(FC)COMITE RIVER, LA 82,700 7,201 4,000 4,000
(N)INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA 533,000 30,519 13,000 15,000
(FC)LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE PROTECT 520,000 385,442 11,887 16,887
(FC)LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) 80,000 72,219 2,000 2,000
(N)MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, L 171,000 24,780 1,500 1,500
(FC)NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) 171,000 143,078 1,400 1,400
(N)PORT FOURCHON, LA 2,557 373 2,184 2,184
(N)RED RIVER WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO SHREVEPORT, L 1,895,691 1,694,408 21,113 21,113
(FC)SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA 374,000 127,980 47,066 47,066
(FC)WEST BANK VICINITY OF NEW ORLEANS, LA 192,000 44,779 7,000 8,000
MARYLAND
(E)ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD AND DC 12,000 5,849 4,031 3,600
(BE)ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD 270,300 34,624 200 200
(N)BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (BREWERTON CHANNEL), MD 44,521 34,943 9,578 8,800
(E)CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD 2,500 1,941 559 559
(E)POPLAR ISLAND, MD 320,000 38,394 9,502 12,002
MASSACHUSETTS
(N)BOSTON HARBOR, MA 12,150 11,150 1,000 1,000
(N)CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, MA (MAJOR REHAB) 30,500 .............. 5,000 4,000
(FC)HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA (MAJOR REHAB) 18,600 15,343 3,257 3,000
(FC)TOWN BROOK, QUINCY AND BRAINTREE, MA 30,600 29,000 1,500 1,500
MICHIGAN
CLINTON RIVER, MI SPILLWAY (DEFICIENCY CORRECTION) 2,650 2,150 .............. 250
LAKE MICHIGAN CENTER, MI (SEC. 14) 100 .............. .............. 100
MINNESOTA
(N)LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN (MAJOR REHAB) 15,400 1,938 3,200 3,200
(FC)MARSHALL, MN 7,850 4,397 2,275 2,275
(N)PINE RIVER DAM, CROSS LAKE, MN (DAM SAFETY) 9,820 3,396 3,390 3,190
(FDP)ST. CROIX RIVER, STILLWATER, MN 8,700 25,512 .............. 1,100
MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON COUNTY, MS 10,000 9,200 .............. 800
NATCHEZ BLUFF, MS 19,549 12,500 .............. 2,000
(N)PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS 39,041 23,038 7,792 7,000
MISSOURI
(FC)BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO 211,000 149,643 13,700 18,700
(FC)CAPE GIRARDEAU, JACKSON, MO 36,293 28,458 1,900 1,900
(FC)MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO 28,030 12,668 3,500 3,200
(N)MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO 274,000 189,157 3,000 3,000
(FC)STE GENEVIEVE, MO 36,100 14,334 7,000 7,000
(MP)TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR (DAM SAFETY) 60,200 5,095 13,000 13,000
NEBRASKA
(FC)MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE AND SD 21,000 2,615 300 1,300
(FC)WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE 10,000 1,850 100 100
NEVADA
(FC)TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV 208,500 68,198 20,100 29,000
NEW JERSEY
(BE)CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ 87,700 14,692 1,700 1,700
(N)DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA AND DE 214,000 11,525 16,500 12,000
(BE)GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ 358,800 31,971 419 419
(N)NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, PORT JERSEY CHANN 72,100 7,589 2,000 2,000
PASSAIC RIVER, MINISH WATERFRONT PARK, NJ 33,705 9,100 .............. 250
(E)PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, N 18,300 1,480 1,800 1,800
(FC)RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ 11,240 5,483 1,300 1,300
(FC)RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ 286,000 36,117 1,000 1,000
(BE)SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ 979,000 104,509 9,000 8,000
NEW MEXICO
(FC)ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM 66,000 11,945 1,500 1,500
(FC)ALAMOGORDO, NM 41,400 4,955 700 700
(FC)LAS CRUCES, NM 6,600 4,200 2,400 2,400
(FC)MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELE 46,800 9,141 600 600
(FC)RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE, 62,300 4,644 600 600
NEW YORK
(BE)ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, 91,000 14,685 300 300
(BE)EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET AND JAMAICA BAY, 63,000 42,097 3,320 3,000
(BE)FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY 532,000 32,346 3,000 2,700
(BE)FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY 571,400 50,279 3,250 3,250
(N)KILL VAN KULL AND NEWARK BAY CHANNEL, NY AND NJ 823,300 227,576 60,000 40,000
NEW YORK HARBOR COLLECTION AND REMOVAL OF DRIFT, NY&NJ; 136,000 45,541 .............. 750
NORTH CAROLINA
(N)AIWW, REPLACEMENT OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY BRIDGES, NC 70,700 62,167 7,000 6,300
(N)WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC 247,100 15,866 18,300 17,000
NORTH DAKOTA
(FC)BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION, N 40,000 4,160 5,000 5,000
(FC)DEVILS LAKE EMERGENCY OUTLET, ND 29,000 15,000 10,000 ..............
(MP)GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB) 37,100 5,932 6,500 6,000
(FC)GRAND FORKS, ND--EAST GRAND FORKS, MN 175,900 6,442 10,000 9,000
(FC)HOMME LAKE, ND (DAM SAFETY) 16,000 1,908 3,000 2,800
(FC)LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND (MAJOR REHAB) 7,800 6,265 500 500
OHIO
(FC)BEACH CITY LAKE, MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH (DAM SAFETY 3,500 640 1,400 1,400
(FC)METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH 13,035 3,739 2,266 2,266
(FC)MILL CREEK, OH 163,000 99,953 915 915
(FC)WEST COLUMBUS, OH 91,700 61,884 8,000 12,000
OKLAHOMA
(FC)SKIATOOK LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) 9,800 465 500 500
(MP)TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) 37,900 4,746 6,800 6,400
OREGON
(MP)BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR AND WA (MAJOR REHAB) 104,600 37,340 10,800 10,800
(E)COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA 73,966 24,463 6,368 5,510
(FC)ELK CREEK LAKE, OR 174,000 109,401 500 500
(FC)LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN BANK PROTECTION, OR AND WA 28,000 21,203 262 352
(FC)WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR 70,600 4,083 1,700 1,700
PENNSYLVANIA
(FC)JOHNSTOWN, PA (MAJOR REHAB) 32,664 13,905 6,800 6,800
(N)LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA 705,000 76,996 21,600 31,600
(BE)PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT) 58,085 16,753 520 520
(FC)SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA 10,575 2,694 3,500 3,200
(FC)WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING) 108,300 40,338 20,000 18,500
PUERTO RICO
(FC)ARECIBO RIVER, PR 12,500 1,828 2,500 2,500
(FC)PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR 430,300 379,390 5,434 5,434
(FC)RIO DE LA PLATA, PR 63,300 7,705 1,000 1,000
(FC)RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR 321,000 50,575 9,566 8,800
(N)SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR 24,100 12,197 8,000 7,300
SOUTH CAROLINA
(N)CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (DEEPENING AND WIDENING) 98,444 22,775 37,284 31,600
SOUTH DAKOTA
(E)CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD 108,000 .............. 2,000 3,000
(FDP)JAMES RIVER RESTORATION, SD 1,000 .............. .............. 1,000
(MP)PIERRE, SD 100,000 340 10,000 6,500
TENNESSEE
BLACK FOX, MURFREE SPRINGS, AND OAKLAND WETLANDS, TN 5,845 2,950 .............. 1,000
TENNESSEE
RIVER, HAMILTON COUNTY, TN 6,669 2,804 .............. 1,000
TEXAS
(FC)BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX 293,010 10,505 9,800 9,000
(N)CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX 26,820 13,640 8,700 7,900
(FC)CLEAR CREEK, TX 75,830 22,736 3,200 2,900
(FC)EL PASO, TX 116,300 102,526 6,200 5,600
(N)GIWW, ARANSAS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, TX 20,660 7,643 9,000 7,650
(N)HOUSTON--GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX 415,543 84,607 60,000 54,000
(N)NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER BARRIER, TX 41,895 5,000 2,000 2,000
(FC)SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX 153,100 151,596 610 610
(FC)SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX 214,320 73,104 18,300 16,500
VIRGINIA
(N)AIWW, BRIDGE AT GREAT BRIDGE, VA 23,100 7,194 3,000 3,000
DICKENSON COUNTY, SEC 202 PROJECT, VA 700 .............. .............. 200
(MP)JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (MAJOR REHAB) 59,600 .............. 1,400 1,400
(N)NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (DEEPENING), VA 137,496 22,941 550 550
(FC)ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA 28,800 5,839 1,197 1,197
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA HURRICANE PROTECTION 247,300 66,607 .............. 17,000
WASHINGTON
(E)COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR AND ID 1,376,330 553,975 100,000 70,000
(E)LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR 232,000 228,659 1,300 1,300
(FC)MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA 195,800 114,577 540 540
(MP)THE DALLES POWERHOUSE (UNITS 1-14), WA AND OR (MAJOR REH 94,000 10,890 2,300 2,300
WEST VIRGINIA
(FC)BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY) 107,300 .............. 750 750
(FDP)GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV 12,000 2,254 .............. 800
(FC)LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V 1,837,841 702,645 5,400 9,800
(N)LONDON LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV (MAJOR REHAB) 20,300 1,060 600 600
(N)MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV 294,000 20,003 9,800 9,800
(N)ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV AND OH 363,474 341,834 7,150 7,150
(FC)TYGART LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY) 7,500 2,534 2,900 2,900
(N)WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV 226,900 218,532 1,400 1,400
WISCONSIN
LAFARGE LAKE, KICKAPOO RIVER, WI 17,000 3,368 .............. 1,000
MISCELLANEOUS
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM .............. .............. 3,000 5,000
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206) .............. .............. 4,500 6,260
BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 103) .............. .............. 2,500 2,500
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204) .............. .............. 1,000 1,000
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM .............. .............. 20,000 10,000
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SEC. 14) .............. .............. 8,500 8,500
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION .............. .............. 19,554 19,554
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) .............. .............. 26,900 32,575
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD EXPENSE .............. .............. 45 45
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE .............. .............. 185 185
NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111) .............. .............. 500 500
NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107) .............. .............. 4,500 5,460
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONME .............. .............. 8,500 10,000
RIVERINE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGA .............. .............. 25,000 ..............
SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECT (SECTION 208) .............. .............. 100 100
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SIPPAGE, AND CARRYOVER BALANCES .............. .............. -211,789 -291,789
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL .............. .............. 1,239,900 1,113,227
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPE OF PROJECT:
(N) NAVIGATION
(BE) BEACH EROSION CONTROL
(FC) FLOOD CONTROL
(MP) MULTIPURPOSE, INCLUDING POWER
Budget Constraints and Reductions
Severely constrained spending limits required under the
discretionary budget caps 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 2000. In order the adhere
to the subcommittee's allocations, address the critical ongoing
activities, correct program imbalances contained in the
President's fiscal year 2000 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. The constrained budget
will result in continued delayed completion schedules. Project
benefits will be deferred. 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.
Cook Inlet, AK.--The Committee has recommended an
appropriation of $1,700,000 for the Cook Inlet navigation
project in Alaska. The budget request of $500,000 would have
resulted in unacceptable delays in project construction and,
therefore, an additional $1,200,000 is recommended in order to
mitigate the potential delays.
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, AR.--An appropriation of
$33,000,000 is recommended for the Montgomery Point Lock and
Dam, Arkansas project. This is an increase of $13,000,000 over
the budget request and, while a significant increase, is still
far below the amount needed to fund the project at an optimum
level.
Los Angeles County Drainage Area, CA.--The Committee
recommendation for the Los Angeles County Drainage Area,
California project is $38,000,000, an increase of $8,000,000
over the budget request. The additional funding will advance
the project and help mitigate the funding shortfall proposed in
the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget.
Los Angeles Harbor, CA.--The Committee has reduced the
funding for the Los Angeles Harbor project from $9,785,000 to
$4,785,000. The recommendation is made possible as the result
of the Corps of Engineers reprogramming additional funding into
the project during the current fiscal year, which reduced the
fiscal year 2000 funding requirements.
Norco Bluffs, CA.--An amount of $2,200,000 is recommended
for the Norco Bluffs, California project. The Committee expects
the Corps to complete construction of the projects during
fiscal year 2000.
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 2000. 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.
Jackson Harbor, Mill Cove, FL.--The Committee will
interpose no objection to the Corps of Engineers negotiating an
agreement with the St. Johns River Water Management District to
accept contributed funds to undertake the Jacksonville Harbor,
Mill Cove, Florida project put forth in the April 23, 1999
letter of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
This action is taken with the understanding and under the
condition that there will be no reimbursement for the Federal
portion of the project as stated in the January 4, 1999 letter
of the St. Johns River Water Management District to the
Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers.
Chicago Shoreline, IL.--The Committee has provided
$9,629,000 for the Chicago Shoreline project in Illinois. The
additional funding is recommended for acceleration of the
Irving to Belmont section of the project.
Olmstead Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IL and KY.--An
appropriation of $38,634,000 is provided for the Olmstead Lock
and Dam, Illinois project. The Administration's budget request
for fiscal year 2000 significantly under funded the
construction needs and the Committee has, therefore,
recommended an additional $10,000,000 in an effort to mitigate
delays on this important facility on the Nation's inland
waterway system.
Ohio River Flood Protection, Indiana Shoreline, IN.--The
Committee has included $1,000,000 for the Ohio River Flood
Protection, Indiana Shoreline project in Indiana. No funding
was included in the budget request for fiscal year 2000 to
continue this project, but the amount recommended by the
Committee should be sufficient to complete project
construction.
White River, Indianapolis Central Waterfront, IN.--The
Committee has recommended an appropriation of $3,000,000 for
the Corps to finalize plans and specifications on the remaining
project features, and continue construction on the White River,
Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana project.
Kentucky Lock and Dam, KY.--An appropriation of $9,750,000
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.
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, LA.--Funding in the
amount of $15,000,000 is recommended for the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal Lock project in Louisiana. The recommended
appropriation provides the full budget request of $2,900,000
for community impact activities; and an additional $2,000,000
for engineering and design, and construction work.
West Bank Vicinity of New Orleans, LA.--The Committee has
provided $8,000,000 for the West Bank Vicinity of New Orleans,
Louisiana project to continue construction activities and to
initiate two additional contracts in the Westwego to Harvey
Canal.
St. Croix River, Stillwater, MN.--An amount of $1,100,000
is recommended for the St. Croix River, Stillwater, Minnesota
project. No funds were requested in the Administration's budget
request to continue this important flood control project. The
Committee, therefore, has included the recommended funding to
complete construction of the Stage 2 wall extension.
Blue River Channel, Kansas City, MO.--The Committee has
provided $18,700,000, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget
request, for the Corps to expedite work on the Blue River
Channel, Kansas City, Missouri flood control project. The
Committee believes the Administration's budget request for
fiscal year 2000 significantly underfunded this critical flood
control project causing additional delays in project
completion, and also delaying the repair of other facilities in
the area.
Missouri National Recreation River, NE and SD.--The
Committee has provided $1,300,000 for the Missouri National
Recreational River, NE and SD project. This is $1,000,000 over
the budget request for fiscal year 2000. The additional funding
is provided to allow the Corps to resume efforts to develop a
cost sharing partner for the Ponca Research and Education
Center and undertake preconstruction activities related to the
Center, as appropriate, once a non-Federal sponsor is
identified and a cost sharing agreement is finalized.
Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV.--The Committee has
provided $29,000,000 for the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes
project in Nevada to advance completion of this important flood
control project. The Committee urges the Corps to use available
funds or propose a reprogramming in order to keep this project
on schedule. The Committee has no objection to the February 24,
1999 proposal to execute an agreement with the local sponsor
regarding project financing. The Committee expects the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to make every
effort to even out reimbursement payments to lessen future
budgetary impacts.
Devils Lake Emergency Outlet, ND.--The Committee
recommendation includes no additional funding for the Devils
Lake Emergency Outlet, North Dakota project as requested in the
budget. 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.
West Columbus, OH.--The Committee has provided an
additional $4,000,000 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 2000.
Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, PA.--The
Committee has recommended $31,600,000 to continue construction
of the Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River navigation
project in Pennsylvania. While providing an increase of
$10,000,000 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 $31,600,000 recommended
herein.
Black Fox, Murfree Springs, and Oaklands Wetland,
Murfreesboro, TN.--The Committee has included $1,000,000 for
the Black Fox, Murfree Springs, and Oaklands Wetland,
Murfreesboro, Tennessee project. No funding was included in the
Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request and the
recommended funding will be used to continue construction of
three wetland restoration sites.
Tennessee River, Hamilton County, TN.--The Committee has
included $1,000,000 in its recommendation in order to continue
construction of the Tennessee River, Hamilton County, Tennessee
project.
Dickenson County, VA Element, Levisa and Tug Forks of the
Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, VA, WV, and KY.--
The Committee has included $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers
to initiate a Detailed Project Report for the Dickenson County,
Virginia, element of the Levisa and Tug Forks project. The
Committee understands that flooding is a continuing problem in
Dickenson County, and the recommended funding will allow the
Corps to begin detailed studies on how to address the flooding
problems.
Virginia Beach, Hurricane Protection, VA.--An appropriation
of $17,000,000 is recommended to continue construction
activities on the Virginia Beach, Hurricane Protection project
in Virginia.
Columbia River Fish Mitigation, WA and OR.--The Committee
recommends $70,000,000 to continue the Columbia River Fish
Mitigation project. 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.
In last year's Conference Report, the conferees requested
the Northwest Power Planning Council, with the assistance from
the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP), to conduct an
annual review of the Bonneville Power Administration's
reimbursable fish and wildlife programs. The Council's first
report to the Appropriations Committee, submitted earlier this
month, noted that the Panel's future reviews might be improved
if the Panel could conduct some or all of its review of the
reimbursable programs in the Fall, prior to release of the
Administration's annual budget. This would allow more time for
the preparation of the Council's report that is due each year
on May 15. The Committee understands that the Council is
exploring changes in the timing of the ISRP's reviews with the
Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies. The Committee
expects the Corps to cooperate with the Council and the
independent scientists in providing information on the Corps'
reimbursable programs that will be useful in the Council's
annual report to the Appropriations Committee.
Lower Columbia River Basin Bank Protection, Barlow Point,
WA.--The Committee has recommended $352,000 for the Lower
Columbia River Basin Bank Protection project in Oregon and
Washington, including $90,000 to initiate and complete plans
and specifications for the Barlow Point, WA element of the
project.
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper
Cumberland River, WV-KY-VA.--The Committee has provided a total
of $9,800,000 for the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy
River and Upper Cumberland River project.
The Committee recommendation also includes $600,000 for the
Upper Mingo County, including Mingo County tributaries, West
Virginia, element; $1,300,000 for the Kermit, Lower Mingo
County (Kermit), WV, element; $300,000 for the Wayne County,
WV, element; and $2,200,000 for the McDowell County, WV,
element.
Finally, $4,600,000 is provided for the Grundy, VA,
element.
Aquatic plant control program.--The Committee has included
$5,000,000 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
2000. 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 50 percent of the cost
of the work.
The Committee recommendation includes $400,000 for aquatic
weed control at Lake Champlain in Vermont.
Emergency streambank and shoreline protection, (sec. 14).--
The Committee has included $8,500,000 for the section 14,
emergency streambank and shoreline erosion protection program.
Small navigation projects (sec. 107).--The Committee has
recommended an appropriation of $5,460,000 for small navigation
projects under the section 107 program. The recommendation
includes $200,000 for feasibility phase work on the Haines
Harbor, AK project; $140,000 for feasibility activities on the
Ketchikan Harbor, AK project; $400,000 for the Corps to prepare
a decision document and recommendations regarding the unforseen
conditions and cost increases on the Ouzinkie Harbor, AK
project; $200,000 for feasibility phase activities on the
Unalaska Harbor, AK project; and $20,000 to initiate studies to
determine the feasibility of providing navigation improvements
along the Blackwater River in New Hampshire.
Small flood control projects (sec. 205).--The Committee
recommendation for section 205 small flood control projects is
$32,175,000.
The Committee recommendation includes $400,000 to initiate
plans and specifications on the Ledgewood Creek, CA project;
$175,000 to complete the feasibility phase and initiate plans
and specifications for the St. Joe River at St. Maries, ID
project; $100,000 to initiate studies for flooding problems in
the vicinity of Cataldo, ID; $100,000 to initiate work on the
Frankfort, Jones Rum Pump Station, KY project; $2,000,000 to
initiate construction on the Ft. Fairfield, ME project;
$150,000 to initiate studies to address severe flooding
conditions at Livingston, MT; $300,000 to formulate and
evaluate flood control alternatives and to prepare draft
feasibility reports for the Upper Little Sugar Creek, Briar
Creek, Irwin Creek and McMullen Creek in Meckleburg County, NC;
$250,000 to initiate studies and the feasibility phase for the
Hernandez, NM project; $100,000 to continue feasibility studies
and execute a PCA in the Chagrin River, Eastlake, OH project;
$75,000 to perform a preliminary assessment of flood reduction
alternatives and negotiate a PCA for the Tawney Run Creek,
Springdale, PA project; $175,000 to complete feasibility
studies to identify and evaluate flood damage alternatives
along Town Creek, Lenoir County, TN; $150,000 to complete
feasibility studies to identify and evaluate flood damage
alternatives in the vicinity of Mountain City, Johnson County,
TN; $100,000 to initiate studies to determine the economic and
environmental feasibility of flood control measures at Gates,
TN; $100,000 to initiate and complete a section 905(b) study
and if approved negotiate a feasibility cost sharing agreement
for the Jamestown Island Seawall, VA project; and $770,000 to
complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of
the Snoqualmie River at Snoqualmie, WA project.
Aquatic ecosystem restoration (sec. 206).--The Committee
has recommended an appropriation of $6,260,000 for section 206
aquatic ecosystem restoration projects for fiscal year 2000.
The recommended funding level includes $160,000 to complete
the feasibility study, complete design, and prepare plans and
specifications, and initiate construction of the Little Sugar
Creek, NC project; $400,000 to prepare a preliminary
restoration plan, ecosystem restoration report, and initiate
plans and specifications for the Edgewood Creek, NV project;
$400,000 to initiate and complete the ecosystem restoration
report, and initiate plans and specifications on the Incline
Creek, NV project; and $800,000 to initiate and complete plans
and specifications and initiate construction on the Upper
Jordan River Restoration, UT project.
The Committee is aware of a shoreline restoration project
at the Chicago Botanic Garden in Cook County, Illinois and
recognizes the importance of protecting the garden lagoon
system. The Committee encourages the Corps to carry out the
work necessary to stabilize the Garden's embankment and the
roadways, including all studies necessary to evaluate the
feasibility of this project, and to initiate preconstruction
engineering and design activities.
Projects modifications for improvement of the environment
(sec. 1135).--The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000
for section 1135 Project Modification for the Improvement of
the Environment Program.
The recommendation includes $200,000 for planning and
design upon successful completion and approval of the
Preliminary Restoration Plan for the Great Lakes, Sea Lamprey
Control program, and the submission of a formal study request
by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission; $100,000 to prepare a
preliminary restoration plan and initiate the ecosystem
restoration report on the Rio Grande, NM, Habitat Conservation
project; $200,000 to prepare plans and specifications for
habitat restoration at Rochester Harbor, NY; $1,730,000 to
initiate construction of the Ballard, Chittinden Locks, WA
project; and $100,000 to complete the preliminary restoration
plan for 5 sites along the Green/Duwamish River, WA.
Funding Adjustments.--The Committee has recommended an
additional reduction over that proposed in the budget request
for anticipated carryover balances from fiscal year 1999 into
fiscal year 2000. This action is required in order to bring the
bill into compliance with the allocations required by
Congressional budget caps, and to correct programmatic
imbalances proposed in the President's fiscal year 2000
request. In allocating the amount assigned to savings and
slippage, which is recommended at the budget request level, and
the additional reduction, it is the Committee's intent that
these reductions be applied proportionally. Nevertheless, the
Committee is aware of considerable savings due to favorable
bids, and where circumstances have significantly slowed
projects work, substantially affecting the amount of funding
which can be used on such project in fiscal year 2000.
Therefore, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to use
its reprogramming authority to the fullest extent possible to
meet funding needs on these projects that may arise during
fiscal year 2000.
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries Arkansas, Illinois,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $321,149,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 280,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 315,630,000
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of Total Federal Allocated to Current year Committee
project Project title cost date allocation Budget estimate recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
SURVEYS:
GENERAL STUDIES:
(FDP) MISSISSIPPI RIVER, ALEXANDER COUNTY, IL AND SCOTT 350 100 100 30 30
(FDP) ALEXANDRIA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO 3,150 362 268 700 700
(FDP) DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA 3,500 250 250 250 250
(COM) MEMPHIS METRO AREA, TN AND MS 2,075 768 768 675 675
(FC) BAYOU METO BASIN, AR 125,000 5,151 4,001 1,767 1,767
(FC) MORGANZA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO 88,400 ............... ............... 700 700
(FC) REELFOOT LAKE, TN AND KY 21,450 432 432 318 318
(FC) WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN 11,765 ............... ............... 525 525
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA .............. ............... ............... 365 365
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS 5,330 5,330
====================================================================================
CONSTRUCTION
(FC)CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN 3,667,000 2,525,845 35,830 37,685 37,685
(FC)EIGHT MILE CREEK, AR 9,000 3,952 1,435 700 700
(FC)GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR 245,350 19,267 7,683 21,900 13,900
(FC)HELENA AND VICINITY, AR 8,370 3,624 1,274 2,190 2,190
(FC)MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN 1,995,000 852,009 28,980 23,250 35,750
(FC)ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO 387,000 363,445 5,660 4,350 4,850
(FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA 185,000 72,620 7,203 7,500 7,500
(FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA 1,720,000 849,026 26,577 19,750 19,750
(FC)LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE, LA 19,500 5,758 4,322 3,000 5,000
(FC)MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, LA AND MS 66,900 8,074 240 100 100
(FC)MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA 99,200 78,654 14,717 10,400 10,400
(FC)TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA 166,900 116,610 9,699 8,930 8,930
YAZOO BASIN (1,513,837) (708,083) (29,302) (24,279) (24,279)
(FC) BACKWATER LESS ROCKY BAYOU, MS 254,491 59,144 20 20 20
(FC) BACKWATER PUMP, MS 97,840 11,098 410 500 1,000
(FC) BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS 109,383 90,387 4,322 3,915 4,500
(FC) DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL, MS 244,284 237,990 12,964 6,294 11,294
(FC) MAIN STEM, MS 194,431 34,586 24 20 20
(FC) REFORMULATION UNIT, MS 32,408 26,781 1,767 1,570 1,570
(FC) TRIBUTARIES, MS 243,000 107,040 192 340 340
(FC) UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS 338,000 141,057 9,603 11,620 11,620
(FC)ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO 58,800 12,592 5,762 7,800 9,800
(FC)NONCONNAH CREEK, FLOOD CONTROL FEATURE, TN AND MS 17,941 10,454 235 2,500 2,500
(FC)WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN 143,000 53,776 1,601 2,398 2,398
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION 176,732 191,817
====================================================================================
MAINTENANCE
(FC)CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN .............. ............... ............... 55,876 55,876
(N)HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR .............. ............... ............... 284 284
(FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR .............. ............... ............... 443 443
(FC)LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR .............. ............... ............... 66 66
(FC)LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR .............. ............... ............... 108 108
(FC)MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN .............. ............... ............... 3,736 6,500
(FC)ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO .............. ............... ............... 6,300 7,800
(FC)TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND LA .............. ............... ............... 2,344 2,344
(FC)WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR .............. ............... ............... 964 964
(FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL .............. ............... ............... 45 45
(FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY .............. ............... ............... 25 25
(FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA .............. ............... ............... 644 644
(FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA .............. ............... ............... 10,560 12,810
(N)BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA .............. ............... ............... 157 157
(FC)BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA .............. ............... ............... 101 101
(FC)BONNET CARRE, LA .............. ............... ............... 1,068 1,068
(FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA .............. ............... ............... 373 373
(FC)LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA .............. ............... ............... 84 84
(FC)MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA .............. ............... ............... 436 436
(FC)OLD RIVER, LA .............. ............... ............... 4,027 4,027
(FC)TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA .............. ............... ............... 2,927 2,927
(N)GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS .............. ............... ............... 333 333
(FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS .............. ............... ............... 193 193
(N)VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS .............. ............... ............... 199 199
YAZOO BASIN: .............. ............... ............... (20,475) (20,475)
(FC) ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS .............. ............... ............... 3,265 4,265
(FC) BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS .............. ............... ............... 209 209
(FC) ENID LAKE, MS .............. ............... ............... 3,214 4,214
(FC) GREENWOOD, MS .............. ............... ............... 946 946
(FC) GRENADA LAKE, MS .............. ............... ............... 4,280 5,280
(FC) MAIN STEM, MS .............. ............... ............... 1,059 1,059
(FC) SARDIS LAKE, MS .............. ............... ............... 4,334 5,334
(FC) TRIBUTARIES, MS .............. ............... ............... 1,269 1,300
(FC) WILL M WHITTINGTON AUXILIARY CHANNEL, MS .............. ............... ............... 493 493
(FC) YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS .............. ............... ............... 560 560
(FC) YAZOO CITY, MS .............. ............... ............... 846 846
(FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO .............. ............... ............... 202 202
(FC)WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO .............. ............... ............... 3,500 3,500
(FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN .............. ............... ............... 113 113
(N)MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN .............. ............... ............... 800 800
(FC)MAPPING .............. ............... ............... 1,117 1,117
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .............. ............... ............... -19,562 -9,562
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, MAINTENANCE .............. ............... ............... 97,938 118,483
====================================================================================
TOTAL, FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND .............. ............... ............... 280,000 315,630
TRIBUTARIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPE OF PROJECT:
(N) NAVIGATION
(FC) FLOOD CONTROL
The Committee rejects the totally inadequate budget request
proposed by the administration and again expresses concern over
the continued, severe budget reductions for the Mississippi
River and tributaries [MR&T;] project. The Mississippi River has
the third largest drainage basin in the world, exceeded in size
only by the Amazon and Congo River watersheds. It drains a
total of 1,245,00 square miles, covering all or part of 31
States and two Canadian Provinces. Water from as far east as
New York and as far west as Wyoming contribute to floods in the
lower Mississippi River Valley, flowing through the basin
roughly resembling a funnel which has its spout at the Gulf of
Mexico.
Therefore, flood control and protection along the
Mississippi River and its tributaries is not an option, it is
mandatory. The floods of 1993 demonstrated this importance by
averting $8,100,000,000 in damages. Over the years, the MR&T;
project has saved and estimated $150,000,000,000 in flood
damages based on a Federal investment of $8,121,000,000.
Another outcome of the recent floods is the need to raise and
strengthen numerous section of levees. The proposed $41,149,000
reduction below the appropriation for 1999 severely impacts
this effort and increases the likelihood of higher disaster
payments as the result of major flooding.
The Committee again directs the Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Chief of Engineers to continue ongoing
construction and expedite award of contracts, using continuing
contracts, in fiscal year 2000 to alleviate continued flooding
and suffering affected areas.
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.
Yazoo basin, Big Sunflower River, MR&T.--The; Committee has
provided $4,500,000 for the Corps to expedite construction of
various features of the Big Sunflower River, MS, project.
Yazoo basin, demonstration erosion control, MR&T.--An;
additional $5,000,000, over the budget request, 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 2000 and
for all future work as required for completion of the total
program. The Committee expects the administration to continue
to request funds for this important project.
Mississippi River Levees.--The Committee recommendation
includes $35,750,000 to advance completion of construction of
critical levee and other flood control facilities within the
Mississippi River and Tributaries program, including up to an
additional $2,000,000 for the Commerce-Birds Point, MO levee
grade raise.
St. Francis Basin and Tributaries, MO and AR.--The
Committee has recommended an appropriation of $4,500,000 for
construction activities on the St. Francis Basin and
Tributaries feature, including an additional $500,000 to
advance completion of channel improvements on Main and Ditch #
2, Item 2 in Missouri.
St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, MO.--The Committee
has included $9,800,000 for construction activities on the St.
Johns and New Madrid Floodway in Missouri, including additional
funding to advance completion construction of the New Madrid
pumping station by 1 year.
Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower River, MS.--An appropriation of
$209,000 is recommended for the Big Sunflower River maintenance
portion of the Yazoo Basin feature, including additional funds
for the purchase of mitigation lands as appropriate.
The Committee understands the urgency of restoring channel
capacity on the Big Sunflower River in the Yazoo Basin of
Mississippi. The Committee understands that litigation has
delayed the award of contracts on this project during fiscal
year 1999 and pending resolution of this litigation, may effect
contract awards in fiscal year 2000. However, the Committee
expects the Corps of Engineers to redirect available funds
within project if the litigation is resolved during fiscal year
2000.
Yazoo Basin, MS.--The Committee is informed of bank slides
on the Mississippi River and the impacts on the ability of
Adams County, Mississippi to maintain road surfaces. The
Committee expects the Corps to work with the County to address
the problem.
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, 1999.................................... $1,653,252,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 1,835,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,790,043,000
The Committee recommendation for Operation and Maintenance
activities of the Corps of Engineers totals $1,790,043,000 for
fiscal year 2000.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
ALABAMA--COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER 3,000 3,000
STUDY, AL..............................
ALABAMA--COOSA RIVER, AL................ 5,185 5,185
BAYOU LA BATRE, AL...................... 10 10
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL.. 15,917 15,917
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL.......... 4,000 4,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL....... 40 40
MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM 5,560 5,560
``BILL'' DANNELLY LA...................
MOBILE HARBOR, AL....................... 17,562 19,562
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL........... 300 300
ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL......... 6,183 6,183
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL..... 95 95
TENNESSEE--TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS 19,999 19,999
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA. 7,910 7,910
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK.................... 1,794 1,794
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK................... 1,552 1,552
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK................... 401 401
HOMER HARBOR, AK........................ 188 188
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK....... 35 35
LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL (SEWARD), AK........ .............. 1,000
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK.................... 180 180
NOME HARBOR, AK......................... 460 460
PETERSBURG HARBOR, AK................... 88 88
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK........... 502 502
ST PAUL HARBOR, AK...................... 384 384
WRANGELL NARROWS, AK.................... 1,024 1,024
ARIZONA
ALAMO LAKE, AZ.......................... 1,180 1,180
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ....... 75 75
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ.................... 1,118 1,118
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ..... 27 27
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ................... 155 155
ARKANSAS
BEAVER LAKE, AR......................... 3,702 3,702
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR....... 5,585 5,585
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR.................. 1,117 1,117
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR.................... 5,536 5,536
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR............. 5,673 5,673
DEGRAY LAKE, AR......................... 4,167 4,167
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR........................ 1,285 1,285
DIERKS LAKE, AR......................... 1,054 1,054
GILLHAM LAKE, AR........................ 1,002 1,002
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR................... 4,946 4,946
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR...... 295 295
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR....... 283 283
MCCLELLAN--KERR ARKANSAS RIVER 25,086 25,086
NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR..................
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR....................... 1,816 1,816
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR........... 3,498 3,498
NIMROD LAKE, AR......................... 1,367 1,367
NORFORK LAKE, AR........................ 3,803 3,803
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR...................... 523 523
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA.... 6,538 6,538
OZARK--JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR..... 5,515 5,515
WHITE RIVER, AR......................... 2,363 2,363
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR.................... 171 171
CALIFORNIA
BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA.................... 1,844 1,844
BUCHANAN DAM, H V EASTMAN LAKE, CA...... 2,055 2,055
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA.............. 170 170
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA... 3,877 3,877
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND 4,272 4,272
CHANNEL, CA............................
FARMINGTON DAM, CA...................... 332 332
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA............ 2,069 2,069
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA............. 4,189 4,189
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA....... 1,021 1,021
ISABELLA LAKE MITIGATION, CA............ 3,700 3,700
ISABELLA LAKE, CA....................... 1,456 1,456
LOS ANGELES--LONG BEACH HARBOR MODEL, CA 165 165
LOS ANGELES--LONG BEACH HARBORS, CA..... 100 100
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA.... 3,940 3,940
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA............... 277 277
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA.................... 246 246
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA.................... 2,818 2,818
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA...................... 1,894 1,894
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA 1,081 1,081
NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA.................. 40 40
NOYO RIVER AND HARBOR, CA............... 758 758
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA...................... 8,149 8,149
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA.................... 1,170 1,170
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA...................... 2,301 2,301
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA........... 1,138 1,138
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA..................... 5,546 5,546
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA.. 1,656 1,656
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS 1,149 1,149
CONTROL), CA...........................
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, 153 153
CA.....................................
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL 2,289 2,289
STRUCTURE, CA..........................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY (DRIFT 2,473 2,473
REMOVAL), CA...........................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA................ 2,441 2,441
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA................... 1,662 1,662
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA............... 3,007 3,007
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA................ 1,646 1,646
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA..... 1,516 1,516
SUCCESS LAKE, CA........................ 1,880 1,880
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA.................. 2,995 2,995
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA........... 1,684 1,684
VENTURA HARBOR, CA...................... 2,875 2,875
YUBA RIVER, CA.......................... 36 36
COLORADO
BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO..................... 454 454
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO...................... 778 778
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO................... 530 530
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO....... 129 129
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO............... 2,051 2,051
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO..... 300 300
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO....................... 702 702
CONNECTICUT
BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT..................... 328 328
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT................ 412 412
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT.................. 232 232
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT...................... 797 797
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT............... 512 512
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT............... 290 290
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT.......... 340 340
THOMASTON DAM, CT....................... 556 556
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT.................. 418 418
DELAWARE
CEDAR CREEK, DE......................... 265 265
CHESAPEAKE AND DELAWARE CANAL, ST 4,000 4,000
GEORGE'S BRIDGE REPL...................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO 19,518 19,518
CHESAPEAKE BAY, D......................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO 456 456
DELAWARE BAY, D........................
MISPILLION RIVER, DE.................... 305 305
MURDERKILL RIVER, DE.................... 430 430
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE................... 3,395 3,395
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS (DRIFT 880 880
REMOVAL), DC...........................
POTOMAC RIVER BELOW WASHINGTON, DC...... 985 985
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC................... 37 37
FLORIDA
AIWW, NORFOLK, VA TO ST JOHNS RIVER, FL, 30 30
GA, SC, NC &...........................
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL.................... 7,332 7,332
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL........ 8,470 8,470
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL................... 2,652 2,652
FORT PIERCE HARBOR, FL.................. 1,023 1,023
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL....... 100 100
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, CALOOSAHATCHEE R 50 50
TO ANCLOTE R,..........................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO 3,286 3,286
MIAMI, FL..............................
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL................. 7,193 7,193
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE 5,699 5,699
SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA................
MANATEE HARBOR, FL...................... 2,620 2,620
MIAMI HARBOR, FL........................ 4,200 4,200
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL................. 4,680 4,680
OKLAWAHA RIVER, FL...................... 10 10
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL................... 2,101 2,101
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL.................. 1,300 1,300
PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL................. 7,696 7,696
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL.............. 2,900 2,900
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL........... 400 400
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL........... 3,130 3,130
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL..... 70 70
ST LUCIE INLET, FL...................... 2,242 2,242
TAMPA HARBOR, FL........................ 7,041 7,041
WITHLACOOCHIE RIVER, FL................. 34 34
GEORGIA
ALLATOONA LAKE, GA...................... 6,328 6,328
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT 5,830 5,830
RIVERS, GA, AL &.......................
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA...... 2,310 2,310
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA.................... 6,231 6,231
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA... 7,000 7,000
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA................ 8,150 8,150
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC................ 9,500 9,500
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA....... 41 41
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC........ 8,750 8,750
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND 8,000 8,000
SC.....................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA..................... 13,757 13,757
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA........ 2,340 2,340
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL...... 6,200 6,200
HAWAII
BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI................ 121 121
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI....... 279 279
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI........... 750 750
IDAHO
ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID.................... 2,759 2,759
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID.......... 2,304 2,304
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID....... 82 82
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID..................... 1,238 1,238
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID..... 176 176
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 63 63
WATERS, ID.............................
ILLINOIS
CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN..... 2,539 2,539
CARLYLE LAKE, IL........................ 4,879 4,879
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL...................... 5,146 5,146
CHICAGO RIVER, IL....................... 362 362
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL............... 185 185
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI CANAL, IL...... 405 405
ILLINOIS WATERWAY, IL AND IN............ 25,368 25,368
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL....... 432 432
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL.......... 1,588 1,588
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL............. 837 837
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL.................... 5,558 5,558
MISS R BETWEEN MO R AND MINNEAPOLIS, IL, 103,547 105,047
IA, MN, MO &...........................
NORTH BRANCH CHICAGO RIVER, IL.......... 150 150
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL........... 43 43
REND LAKE, IL........................... 3,881 3,881
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 97 97
WATERS, IL.............................
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL..................... 736 736
INDIANA
BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN..................... 844 844
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN............... 1,829 1,829
BURNS WATERWAY SMALL BOAT HARBOR, IN.... 266 266
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN.................... 709 709
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN................. 837 837
INDIANA HARBOR, IN...................... 1,064 1,064
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN....... 92 92
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN................. 802 802
MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN................ 213 213
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN................... 825 825
MONROE LAKE, IN......................... 803 803
PATOKA LAKE, IN......................... 730 730
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN........... 42 42
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN...................... 741 741
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 154 154
WATERS, IN.............................
IOWA
CORALVILLE LAKE, IA..................... 2,755 2,755
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA....... 109 109
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE TO 211 211
SIOUX CITY, IA.........................
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO MOUTH, IA, 7,182 7,182
NE, KS AND MO..........................
RATHBUN LAKE, IA........................ 2,147 2,147
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA...... 3,577 3,577
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA.................... 3,905 3,905
KANSAS
CLINTON LAKE, KS........................ 1,582 1,582
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS.................. 1,130 1,130
EL DORADO LAKE, KS...................... 560 560
ELK CITY LAKE, KS....................... 716 716
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS..................... 1,184 1,184
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS...................... 938 938
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS....... 275 275
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS...... 975 1,500
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS...................... 1,370 1,370
MARION LAKE, KS......................... 1,331 1,331
MELVERN LAKE, KS........................ 2,016 2,016
MILFORD LAKE, KS........................ 1,856 1,856
PEARSON--SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS...... 900 900
PERRY LAKE, KS.......................... 2,089 2,089
POMONA LAKE, KS......................... 1,752 1,752
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS..... 347 347
TORONTO LAKE, KS........................ 468 468
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS................... 1,767 1,767
WILSON LAKE, KS......................... 1,731 1,731
KENTUCKY
BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN. 7,382 7,382
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY................... 2,057 2,057
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY.................... 1,170 1,170
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY....................... 1,209 1,209
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY..................... 1,364 1,364
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY....................... 819 819
DEWEY LAKE, KY.......................... 1,293 1,293
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY........ 340 340
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY....................... 1,609 1,609
GRAYSON LAKE, KY........................ 1,113 1,113
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY............. 1,142 1,142
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY.................... 1,826 1,826
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY....... 112 112
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY...................... 1,084 1,084
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY................... 1,780 1,780
LICKING RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY..... 17 17
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY................... 662 662
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY.. 76 76
NOLIN LAKE, KY.......................... 1,907 1,907
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN, 83,884 83,884
OH, PA AND WV..........................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, 5,789 5,789
IN, OH, PA AND WV......................
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY.................... 932 932
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY.................... 1,625 1,625
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY................... 1,043 1,043
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY..... 5,345 5,345
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY..................... 1,071 1,071
LOUISIANA
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, 12,631 12,631
BOEUF AND BLACK, L.....................
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA.............. 2,119 2,119
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA.............. 509 509
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP 5 5
WATERWAY, LA...........................
BAYOU PIERRE, LA........................ 25 25
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA..... 32 32
BAYOU TECHE, LA......................... 212 212
CADDO LAKE, LA.......................... 127 127
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA............ 7,560 7,560
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA.................... 3,585 3,585
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA.......... 12,506 12,506
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA.............. 3,443 3,443
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA....... 260 260
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA.............. 579 579
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA................. 93 93
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA..................... 2,445 2,445
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA. 2,743 2,743
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE 64,430 64,430
GULF OF MEXICO,........................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA...... 14,989 14,989
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA........... 80 80
RED RIVER WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO 8,781 10,781
SHREVEPORT, L..........................
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA........... 2,270 2,270
WALLACE LAKE, LA........................ 209 209
MAINE
PORTLAND HARBOR, ME..................... 6,985 6,985
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME........... 1,030 1,030
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 17 17
WATERS, ME.............................
MARYLAND
BALTIMORE HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), MD.... 440 440
BALTIMORE HARBOR (PREVENTION OF 625 625
OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS)..................
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), 16,142 16,142
MD.....................................
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV......... 140 140
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD....... 324 324
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV....... 1,616 1,616
KNAPPS NARROWS, MD...................... 770 770
NANTICOKE RIVER NORTHWEST FORK, MD...... 850 850
NORTHEAST RIVER, MD..................... 770 770
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND 380 380
SINEPUXENT BAY, MD.....................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD........... 450 450
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD..... 143 143
TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, MD.................. 5,800 5,800
WICOMICO RIVER, MD...................... 895 895
MASSACHUSETTS
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA..................... 494 494
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA...................... 423 423
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA.................... 443 443
CAPE COD CANAL, MA...................... 10,816 10,816
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE 202 202
AREA, MA...............................
CHATHAM (STAGE) HARBOR, MA.............. 215 215
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA................... 168 168
CUTTYHUNK HARBOR, MA.................... 118 118
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA................. 375 375
GREEN HARBOR, MA........................ 332 332
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA.................. 381 381
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA....... 125 125
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA..................... 362 362
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA.................... 395 395
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET 280 280
HURRICANE BARRIER,.....................
NEW BEDFORD HARBOR, MA.................. 230 230
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA........... 3,227 3,227
SALEM HARBOR, MA........................ 175 175
TULLY LAKE, MA.......................... 391 391
WEST HILL DAM, MA....................... 550 550
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA...................... 414 414
MICHIGAN
ALPENA HARBOR, MI....................... 441 441
ARCADIA HARBOR, MI...................... 68 68
BAY PORT HARBOR, MI..................... 227 227
CASEVILLE HARBOR, MI.................... 333 333
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI........... 512 512
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI................... 133 133
CLINTON RIVER, MI....................... 368 368
DETROIT RIVER, MI....................... 3,235 3,235
FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI.................... 363 363
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI.................. 615 615
GRAND TRAVERSE BAY HARBOR, MI........... 345 345
HARRISVILLE HARBOR, MI.................. 142 142
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI...................... 379 379
INLAND ROUTE, MI........................ 43 43
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI....... 205 205
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI................... 291 291
LAC LA BELLE, MI........................ 156 156
LELAND HARBOR, MI....................... 156 156
LEXINGTON HARBOR, MI.................... 247 247
LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI.................. 97 97
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI.................... 1,152 1,152
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI..................... 52 52
MANISTIQUE HARBOR, MI................... 1,356 1,356
MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND WI............. 28 28
MONROE HARBOR, MI....................... 137 137
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI..................... 120 120
NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI.................. 444 444
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI.................... 400 400
PENTWATER HARBOR, MI.................... 1,708 1,708
POINT LOOKOUT HARBOR, MI................ 328 328
PORTAGE LAKE HARBOR, MI................. 579 579
PRESQUE ISLE HARBOR, MI................. 134 134
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI........... 195 195
ROUGE RIVER, MI......................... 57 57
SAGINAW RIVER, MI....................... 1,387 1,387
SAUGATUCK HARBOR, MI.................... 2,042 2,042
SEBEWAING RIVER (ICE JAM REMOVAL), MI... 10 10
SOUTH HAVEN HARBOR, MI.................. 488 488
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI...................... 1,064 1,064
ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI.................... 667 667
ST MARYS RIVER, MI...................... 21,957 21,957
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 2,426 2,426
WATERS, MI.............................
WHITE LAKE HARBOR, MI................... 324 324
WHITEFISH POINT HARBOR, MI.............. 115 115
MINNESOTA
BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD 209 209
DULUTH--SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI...... 2,480 2,480
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN....... 161 161
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN 527 527
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN..................... 155 155
ORWELL LAKE, MN......................... 561 561
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN........... 57 57
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN.................. 242 242
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI 3,219 3,219
RIVER, MN..............................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 64 64
WATERS, MN.............................
MISSISSIPPI
BILOXI HARBOR, MS....................... 15 15
CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS............... 108 108
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS.......... 150 150
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS..................... 2,216 2,216
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS....... 360 360
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS................ 104 104
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS...................... 1,620 1,620
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS................... 3,417 3,417
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA.................. 263 263
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS..................... 1,034 1,034
YAZOO RIVER, MS......................... 15 15
MISSOURI
CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO............... 200 200
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, 5,174 5,174
MO.....................................
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO..................... 2,248 2,248
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO.... 8,613 8,613
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO....... 669 669
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO............. 825 825
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO.................... 801 801
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS 13,544 13,544
(REG WORKS), MO........................
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO................... 269 269
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO................. 1,888 1,888
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO........... 30 30
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO..................... 1,083 1,083
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI 421 421
RIVER, MO..............................
STOCKTON LAKE, MO....................... 3,247 3,247
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO..................... 5,963 5,963
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO..................... 20 20
MONTANA
FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT................ 3,842 3,842
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT....... 21 21
LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT........... 2,520 2,520
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT..... 48 48
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 67 67
WATERS, MT.............................
NEBRASKA
GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, 7,184 7,184
NE AND SD..............................
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE.................. 2,379 2,379
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE....... 150 150
MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL, 900 900
NE, IA, KS, MO,........................
MISSOURI NATIONAL RIVER................. .............. 250
MISSOURI RIVER BASIN COLLABORATIVE WATER 250 250
PLANNING, NE...........................
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, 678 678
NE.....................................
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE.......... 796 796
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NE..... 106 106
NEVADA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV....... 37 37
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA............ 532 532
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV...... 181 181
NEW HAMPSHIRE
BLACKWATER DAM, NH...................... 361 361
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH............... 394 394
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH.................. 502 502
HOPKINTON--EVERETT LAKES, NH............ 941 941
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH.................... 479 479
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR, PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH. .............. 20
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH................. 485 485
NEW JERSEY
BARNEGAT INLET, NJ...................... 1,270 1,270
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ................... 545 545
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, 15,356 16,856
NJ, PA AND DE..........................
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO 3,280 3,280
TRENTON, NJ............................
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ.... 1,854 1,854
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC 165 165
RIVERS, NJ.............................
RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ 700 700
RARITAN RIVER, NJ....................... 1,191 1,191
SHREWSBURY RIVER, MAIN CHANNEL, NJ...... 70 70
NEW MEXICO
ABIQUIU DAM, NM......................... 1,198 1,198
COCHITI LAKE, NM........................ 1,926 1,926
CONCHAS LAKE, NM........................ 1,150 1,150
GALISTEO DAM, NM........................ 315 315
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM....... 103 103
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM.................... 600 600
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM............. 836 836
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM..... 115 115
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM...................... 303 303
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL. .............. 800
NEW YORK
ALMOND LAKE, NY......................... 451 451
ARKPORT DAM, NY......................... 228 228
BAY RIDGE AND RED HOOK CHANNELS, NY..... 70 70
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, 1,053 1,053
NY.....................................
BRONX RIVER, NY......................... 70 70
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY...................... 1,425 1,425
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY.................. 700 700
CATTARAUGUS CREEK HARBOR, NY............ 50 50
DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY...................... 510 510
EAST RIVER, NY.......................... 150 150
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY................. 250 250
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY.................... 463 463
EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY................... 2,000 2,000
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY.... 505 505
FIRE ISLAND INLET, NY................... 810 810
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY.............. 325 325
GLEN COVE CREEK, NY..................... 125 125
GREAT SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY.............. 200 200
GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY..................... 40 40
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY................ 200 200
HUDSON RIVER, NY........................ 2,575 2,575
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY....... 808 808
JAMAICA BAY, NY......................... 250 250
JONES INLET, NY......................... 1,200 1,200
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY................. 60 60
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY... 200 200
MATTITUCK HARBOR, NY.................... 220 220
MORICHES INLET, NY...................... 70 70
MT MORRIS LAKE, NY...................... 3,975 3,975
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY.... 953 953
NEW YORK HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), NY AND 4,955 4,955
NJ.....................................
NEW YORK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF 740 740
OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS),.................
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY..................... 6,105 6,105
OSWEGO HARBOR, NY....................... 395 395
PORTCHESTER HARBOR, NY.................. 60 60
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY........... 1,706 1,706
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY.................... 815 815
ROUSES POINT, NY........................ 25 25
SAG HARBOR, NY.......................... 800 800
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY.................... 100 100
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL 728 728
PROJECTS, NY...........................
STURGEON POINT HARBOR, NY............... 15 15
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 565 565
WATERS, NY.............................
WESTCHESTER CREEK, NY................... 70 70
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY.................. 542 542
NORTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC...... 5,552 5,552
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC....... 1,346 1,346
BOGUE INLET AND CHANNEL, NC............. 550 550
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC.... 707 707
CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC................ 1,346 1,346
FALLS LAKE, NC.......................... 1,029 1,029
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC....... 22 22
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC............... 380 380
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC............. 4,998 4,998
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, 45 45
NC.....................................
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC................ 3,709 3,709
NEW RIVER INLET, NC..................... 825 825
NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING 210 210
CHANNELS, NC...........................
PAMLICO AND TAR RIVERS, NC.............. 139 139
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC........... 59 59
ROANOKE RIVER, NC....................... 100 100
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC...... 1,660 1,660
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC................... 6,431 6,431
NORTH DAKOTA
BOWMAN--HALEY LAKE, ND.................. 204 204
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND........ 7,997 8,097
HOMME LAKE, ND.......................... 174 174
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND....... 13 13
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND..... 1,460 1,460
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND....................... 802 802
SOURIS RIVER, ND........................ 368 368
OHIO
ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH..................... 667 667
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH.................... 845 845
BERLIN LAKE, OH......................... 4,503 4,503
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH................... 1,228 1,228
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH................ 719 719
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH.................... 5,535 5,535
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH..................... 1,352 1,352
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH..................... 670 670
DELAWARE LAKE, OH....................... 1,917 1,917
DILLON LAKE, OH......................... 746 746
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH..................... 481 481
HURON HARBOR, OH........................ 840 840
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH....... 228 228
LORAIN HARBOR, OH....................... 790 790
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.. 25 25
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH.. 1,200 1,200
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH................. 1,422 1,422
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH............... 7,078 7,078
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH.... 327 327
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH.................... 673 673
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR, OH................... 80 80
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH........... 74 74
ROCKY RIVER, OH......................... 340 340
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.. 30 30
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH..................... 1,037 1,037
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 174 174
WATERS, OH.............................
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH....................... 3,385 3,385
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH..................... 279 279
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH........ 574 574
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH............... 856 856
OKLAHOMA
ARCADIA LAKE, OK........................ 403 403
BIRCH LAKE, OK.......................... 611 611
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK..................... 1,508 1,508
CANDY LAKE, OK.......................... 30 30
CANTON LAKE, OK......................... 2,497 2,497
COPAN LAKE, OK.......................... 1,020 1,020
EUFAULA LAKE, OK........................ 7,366 7,366
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK.................... 4,034 4,034
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK.................... 751 751
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK.............. 259 259
HEYBURN LAKE, OK........................ 697 697
HUGO LAKE, OK........................... 1,404 1,404
HULAH LAKE, OK.......................... 491 491
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK....... 91 91
KAW LAKE, OK............................ 2,740 2,740
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK....................... 6,543 6,543
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK........................ 2,947 3,447
OPTIMA LAKE, OK......................... 74 74
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE 32 32
CHEROKEES, OK..........................
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK..................... 1,414 1,414
ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND 4,501 4,501
RESERVOIRS, OK.........................
SARDIS LAKE, OK......................... 1,287 1,287
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK..... 369 369
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK....................... 1,084 1,084
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK................ 3,400 3,400
WAURIKA LAKE, OK........................ 1,997 1,997
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK.......... 3,066 3,066
WISTER LAKE, OK......................... 679 679
OREGON
APPLEGATE LAKE, OR...................... 872 872
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR..................... 297 297
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA...... 5,747 5,747
CHETCO RIVER, OR........................ 442 442
COLUMBIA AND LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW 15,173 17,473
VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLA...............
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA.. 7,426 7,426
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND 356 356
THE DALLES, O..........................
COOS BAY, OR............................ 4,112 4,112
COQUILLE RIVER, OR...................... 434 434
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR.................. 913 913
COUGAR LAKE, OR......................... 690 690
DEPOE BAY, OR........................... 178 178
DETROIT LAKE, OR........................ 609 609
DORENA LAKE, OR......................... 556 556
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR..................... 433 433
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR..................... 997 997
GREEN PETER--FOSTER LAKES, OR........... 1,001 1,001
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR.................... 334 334
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR....... 163 163
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA........ 3,450 3,450
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR.................. 1,692 1,692
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR..................... 3,594 3,594
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA.......... 4,501 4,501
PORT ORFORD, OR......................... 737 787
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR........... 137 137
ROGUE RIVER, OR......................... 866 866
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR..... 105 105
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR....................... 809 809
SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR.................... 1,013 1,013
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 7 7
WATERS, OR.............................
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR............... 14 14
UMPQUA RIVER, OR........................ 1,254 1,254
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR 514 514
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR.... 66 66
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR................... 637 637
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR.............. 3,691 3,691
PENNSYLVANIA
ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA..................... 9,789 9,789
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA.................... 749 749
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA............... 232 232
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA..................... 875 875
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA..................... 2,002 2,002
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA................ 940 940
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA..................... 1,824 1,824
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA.................. 2,312 2,312
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA................... 669 669
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA...... 884 884
ERIE HARBOR, PA......................... 123 123
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA............ 712 712
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA................ 796 796
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, 248 248
PA.....................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA....... 143 143
JOHNSTOWN, PA........................... 13 13
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA.. 1,388 1,388
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA..................... 1,086 1,086
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA................. 879 879
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA................... 12,395 12,395
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA........... 86 86
PROMPTON LAKE, PA....................... 935 935
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA........................ 13 13
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA....................... 3,042 3,042
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA.................... 2,565 2,565
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA................. 2,121 2,121
STILLWATER LAKE, PA..................... 387 387
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 70 70
WATERS, PA.............................
TIOGA--HAMMOND LAKES, PA................ 1,968 1,968
TIONESTA LAKE, PA....................... 2,075 2,075
UNION CITY LAKE, PA..................... 259 259
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA................. 796 796
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA................ 542 542
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD...... 2,184 2,184
RHODE ISLAND
BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI....... 675 675
PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, RI......... 3,906 3,906
SOUTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC...... 3,391 3,391
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC................... 5,779 5,779
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC..... 3,375 3,375
FOLLY RIVER, SC......................... 236 236
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC................... 4,064 4,064
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC....... 26 26
PORT ROYAL HARBOR, SC................... 1,424 1,424
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC........... 75 75
SHIPYARD RIVER, SC...................... 811 811
TOWN CREEK, SC.......................... 345 345
SOUTH DAKOTA
BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD........... 6,853 6,853
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD..................... 644 644
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD............. 223 223
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD. 8,091 8,091
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD....... 13 13
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN................ 642 642
MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND 130 130
GAVINS PT, SD, MT......................
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND.......... 10,812 10,812
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD..... 61 61
TENNESSEE
CENTER HILL LAKE, TN.................... 5,167 5,167
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN............... 5,704 5,704
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN...... 4,220 4,220
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN.................... 4,200 4,200
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN....... 4 4
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN.... 3,396 3,396
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN............ 6,006 6,006
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN..................... 16,123 16,123
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN................... 388 388
TEXAS
AQUILLA LAKE, TX........................ 602 602
ARKANSAS--RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE 1,242 1,242
CONTROL--AREA VI.......................
BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX............ 1,000 1,000
BARDWELL LAKE, TX....................... 1,436 1,436
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX................ 1,625 1,625
BELTON LAKE, TX......................... 2,542 2,542
BENBROOK LAKE, TX....................... 1,896 1,896
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX................ 1,062 1,062
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX....... 2,034 2,034
CANYON LAKE, TX......................... 2,265 2,265
CEDAR BAYOU, TX......................... 1,131 1,131
CHANNEL TO HARLINGEN, TX................ 950 950
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX......... 4,690 4,690
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, BARGE .............. 400
LANES, TX..............................
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX............ 6,728 6,728
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, 14 14
TX.....................................
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, 2,288 2,288
TX.....................................
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX..................... 5,100 5,100
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX........ 1,985 1,985
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX........... 315 315
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX................ 1,652 1,652
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX...................... 2,267 2,267
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX.......... 23,072 23,072
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX.................... 1,201 1,201
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX................ 6,416 6,416
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX....... 854 854
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX.................... 1,045 1,045
JOE POOL LAKE, TX....................... 740 740
LAKE KEMP, TX........................... 154 154
LAVON LAKE, TX.......................... 2,390 2,390
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX...................... 3,123 3,123
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX.............. 3,780 3,780
MOUTH OF THE COLORADO RIVER, TX......... 2,950 2,950
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX.................. 1,456 1,456
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE 1,934 1,934
GEORGETOWN, TX.........................
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX............. 1,488 1,488
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX...................... 1,974 1,974
PROCTOR LAKE, TX........................ 1,490 1,490
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX........... 50 50
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX.................... 1,093 1,093
SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX............. 9,500 9,500
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX....... 4,572 4,572
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX..... 235 235
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX..................... 2,508 2,508
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX............... 2,006 2,006
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX. 2,062 2,062
WACO LAKE, TX........................... 2,907 2,907
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX.................... 1,090 1,090
WHITNEY LAKE, TX........................ 5,088 5,088
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX.......... 2,587 2,587
UTAH
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT....... 63 63
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT..... 414 414
VERMONT
BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT.................. 703 703
BURLINGTON HARBOR BREAKWATER, VT........ 160 1,300
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY.... 536 536
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT................. 511 511
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT.............. 631 631
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT...................... 724 724
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT................... 520 520
VIRGINIA
APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA.................... 391 391
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, VA...... 2,364 2,364
CHANNEL TO NEWPORT NEWS, VA............. 45 45
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA.................. 842 842
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA....... 1,566 1,566
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS 920 920
HBR, VA (DRIFT REM.....................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA....... 59 59
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA................. 3,983 3,983
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA AND NC............. 11,190 11,190
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA.. 1,347 1,347
NORFOLK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF 282 282
OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS), V...............
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA...................... 5,815 5,815
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA...... 340 340
PAGAN RIVER, VA......................... 145 145
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA....................... 2,252 2,252
POTOMAC RIVER AT ALEXANDRIA, VA......... 660 660
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA........... 630 630
RUDEE INLET, VA......................... 1,002 1,002
TANGIER CHANNEL, VA..................... 648 648
THIMBLE SHOAL CHANNEL, VA............... 3,347 3,347
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA... 1,185 1,185
WASHINGTON
BELLINGHAM HARBOR, WA................... 512 512
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA.................... 811 811
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA AND OR.. 450 450
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND SAND 6 6
ISLAND, WA.............................
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA.. 1,225 1,225
FRIDAY HARBOR, WA....................... 300 300
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA..... 13,150 16,150
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA................... 1,710 1,710
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA............. 2,791 2,791
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA....... 177 177
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA.......... 8,530 8,530
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA........... 1,138 1,138
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA.......... 5,920 5,920
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA....... 1,801 1,801
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA..................... 870 870
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA....... 409 409
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA.................... 3,157 3,157
OLYMPIA HARBOR, WA...................... 927 927
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA........... 308 308
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA.... 1,041 1,041
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA.................... 1,061 1,061
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA..... 453 453
SEATTLE HARBOR, EAST WATERWAY CHANNEL 3,400 3,400
DEEPENING, WA..........................
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA...................... 727 727
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA................. 195 195
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 59 59
WATERS, WA.............................
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA.............. 72 72
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR...... 2,402 2,402
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA............ 727 727
WEST VIRGINIA
BEECH FORK LAKE, WV..................... 1,076 1,076
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV...................... 1,218 1,218
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV..................... 1,390 1,390
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV...................... 1,585 1,585
ELKINS, WV.............................. 16 16
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV....... 84 84
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV........ 7,314 7,314
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV..................... 1,643 1,643
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV.............. 937 937
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV................... 1,505 1,505
SUTTON LAKE, WV......................... 1,648 1,648
TYGART LAKE, WV......................... 1,923 1,923
WISCONSIN
ALGOMA HARBOR, WI....................... 107 107
ASHLAND HARBOR, WI...................... 195 195
BIG SUAMICO HARBOR, WI.................. 368 368
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI................ 685 685
FOX RIVER, WI........................... 3,487 3,487
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI.................... 996 996
KENOSHA HARBOR, WI...................... 494 494
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI..................... 69 69
LA FARGE LAKE, WI....................... 52 52
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI.................... 226 226
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI.................... 832 832
OCONTO HARBOR, WI....................... 168 168
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI........... 93 93
SHEBOYGAN HARBOR, WI.................... 230 230
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN 507 507
SHIP CANAL, WI.........................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 707 707
WATERS, WI.............................
TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI................... 117 117
WYOMING
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY................. 1,126 1,126
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY..... 288 288
MISCELLANEOUS
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM.......... 3,000 2,500
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION).... 2,000 1,500
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE............ 12,450 6,450
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE 1,085 500
MONITORING SYSTEM......................
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL 8,000 5,000
RESEARCH (DOER)........................
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT 2,500 1,500
(DOTS) PROGRAM.........................
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS PROGRAM FOR BUILDINGS 500 500
AND LIFELINES..........................
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION.. 575 575
MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR O&M................; 975 500
MONITORING OF COASTAL NAVIGATION 2,000 1,000
PROJECTS...............................
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM............. 40 40
NATIONAL DAM SECURITY PROGRAM........... 20 20
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS 6,000 5,000
(NEPP).................................
NATIONAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 1,850 1,000
(NRMS) PROGRAM.........................
PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT 1,365 750
PROGRAM................................
PROTECT, CLEAR AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS 50 50
(SECTION 3)............................
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR 675 500
REHABILITATION.........................
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS............... 500 500
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT 950 750
(WOTS) PROGRAM.........................
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS.......... 4,542 4,000
WETLANDS FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT 1,000 1,000
METHODOLOGY............................
ZEBRA MUSSEL CONTROL.................... 1,500 ..............
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND -19,284 -64,284
SLIPPAGE...............................
-------------------------------
TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.. 1,835,900 1,790,043
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 innovated 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.
Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis,
MN (Sny Island), IL.--The Committee has included an additional
$1,500,000 for the Corps to advance the Sny Island levee
stabilization work being undertaken as part of the Mississippi
River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis, MN project.
John Redmond Dam and Reservoir, KS.--The Committee has
included an additional $525,000 for the Corps to study raising
the conservation pool at John Redmond Dam and Reservoir, KS.
J. Bennett Johnston (Red River) Waterway, Mississippi River
to Shreveport, LA.--The Committee has provided an additional
$2,000,000 over the budget request for the J. Bennett Johnston
Waterway, LA, project for the Corps to undertake repairs to
Locks and Dams 1, 2, 4, and 5, and other maintenance work.
Missouri River Between Fort Peck and Culbertson, MT, Bank
Stabilization.--The Corps of Engineers is urged to consider
non-traditional means to combat bank erosion along the Missouri
River between the communities of Fort Peck and Culbertson, MT.
Upper Rio Grande water operation model, NM.--The Committee
has provide $800,000 for the Corps to complete the water
operation model, update the water control manual, and begin
activities related to preparation of an EIS for the Upper Rio
Grande Basin water operations review.
Oologah Lake, OK.--The Committee has included $500,000 over
the budget request for the Corps to initiate in-lake water
quality and reservoir water quality modeling at Oolagah Lake,
OK. The Committee expects the Corps to coordinate and consult
with the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of New Mexico.
Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, ND.--The Committee
recommendation for the Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea project in
North Dakota includes $100,000 for the Corps to continue
mosquito control activities.
Little River Harbor, NH.--The Committee recommendation
includes $35,000 to complete an environmental assessment,
prepare plans and specifications and coordinate with State and
Federal agencies for the purpose of proceeding with maintenance
dredging.
Portsmouth Harbor, Piscataqua River, NH.--The Committee has
included $20,000 over the budget request for the Corps to
coordinate with State and Federal agencies, seek State
approvals and prepare plans and specifications for maintenance
dredging at Portsmouth Harbor, Piscataqua River, NH.
Delaware River, Philadelphia to the sea (Pea Patch Island),
NJ 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.
Columbia and Lower Willamette River Below Vancouver, OR and
WA.--The Committee recommendation includes an additional
$2,300,000 to repair approximately 200 feet of deteriorated
breakwater at Astoria East Boat Basin.
Port Orford, OR.--An additional $50,000 over the budget
request is recommended for the Corps to initiate studies and
data collection required for ocean disposal of dredge material
at Port Orford, OR.
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Barge Lanes, TX.--The
Committee has included $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
initiate and complete a study to determine solutions and/or
alternatives to traffic and safety issues related to barge
traffic in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX.
Burlington Harbor Breakwater, VT.--The Committee has
provided $1,300,000 over the budget request for the Corps to
initiate reconstruction of the bulkhead at Burlington Harbor,
VT.
Columbia River navigation channel, Oregon and Washington.--
The Committee is aware that the authorized 40-foot Columbia
River navigation channel is subject to shoaling at a number of
locations in the river, causing restrictions in channel draft.
The Committee directs the Corps to use its existing authorities
to dredge a 5-foot overdraft; and, when appropriate, to conduct
advance maintenance dredging to assure that project depth of 40
feet is maintained to the maximum extent possible.
Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, WA.--The Committee has
included $16,150,000 for the Grays Harbor and Chehalis River,
WA project, including $3,000,000 for the Corps to initiate
reconstruction of the North Jetty at Grays Harbor.
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: the
need for additional maintenance dredging at Humboldt Harbor,
CA; additional maintenance dredging of Bayou Segnette, LA; for
additional maintenance dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway in
South Carolina from Georgetown to Little River, and from Port
Royal to Little River; dredging at the entrance channel at
Murrells Inlet, SC; additional dredging for the Lower Winyah
Bay and Gorge in Georgetown Harbor, SC as appropriate.
Funding Adjustments.--The Committee has recommended
additional reductions over that proposed in the budget request
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
2000 request. It is the Committee's intent that the General
Provision requiring proportional reductions shall not apply to
the additional amount. To the extent feasible, it is the
Committee's intent that this amount be applied to deepdraft
harbor and navigation projects.
The Committee notes that maintaining the hopper dredge
Wheeler in ready reserve status, in accordance with section 237
of Public Law 104-303, to ensure the vessel's ability to
perform emergency work, involves costs estimated at $12,450,000
per year. While the Committee supports measures to increase the
use of private sector hopper dredges, budget constraints do not
allow the appropriation of the full amount needed for
maintaining the dredge in ready reserve. The Committee also
believes, based on dredging requirements experienced in recent
years, that it is likely for some or all of the Dredge
Wheeler's capacity to be required for project maintenance.
Accordingly, the Committee has reduced the amount requested for
ready reserve status to $6,450,000 and expects the Dredge
Wheeler to perform work to make up the difference in expected
allocations. 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.
regulatory program
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $106,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 117,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 115,000,000
An appropriation of $115,000,000 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 Committee is disappointed with the Administration's
total disregard to the directions of the Congress to implement
an administrative appeal process for which funding was
provided. This has forced the Committee to recommend language
in the bill to require the establishment of an appeals process
for a single-level appeal of jurisdictional determinations as
directed in prior years.
The Committee recommendation also includes $3,000,000 as
proposed in the budget for personnel and other labor costs to
help mitigate the delays and other impacts being experienced by
the public from a workload which is at an all-time high.
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
This activity provides for flood emergency preparation,
flood fighting and rescue operations, and repair of flood
control and Federal hurricane or shore protection works. It
also provides for emergency supplies of clean drinking water
where the source has been contaminated and in drought
distressed areas, provision of adequate supplies of water for
human and livestock consumption.
There was no additional funding request for fiscal year
2000 and the Committee understands that, based on the average
yearly funding requirement, additional appropriations are not
required for fiscal year 2000.
formerly utilized sites remedial action program
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $140,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 150,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 150,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $150,000,000
to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 1999. 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 sites have been appropriated to the
Department of Energy through existing appropriation accounts.
In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy.
The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies.
The Committee always intended for the Corps expertise be used
in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under
FUSRAP. The Committee expects the Corps to continue programming
and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the civil works program.
general expenses
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $148,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 148,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 151,000,000
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 $151,000,000.
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. However, the General
Expenses appropriation request for fiscal year 2000 is over
$4,000,000 less than the amount actually appropriated in fiscal
year 1995. Because the Corps has had to absorb inflation,
annual salary adjustments, increased rents and other cost
increases, the decline in general expense funding in real terms
has been even more significant, over $20,000,000 in constant
dollars just during this period. Therefore, in order to sustain
the leadership within the Corps of Engineers, to preserve the
quality and effectiveness of this national asset, and to
prevent further erosion of its oversight and management
capabilities, the Committee has recommended an adjustment in
the General Expenses account for fiscal year 2000.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project Completion Account
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $42,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 39,370,000
Committee recommendation................................ 39,370,000
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2000 to carry
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act
is $39,370,000. An appropriation of $21,002,000 has been
provided for Central Utah project construction; $12,047,000 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
$1,321,000 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, and 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, 1999.................................... $617,045,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 652,838,000
Committee recommendation................................ 612,451,000
An appropriation of $612,451,000 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 Committee recommendation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal Allocated to Facility Facility
Project title cost date Resource operations, Resource operations,
management and maintenance, and management and maintenance, and
development rehabilitation development rehabilitation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIZONA
AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT. ................ ................ ................ 6,996 ................ 6,996
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT (LCRBDF)............ 4,091,767 3,137,516 27,326 ................ 24,326 ................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE 450,051 409,136 1,036 12,056 1,036 9,056
I..........................................
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM.. 102,373 95,592 3,564 ................ 3,564 ................
HEADGATE ROCK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT......... 5,000 ................ ................ ................ 5,000 ................
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..... ................ ................ 580 ................ 300 ................
SALT RIVER PROJECT, HORSE MESA DAM.......... 16,767 4,500 ................ 1,590 ................ 1,590
SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................ ................ 850 ................ 850 ................
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT 57,458 14,343 5,873 ................ 5,873 ................
PROJECT....................................
TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION............ 8,000 4,300 400 ................ 400 ................
TUCSON AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 1,000 450 150 ................ 150 ................
STUDY......................................
YUMA AREA PROJECTS.......................... ................ ................ 109 15,423 109 15,423
CALIFORNIA
CACHUMA PROJECT............................. 32,659 32,289 639 723 639 723
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........... ................ ................ 500 ................ 400 ................
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING 20,000 ................ 1,500 ................ ................ ................
PROJECT....................................
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:
AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION................. 2,736,703 531,514 8,800 10,103 6,800 8,103
DELTA DIVISION.......................... 364,312 216,379 14,362 4,651 13,612 4,651
EAST SIDE DIVISION...................... ................ ................ 575 3,781 575 3,781
FRIANT DIVISION......................... 522 108 3,614 2,498 3,614 2,498
MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS.......... 672,061 334,121 11,099 1,734 11,099 1,734
REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, EXTRAORDINARY ................ ................ ................ 8,500 ................ 8,500
MAINTEN- ANCE..........................
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION............... 517,360 393,814 7,032 1,649 8,532 1,649
SAN FELIPE DIVISION..................... 362,604 309,600 1,163 ................ 1,163 ................
SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION.................... 277,012 73,265 1,443 ................ 1,443 ................
SHASTA DIVISION......................... 295,132 277,589 3,480 7,139 3,480 7,139
TRINITY RIVER DIVISION.................. 356,506 322,286 8,006 4,807 5,506 4,807
WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS.............. ................ ................ 635 5,750 635 5,750
WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT 1,515,191 575,839 5,912 6,302 5,912 6,302
YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION......... ................ ................ 2,000 ................ 2,000 ................
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT... 13,970 ................ 1,500 ................ ................ ................
LOS ANGELES AREA WATER RECLAMATION/REUSE 69,970 61,730 7,500 ................ 7,500 ................
PROJECT....................................
NORTH SAN DIEGO CNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING 20,000 ................ 1,500 ................ ................ ................
PROJECT....................................
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION 20,000 ................ 1,500 ................ ................ ................
PROJECT....................................
ORLAND PROJECT.............................. ................ ................ ................ 570 ................ 570
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT................. ................ ................ 1,000 ................ 600 ................
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM.... 172,590 41,788 10,600 ................ 10,600 ................
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT................... 38,090 23,941 2,000 ................ 2,000 ................
SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 109,959 16,579 3,000 ................ 3,000 ................
PROGRAM....................................
SOLANO PROJECT.............................. ................ ................ 995 1,005 995 1,005
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.. ................ ................ 625 ................ 425 ................
COLORADO
ANIMAS-LAPLATA PROJECT, SECTIONS 5 AND 8.... ................ 76,579 3,000 ................ 2,000 ................
COLLBRAN PROJECT............................ ................ ................ 813 798 813 798
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT............... ................ ................ 304 7,506 304 7,506
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............. ................ ................ 435 ................ 435 ................
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT.................... ................ ................ 94 16 94 16
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT.................. ................ ................ 339 4,927 339 4,927
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT, PUEBLO DAM...... 23,000 16,300 ................ 6,700 ................ 6,700
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP................... ................ ................ 403 506 403 506
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT... ................ ................ 763 1,010 763 1,010
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM. ................ ................ 50 ................ 50 ................
LOWER GUNNISON BASIN UNIT, CRBSCP........... ................ ................ ................ 319 ................ 319
MANCOS PROJECT.............................. ................ ................ 44 22 44 22
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP................. ................ ................ ................ 2,058 ................ 2,058
PINE RIVER PROJECT.......................... ................ ................ 362 58 362 58
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CLOSED BASIN/ ................ ................ 316 3,591 316 3,591
CONEJOS DIV................................
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT......................... ................ ................ 293 23 293 23
UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN SELENIUM STUDY... 540 440 100 ................ 100 ................
IDAHO
BOISE AREA PROJECTS......................... ................ ................ 2,385 2,726 2,385 2,726
COLUMBIA-SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT 98,052 44,983 13,122 ................ 9,500 ................
DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, BOISE PROJECT. 850 50 200 ................ 200 ................
FORT HALL INDIAN RESERVATION................ 600 300 ................ ................ 250 ................
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................ ................ ................ 363 ................ 363 ................
LEWISTON ORCHARDS, RESERVOIR `A' DAM........ 2,959 2,809 ................ 150 ................ 150
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS...................... ................ ................ 4,030 1,809 4,030 1,809
MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAINWATER MANAGEMENT 1,830 790 315 ................ 200 ................
PROJECT....................................
KANSAS
KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............... ................ ................ 400 ................ 400 ................
WICHITA PROJECT............................. ................ ................ ................ 219 ................ 219
MONTANA
FORT PECK RURAL WATER SYSTEM, MT............ 5,800 1,800 ................ ................ 4,000 ................
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT........................ ................ ................ 69 177 69 177
MILK RIVER PROJECT.......................... ................ ................ 145 353 145 353
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.............. ................ ................ 446 ................ 250 ................
ROCKY BOYS INDIAN WTR RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ................ ................ 1,000 ................ 500 ................
STUDY......................................
NEBRASKA
MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT........................ ................ ................ 30 28 30 28
NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............. ................ ................ 150 ................ 150 ................
NEVADA
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT...................... ................ ................ 6,352 1,098 5,552 1,098
LAKE MEAD AND LAS VEGAS WASH................ 2,000 ................ ................ ................ 2,000 ................
NEWLANDS WATER RIGHTS FUND.................. 7,000 ................ ................ ................ 1,500 ................
TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATION AGREEMENT........... 800 ................ ................ ................ 800 ................
WALKER RIVER BASIN PROJECT.................. 1,200 900 ................ ................ 400 ................
NEW MEXICO
CARLSBAD PROJECT............................ ................ ................ 1,012 576 1,012 576
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT................... ................ ................ 2,010 9,766 4,010 9,766
NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT.......... 1,234 934 ................ ................ 300 ................
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT..... ................ ................ ................ 268 ................ 268
RIO GRANDE PROJECT.......................... ................ ................ 769 2,564 769 2,564
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM. ................ ................ 124 ................ 124 ................
SANTA FE WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE........ 1,250 500 ................ ................ 750 ................
SO. NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS ................ ................ 254 ................ 254 ................
PROGRAM....................................
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS ................ ................ 213 ................ 213 ................
PROGRAM....................................
UTE RESERVOIR PIPELINE PROJECT.............. 1,250 500 ................ ................ 250 ................
VELARDE COMMUNITY DITCH PROJECT............. 29,464 23,074 2,313 ................ 2,313 ................
NORTH DAKOTA
DAKOTA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............... ................ ................ 200 ................ 200 ................
DAKOTA TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........ ................ ................ 150 ................ 150 ................
GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT, P-SMBP............. 1,526,499 631,598 26,849 180 28,849 180
OKLAHOMA
ARBUCKLE PROJECT............................ ................ ................ ................ 161 ................ 161
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT......................... ................ ................ ................ 530 ................ 530
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT....................... ................ ................ ................ 225 ................ 225
NORMAN PROJECT.............................. ................ ................ ................ 156 ................ 156
OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............. ................ ................ 275 ................ 275 ................
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT......................... ................ ................ ................ 255 ................ 255
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT....................... ................ ................ ................ 640 ................ 640
OREGON
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT....................... ................ ................ 105 297 105 297
DESCHUTES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT..... 2,500 500 1,000 ................ 500 ................
DESCHUTES PROJECT........................... ................ ................ 165 122 165 122
GRANDE RONDE WATER OPTIMIZATION STUDY....... ................ ................ 50 ................ 50 ................
KLAMATH PROJECT............................. ................ ................ 12,390 292 9,390 292
MALHEUR/OWYHEE/POWDER/BURNT RIVER BASINS.... 250 ................ 50 ................ ................ ................
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............... ................ ................ 810 ................ 610 ................
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION.. ................ ................ 165 626 165 626
TUALATIN PROJECT............................ ................ ................ 91 97 91 97
TUMALO IRRIGATION DIST., BEND FEED CANAL, OR 2,000 ................ ................ ................ 400 ................
UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT (PHASE III).......... 740 340 250 ................ 250 ................
UMATILLA PROJECT............................ ................ ................ 336 1,270 336 1,270
SOUTH DAKOTA
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT.............. 134,574 56,517 5,000 10 7,000 10
MNI WICONI PROJECT.......................... 370,947 132,454 23,873 5,527 21,873 5,527
RAPID CITY WASTEWATER REUSE STUDY........... 225 175 50 ................ 50 ................
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT........................ ................ ................ ................ 23 ................ 23
TEXAS
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT...................... ................ ................ ................ 124 ................ 124
NUECES RIVER PROJECT........................ ................ ................ ................ 387 ................ 387
PALMETTO BEND PROJECT....................... ................ ................ ................ 541 ................ 541
SAN ANGELO PROJECT.......................... ................ ................ ................ 255 ................ 255
TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................ ................ ................ 390 ................ 390 ................
UTAH
HYRUM PROJECT............................... ................ ................ 49 12 49 12
MOON LAKE PROJECT........................... ................ ................ 14 11 14 11
NAVAJO SANDSTONE AQUIFER RECHARGE STUDY..... 875 100 150 ................ 150 ................
NEWTON PROJECT.............................. ................ ................ 35 12 35 12
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........ ................ ................ 400 ................ 400 ................
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT......................... ................ ................ 67 18 67 18
PROVO RIVER PROJECT......................... ................ ................ 335 293 335 293
SCOFIELD PROJECT............................ ................ ................ 49 3 49 3
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........ ................ ................ 400 ................ 250 ................
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT................... ................ ................ 84 3 84 3
TOOELE WASTEWATER REUSE PROJECT............. 3,900 3,300 ................ ................ 600 ................
WEBER BASIN PROJECT......................... 19,639 18,217 1,845 140 1,845 140
WEBER RIVER PROJECT......................... ................ ................ 281 7 281 7
WASHINGTON
COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT...................... ................ ................ 5,030 8,984 5,030 8,984
LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM RURAL WATER SUPPLY FEAS. 200 ................ 100 ................ ................ ................
STUDY......................................
TULALIP TRIBES WATER QUALITY FEASIBILITY 200 ................ 50 ................ ................ ................
STUDY......................................
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........... ................ ................ 410 ................ 200 ................
YAKIMA PROJECT.............................. ................ ................ 491 7,535 491 7,535
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WTR ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.. 175,541 16,249 11,734 ................ 10,480 ................
WYOMING
KENDRICK PROJECT............................ ................ ................ 4 4,642 4 4,642
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT........................ ................ ................ 18 1,164 18 1,164
SHOSHONE PROJECT............................ ................ ................ 38 859 38 859
WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.............. ................ ................ 20 ................ 15 ................
VARIOUS
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE 75,000 22,995 12,300 ................ 12,300 ................
II.........................................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 5... ................ ................ 4,222 1,014 4,222 1,014
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE, SECTION 8, RF&W.....; 96,855 49,835 10,650 ................ 7,650 ................
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT.... 70,465 48,011 75 ................ 75 ................
DEPARTMENT IRRIGATION DRAINAGE PROGRAM...... ................ ................ 3,600 ................ 2,000 ................
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE................ ................ ................ 500 ................ 5,000 ................
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM............... ................ ................ 5,250 ................ 3,000 ................
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE ................ ................ ................ 306 ................ 306
PROGRAM....................................
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENT. 37,500 4,099 15,118 ................ 15,118 ................
PROGRAM....................................
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION.. ................ ................ 1,677 ................ 677 ................
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION........ ................ ................ 2,083 ................ 1,500 ................
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES.......... ................ ................ ................ 3,892 ................ 3,892
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM..... ................ ................ ................ 1,375 ................ 1,375
GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES................. ................ ................ 2,135 ................ 1,900 ................
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM........... ................ ................ 6,232 ................ 5,232 ................
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM..... ................ ................ 13,540 ................ 9,540 ................
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS...... ................ ................ ................ 910 ................ 910
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION....... ................ ................ 1,300 ................ 1,300 ................
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM............. ................ ................ 9,250 ................ 8,250 ................
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER ................ ................ 1,048 ................ 1,048 ................
MARKETING..................................
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ................ ................ 98 538 98 538
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM--OTHER ................ ................ 3,174 24,593 3,174 24,593
PROJECT....................................
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES...................... ................ ................ 1,031 642 1,031 642
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM............ ................ ................ 436 ................ 436 ................
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION.............. ................ ................ 5,235 ................ 4,696 ................
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT--TITLE ................ ................ 4,222 ................ 4,222 ................
XXVIII.....................................
RECREATION, FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM ................ ................ 2,053 ................ 1,891 ................
ADMINISTRATION.............................
SAFETY OF DAMS:
DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM........... ................ ................ ................ 1,600 ................ 1,600
SAFETY OF DAMS EVALUATION AND ................ ................ ................ 60,869 ................ 54,983
MODIFICATION...........................
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY:
APPLIED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 77,347 45,144 4,503 ................ 4,503 ................
DEVELOPMENT............................
DESALINATION RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT 18,939 12,439 1,300 ................ 1,300 ................
PROGRAM................................
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE DEMONSTRATION 24,929 24,876 50 ................ 50 ................
PROGRAM................................
HYDROELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION/ 3,715 700 215 ................ 215 ................
ENHANCE................................
TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT.................. 2,616 1,116 300 ................ 300 ................
WATERSHED/RIVER SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT 11,329 4,329 1,000 ................ 1,000 ................
PROGRAM................................
SITE SECURITY............................... ................ ................ ................ 754 ................ 754
SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION.............. ................ ................ 257 ................ 257 ................
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES.............. ................ ................ 1,911 ................ 1,211 ................
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE STUDY. ................ ................ 2,214 ................ 1,000 ................
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--TECH ................ ................ 100 ................ 100 ................
SUPPORT....................................
WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM... ................ ................ 8,836 ................ 6,600 ................
WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT........................ ................ ................ 5,595 ................ 3,595 ................
ADJUST FOR FY 1999 ITEMS NOT REQUESTED IN FY ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
2000.......................................
UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON ANTICIPATED ................ ................ ................ -30,800 ................ -38,050
DELAYS.....................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES.... ................ ................ 409,199 243,639 386,948 225,503
652,838
612,451
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Limitations and Reductions
Severely constrained spending limits required under the
Discretionary budget caps 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 2000. In order to adhere to
the subcommittee's allocations, address the critical ongoing
activities, correct program imbalances contained in the
President's fiscal year 2000 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. The constrained budget
will result in continued delayed completion schedules and
project benefits being realized. 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.
Headgate Rock Hydroelectric Project, AZ.--The Committee is
aware that the Headgate Rock hydroelectric powerplant was
severely damaged when a turbine shaft failed and the facility
was flooded. While the Bureau of Reclamation has initiated
repair work, the Committee understands that additional funding
is needed to complete the repair work. Therefore, the Committee
has included $5,000,000 for completion of this essential repair
work.
Central Arizona project, Arizona.--The Committee has
recommended an appropriation of $24,326,000 for the central
Arizona project. The Committee recommendation reduces the
proposed increase over fiscal year 1999 for native fish
protection and recreation development.
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control, Title I.--The
Committee has included a total of $10,092,000 for the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control, Title I program. Budget
constraints have forced the Committee to recommend that
initiation of replacement of membrane elements at the Yuma
Desalting Plant be deferred for fiscal year 2000. In addition,
the Committee remains concerned about the high cost of keeping
the Plant in a standby status. The Department is to provide a
report to the Committee on alternatives to meeting Treaty
requirements without the Desalting Plant, and actions the
Bureau of Reclamation can take to reduce the high annual
operation and maintenance costs.
Central Valley project, American River Division,
California.--The Committee recommendation includes a total of
$14,903,000 for the American River Division of the Central
Valley Project. The Committee recommendation includes
$2,400,000 for the Folsom Temperature Control Device. No
funding is provided for the Bureau to begin implementation of
the Water Forum agreement or efforts in support to the Nimbus
Fish Hatchery Interpretative Facility. The Committee believes
that, in light of the severe budget constraints, these
activities can be deferred without adverse impacts.
Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, CA.--The
Committee recommendation for the Sacramento River Division
includes $3,750,000, an increase of $1,500,000 over the budget
request, for continued work on the Glenn Colusa Irrigation
District fish screen project; and $520,000 for the captive
broodstock program.
Central Valley Project, Trinity River Division, CA.--Due to
budget constraints, the Committee has recommended a reduction
in the proposed increase over the fiscal year 1999 funding
level for Trinity River Division, fish and wildlife activities.
The Committee has provided $5,050,000 for these activities in
fiscal year 2000.
Central Valley project, miscellaneous project programs,
California.--An appropriation of $12,833,000 is provided for
Central Valley project, miscellaneous project programs in
California. This is the same as the amount requested in the
budget
Animas-La Plata Project, CO and NM.--In providing an amount
less than the Administration's request for the Animas-La Plata
Project, the Committee does not intend that the Department of
the Interior's efforts or obligation to fulfill the objectives
of the 1988 Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act are
any less of a priority. Severe budget constraints have limited
the amount of funding available for continued activities on
this project. The Committee remains concerned that the
provision of water for the two Ute Tribes has not occurred
since passage of the Act. Timelines in the Act are approaching
which are critical to the Tribes, who remain committed to
obtaining water for their future needs instead of a cash
settlement. The Committee encourages the Department to promptly
complete the current activities required under the National
Environmental Policy Act, on or before the projected date of
completion established by the Bureau of Reclamation. The
Department will provide the Committee with written status
reports on the NEPA process on a regular basis. Should the
funds provided in this bill be insufficient to complete the
NEPA process by that date or before, the Department will
immediately notify the Committee. The Department is directed to
make available carryover funds previously provided for the
Animas-La Plata Project so that the Bureau's deadline will be
met and additional delays are in complying with the Settlement
Act do not occur.
Fort Hall Indian Reservation, ID.--The Committee has
included $250,000 to continue the Fort Hall Indian Reservation,
ID study. No funding was included in the fiscal year 2000
budget request to continue this important project which is
addressing groundwater supply and quality issues on the
reservation. It should be pointed out that the Fort Hall
Reservation drinking water resource has already been
contaminated with ethylene dibromide, and EPA has issued an
emergency administrative order to correct the problem. In light
of these facts, the Committee cannot understand why the
Administration has not requested funding to continue these
critical studies.
Fort Peck Rural Water System, MT.--The Committee has
recommended $4,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to
continue construction of the Fort Peck Rural Water System, MT
project. The Committee understands that these additional funds
will allow completion of the project within the sunset
provision of the Fort Peck Rural County Water Supply System
Act. The Bureau is to take appropriate actions to insure that
the project is completed within the timeframe of the Act, and
to notify the Committee in advance of any potential problems in
this regard.
Garrison Diversion Project, ND.--The Committee has included
$29,029,000, an increase of $2,000,000, 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 system.
Middle Rio Grande Project, NM.--The Committee has provided
an additional $2,000,000 over the budget request for the Middle
Rio Grande Project in New Mexico 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 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.
The Committee is supportive of the efforts of interested groups
along the middle Rio Grande to find ways to address the
endangered species issue, and expects the Bureau of Reclamation
to work cooperatively to undertake measures as appropriate.
Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, NM.--The Committee has
provided $300,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to finalize the
feasibility studies for the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project
in New Mexico. The feasibility report is needed for ultimate
project authorization. The Committee understands that the
Navajo Tribe and the City of Gallup have agreed to a plan to
complete this work over about a 2-year period, and to support
construction what ever project may be supported at the
conclusion of the feasibility phase.
Santa Fe Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, NM.--The
Committee recommendation includes $750,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation to continue to update and complete the feasibility
study and NEPA compliance documents for the Santa Fe Water
Reclamation and Reuse, NM project.
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.
Battle Mountain, Land Transfer, NV.--Any discussions
regarding the transfer of the Battle Mountain Pasture from the
Bureau of Reclamation to Pershing County Water Conservation
District should involve representatives from all interested and
affected parties.
Lake Mead and Las Vegas Wash, NV.--The Committee
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation to develop, in consultation with interested
parties, a comprehensive project plan for the restoration of
wetlands and associated water resource issues at Lake Mead and
Las Vegas Wash in Nevada. The Plan is to include the scope of
work, defined costs, identification of project sponsors and
responsibility of maintenance of constructed wetlands.
Las Vegas Shallow Aquifer Desalination Project, NV.--The
Committee has not provided additional funding for the Las Vegas
Shallow Aquifer Desalination because the project has funds
still available from past appropriations. The Committee
encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to continue working with
the non-Federal entities in developing the project.
Newlands Project Water Rights Fund, NV.--The Committee has
included $1,500,000 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.
Truckee River Operating Agreement, NV.--The Committee has
provided $800,000 for completion of a supplemental draft EIS/
EIR, negotiation and placement of storage contracts, re-
licensing of existing storage contracts, and administrative and
technical tasks associated with rulemaking in order to
implement the Truckee River Operating Agreement.
Tumalo Irrigation District, Bend Feed Canal, OR.--The
Committee has included $400,000 to begin the final design of
the Tumalo Irrigation District, Bend Feed Canal project in
Oregon, which has significant potential for water conservation,
and fish and wildlife benefits.
Tooele Wastewater Reuse Project, UT.--The Committee
recommendation includes $600,000 for the Tooele Wastewater
Reuse, UT project. The Committee understands that project
construction will be completed in fiscal year 1999, and that
these additional funds are needed to meet the Federal
commitment to the project under Title XVI of Public Law 102-
575.
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, WA.--The
Committee is aware of a proposal to enhance instream flows by
reducing or eliminating the need to divert water to operate
hydraulic turbines which pump water to the Kennewick Irrigation
District in the State of Washington. While the Committee
believes that this proposal has the potential to provide
significant flow improvements and resultant fish mitigation
benefits, the Committee understands that the Bureau of
Reclamation does not currently have authority to begin the
studies needed to determine feasibility and environmental
impacts, and define the scope and costs of the project. The
Committee urges the authorizing committee to address this
project at the earliest possible time in order that the
Committee may recommend funds to initiate work.
Dam Safety Program.--The Committee is aware of and supports
the funding allocation method used by the Bureau of Reclamation
which is based on a priority system that considers the
structural condition and potential impacts in determining where
to allocate available resources. However, the Committee has
been informed that the dam safety program in Montana may need a
more current appraisal and urges the Bureau to review the
situation and dam safety needs.
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 severe
drought conditions that currently exist in New Mexico and
several other western States. The funding is provided for
leasing of water to minimize the impacts of the drought in
affected areas.
The severe drought in many parts of the western United
States has helped to focus attention on the conflicts and
competition over a limited amount of available water to satisfy
municipal and industrial, endangered species, irrigation, and
international water needs. The result of the dwindling amounts
of water has served to increased competition and conflict among
the various interests, including irrigation districts,
municipalities and States, and international interests such as
Mexico. The Committee is aware of and recognizes that the work
of the Utton Transboundary Resources Center, an nationally and
internationally recognized resource center, has a history of
assisting in providing valuable information regarding
international rivers in various areas of the world, and
interstate rivers throughout the United States.
The methods of resolving water conflicts are often
inadequate because they are limited in scope and function, and,
more often than not, dissolve into a war between competing
experts. There is now no place for competing interests to turn
for impartial guidance on critical issues. In the past, Federal
agencies such as the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of
Reclamation and the U.S. Geologic Service, have attempted to
provide this service, but the perception of impartiality is
suspect due the agency involvement in water resource matters.
Given the growing problems of water allocation in the West,
particularly during periods of drought, and the demonstrated
ability of the Center to provide impartial information and
analysis, the Committee encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to
use the capability of the Center, as appropriate, in addressing
the current water and future water shortages.
California bay-delta ecosystem restoration
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $75,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 95,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 50,000,000
An appropriation of $50,000,000 is recommended for the
California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration [CALFED] Program.
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 fiscal year 2000 budget proposes funding of
$95,000,000, an increase of $20,000,000 over the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 1999. While the Committee is
unable to provide the full budget request due to severe budget
constraints, progress has been made over the past year to
strengthen the program. While CALFED is an important
initiative, it must compete with other important programs under
severely constrained domestic budget caps, reduced budget
allocations and program imbalances proposed in the President's
fiscal year 2000 budget request. In addition, the funding
recommendation of the Committee reflects the low expenditure of
the funds appropriated over the past two years, and realization
that this is the final year of program authority for the CALFED
if authorizing legislation is not enacted. The recommended
appropriation for ecosystem restoration; and water supply
reliability, water quality, and levee system integrity is to be
allocated in accordance with the 60-40 consensus
recommendation.
Finally, language proposed in the President's budget
request to extend the authority for the program, through the
appropriations process, is not recommended. The Committee has
expressed concern in the past 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. It should be pointed
out that the original CALFED program authority was not reviewed
or recommended by the appropriate authorizing committees of the
Congress. 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.
bureau of reclamation loan program account
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $8,421,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 12,425,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,425,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,425,000,
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Committee recommendation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal Allocated to Facility Facility
Project title cost date Resource operations, Resource operations,
management and maintenance, and management and maintenance, and
development rehabilitation development rehabilitation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIA
CASTROVILLE IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY PROJECT. 14,307 9,266 2,600 ................ 2,600 ................
CHINO BASIN DESALINATION PROJECT............ 10,249 10,132 117 ................ 117 ................
SALINAS VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION............ 9,293 6,500 1,700 ................ 1,700 ................
SAN SEVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT............. 28,100 8,012 6,408 ................ 6,408 ................
TEMESCAL VALLEY PROJECT..................... 5,327 4,152 1,175 ................ 1,175 ................
VARIOUS
LOAN ADMINISTRATION......................... ................ ................ 425 ................ 425 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, LOAN PROGRAM................... ................ ................ 12,425 ................ 12,425 ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
central valley project restoration fund
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $33,130,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 47,346,000
Committee recommendation................................ 37,346,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $37,346,000
for the Central Valley project restoration fund. Budget
constraints have required the Committee to limit the activities
to be funded through the Central Valley project restoration
funds for fiscal year 2000. However, the amount recommended
represents an increase of $4,216,000 over the current year
level. The Committee intends, to the greatest extent possible,
that the Bureau of Reclamation take such steps as are necessary
to ensure that amounts appropriated from the Restoration Fund
equal funds assessed and collected. It is not the desire or
intent of the Committee to allow unappropriated balances to
accrue in the CVP 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.
policy and administrative expenses
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $47,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 49,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 49,000,000
The Committee recommendation for general administrative
expenses is $49,000,000. This is the same as the budget
request.
The general 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.
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.
personnel security
The Department needs to improve its personnel security
practices. The Committee has provided an increase from the
request for security investigations and recommends that, for
employees of the Department and its contractors with access to
sensitive nuclear weapons information or special nuclear
materials, the Department contract with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for that service.
The Committee recommends the Department implement a graded
clearance system. Those with access to sensitive nuclear
weapons information or the means to access that information
should be required, as a condition of clearance, to submit upon
request with causal basis by the Director of Counter-
Intelligence to a counter-intelligence polygraph and may be
required to provide access to financial and other information
as the Department warrants.
In the past, the Department and its contractors have given
great deference to the investigative techniques and
requirements of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in counter-
intelligence matters. However, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's primary interest in criminal prosecution in
these matters is not always consistent with the Department of
Energy's responsibility to protect sensitive information. In
its efforts to protect sensitive information, the Department
should not necessarily defer to the interests of the Federal
Bureau of Investigations. The Department should be pro-active
in any such investigation and may, on occasion, determine that
its ability and right to conduct an investigation regarding, or
take actions to halt or prevent espionage, outweigh the Federal
Bureau of Investigations' interest in a criminal prosecution.
external regulation
In previous years, the Committee directed a review of the
benefits of external regulation of the Department's facilities
and funded pilot programs to explore such arrangements in
detail. The Committee has determined that the Department's
unique responsibilities and facilities too rarely have non-
federal analogs with existing, appropriate regulatory schemes.
As a result, the Committee no longer contemplates external
regulation of the Department's facilities.
inappropriate use of appropriations
In the previous Energy and Water Development Act, the
Committee was critical of the use of appropriations to: pay for
members of industry associations and associated entities to
attend national and international conferences, publish
magazines, purchase association membership information, conduct
surveys of association membership, place op-ed style articles
in publications, write talking points in support of the
Department's programs, and underwrite industry conferences.
The Department has significantly improved its practices in
these areas by selecting its outreach and information
dissemination contractors through competitive processes. While
competition may improve the quality of the products and
services procured through these contracts, the Committee
continues to insist that, as a general rule, appropriated funds
should not be used, directly or indirectly, to underwrite the
expenses of industry associations or associated entities.
Certain Department of Energy contractors are being
reimbursed for exhorbitant travel expenses. In fiscal year
1998, Department of Energy contractors incurred $249,000,000 in
travel costs for which they sought reimbursement. Sandia
National Laboratories alone reported taking over 4,500 trips to
Washington, DC, in fiscal year 1998 or the equivalent of 87
trips each week. Those sort of practices are absolutely
unacceptable. The Committee has included in its recommendation
both a statutory cap on the total amount of funds available for
contractor travel costs and required that each contractor's
travel costs in fiscal year 2000 be limited to not more than 80
percent of the amount incurred in fiscal year 1998. The
Committee considers this a measured response and will take
substantially more forceful action in the future if this
situation is not remedied.
energy supply programs
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $727,091,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 836,067,000
Committee recommendation................................ 715,412,000
solar and renewable energy
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $365,905,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 446,021,000
Committee recommendation................................ 353,900,000
The Committee is unable to draw conclusions regarding the
existence, 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 $2,000,000 for solar building technology research.
The Committee recommendation does not provide funds for quality
assurance or precompetitive field validation.
Photovoltaic energy systems.--The Committee recommends
$64,000,000 for photovoltaic energy systems. Within that
amount, $17,000,000 is provided for fundamental research
including: $5,500,000 for measurement and characterization,
$5,500,000 for basic research/university programs, $2,000,000
for non-conventional breakthrough R&D;, and $4,000,000 for high-
performance advanced research. $25,000,000 is provided for
advanced materials and devices. $26,000,000 is provided for
collector research and systems development including:
$10,000,000 for manufacturing R&D; only to complete existing
contracts, $11,000,000 for systems engineering and reliability,
and, $1,000,000 for partnerships for technology introduction
only to complete existing contracts.
Concentrating solar power.--The Committee recommends
$15,000,000 for concentrating solar power and includes no funds
for strategic alliances and market awareness.
Biomass/biofuels--power systems.--The Committee recommends
$34,950,000 for biomass/bio-fuels--power systems. $700,000 is
provided for thermochemical conversion including; $500,000 for
co-firing/ash deposition, and $200,000 for capital equipment.
$26,150,000 is provided for systems development; a $6,000,000
reduction to the request due to delays in the Minnesota Valley
Alfalfa Producers project. Within the amount provided for
systems development, $1,000,000 is for the continuation of
biomass research at the Energy and Environmental Research
Center on key barrier issues impeding the technical
feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and environmental
acceptability of biomass utilization processes. The funding is
intended to advance the Center's work in integration of biomass
with fossil fuels to increase baseload renewable electricity
generation, development of practical methods for using biomass
in advanced power systems, and improvement of efficiency and
environmental performance in agricultural processing and
forest-based product industries. The switchgrass project is
fully funded. Also, $3,100,000 is provided for feedstock
development, and no funds are provided for the regional biomass
energy program.
The recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the McNeil
biomass plant in Burlington, Vermont, $300,000 for the Vermont
Agriculture Methane project, $2,000,000 for continued research
in environmental and renewable resource technologies by the
Michigan Biotechnology Institute, and $500,000 for the
University of Louisville to research the commercial viability
of refinery construction for the production of P-series fuels,
as defined by the Department of Energy's Final Rule on P-series
Fuels on May 17, 1999
Biomass/biofuels--transportation.--The Committee
recommendation includes $38,000,000 for biomass/biofuels
transportation. The Committee is aware of a public-private
endeavor to construct and operate a national ethanol pilot
plant at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. This
facility would help lower the cost of converting corn into
ethanol fuel while enhancing the role of this domestic energy
source and its environmental benefits. The Committee recognizes
that corn is one of the most commercially viable and
economically feasible feedstocks. The Committee directs the
Department of Energy to provide no less than $3,000,000 under
the Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems--Transportation for this
project.
Wind.--The Committee recommendation includes $34,000,000
for wind energy systems, an increase of $800,000 over the
current year. Within that amount, $13,500,000 is provided for
applied research consistent with the request. $18,200,000 is
provided for turbine research including: $5,000,000 for the
next generation turbine project, $400,000 to conduct near term
research and testing, $1,000,000 to conduct small wind turbine
projects, $800,000 for the cold weather turbine project, and
$8,000,000 for turbine research and turbine verification
program activities. Due to severe budget constraints the
recommendation provides only $2,300,000 for cooperative
research and testing.
Renewable energy production incentive.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,500,000, the same amount as the
request for the renewable energy production incentive.
Solar program support.--Due to budget pressures, the
Committee recommendation includes only the $2,000,000 requested
for technical analysis and assistance within solar program
support.
International solar programs.--The Committee strongly
supports the U.S. international joint implementation program
funded in this account but due to severe budget constrants
recommends only $3,000,000 for that purpose.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory construction.--The
Committee recommendation includes the amount of the request for
construction at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Geothermal.--The Committee commends the Department of
Energy's decision to allow market forces to determine the
extent to which geothermal heat pump technology succeeds. Due
to the termination of that $6,500,000 per year program, the
Committee recommendation of $24,000,000 provides a $2,000,000
increase over the fiscal year 1999 base geothermal program.
Hydrogen research.--The Committee strongly supports
research and development of technologies related to the use of
hydrogen and recommends $27,000,000, a $6,000,000 increase over
the current year, for that purpose. The recommendation includes
$250,000 for investigation of simultaneous production of carbon
dioxide and hydrogen at the natural gas reforming facility in
Nevada, $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 switchgrass and its use in fuel cells.
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 $5,000,000 for that effort.
Renewable Indian energy resources.--The Committee
recommendation includes $4,000,000 for renewable Indian energy
resource development including: $1,000,000 to complete the 4
megawatt Sitka, Alaska project, $1,700,000 for the Power Creek
hydroelectric project, $1,000,000 for the Kotzebue wind
project, and $300,000 for the Old Harbor hydroelectric project.
Electric energy systems and storage.--The Committee
recommendation includes $33,500,000 for electric energy systems
and storage including $3,500,000 for transmission reliability
and $30,000,000 for high-temperature superconducting research
and development. Within the amount provided for transmission
reliability, the recommendation includes $1,000,000 for a
demonstration associated with the planned upgrade of the Nevada
Test Site power substations of distributed power generation
technologies (microturbines, fuel cells, and photovoltaics),
energy-efficient utilization technologies, transmission and
distribution systems, and grid stabilization technologies.
Solar and renewable energy program direction.--The
Committee recommendation includes $17,750,000 for program
direction within this account; an increase of $650,000 over the
current year.
nuclear energy programs
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $283,966,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 269,305,000
Committee recommendation................................ 287,700,000
Nuclear fission currently provides 20 percent of domestic
electricity production and emits no atmospheric pollutants. 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 the disposal of
spent nuclear fuel. However, unlike the emissions of coal, gas,
and fuel oil plants, the byproducts of fission can be
contained. Until even more advanced, base-load energy
technologies are developed, nuclear fission provides the best
credible means of reducing the concentration of atmospheric
pollutants in the foreseeable future.
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 $25,000,000 for the Nuclear Energy Research
Initiative. 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. The Administration's
request in that regard; a total of $440,697,000 in energy
production technologies and $646,515,000 in energy conservation
measures, includes only $5,000,000 for nuclear energy related
technology or one percent of the total.
Civilian research and development.--The Committee
recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue the assessment
of accelerator transmutation of waste technology that may be
able to significantly reduce the radioactivity and radio-
toxicity of certain isotopes.
Fast flux test facility.--Without prejudice, the Committee
has provided $28,000,000 to keep the FFTF in hot standby until
the Department of Energy determines whether the facility should
be decommissioned or restarted.
Isotopes support.--The Committee recommendation includes
$15,500,000, the same as the current year but an increase of
$2,500,000 over the amount of the request, for isotope support.
The increase will enable to Department to complete the M0-99
program in fiscal year 2000.
The Committee is aware of the continued acute shortage of
production sources for short-lived isotopes. As a result, there
is a critical need for a facility that can supply short-lived,
reactor-produced radioisotopes for experimental treatment of
cancer and other diseases. Because of the unique power and
capacity of the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR)
to produce such cutting-edge radionuclides, the Committee
encourages the Department of Energy to provide funds to enable
the MURR to serve as a continued production source for the
foreseeable future. The Committee encourages the Department to
work with the MURR and the Institute of Medicine to fully
utilize this facility once MURR's capital improvement program
is completed.
environment, safety, and health
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $50,398,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 50,750,000
Committee recommendation................................ 48,998,000
The Committee recommendation includes $48,998,000 for non-
defense environment, safety, and health which includes
$18,998,000, the same amount as the request, for program
direction. The Committee does not support the external
regulation of the Department of Energy's facilities and has not
provided the $1,200,000 requested for external regulation
transition.
energy support activities
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $124,727,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 122,912,000
Committee recommendation................................ 119,600,000
Technical information management.--The Committee
recommendation for the technical information management program
is $8,600,000, the same amount as the current year.
Field operations.--The Committee recommendation for field
offices and management is $100,000,000 a $2,000,000 reduction
from the request due to servere budget constraints.
Oak Ridge landlord.--The Committee recommendation for the
Department of Energy's Oak Ridge landlord responsibilities is
$11,000,000, the same amount as the current year.
Use of prior year balances
The Committee recommendation includes the use of
$31,589,000 in unobligated carryover balances previously
appropriated in the energy supply account or the energy supply
research and development account that existed until the
Committee restructured accounts in 1998. In accordance with the
authority provided in Section 305 of this Act, those balances
are to be transferred to the energy supply account and become
available in fiscal year 2000 in accordance with the Committee
recommendation. The $31,589,000 is composed of the following
amounts: $821,000 from the geothermal resources development
fund, $10,000 from high energy physics, $15,000 from nuclear
physics, $7,739,000 from the Superconducting Supercollider,
$790,000 from biological and environmental research, $75,000
from materials sciences, $12,000 from chemical sciences,
$34,000 from engineering and geosciences, $4,000 from
engineering biosciences, $62,000 from computational and
technical research, $2,000 from energy research analysis,
$2,506,000 from energy research program direction, $386,000
from the energy research small business innovative research
program, $1,000 from the small business technology transfer
pilot research program, $26,000 from unapplied energy research
balances, $101,000 from unobligated energy research
construction balances, $182,000 from solar building technology
research, $625,000 from photovoltaic energy systems, $265,000
from solar thermal energy systems, $825,000 from biomass and
bio-fuels power systems, $2,451,000 from biomass and bio-fuels
transportation, $67,000 from wind energy systems, $16,000 from
the international solar energy program, $21,000 from solar
technology transfer, $148,000 from the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, $238,000 from geothermal technology
development, $6,000 from hydrogen research, $111,000 from
electro-magnetic field studies, $5,000 from high-temperature
superconducting research and development, $8,000 from energy
storage systems, $174,000 from renewable energy program
direction, $1,000 from advanced light-water reactors, $247,000
from advanced reactor research and development, $84,000 from
space power systems, $188,000 from advanced radioisotope power
systems, $136,000 from university fuel assistance, $4,000 from
nuclear energy termination costs, $594,000 from nuclear energy
program direction, $41,000 from nuclear energy spent fuel
storage research and development, $852,000 from non-defense
environment, safety and health, $54,000 from environment,
safety and health program direction, $652,000 from magnetic
fusion research and development, $82,000 from non-defense
environmental management program direction, $5,000 from in-
house energy management, $5,000 from strategic facilities
utilization, $62,000 from atomic vapor laser isotope separation
technology development, $4,701,000 from isotope production and
distribution, and $6,155,000 from non-defense environmental
management.
environmental management
(nondefense)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $431,200,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 330,934,000
Committee recommendation................................ 327,922,000
The Committee recommendation provides $327,922,000 for non-
defense environmental management, a reduction of $3,012,000
from the request. The reduction is recommended without
prejudice due to severe budget constraints.
The Committee recognizes the importance to the local
community of the Grand Junction office and is aware the site
needs remediation. The Committee further notes that the Grand
Junction community is attempting to privatize the Grand
Junction Office Site. Accordingly, the Committee has increased
funding for the Albuquerque operations account by $5,800,000 to
provide for accelerated cleanup in anticipation of
privatization.
uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $220,200,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 240,198,000
Committee recommendation................................ 200,000,000
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.
Due to budget constraints, the Committee recommendation
includes a reduction of $20,200,000 from the current level of
$220,200,000.
nuclear waste fund
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $169,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 258,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 242,500,000
The Committee recommendation includes $355,000,000 for
nuclear waste disposal. Of that amount, $242,500,000 is derived
from the nuclear waste fund, an additional $112,500,000 shall
be available from the ``Defense nuclear waste disposal''
account, and $5,000,000 shall be available from the General
Fund for the development of accelerator transmutation of waste
technology.
The Committee has provided $4,727,000 for the State of
Nevada and $5,432,000 for affected units of local government in
accordance with the statutory restrictions contained in the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Seismic evaluation.--The Committee recommendation includes
$3,000,000 for the University of Nevada at Reno Earthquake
Engineering Facility to conduct experiments involving multiple
support excitation problems at large scale.
science
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $2,682,860,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 2,835,393,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,725,069,000
high energy physics
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $696,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 697,090,000
Committee recommendation................................ 691,090,000
The Committee recommendation includes $691,090,000 for high
energy physics, a reduction of $6,000,000 from the request. The
reduction is taken from the $12,000,000 proposed for research
and development for a TeV scale center of mass accelerator. The
estimated cost of such a facility prohibits its serious
consideration in the foreseeable future.
nuclear physics
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $335,100,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 342,940,000
Committee recommendation................................ 330,000,000
Due to severe budget restraints, the Committee
recommendation for nuclear physics is $330,000,000, a reduction
of $5,100,000 from the current level and $12,940,000 from the
request. That reduction is offset by the completion of the
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at the Brookhaven National
Laboratory for which the Committee provided from this account
$16,620,000 in the current year.
biological and environmental research
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $443,600,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 411,170,000
Committee recommendation................................ 429,700,000
The Committee recommendation includes $429,700,000 for
biological and environmental research. The recommendation does
not include the proposed $4,467,000 increase in radio-
pharmaceuticals.
Low dose effects program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $22,500,000, of which $17,500,000 is within biological
and environmental research and $5,000,000 is within defense
environmental restoration and waste management environmental
sciences, for the low dose effects program. The funding is
provided consistent with the level and program proposed by the
Low Dose Radiation Research Program Plan Subcommittee of the
Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee.
Radiation effects on avian populations.--The Committee
recommendation also includes $270,000 to study the effects of
radiation on avian populations at the Nevada Test Site.
basic energy sciences
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $809,100,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 888,084,000
Committee recommendation................................ 854,545,000
Spallation neutron source.--The Committee recommendation
includes $186,900,000, including $169,000,000 for construction,
related to the spallation neutron source. Project delays in the
current year have reduced the funding requirements for fiscal
year 2000 and resulted in the commensurate reduction from the
request of $214,000,000.
EPSCoR.--The Committee recommendation includes the amount
of the request, $6,815,000, for the Department's Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research program.
other energy research programs
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $165,260,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 221,135,000
Committee recommendation................................ 151,260,000
Computational and technology research.--The Committee
recommendation does not include the $70,000,000 requested for
the Department's participation in the Scientific Simulation
Initiative.
fusion energy sciences
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $223,300,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 222,614,000
Committee recommendation................................ 220,614,000
The Committee recommendation for Fusion Energy Sciences is
$220,614,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the request.
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.
The Committee recommendation includes $19,000,000 for
inertial fusion energy research to improve heavy ion
accelerator efficiency, heavy ion and laser chamber designs,
and the design of fusion energy target pellets.
departmental administration
(gross)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $200,475,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 247,515,000
Committee recommendation................................ 219,415,000
(miscellaneous revenues)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... -$136,530,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... -116,887,000
Committee recommendation................................ -116,887,000
Office of Field Management.--Consistent with the
recommendation of the Commission on Maintaining United States
Nuclear Weapons Expertise to establish direct reporting chains
for the Department's sites, laboratories, and facilities, the
Committee recommendation eliminates funding for the Office of
Field Management.
Use of prior year balances
The Committee recommendation includes the use of $3,000,000
in unobligated carryover balances previously appropriated in
the departmental administration account. In accordance with the
authority provided in Section 306 of this Act, those balances
are to be available in fiscal year 2000 in accordance with the
Committee recommendation. The $3,000,000 is composed of the
following amounts: $31,000 from the Board of Contract Appeals,
$53,340 from the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Affairs, $122,238 from the Office of Economic Impact and
Diversity, $149,225 from the Office of Field Management program
direction, $203,835 from the Office of General Counsel program
direction, $136,525 from the Office of Policy program
direction, $131,128 from the Office of Public Affairs, $94,615
from departmental administration program support, $424,180 from
the Office of the Secretary, $1,103,313 from the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer, $571,500 from management and
administration.
inspector general
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $29,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 29,000,000
The Committee has provided $29,000,000, the current level,
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 separate appropriation
accounts as follows: weapons activities; defense environmental
restoration and waste management; defense facilities closure
projects; defense environmental management privitization; other
defense programs; and defense nuclear waste disposal.
Descriptions of each of these accounts are provided below.
Weapons Activities
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $4,400,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 4,531,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,609,832,000
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 defense programs 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 infrastructure. The future weapons complex 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.
The Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program is a
single, highly integrated technical program for maintaining the
safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile in an era
without underground nuclear testing and without new nuclear
weapons development and production. 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, although there remain
separate budget items within defense programs, all stockpile
stewardship and management activities have achieved a new,
closer linkage to each other.
There are three primary goals of the Stockpile Stewardship
and Management Program: (1) provide high confidence in the
safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. stockpile to
ensure the continuing effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear
deterrent while simultaneously supporting U.S. arms control and
nonproliferation policy; (2) provide a small, affordable, and
effective production complex to provide component and weapon
replacements when needed, including limited lifetime components
and tritium; and (3) provide the ability to reconstitute U.S.
nuclear testing and weapon production capacities, consistent
with Presidential directives and the ``Nuclear Posture
Review,'' should national security so demand in the future.
The policy framework which guides the Department of
Energy's stockpile stewardship and management activities is the
``Nuclear Posture Review'' which is approved by the President.
The requirements for DOE stated in terms of infrastructure to
support U.S. nuclear forces are: (1) maintain nuclear weapons
capability (without underground nuclear testing); (2)
demonstrate the capability to design, fabricate, and certify
weapon types in the enduring stockpile; (3) maintain the
capability to design, fabricate, and certify new warheads; and
(4) ensure tritium availability. In addition, the President has
also requested a new annual certification process to certify
that the stockpile is safe and reliable in the absence of
underground nuclear testing, and to produce a statement about
the future confidence in the safety and reliability of the
stockpile.
The Committee has serious concerns that projected budget
profiles for Defense missions of the Nation are sufficient to
sustain the important stockpile stewardship and management
initiatives of DOE. The Committee believes that the issue of
sufficient resources for the Department of Energy to ensure the
certification of the weapons stockpile safety and reliability
is of such importance it requires the ongoing attention of the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. With
programs constrained by budget ceilings, aggressive management
at all levels is mandatory. The Committee is aware of instances
at DOE laboratories where projects have not been well defined
and there has been a lack of management attention. This
situation has resulted in scope creep, extended project
completion schedules, and cost growth far in excess of what is
acceptable. If the capability of the national laboratories to
provide the certification, required by the President, is to be
maintained under a severely restricted budget environment, it
is mandatory that DOE and the national laboratories take
whatever steps are necessary to assure the proper focus. It is
essential that critical, centerpiece missions not be impacted
because of poor management attention.
stockpile stewardship
An appropriation of $2,351,800,000 is recommended for the
stockpile stewardship activities of the Department of Energy.
The stockpile stewardship program addresses issues of
maintaining confidence in weapons stockpile safety and
reliability without underground nuclear testing through a
technically challenging science-based stockpile stewardship
program utilizing upgraded or new experimental and
computational capabilities.
The Committee continues to view laboratory directed
research and development [LDRD] as an integral, essential
component of the Department's ability to respond to changing
needs and requirements, and maintaining the preeminence of the
national laboratories in the areas of science and engineering.
The Committee directs DOE to continue current guidelines for
managing laboratory directed research and development.
Core stockpile stewardship.--The Core Stockpile Stewardship
Program provides the physical, technical, and intellectual
infrastructure necessary to support a reliable, safe, and
secure nuclear weapons stockpile. The Committee has recommended
a total of $1,696,455,000 for core stockpile stewardship
programs.
The Committee is concerned that the funding level proposed
for fiscal year 1999 and future budget planning projections of
the Department of Energy are not sufficient to address the
critical needs of an aging stockpile. The Committee believes
that preservation of core intellectual, scientific, and
technical competencies and the continued ability of the weapons
complex to respond to changing world situations is critically
important. Further, the Committee is not convinced that
engineering and surveillance approaches of yesterday will be
adequate to maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear
weapons stockpile in the absence of underground testing.
An appropriation of $341,000,000 is recommended for the
accelerated strategic computing initiative [ASCI]. The ASCI
program will provide the computing software, computer platforms
and an operating environment to allow the national laboratories
to make critical decisions about the safety and reliability of
the nuclear weapon stockpile without underground nuclear
testing. The Committee is concerned with the rate of growth of
the ASCI program when considered in the context of constrained
DOE defense programs budgets. The Department has embarked on a
high-risk, aggressive program to significantly upgrade the
computing capabilities of the weapons labs. This computing
capability is the glue or common element which ties the entire
stockpile stewardship and management effort together, thereby
enable certification of the safety and reliability of the
nuclear weapons stockpile.
The Committee commends the Department of Energy for the
achievement of the ASCI program and recommends the acceleration
of the program to reach the 100 TeraFlop goal.
Direct Stockpile Activities.--An appropriation of
$250,452,000 is recommended for Direct Stockpile Activities.
This funding provides for pre-production design and engineering
activities, design and development of weapon modifications,
technical aspects of laboratory surveillance, and analysis of
stockpile behind safety studies and assessments. In addition,
this program support studies and research to apply basic
science to weapon stockpile problems producing new
technologies, products and processes in the vital surety areas
(safety, security, and use control) technology development and
implementation.
The Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL), the Los Alamos National Laboratory, (LANL),
Sandia National Laboratory (SNL), and Nevada Test Site (NTS)
are major national resources for science and research. These
resources not only maintain and ensure the safety and
reliability of our nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, but also
keep America strong by staying on the cutting edge of
technology development, scientific advancements and
experimental methods. As with all viable programs, we must
continually assess the mission, purpose, and focus of crucial
resources to ensure that they are being engaged efficiently,
effectively and in the best interest of our nation.
With this in mind, the Committee is aware that the
Department of Energy is considering several strategic actions
needed to address emerging requirements and assure the national
security, and the scientific and research capability of these
institutions. While the detailed plan is still under
development, the broad outline is now evident.
First, is to re-balance the directed weapons work between
LANL and LLNL by moving the responsibility for the W80 system
from LANL to LLNL. Second, the hydrodynamic test infrastructure
and support throughout the complex should be consolidated at
LANL, both x-ray-based and proton-based radiography. This
eliminates duplication and creates a more effective and
efficient structure to respond to mission requirements. Third,
is to establish a major effort in applied microsystems at SNL.
This will provide for design options and prototype
manufacturing process development needed for certification of
weapon systems consistent with planned refurbishment schedules
of the stockpile. The final element is an enhancement of the
capability of the NTS in the areas of subcritical experiments
and advanced diagnostics. This insures a credible capability at
the NTS to resume underground testing of nuclear weapons should
it be in the nation's best interest to do so.
The Committee has recommended an additional $35,000,000 to
initiate this new strategy, including $5,000,000 for activities
at LLNL, $10,000,000 for LANL, and $20,000,000 for work at SNL.
Testing capabilities and readiness.--An appropriation of
$182,126,000 is recommended for testing capabilities and
readiness activities. Current Presidential direction is to
maintain a readiness capability to conduct an underground
nuclear test at the Nevada test site. Therefore, infrastructure
and other measures are to be maintained to support this
requirement. Presidential direction also indicates that
resources should be included that are necessary to conduct
experimental activities planned by the nuclear weapons design
laboratories and appropriate to the national nuclear testing
policy.
The Committee has recommended an additional $15,000,000 in
fiscal year 2000 for the Nevada Test Site to begin to field an
increased number of subcritical experiments, including more
classified geometries at the U1a complex and work with the
other national laboratories to develop appropriate advanced
diagnostics. As part of efforts to reshape and better integrate
the capabilities of the Test Site and the national
laboratories, $5,000,000 is provided to begin the process of
moving the Atlas pulsed power experimental facility from Los
Alamos to the Nevada Test Site to support code modeling and
validation and diagnostics development. Also, as part of this
refocused and integrated concept, Pegasus, the existing pulse
power experimental facility at Los Alamos, is to be relocated
to the University of Nevada at Las Vegas to enhance the
existing joint work among the NTS, the national labs and the
university on physics and diagnostics development.
The Department is encouraged to complete construction of
the dual-stage gas gun at the Nevada Test site as soon as
possible.
Construction projects.--An appropriation of $133,145,000 is
recommended for construction projects under core stockpile
stewardship activities for fiscal year 2000. The Committee
recommendation is the same as the budget request.
Inertial confinement fusion [ICF].--An appropriation of
$475,700,000 is recommended for the Inertial Confinement Fusion
Program. The ICF Program continues to be a major contributor to
the science and technology base supporting the nuclear
deterrent through improved understanding of the underlying
physics of nuclear weapons and computational modeling that will
provide the future basis for ensuring safety, reliability, and
performance on nuclear components.
The Committee recommendation includes $248,100,000 to
continue construction of the National Ignition Facility and
$15,900,000 for operating expenses to support research
activities related to NIF. The President's fiscal year 2000
budget request significantly underfunded several areas of NIF
research which would place at risk the success of scientific
and stewardship objectives of the National Ignition Facility.
With a capital investment of over $1,000,000,000, the Committee
believes the Department's budget request is unwise and
jeopardizes a key element of the Stockpile Stewardship effort
and; therefore, our national security, and the safety and
reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The additional
$10,000,000 recommended by the Committee provides an additional
$3,600,000 for core NIF diagnostics, $1,000,000 for direct
drive laser beam smoothing development, and $5,400,000 to
initiate critical cryogenic activities. Without this additional
funding, the operational schedule, established by the
Department of Energy, would be delayed by 1 year at a minimum.
Project 96-D-111, national ignition facility [NIF].--The
NIF is a key facility in maintaining nuclear weapons science
expertise required for the stockpile stewardship program, and
in supporting weapons effects testing. An appropriation of
$248,100,000, the full amount needed in fiscal year 2000 to
keep this important project on schedule, is recommended for the
NIF project. Fiscal year 1999 was the peak year for
construction funding, and with the appropriation recommended
for fiscal year 2000, the project will be 75 percent complete
on an appropriations basis. The project remains on schedule and
within the projected construction cost of $1,046,000,000. The
Committee is pleased with the management and oversight
attention provided by LLNL on the project.
Technology transfer and education.--The technology transfer
and education program directly supports core competencies
through the development of technologies and intellectual
capabilities to meet current and future defense mission needs.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $46,500,000
for these activities for fiscal year 2000 to support ongoing
cooperative research and development agreements and education
activities.
The Committee recommendation includes funding as requested
in the budget to continue activities at the Amarillo Plutonium
Research facility. No funding is provided for a new or
relocated National Atomic Museum.
stockpile management
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,025,300,000
for stockpile management activities.
The stockpile management mission is to provide for
maintenance, evaluation, dismantlement, transportation, and
disposal of nuclear weapons in accordance with quality,
quantity, and schedule requirements approved by the President
in the nuclear weapons stockpile plan. The program addresses
issues of near-term and long-range support for the enduring
stockpile, and for ensuring an adequate supply of tritium.
Along with routine stockpile surveillance, this includes
corrective maintenance and system replacement, as well as
weapon dismantlement. The goal is to support the national
security of the United States by maintaining a safe and
reliable nuclear deterrent.
Of the additional funds recommended for stockpile
management, the Committee has provided an increase of
$27,000,000 for the weapons production plants, including,
$15,000,000 for future requirements at the Kansas City Plant
compatible with the Advanced Development and Production
Technologies [ADAPT] program and the Enhanced Surveillance
program. Without additional funding, the Department and the
Kansas City Plant will be unable to integrate new technologies
required to meet new, future production requirements, and will
delay the incorporation of advanced, critical electronic
components into the nuclear weapon refurbishment and upgrade
program. The additional funding also supports current workload
requirements and efficiency needs.
The Committee recommendation also includes an additional
$10,000,000 for core stockpile management weapon activities to
support work load requirements at the Pantex plant in Amarillo,
Texas; and $2,000,000 to plan modifications of the nuclear
materials vault area at Los Alamos, TA-55 so that it can be
used to handle materials used in research and technology
development.
The Committee's is concerned that the budget request for
the Pantex Plant is $32,700,000 less than in fiscal year 1999.
The Committee's recommendation restores part of this funding.
Given the significance of Pantex in evaluating and maintaining
the viability of our weapons in an era of no testing and its
significant dismantlement responsibilities pursuant to Arms
Control treaties, the Committee directs the Department to
address the facilities infrastructure, and take steps to
prevent the loss of skilled technicians and other staff.
Project 97-D-122 Nuclear Materials and Storage Facility,
LANL.--The Committee understands that recently completed Title
I design activities for Project 97-D-122, the Nuclear Materials
Storage Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory, have
indicated that continuing with this project is not warranted.
The Committee also understands that sufficient uncosted prior
year obligations remain against the project to allow the
expeditious closeout of the project. The Committee expects the
Department to proceed promptly with this closeout. Uncosted
obligations remaining against this project after closeout may
be directed toward nuclear material storage activities
including the provision of interim storage capacity at Los
Alamos. The Department is requested to provide the Congress
with a definitive plan for meeting long term nuclear material
storage needs at Los Alamos before proceeding further. The
Committee is also interested in alternative uses for the
existing facility, if any, in lieu of its intended nuclear
material storage mission.
Construction projects.--An appropriation of $158,679,000 is
recommended for line item construction projects under core
stockpile management for fiscal year 2000. The Committee
recommendation is the same as the budget request.
95-D-102 Chemical and Metallurgical Research (CMR) Building
Upgrades, Los Alamos.--The Committee recommends that no further
funding be used to upgrade the CMR facility at Los Alamos. The
Committee believes that, given the age of the existing building
(45 years old) further investment is not justified in light of
a 10-year life extension of the facility after the upgrades are
completed. Instead, the Committee directs the Department to use
the budget request of $18,000,000 to initiate the process of
planning, designing and construction of a replacement facility.
The long term weapons mission support requirements and the need
for specialized laboratory space highlight the urgency for the
Department of Energy to expedite the definition of programmatic
needs, and begin those activities necessary to provide a new
replacement facility as quickly as possible. The Committee
expects to kept informed of the Department's progress on a
regular basis.
Tritium Source.--The Committee recommendation provides
$64,000,000, the full budget request, for Tritium Production
projects for fiscal year 2000. The Department has selected the
Civilian Light Water Reactor (CLWR) to serve as the primary
source of tritium, and decided that the Accelerator Production
of Tritium (APT) option is to be developed as the backup
capacity. Therefore, the Committee has included $33,000,000 to
proceed with the Project 98-D-125, the Tritium Extraction
Facility at the Savannah River Site which is needed to process
target assemblies irradiated in a CLWR to remove the tritium
gas. An amount of $31,000,000 is recommended for Project 98-D-
126, the Accelerator Production of Tritium project to complete
engineering development, demonstration and preliminary design
for an accelerator-based plant to be available if needed in the
future.
Funding Adjustments.--The Committee has recommended funding
adjustments totaling $13,768,000 made up of $7,668,000 of prior
year balances, and $6,100,000 in contractor travel savings. The
Committee is aware that after several years of savings, travel
costs are beginning to increase. Therefore, the reduction is
proposed to keep these costs in line with prior year levels.
program direction
An appropriation of $246,500,000 is recommended for program
direction activities. This is the same as the budget request.
Program Direction provides funds for all Federal personnel-
related expenses for Defense Programs offices at the Department
of Energy 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.
recommendation summaries
Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in
the table at the end of this title.
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $4,310,227,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 4,505,676,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,551,676,000
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.
The fiscal year 1999 budget request marks the first fiscal
year that the environmental management program structure is
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 1999 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 relative 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 $993,292,000 is recommended for site/
project completion activities. This is the same as the budget
request.
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 address funding shortfalls in meeting
environmental restoration Tri-Party Agreement compliance
deadlines, and to accelerate interim safe storage of reactors
along the Columbia River. In providing additional resources,
the Committee does not want to minimize the challenge goals for
savings and efficiencies to be realized at the site. This, in
combination with the additional funding, will help maintain
mandates milestones and augment deactivation and
decommissioning activities.
The Committee has also recommended an additional $6,000,000
in operating funds to support research and development
associated with resolving technology issues related to the
processing wastes at the Savannah River Site.
Post-2006 Completion
The Committee recommendation for Post-2006 completion
activities is $3,009,548,000, which includes $2,524,997,000 in
operating expenses.
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 $5,000,000 for the National Spent Fuel Program to
address regulatory and repository issues associated with
Department of Energy owned spent nuclear fuel, and an
additional $10,000,000 for spent fuel activities related to the
Idaho Settlement Agreement with the Department of Energy.
The appropriation also includes an additional $30,000,000
for tank cleanup activities at the Hanford Site. The Committee
understands that additional funding will help to maintain
schedules required by revised compliance agreement with the
State of Washington.
Project 00-D-401, Spent Nuclear Fuel Treatment and Storage
Facility, SRS.--The Committee understands technical issues
concerning the generation of larger than anticipated amounts of
benzene gas have suspended all activities for pre-treatment of
the salt feed for the Defense Waste Processing Facility at
Savannah River, and that the fiscal year 2000 budget request
includes funding for processing system engineering, and
research and development necessary to evaluate all salt
processing options prior to selecting the best option in fiscal
year 2000. Further, the budget request includes $7,000,000 for
design only of a new treatment and storage facility.
Even though there are significant technical, regulatory and
design risks, the Committee believes that the Department's
approach should minimize the uncertainty, and understands that
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has concluded that melt and
dilute would be an acceptable concept for geologic disposal of
aluminum-based spent nuclear fuel. Therefore, the Committee has
provided an additional $10,000,000 for detailed design of the
project. The additional funding will help alleviate the delays
based on the level of the budget request and to help mitigate
the resultant increased costs associated with a projected 2-
year delay.
The Committee has included a $3,000,000 increase over the
current year funding level for DOE-funded studies or other
activities associated with the health effects of radiation and
other hazardous substances on DOE workers and communities. The
Committee directs that these studies be managed by the Office
of Environmental, Safety, and Health.
Science and Technology
An appropriation of $230,500,000 is recommended for science
and technology activities related to the environmental waste
cleanup program.
The Science and Technology Program provides new or improved
technologies and research results that reduce risks to workers,
the public and the environment; reduce cleanup costs; and/or
provide solutions to environmental problems that currently have
no solutions. New and improved technologies have the potential
to reduce environmental restoration and cleanup costs by an
estimated several billion dollars.
The Committee finds that the independent review provided
through the consortium for risk evaluation and stakeholder
participation to be important in providing balance and
credibility to work performed for the Department. The
recommendation continues support for the program at the level
requested in the budget.
The Committee recommendation supports the Department's
efforts to complete the previously agreed privatization of the
Western Environmental Technology Office.
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.
Funding Adjustments.--The Committee has recommended funding
adjustments totaling $22,373,000 made up of $20,000,000 of
prior year balances, and $2,373,000 in contractor travel
savings.
Program Direction
The Committee recommendation for program direction totals
$349,409,000, 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.
The amount recommended by the Committee supports the
establishment of an Office of River Protection at the Hanford
Site in accordance with the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999. The Office will be
responsible for all aspects of the Tank Waste Remediation
system with the critical mission to immobilize Hanford's high-
level waste and protect the Columbia River.
Defense Facility Closure Projects
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $1,038,240,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 1,054,492,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,069,492,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,069,492,000
for the site closure program. This is an increase of
$15,000,000 over the budget request.
The ``Site closure'' account includes funding for sites
where the environmental management program has established a
goal of completing the cleanup mission by the end of fiscal
year 2006. After the cleanup mission is complete at a site, no
further DOE mission is envisioned, except for limited long-term
surveillance and maintenance. This account provides funding to
cleanup the Rocky Flats, Fernald, Mound, Ashtabula, and
Battelle Columbus sites.
The 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. The Committee has included an additional
$20,000,000 to mitigate the funding shortfall proposed in the
budget for the Rocky Flats site. The Committee understands that
early closure of the Rocky Flats site could result in over
$1,000,000,000 in saving.
Defense Environmental Management Privatization
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $228,357,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 228,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 228,000,000
An appropriation of $228,000,000 is recommended for the
environmental management privatization initiative. This is the
same as the budget request.
The Department of Energy continues to rely upon the private
sector to accomplish it's mission of environmental cleanup.
Privatization is just one tool used by DOE to implement
alternative business strategies for the procurement of goods
and services required to fulfill their cleanup
responsibilities. The term ``privatization'' as used by DOE
refers to a method of financing, contracting and risk-sharing
between the Department and firms in the private sector for good
or services, and involves the use of fixed price contracts
under which contractors use private funding to design,
construct, operate, and deactivate equipment and facilities
required in the cleanup mission. The vendor then receives
payment for producing products that meet DOE performance
specifications. Budget authority is set aside to cover future
contractual obligations, as well as to provide an incentive for
private sector investment.
recommendation summaries
Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in
the table at the end of this title.
Other Defense Activities
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $1,696,676,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 1,792,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,872,000,000
An appropriation of $1,872,000,000 is recommended by the
Committee for other defense activities.
This account includes the following programs: verification
and control technology, nuclear safeguards and security,
security investigations, security evaluations, the Office of
Nuclear Safety, Worker, and Community Transition Assistance,
fissile materials control and disposition, emergency
management, international nuclear safety and security
activities, and naval reactors. Descriptions of each account
are provided below.
Nonproliferation and National Security
The Nonproliferation and National Security Program includes
activities related to nonproliferation and verification
research and development, arms control, and intelligence. The
Department is engaged in an active nuclear nonproliferation
program through research and development activities performed
at the national laboratories, by providing technical and
analytical support to treaty development and implementation,
and by providing intelligence support to these efforts. The
Committee recommendation totals $822,300,000. The Committee
continues to strongly support these important national security
programs.
Verification and control technology/arms control.--The
Committee recommendation for verification and control
technology research and development, and arms control totals
$547,000,000. The funding level recommended by the Committee
provides significant increases over the current year level for
DOE to continue important activities related to the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including
chemical and biological weapons; and increased initiatives to
reduce the danger of nuclear smuggling and the associated
potential of nuclear terrorism.
The Committee recommendation also includes $84,000,000 for
Deterrence and Detection Technologies, including $41,152,000
for Chemical and Biological non-proliferation activities. This
funding level supports an enhanced program of critical research
to develop and test fast and selective detection technologies,
predictive plume transport models suitable for urban areas, new
recovery and restoration concepts, and advanced biological
forensic methods for proliferation detection.
The recommendation provides $165,000,000 for material
protection, control, and accounting [MPC&A;] activities. The
Committee continues to consider these activities important to
reducing the threat created by the breakup of the former Soviet
Union. The increased funding will allow additional material
protection, control and security upgrade work at defense-
related and important civilian and regulatory sites in Russia.
The recommendation also supports an enhanced program of
material control, protection and accounting upgrades at several
Russian Navy sites. The Committee continues to believe that
these activities are critical elements of the United States
non-proliferation efforts.
The Committee action supports the budget request for both
the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention and the Nuclear
Cities program of the Department of Energy. 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.
Nuclear Safeguards and Security.--The Committee has
provided $69,100,000 for Nuclear Safeguards and Security
programs of the Department of Energy. These activities provide
policy, programmatic direction and training for the protection
of the Department's nuclear weapons, nuclear materials,
classified information and facilities. An additional
$10,000,000 is recommended to enhance and strengthen physical
protection of critical facilities and infrastructure against
physical and cyber attack.
Security Investigations.--The Security Investigations
Program funds background investigations for all DOE Federal
staff and all Headquarters contractors, who, in the performance
of their official duties, require access authorizations to
Restricted Data, National Security Information or special
material. Given the heightened awareness and sensitivity, the
Committee expects the numbers of security background
investigations to increase significantly. The Committee has
recommended $45,000,000, an increase of $15,000,000 over the
budget request, to respond to this increased requirement.
The Committee understands that the cost of security
clearances is to be offset by program organizations in the
amount of $20,000,000.
HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) Transparency
Implementation.--The Committee recommendation includes
$15,750,000 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 permits the U.S. to have confidence that the
Russian side is abiding by the Agreement.
International Nuclear Safety.--The Committee recommendation
is $34,000,000, the full budget request for the International
Nuclear Safety program.
This program supports international nuclear safety
cooperation through project activities in host countries and
through participation with international nuclear safety
organizations. Project activities are focused to address the
most significant safety issues in selected countries, including
primarily those with Soviet-designed reactors.
Intelligence.--The Committee recommendation totals
$36,059,000.
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 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.
Counterintelligence.--An appropriation of $39,200,000 is
provided for the counterintelligence activities of the
Department of Energy. This is an increase of $22,559,000 over
the current years appropriation. The funding recommendation
recognizes that the $12,559,000 of the amount recommended is to
be provided by the national laboratories.
Recent security issues has revealed the need to strengthen
and enhance the counterintelligence activities of the
Department. The recommended increase in funding supports the
efforts of the Department and further enhances the program in
the area of cyber security and early warning and intrusion
analysis. It is critical that the Department of Energy cyber
security be brought into line with other U.S. intelligence
community partners who are advancing a national CI-Cyber
strategy.
Emergency management.--The Committee has provided
$21,000,000 for emergency management activities. The Office of
Emergency Management serves as the single point of contact and
control for all DOE emergency and threat assessment-related
activities, and ensures an integrated response to emergencies
affecting departmental operations and activities or requiring
departmental assistance.
Environment, safety, and health (Defense)
The Office of Environment, Safety, and Health is the
departmental resource that provides oversight in the areas of
environment, safety, health, and safeguards and security
performance. The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$94,000,000.
The Committee recommendation continues funding to support
studies at and around DOE sites under a memorandum with the
Department of Health and Human Services under defense
activities as in past years. The recommendation also supports
the program to monitor former DOE workers with significant
occupational exposures at an increased level.
The Committee has included within the recommended funding
of $15,500,000 to support ongoing studies of the health effects
of radiation on the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
atomic bombings. The Committee directs the Department to
undertake a review of the current dosimetry system, DS86, used
to estimate the neutron dose at Hiroshima to determine if,
based on the available activation measurements from Hiroshima,
a corrective factor should be used in the system to account for
distance from the hypocenter. The Department should report to
the Committee within 60 days of enactment of this Act on its
plans for such a review.
Worker And Community Transition Assistance
In accordance with section 3161 of the National Defense
Authorization Act of 1993 and as a result of a change in the
work force at defense nuclear facilities, defense employees of
the Department may be provided various options to minimize
impacts of these work force structure changes. These options
include retraining, early retirement incentives, preference in
hiring, outplacement assistance, and relocation assistance. In
addition, this program funds contractor employment reduction
requirements for severance and separation payments.
The Committee recommendation is $30,000,000 for this
program. The recommendation supports the Department's
commitment to the State of Idaho at the amount contained in the
budget request.
The Committee supports efforts to diversify technical
activities at the Nevada Test Site. The Committee believes that
appropriate activities will share the infrastructure burden
that is necessary to maintain test readiness. The Department is
encouraged to provide assistance for implementation of such
appropriate activities at the Nevada Test Site.
Fissile Materials Control and Disposition
The Fissile Materials Control and Disposition 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. The
Committee recommendation is $205,000,000 the same as the budget
request.
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 and 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 recognizes that Russian plans to dispose of
excess weapons plutonium are in part limited by the Russian
Federation's limited requirement for mixed-oxide fuel. The
Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to support the
joint United States-Russian program to develop an advanced
reactor to consume large quantities of excess weapons
plutonium.
Funding Adjustments.--The Committee has recommended a
$2,600,000 reduction in contractor travel savings for Other
Defense Activities, excluding the Naval Reactor program.
Naval Reactors
The Naval Reactors Program 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 $677,600,000.
The Committee has provided an additional $12,600,000 to
optimize the program to shutdown prototype reactors and conduct
remediation work. 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.
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES
Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in
the table at the end of this title.
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $189,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 112,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 112,500,000
The Committee recommends $112,500,000 for defense nuclear
waste disposal.
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 $1,191,000,000
(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 1998, a total of
$987,830,000 has been appropriated to support nuclear waste
repository activities attributable to atomic energy defense
activities.
Power Marketing Administrations
Public Law 95-91 transferred to the Department of Energy
the power marketing functions under section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 and all other functions of the Department
of the Interior with respect to the Bonneville Power
Administration, Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern
Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the
Bureau of Reclamation, now included in the Western Area Power
Administration.
All power marketing administrations except Bonneville are
funded annually with appropriations, and related receipts are
deposited in the Treasury. Bonneville operations are self-
financed under authority of Public Law 93-454, the Federal
Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974, which
authorizes Bonneville to use its revenues to finance operating
costs, maintenance and capital construction, and sell bonds to
the Treasury if necessary to finance any remaining capital
program requirements.
bonneville power administration fund
The Bonneville Power Administration 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 360 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 2000, the
Committee recommends an additional increment of $352,000,000 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 $607,000,000, 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 2000.
Budget revisions and notification.--The Committee expects
Bonneville to adhere to the borrowing authority estimates
recommended by the Congress and promptly inform the Committee
of any exceptional circumstances which would necessitate the
need for Bonneville to obligate borrowing authority in excess
of such amounts.
operation and maintenance, southeastern power administration
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $7,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 39,594,000
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 wheeling 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 disagrees with the Department's proposal to
eliminate funding for power purchases and wheeling and includes
$28,000,000 for that purpose.
operation and maintenance, southwestern power administration
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $26,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 27,940,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,000,000
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 disagrees with the Department's proposal to
eliminate funding for power purchases and wheeling and includes
$833,000 for that purpose.
construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance western area
power administration
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $203,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 171,471,000
Committee recommendation................................ 223,555,000
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 disagrees with the Department's proposal to
eliminate funding for power purchases and wheeling and includes
$53,886,000 for that purpose.
The amount to be deposited in the ``Utah reclamation
mitigation and conservation'' account is $5,036,000, the same
amount as the 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 $1,309,000, 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, 1999.................................... $167,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 179,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 170,000,000
salaries and expenses--revenues applied
Appropriations, 1999.................................... -$167,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... -179,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ -170,000,000
The Committee recommendation provides $170,000,000 for the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Revenues are established
at a rate equal to the amount provided for program activities,
resulting in a net appropriation of zero.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The Committee recommendation includes a Department of
Energy general provision not included in the current year
Energy and Water Development Act.
Contractor travel expenses.--Department of Energy
contractor travel costs are limited to not more than
$200,000,000 in fiscal year 2000, and each contractor is
limited to not more than 80 percent of the amount that
contractor spent on travel in fiscal year 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current year Budget Committee
Project title enacted estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY SUPPLY
SOLAR AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES TECHNOLOGIES
Solar energy:
Solar building technology research.......................... 2,900 5,500 2,000
Photovoltaic energy systems................................. 66,800 93,309 64,000
Photovoltaic energy research................................ 2,883 2,847 2,847
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Photovoltaic.................................... 69,683 96,156 66,847
===============================================
Concentrating solar power................................... 17,000 18,850 15,000
Biomass/biofuels energy systems:
Power systems........................................... 31,000 38,950 34,950
Transportation.......................................... 41,750 53,441 38,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Biomass/biofuels energy systems............. 72,750 92,391 72,950
Biomass/biofuels energy research............................ 27,199 26,740 26,740
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Biomass......................................... 99,949 119,131 99,690
===============================================
Wind energy systems......................................... 33,200 45,600 34,000
Wind energy research........................................ 283 283 283
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Wind............................................ 33,483 45,883 34,283
===============================================
Renewable energy production incentive program............... 4,000 1,500 1,500
Solar program support....................................... .............. 10,000 2,000
International solar energy program.......................... 3,750 6,000 3,000
National renewable energy laboratory........................ 2,000 1,100 1,100
Construction: 96-E-100 FTLB renovation and expansion........ .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, National renewable energy laboratory............ 2,000 1,100 1,100
===============================================
Solar photoconversion....................................... 14,532 14,260 14,260
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Solar Energy....................................... 247,297 318,380 239,680
===============================================
Geothermal: Geothermal technology development................... 28,500 29,500 24,000
===============================================
Hydrogen research............................................... 21,000 28,000 27,000
Hydrogen energy research........................................ 3,008 2,970 2,970
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Hydrogen........................................... 24,008 30,970 29,970
===============================================
Hydropower...................................................... 2,000 7,000 5,000
Renewable Indian energy resources............................... 3,500 .............. 4,000
===============================================
Electric energy systems and storage:
Transmission reliability.................................... 2,500 4,000 3,500
High temperature superconducting R&D........................; 32,500 31,000 30,000
Energy storage systems...................................... 4,500 6,000 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Electric energy systems and storage................ 39,500 41,000 33,500
===============================================
Federal building/Remote power initiative........................ 4,000 .............. ..............
Program direction............................................... 17,100 19,171 17,750
===============================================
TOTAL, SOLAR AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES TECHNOLOGIES......... 365,905 446,021 353,900
===============================================
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Nuclear energy R&D;:
Advanced radioisotope power system.......................... 37,000 37,000 37,000
Test reactor area landlord.................................. 4,000 6,070 6,070
Construction:
99-E-200 Test reactor area electrical utility 341 1,430 1,430
upgrade, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, ID.
95-E-201 Test reactor area fire and life safety 2,425 1,500 1,500
improvements, Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, ID.....................................
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.......................... 2,766 2,930 2,930
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Test reactor area landlord............ 6,766 9,000 9,000
-----------------------------------------------
University reactor fuel assistance and support.............. 11,000 11,345 12,000
Nuclear energy plant optimization........................... .............. 5,000 5,000
Nuclear energy research initiative.......................... 19,000 25,000 25,000
Civilian research and development........................... .............. .............. 5,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Nuclear energy R&D.................................; 93,766 87,345 93,000
===============================================
Fast flux test facility (FFTF).................................. 30,000 30,000 28,000
Termination costs............................................... 85,000 65,000 80,000
===============================================
Uranium programs................................................ 49,000 41,000 39,000
Construction:
98-U-200 depleted UF6 cylinder storage yards, Paducah, .............. .............. ..............
KY.....................................................
96-U-201 depleted UF6 cylinder storage yards, Paducah, .............. .............. ..............
KY.....................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.............................. .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Uranium programs............................. 49,000 41,000 39,000
===============================================
Isotope support................................................. 15,500 13,000 15,500
Construction: 99-E-201 Isotope production facility (LANL)... 6,000 8,000 7,500
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Isotope support.................................... 21,500 21,000 23,000
===============================================
Program direction............................................... 24,700 24,960 24,700
===============================================
TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY..................................... 283,966 269,305 287,700
===============================================
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH
Environment, safety and health.................................. 32,000 31,752 30,000
Program direction............................................... 18,398 18,998 18,998
===============================================
TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH..................... 50,398 50,750 48,998
===============================================
ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
Technical information management program........................ 1,600 1,600 1,600
Program direction............................................... 7,000 7,500 7,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Technical information management program........... 8,600 9,100 8,600
===============================================
Transfer to OSHA for external regulation pilot projects......... 1,000 .............. ..............
Field operations................................................ 104,127 102,000 100,000
Oak Ridge Landlord.............................................. 11,000 11,812 11,000
===============================================
TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.......................... 124,727 122,912 119,600
===============================================
Subtotal, Energy supply................................... 824,996 888,988 810,198
===============================================
Renewable energy research program............................... -47,905 -47,100 -47,100
Use of prior year balances...................................... -50,000 .............. -31,589
Transfer from Geothermal and USEC............................... .............. -5,821 -5,821
Contractor travel savings....................................... .............. .............. -10,276
===============================================
TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY...................................... 727,091 836,067 715,412
===============================================
NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Site closure.................................................... 254,344 211,146 210,000
Site/project completion......................................... 102,948 98,366 98,000
Construction: 93-E-900 Long-term storage of TMI-2 fuel, INEL .............. 2,500 2,500
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Site/project completion......................... 102,948 100,866 100,500
-----------------------------------------------
Post 2006 completion............................................ 83,908 18,922 17,422
Use of prior year balances...................................... -10,000 .............. ..............
===============================================
TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT............... 431,200 330,934 327,922
===============================================
URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND
Decontamination and decommissioning............................. 190,200 210,198 175,000
Uranium/thorium reimbursement................................... 30,000 30,000 25,000
===============================================
TOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND 220,200 240,198 200,000
DECOMMISSIONING..........................................
===============================================
SCIENCE
High energy physics:
Research and technology..................................... 215,865 227,190 221,190
Facility operations......................................... 459,635 441,200 441,200
Construction:
00-G-307 SLAC office building....................... .............. 2,000 2,000
99-G-306 Wilson hall safety improvements, Fermilab.. 6,700 4,700 4,700
98-G-304 Neutrinos at the main injector, Fermilab... 14,300 22,000 22,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction............................ 21,000 28,700 28,700
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Facility operations..................... 480,635 469,900 469,900
-----------------------------------------------
Total, High energy physics........................ 696,500 697,090 691,090
===============================================
Nuclear physics................................................. 318,480 342,940 330,000
Construction: 91-G-300 Relativistic heavy ion collider (BNL) 16,620 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Nuclear physics.................................... 335,100 342,940 330,000
===============================================
Biological and environmental research........................... 443,600 411,170 429,700
===============================================
Basic energy sciences:
Materials sciences.......................................... 417,216 407,636 405,000
Chemical sciences........................................... 209,582 215,577 212,000
Engineering and geosciences................................. 44,413 37,545 37,545
Energy biosciences.......................................... 32,489 31,226 31,000
Construction:
99-E-334 Spallation neutron source (ORNL)............... 101,400 196,100 169,000
96-E-300 Combustion research facility, Phase II, SNL/L.. 4,000 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................................ 105,400 196,100 169,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Basic energy sciences.......................... 809,100 888,084 854,545
===============================================
Other energy research:
Computational and technology research....................... 143,000 198,875 129,000
Energy research analyses.................................... 1,000 1,000 1,000
Multiprogram energy labs--facility support..................
Infrastructure support...................................... 1,160 1,160 1,160
Construction: MEL-001 Multiprogram energy laboratory 14,924 18,351 18,351
infrastructure projects, various locations.................
Multiprogram general purpose facilities:
Construction:94-E-363 Roofing improvements (ORNL)....... 4,908 1,749 1,749
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Multiprogram gen. purpose facilities........ 4,908 1,749 1,749
===============================================
Environment, safety and health:
Construction: 96-E-333 Multiprogram energy laboratories 268 .............. ..............
upgrades, various locations............................
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Environment, safety and health............ 268 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Multiprogram energy labs--fac. suppor..... 21,260 21,260 21,260
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Other energy research........................ 165,260 221,135 151,260
===============================================
Fusion energy sciences program.................................. 223,300 222,614 220,614
Program direction............................................... 49,800 52,360 52,360
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science......................................... 2,722,660 2,835,393 2,729,569
===============================================
Use of prior year SSC balances.................................. -7,600 .............. ..............
Use of other prior year balances................................ -13,000 .............. ..............
Contractor travel savings....................................... .............. .............. -4,500
General reduction............................................... -5,700 .............. ..............
General reduction for policy papers for CCTI.................... -13,500 .............. ..............
===============================================
TOTAL, SCIENCE............................................ 2,682,860 2,835,393 2,725,069
===============================================
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
Administrative operations:
Salaries and expenses:
Office of the Secretary................................. 4,175 4,940 4,940
Board of contract appeals............................... 715 838 838
Chief financial officer................................. 22,350 23,792 23,000
Contract reform......................................... 3,200 3,200 3,000
Congressional and intergovernmental affairs............. 4,900 4,910 4,910
Economic impact and diversity........................... 4,700 5,046 4,700
Field management........................................ 7,500 8,080 ..............
General counsel......................................... 19,250 21,434 20,000
Management and administration........................... 97,000 101,273 98,000
Policy office........................................... 14,000 17,430 15,500
Public affairs.......................................... 3,500 3,963 3,963
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Salaries and expenses....................... 181,290 194,906 178,851
Program support:
Minority economic impact................................ 1,700 1,700 1,700
Policy analysis and system studies...................... 350 1,000 500
Environmental policy studies............................ 2,000 2,432 2,000
Scientific and technical training....................... 450 450 450
Corporate management information program................ 8,000 13,000 12,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Program support............................. 12,500 18,582 16,650
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative operations...................... 193,790 213,488 195,501
===============================================
Cost of work for others......................................... 44,312 34,027 34,027
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Departmental Administration..................... 238,102 247,515 229,528
Use of prior year balances...................................... .............. .............. -3,000
Work for others prior year balances............................. .............. .............. -7,113
Transfer from other defense activities.......................... -37,627 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental administration (gross)................ 200,475 247,515 219,415
Miscellaneous revenues.......................................... -136,530 -116,887 -116,887
===============================================
TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net).................. 63,945 130,628 102,528
===============================================
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Office of Inspector General..................................... 29,000 30,000 29,000
===============================================
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
Stockpile stewardship:
Core stockpile stewardship.................................. 1,482,632 1,635,355 1,696,455
Construction:
00-D-103, Terascale simulation facility, LLNL, .............. 8,000 8,000
Livermore, CA......................................
00-D-105 Strategic computing complex, LANL Los .............. 26,000 26,000
Alamos, NM.........................................
00-D-107 Joint computational engineering laboratory, .............. 1,800 1,800
SNL, Albuquerque, NM...............................
99-D-102 Rehabilitation of maintenance facility, 4,000 3,900 3,900
LLNL, Livermore, CA................................
99-D-103 Isotope sciences facilities, LLNL, 2,000 2,000 2,000
Livermore, CA......................................
99-D-104 Protection of real property (roof 2,500 2,400 2,400
reconstruction-Phase II), LLNL, Livermore, CA......
99-D-105 Central health physics cailbration 2,900 1,000 1,000
facility, LANL, Los Alamos, NM.....................
99-D-106 Model validation & system certication 1,600 6,500 6,500
center, SNL, Albuquerque, NM.......................
99-D-108 Renovate existing roadways, Nevada Test 2,000 7,005 7,005
Site, NV...........................................
97-D-102 Dual-axis radiographic hydrotest facility 36,000 61,000 61,000
(LANL), Los Alamos, NM.............................
96-D-102 Stockpile stewardship facilities 20,423 2,640 2,640
revitalization (Phase VI), various locations.......
96-D-103 ATLAS, Los Alamos National Laboratory...... 6,400 .............. ..............
96-D-104 Processing and environmental technology 18,920 10,900 10,900
laboratory (SNL)...................................
96-D-105 Contained firing facility addition (LLNL).. 6,700 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction............................ 103,443 133,145 133,145
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Core stockpile stewardship.............. 1,586,075 1,768,500 1,829,600
Inertial fusion............................................. 223,800 217,600 227,600
Construction: 96-D-111 National ignition facility, LLNL. 284,200 248,100 248,100
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Inertial fusion............................. 508,000 465,700 475,700
Technology transfer/education:
Technology transfer..................................... 45,000 22,200 22,200
Education............................................... 9,000 29,800 24,300
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Technology transfer/education............... 54,000 52,000 46,500
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Stockpile stewardship.......................... 2,148,075 2,286,200 2,351,800
===============================================
Stockpile management............................................ 1,986,803 1,839,621 1,866,621
Construction:
99-D-122 Rapid reactivation, various locations.......... 11,200 11,700 11,700
99-D-123 Replace mechanical utility systems, Y-12, Oak 1,900 .............. ..............
Ridge, TN..............................................
99-D-125 Replace boilers and controls, Kansas City 1,000 .............. ..............
plant, Kansas City, MO.................................
99-D-127 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, 13,700 17,000 17,000
Kansas City plant, Kansas City, MO.....................
99-D-128 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, 1,108 3,429 3,429
Pantex consolidation, Amarillo, TX.....................
99-D-132 SMRI nuclear material safeguards and security 9,700 11,300 11,300
upgrade project (LANL), Los Alamos, NM.................
98-D-123 Stockpile mgmt. restructuring initiative 27,500 21,800 21,800
Tritium factory modernization and consolidation,
Savannah River, SC.....................................
98-D-124 Stockpile mgmt. restructuring initiative Y-12 10,700 3,150 3,150
consolidation, Oak Ridge, TN...........................
98-D-125 Tritium extraction facility, SR................ 6,000 33,000 33,000
98-D-126 Accelerator production of Tritium, various 20,000 31,000 31,000
locations..............................................
97-D-122 Nuclear materials storage facility renovation 2,500 .............. ..............
(LANL), Los Alamos, NM.................................
97-D-123 Structural upgrades, Kansas City plant, Kansas 6,400 4,800 4,800
City, KS...............................................
96-D-122 Sewage treatment quality upgrade (STQU), Pantex 3,700 .............. ..............
plant..................................................
95-D-102 Chemistry and metallurgy research (CMR) 5,000 18,000 18,000
upgrades project (LANL)................................
93-D-122 Life safety upgrades, Y-12 plant............... 3,250 .............. ..............
88-D-123 Security enhancements, Pantex plant, Amarillo, .............. 3,500 3,500
TX.....................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.............................. 123,658 158,679 158,679
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Stockpile management......................... 2,110,461 1,998,300 2,025,300
===============================================
Program direction............................................... 250,000 246,500 246,500
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons activities.............................. 4,508,536 4,531,000 4,623,600
===============================================
Use of prior year balances...................................... -82,536 .............. -7,668
Contractor travel savings....................................... .............. .............. -6,100
===============================================
TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES................................. 4,426,000 4,531,000 4,609,832
===============================================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT.
Site/project completion:
Operation and maintenance................................... 858,090 892,629 905,002
Construction:
99-D-402 Tank farm support services, F&H; area, Savannah 2,745 3,100 3,100
River site, Aiken, SC..................................
99-D-404 Health physics instrumentation laboratory 950 7,200 7,200
(INEL), ID.............................................
98-D-401 H-tank farm storm water systems upgrade, 3,120 2,977 2,977
Savannah River, SC.....................................
98-D-453 Plutonium stabilization and handling system for 26,814 16,860 16,860
PFP, Richland, WA......................................
98-D-700 Road rehabilitation (INEL), ID................. 7,710 2,590 2,590
97-D-450 Savannah River nuclear material storage, 79,184 4,000 4,000
Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC.........................
97-D-470 Regulatory monitoring and bioassay laboratory, 7,000 12,220 12,220
Savannah River site, Aiken, SC.........................
96-D-406 Spent nuclear fuels canister storage and 38,680 24,441 24,441
stabilization facility, Richland, WA...................
96-D-464 Electrical & utility systems upgrade, Idaho 11,544 11,971 11,971
chemical processing plant (INEL), ID...................
96-D-471 CFC HVAC/chiller retrofit, Savannah River site, 8,000 931 931
Aiken, SC..............................................
95-D-456 Security facilities consolidation, Idaho 485 .............. ..............
chemical processing plant (INEL), ID...................
92-D-140 F&H; canyon exhaust upgrades Savannah River, SC. 3,667 .............. ..............
86-D-103 Decontamination and waste treatment facility 4,752 2,000 2,000
(LLNL), Livermore, CA..................................
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.............................. 194,651 88,290 88,290
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Site/project completion...................... 1,052,741 980,919 993,292
===============================================
Post 2006 completion:
Operation and maintenance................................... 2,261,107 2,478,997 2,524,997
Uranium enrichment D&D; fund contribution.................... 398,088 420,000 420,000
Construction:
00-D-401 Spent Nuclear Fuel treatment and storage .............. 7,000 17,000
facility Title I & II, Savannah River, SC..............
99-D-403 Privatization Phase I infrastructure support, 14,800 13,988 13,988
Richland, WA...........................................
97-D-402 Tank farm restoration and safe operations, 22,723 20,516 20,516
Richland, WA...........................................
96-D-408 Waste management upgrades, Richland, WA........ 171 .............. ..............
94-D-407 Initial tank retrieval systems, Richland, WA... 32,860 4,060 4,060
93-D-187 High-level waste removal from filled waste 15,214 8,987 8,987
tanks, Savannah River, SC..............................
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.............................. 85,768 54,551 64,551
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Post 2006 completion......................... 2,744,963 2,953,548 3,009,548
===============================================
Science and technology.......................................... 247,000 230,500 230,500
Program direction............................................... 337,073 349,409 349,409
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense environmental management................ 4,381,777 4,514,376 4,582,749
===============================================
Use of prior year balances/general reduction.................... -71,550 .............. -20,000
Contractor travel savings....................................... .............. .............. -2,373
Offsetting collections.......................................... .............. -8,700 -8,700
===============================================
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRON. RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT........ 4,310,227 4,505,676 4,551,676
===============================================
DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS
Closure projects................................................ 1,038,240 1,054,492 1,069,492
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION
Privatization initiatives, various locations.................... 228,357 253,000 253,000
Use of prior year balances...................................... .............. -25,000 -25,000
===============================================
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. PRIVATIZATION.......... 228,357 228,000 228,000
===============================================
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT................... 5,576,824 5,788,168 5,849,168
===============================================
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Other national security programs:
Nonproliferation and national security:
Verification and control technology:
Nonproliferation and verification, R&D..............; 210,000 215,000 225,000
Construction: 00-D-192 Nonproliferation and .............. 6,000 6,000
international security center (NISC), LANL.....
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nonproliferation & verification... 210,000 221,000 231,000
Arms control........................................ 256,900 296,000 316,000
Intelligence........................................ 41,600 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Verification and control technology..... 508,500 517,000 547,000
Emergency management.................................... 21,000 21,000 21,000
Nuclear safeguards and security......................... 55,200 59,100 69,100
Security investigations................................. 30,000 30,000 45,000
HEU transparency implementation......................... .............. 15,750 15,750
International nuclear safety............................ .............. 34,000 34,000
Program direction--NN................................... 86,900 90,450 90,450
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nonproliferation and national security...... 701,600 767,300 822,300
Intelligence................................................ .............. 36,059 36,059
Counterintelligence......................................... .............. 31,200 39,200
Environment, safety and health (Defense).................... 66,731 67,231 69,231
Program direction--EH....................................... 24,769 24,769 24,769
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Environment, safety & health (Defense).......... 91,500 92,000 94,000
Worker and community transition............................. 26,000 26,500 26,500
Program direction--WT....................................... 3,900 3,500 3,500
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Worker and community transition................. 29,900 30,000 30,000
Fissile materials disposition............................... 116,372 129,766 134,766
Program direction--MD....................................... 4,588 7,343 7,343
Construction:
00-D-142 Immobilization and associated processing .............. 21,765 21,765
facility, various locations............................
99-D-141 Pit disassembly and conversion facility, 20,000 28,751 28,751
various locations......................................
99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, various 28,000 12,375 12,375
locations..............................................
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.............................. 48,000 62,891 62,891
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fissile materials disposition............. 168,960 200,000 205,000
Nuclear energy (Defense):
International nuclear safety: Soviet designed reactors.. 30,000 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear energy (Defense).................... 30,000 .............. ..............
National Security programs administrative support........... 37,627 .............. ..............
Office of hearings and appeals.............................. 2,400 3,000 3,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Other national security programs................ 1,061,987 1,159,559 1,229,559
Contractor travel savings................................... .............. .............. -2,600
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Other national security programs................... 1,061,987 1,159,559 1,226,959
===============================================
Independent assessment of DOE projects.......................... .............. .............. ..............
===============================================
Naval reactors:
Naval reactors development.................................. 628,289 620,400 633,000
Construction:
GPN-101 General plant projects, various locations... 9,000 9,000 9,000
98-D-200 Site laboratory/facility upgrade, various 7,000 3,000 3,000
locations..........................................
90-N-102 Expended core facility dry cell project, 5,800 12,000 12,000
Naval Reactors Facility, ID........................
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.......................... 21,800 24,000 24,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Naval reactors development............ 650,089 644,400 657,000
Program direction........................................... 20,100 20,600 20,600
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Naval reactors..................................... 670,189 665,000 677,600
===============================================
Subtotal, Other defense activities........................ 1,732,176 1,824,559 1,904,559
===============================================
Use of prior year balances...................................... -15,500 .............. ..............
Offset to user organizations.................................... -20,000 -20,000 -20,000
Contribution from labs.......................................... .............. -12,559 -12,559
===============================================
TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........................... 1,696,676 1,792,000 1,872,000
===============================================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
Defense nuclear waste disposal.................................. 189,000 112,000 112,500
===============================================
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES................... 11,888,500 12,223,168 12,443,500
===============================================
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Operation and maintenance/program direction................. 4,370 .............. 11,594
Purchase power and wheeling................................. 6,130 .............. 28,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance....................... 10,500 .............. 39,594
Use of prior year balances...................................... -3,000 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION.................. 7,500 .............. 39,594
===============================================
SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Operating expenses.......................................... 2,722 3,625 3,625
Purchase power and wheeling................................. 59 .............. 833
Program direction........................................... 16,402 17,631 16,858
Construction................................................ 6,817 6,684 6,684
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION.................. 26,000 27,167 28,000
===============================================
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Construction and rehabilitation............................. 20,802 26,802 25,000
System operation and maintenance............................ 36,469 35,096 35,096
Purchase power and wheeling................................. 53,886 .............. 53,886
Program direction........................................... 107,383 104,537 104,537
Utah mitigation and conservation............................ 5,036 5,036 5,036
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance....................... 223,576 171,471 223,555
Use of prior year balances...................................... -20,576 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION.................. 203,000 171,471 223,555
===============================================
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND
Operation and maintenance....................................... 1,010 1,309 1,309
===============================================
TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS.................... 237,510 199,947 292,458
===============================================
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Federal energy regulatory commission............................ 167,500 179,900 170,000
FERC revenues................................................... -167,500 -179,900 -170,000
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION............... .............. .............. ..............
===============================================
NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
Repository program.............................................. 112,000 186,397 172,897
Program direction............................................... 53,000 71,603 69,603
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal from Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund................. 165,000 258,000 242,500
Transfer from defense nuclear waste disposal.................... .............. (39,000) ..............
Civilian research and development............................... 4,000 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL............................. 169,000 258,000 242,500
===============================================
GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY......................... 16,449,306 17,084,335 17,078,389
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $66,400,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 66,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 71,400,000
The Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] is a regional
economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed
of the Governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a Federal
cochairman who is appointed by the President.
The Committee recommendation for the Appalachian Regional
Commission totals $71,400,000.
Consistent with the administration's budget request, the
Committee recommendation does not include funding for ARC
highways. Funding for ARC development highways will be provided
through the highway trust fund beginning in fiscal year 1999
through 2004 consistent with provision contained in the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
The Committee understands the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit ruled in January of this year that the
revised EIS for the Richie County Dam was sufficient, thereby,
clearing the way for construction of the facility. The
Committee further understands that the long delay caused by the
litigation has resulted in increased project costs. Therefore,
the Committee has provided $5,000,000 to cover a portion of the
increased costs, which with $4,000,000 to be provided by the
State of West Virginia, will provide sufficient funding to
complete the project.
Denali Commission
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 25,000,000
The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 for the
Denali Commission and recommends that the Commission contract
for a state-wide infrastructure development plan. The plan
should address energy, water and sewer, solid waste, access and
other infrastructure issues and provide particular
consideration to efficiency, reliability, and maintenance
requirements.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $16,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 17,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 17,500,000
An appropriation of $17,500,000 is recommended for fiscal
year 2000. This is the same as the budget request.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by
the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The
Board, composed of five members appointed by the President,
provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy
regarding public health and safety issues at the Department's
defense nuclear facilities. The Board is responsible for
reviewing and evaluating the content and implementation of the
standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and
decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department
of Energy.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
salaries and expenses
gross appropriation
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $465,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 465,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 465,400,000
revenues
Appropriations, 1999.................................... -$444,800,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... -442,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ -442,400,000
net appropriation
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $20,200,00
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 23,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 23,000,000
In the report accompanying the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and
Water Development Act, the Committee was critical of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, listed a series of specific
concerns regarding the Commission, and directed the Commission
to report monthly to the Committee on the status of the
Commission's licensing and regulatory duties.
The Commission as a whole, the five Commissioners
individually, and the Commission staff deserve a great deal of
credit for the Commission's accomplishments in the last year.
There are certainly areas that continue to need attention.
However, it is the Committee's view that the Commission is
actively identifying and considering those issues and taking
steps to address them including the recent submission to
Congress of a number of legislative proposals. The Committee
strongly endorses that effort and will work with the
appropriate authorizing Committees in that regard.
The Commission's monthly reports to the Committee have been
informative and useful in tracking progress at the Commission,
and the Commission should continue to provide them.
The Committee recommendation includes $465,400,000, the
same amount as the request, for the Commission and includes a
single year extension of the NRC's user fee collection
authority. The Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1990,
as amended, requires that the Commission recover 100 percent of
its budget authority, less the appropriation from the nuclear
waste fund, by assessing licenses and annual fees. That
authority expires in 1999, and unless additional fee collection
authority is enacted prior to or concurrent to enactment of
this Act, the Commission's authority to collect user fees would
be limited to 33 percent of its budget. The Committee is aware
that the Environment and Public Works Committee may soon
consider legislation in this regard and intends that the 1-year
extension included in this measure serve as a safeguard should
that legislation not be enacted by October 1, 1999.
Office of Inspector General
gross appropriation
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $4,800,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
revenues
Appropriations, 1999.................................... -$4,800,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... -6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ -5,000,000
This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee
recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $2,600,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 3,150,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,150,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,150,000 for
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act of 1987 directed the Board to evaluate
the technical and scientific validity of the activities of the
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The
Board must report its findings not less than two times a year
to the Congress and the Secretary of Energy.
Tennessee Valley Authority
Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000................................... $7,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,000,000 for
the Tennessee Valley Authority, the same as the budget request.
The funding is provided for the operation and maintenance of
the Land Between the Lakes recreation area.
TITLE V--RESCISSIONS
Severely constrained spending limits required under the
Discretionary budget caps 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 2000. In order the adhere
to the subcommittee's allocations and address the critical
ongoing programs and activities, and respond to the numerous
requests of the Members, the Committee finds it necessary to
recommend a series of rescissions in the Corps of Engineers and
the Department of Energy. A good portion of the funding
recommended for rescission is not needed in fiscal year 2000 or
future years due to project completion or program termination.
However, the Committee has included rescissions of several
projects that will require completion funding in future years.
In those cases, while recommending a rescission, sufficient
funding remains to continue those projects in fiscal year 2000.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.''
The recommended appropriations in title III, Department of
Energy, generally are subject to annual authorization. However,
the Congress has not enacted an annual Department of Energy
authorization bill for several years, with the exception of the
programs funded within the atomic energy defense activities
which are authorized in annual defense authorization acts. The
authorization for the atomic energy defense activities,
contained in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal
Year 1998, is currently being considered by the Senate.
Also, contained in title III, Department of Energy, in
connection with the appropriation under the heading ``Nuclear
Waste Disposal Fund,'' the recommended item of appropriation is
brought to the attention of the Senate.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee
ordered reported en bloc, S. 1186, an original fiscal year 2000
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, and S. 1143,
an original fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations
bill, both subject to amendment and subject to the section 302
budget allocation, by a recorded vote of 27-1, a quorum being
present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Stevens Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Kyl
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mr. Durbin
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law
proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing
law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is
printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman.
TITLE 16--CONSERVATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 12H--PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRIC POWER PLANNING AND CONSERVATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 839b. Regional planning and participation
(a) Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council;
establishment and operation as regional agency
* * * * * * *
(h) Fish and wildlife
(1)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(10)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) Independent Scientific Review Panel.--(i) The Northwest
Power Planning Council (Council) shall appoint an Independent
Scientific Review Panel (Panel), which shall be comprised of
eleven members, to review projects proposed to be funded
through that portion of the Bonneville Power Administration's
(BPA) annual fish and wildlife budget that implements the
Council's fish and wildlife program. Members shall be appointed
from a list of no fewer than 20 scientists submitted by the
National Academy of Sciences (Academy), provided that Pacific
Northwest scientists with expertise in Columbia River
anadromous and non-anadromous fish and wildlife and ocean
experts shall be among those represented on the Panel. The
Academy shall provide such nominations within 90 days of
September 30, 1996, and in any case not later than December 31,
1996. If appointments are required in subsequent years, the
Council shall request nominations from the Academy and the
Academy shall provide nominations not later than 90 days after
the date of this request. If the Academy does not provide
nominations within these time requirements, the Council may
appoint such members as the Council deems appropriate.
(ii) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(vii) Cost Limitation.--The cost of this provision shall
not exceed $2,000,000 in 1997 dollars.
[(viii) Expiration.--This paragraph shall expire on
September 30, 2000.]
(vii) Cost limitation.--The annual cost of this provision
shall not exceed $500,000 in 1997 dollars.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 23--DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL OF ATOMIC ENERGY
* * * * * * *
Division A--Atomic Energy
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER XIII--GENERAL AUTHORITY OF COMMISSION
* * * * * * *
Sec. Sec. 2214. NRC user fees and annual charges
(a) Annual assessment
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Last assessment of annual charges
The last assessment of annual charges under subsection
(c) of this section shall be made not later than [September 30,
1999] September 30, 2000.
* * * * * * *
Division B--United States Enrichment Corporation
SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2297b-7. Accounts
(a) Establishment of United States Enrichment Corporation Fund
[There is established] (1) Establishment.--There is
established in the Treasury of the United States a revolving
fund, to be known as the ``United States Enrichment Corporation
Fund''[, which] (referred to in this section as the `Fund'),
which shall be available to the Corporation, without need for
further appropriation and without fiscal year limitation, for
carrying out its purposes, functions, and powers, and which
shall not be subject to apportionment under subchapter II of
chapter 15 of title 31.
(2) Investment of amounts.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest such portion of the Fund as is not, in the
judgment of the Secretary, required to meet current
withdrawals. Investments may be made only in interest-
bearing obligations of the United States.
(B) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of
investments under subparagraph (A), obligations may be
acquired--
(i) on original issue at the issue price;
or
(ii) by purchase of outstanding obligations
at the market price.
(C) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired
by the Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the
Treasury at the market price.
(D) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the
proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any
obligations held in the Fund shall be credited to and
form a part of the Fund.
(b) Transfer of unexpended balances
On the transfer date, the Secretary shall, without need of
further appropriation, transfer to the Corporation the
unexpended balance of appropriations and other monies available
to the Department (inclusive of funds set aside for accounts
payable), and accounts receivable which are related to
functions and activities acquired by the Corporation from the
Department pursuant to this division, including all advance
payments.
* * * * * * *
Public Law 105-204
SECTION 1. UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION.
(a) Plan.--The Secretary of Energy shall prepare, and the
President shall include in the budget request for [fiscal year
2000] fiscal year 2001, a plan and proposed legislation to
ensure that all amounts accrued on the books of the United
States Enrichment Corporation for the disposition of depleted
uranium hexafluoride will be used to commence construction of,
not later than January 31, 2004, and to operate, an onsite
facility at each of the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah,
Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, to treat and recycle depleted
uranium hexafluoride consistent with the National Environmental
Policy Act.
(b) Limitation.--Notwithstanding the privatization of the
United States Enrichment Corporation and notwithstanding any
other provision of law (including the repeal of chapters 22
through 26 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297 et
seq.) made by section 3116(a)(1) of the United States
Enrichment Corporation Privatization Act (104 Stat. 1321-349),
no amounts described in subsection (a) shall be withdrawn from
the United States Enrichment Corporation Fund established by
section 1308 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297b-
7) or the Working Capital Account established under section
1316 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297b-15)
until the date that is 1 year after the date on which the
President submits to Congress the budget request for [fiscal
year 2000] fiscal year 2001.
(c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that Congress should authorize appropriations during [fiscal
year 2000] fiscal year 2001 in an amount sufficient to fully
fund the plan described in subsection (a).
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent
Resolution for 2000: Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development:
General purpose discretionary........................... 21,280 21,277 20,868 \1\ 20,868
Violent crime reduction fund............................ ........... ........... ........... ...........
Mandatory............................................... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2000.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 13,326
2001.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 6,366
2002.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 1,240
2003.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 28
2004 and future year.................................... ........... ........... ........... 222
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2000 NA 104 NA 150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2000
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 1999 Budget estimate Committee -------------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 1999
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
General investigations................................... 161,747 135,000 125,459 -36,288 -9,541
Construction, general.................................... 1,429,885 1,239,900 1,113,227 -316,658 -126,673
Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 105-277)..... 35,000 ................. ................. -35,000 .................
Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, 321,149 280,000 315,630 -5,519 +35,630
Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Tennessee.................................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 105-277)........ 2,500 ................. ................. -2,500 .................
Operation and maintenance, general....................... 1,653,252 1,835,900 1,790,043 +136,791 -45,857
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 105-277)........ 99,700 ................. ................. -99,700 .................
Regulatory program....................................... 106,000 117,000 115,000 +9,000 -2,000
Defense function..................................... 140,000 150,000 150,000 +10,000 .................
General expenses......................................... 148,000 148,000 151,000 +3,000 +3,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, title I, Department of Defense--Civil....... 4,097,233 3,905,800 3,760,359 -336,874 -145,441
==============================================================================================
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project Completion Account
Central Utah project construction........................ 25,741 21,002 21,002 -4,739 .................
Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and 10,476 12,047 12,047 +1,571 .................
conservation............................................
Utah reclamation mitigation and conservation account..... 5,000 5,000 5,000 ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 41,217 38,049 38,049 -3,168 .................
Program oversight and administration..................... 1,283 1,321 1,321 +38 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Central Utah project completion account..... 42,500 39,370 39,370 -3,130 .................
Bureau of Reclamation
Water and related resources.............................. 617,045 652,838 612,451 -4,594 -40,387
(By transfer)........................................ (25,800) ................. ................. (-25,800) .................
Loan program............................................. 8,421 12,425 12,425 +4,004 .................
(Limitation on direct loans)......................... (38,000) (43,000) (43,000) (+5,000) .................
Central Valley project restoration fund.................. 33,130 47,346 37,346 +4,216 -10,000
California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration............... 75,000 95,000 50,000 -25,000 -45,000
Policy and administration................................ 47,000 49,000 49,000 +2,000 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Bureau of Reclamation....................... 780,596 856,609 761,222 -19,374 -95,387
==============================================================================================
Total, title II, Department of the Interior........ 823,096 895,979 800,592 -22,504 -95,387
(By transfer).................................. (25,800) ................. ................. (-25,800) .................
==============================================================================================
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Energy supply............................................ 727,091 836,067 715,412 -11,679 -120,655
(By transfer)........................................ ................. (5,821) (5,821) (+5,821) .................
Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 105-277)..... 60,000 ................. ................. -60,000 .................
Non-defense environmental management..................... 431,200 330,934 327,922 -103,278 -3,012
Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning 220,200 240,198 200,000 -20,200 -40,198
fund....................................................
Science.................................................. 2,682,860 2,835,393 2,725,069 +42,209 -110,324
Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 105-277)..... 15,000 ................. ................. -15,000 .................
Nuclear Waste Disposal................................... 169,000 258,000 242,500 +73,500 -15,500
(By transfer)........................................ ................. (39,000) ................. ................. (-39,000)
Departmental administration.............................. 200,475 247,515 219,415 +18,940 -28,100
Miscellaneous revenues............................... -136,530 -116,887 -116,887 +19,643 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net appropriation.................................. 63,945 130,628 102,528 +38,583 -28,100
Y2K conversion (emergency appropriations)................ 10,000 ................. ................. -10,000 .................
Office of the Inspector General.......................... 29,000 30,000 29,000 ................. -1,000
Environmental restoration and waste management:
Defense function..................................... (5,576,824) ................. ................. (-5,576,824) .................
Non-defense function................................. (651,400) ................. ................. (-651,400) .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. (6,228,224) ................. ................. (-6,228,224) .................
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
Weapons activities....................................... 4,400,000 4,531,000 4,609,832 +209,832 +78,832
Defense environmental restoration and waste management... 4,310,227 4,505,676 4,551,676 +241,449 +46,000
Y2K conversion (emergency appropriations)............ 10,340 ................. ................. -10,340 .................
Defense facilities closure projects...................... 1,038,240 1,054,492 1,069,492 +31,252 +15,000
Y2K conversion (emergency appropriations)............ 3,500 ................. ................. -3,500 .................
Defense environmental management privatization........... 228,357 228,000 228,000 -357 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense environmental management......... 5,590,664 5,788,168 5,849,168 +258,504 +61,000
Other defense activities................................. 1,696,676 1,792,000 1,872,000 +175,324 +80,000
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 105-277)........ 525,000 ................. ................. -525,000 .................
Y2K conversion (emergency appropriations)............ 13,650 ................. ................. -13,650 .................
Defense nuclear waste disposal........................... 189,000 112,000 112,500 -76,500 +500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities............ 12,414,990 12,223,168 12,443,500 +28,510 +220,332
Power Marketing Administrations
Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power 7,500 ................. 39,549 +32,049 +39,549
Administration..........................................
Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power 26,000 27,167 28,000 +2,000 +833
Administration..........................................
(By transfer)........................................ ................. (773) ................. ................. (-773)
Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, 203,000 171,471 223,555 +20,555 +52,084
Western Area Power Administration.......................
Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund........ 1,010 1,309 1,309 +299 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Power Marketing Administrations............. 237,510 199,947 292,413 +54,903 +92,466
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Salaries and expenses.................................... 167,500 179,900 170,000 +2,500 -9,900
Revenues applied..................................... -167,500 -179,900 -170,000 -2,500 +9,900
==============================================================================================
Total, title III, Department of Energy............. 17,060,796 17,084,335 17,078,344 +17,548 -5,991
Appropriations................................. (16,423,306) (17,084,335) (17,078,344) (+655,038) (-5,991)
Supplemental appropriations.................... (75,000) ................. ................. (-75,000) .................
Emergency appropriations....................... (525,000) ................. ................. (-525,000) .................
Y2K conversion (emergency appropriations)...... (37,490) ................. ................. (-37,490) .................
==============================================================================================
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission.......................... 66,400 66,400 71,400 +5,000 +5,000
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.................. 16,500 17,500 17,500 +1,000 .................
Denali Commission........................................ 20,000 ................. 25,000 +5,000 +25,000
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Salaries and expenses................................ 465,000 465,400 465,400 +400 .................
Revenues............................................. -444,800 -442,400 -442,400 +2,400 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 20,200 23,000 23,000 +2,800 .................
Office of Inspector General.......................... 4,800 6,000 5,000 +200 -1,000
Revenues............................................. -4,800 -6,000 -5,000 -200 +1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... ................. ................. ................. ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 20,200 23,000 23,000 +2,800 .................
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board..................... 2,600 3,150 3,150 +550 .................
Tennessee Valley Authority: Tennessee Valley Authority ................. 7,000 7,000 +7,000 .................
Fund....................................................
Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 105-277)..... 50,000 ................. ................. -50,000 .................
==============================================================================================
Total, title IV, Independent agencies.............. 175,700 117,050 147,050 -28,650 +30,000
==============================================================================================
TITLE V--RESCISSIONS
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
General investigations (rescissions)..................... ................. ................. -1,512 -1,512 -1,512
Construction, general (rescission)....................... ................. ................. -62,053 -62,053 -62,053
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Corps of Engineers--Civil................... ................. ................. -63,565 -63,565 -63,565
==============================================================================================
SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Purchase power and wheeling (rescissions)................ ................. ................. -5,500 -5,500 -5,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, South Eastern Power Administration.......... ................. ................. -5,500 -5,500 -5,500
==============================================================================================
Total, title V, Rescissions........................ ................. ................. -69,065 -69,065 -69,065
==============================================================================================
Grand total:
New budget (obligational) authority............ 22,156,825 22,003,164 21,717,280 -439,545 -285,884
Appropriations............................. (21,492,135) (22,003,164) (21,786,345) (+294,210) (-216,819)
Rescissions................................ ................. ................. (-69,065) (-69,065) (-69,065)
Emergency appropriations................... (664,690) ................. ................. (-664,690) .................
(By transfer).................................. (25,800) (45,594) (5,821) (-19,979) (-39,773)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
