[Senate Report 108-105]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 213
108th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 108-105
======================================================================
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 2004
_______
July 17, 2003.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Domenici, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1424]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1424)
making appropriations for energy and water development for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes,
favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do
pass.
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 0000) making appropriations for energy and water
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and
for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. deg.
Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2004
Budget estimates considered by Senate................... $26,946,164,000
Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................ 27,313,000,000
The bill as reported to the Senate--
Above the budget estimate, 2004..................... 1,236,805,000
Over enacted bill, 2003............................. 366,836,000
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.................................... 23
Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries......... 40
Operation and maintenance, general....................... 43
Regulatory program....................................... 65
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.......... 66
General expenses......................................... 67
Flood control and coastal emergencies.................... 69
General provisions....................................... 70
TITLE II
Department of the Interior:
Central Utah project completion account...................... 72
Bureau of Reclamation: Water and related resources........... 72
Central Valley project restoration fund...................... 82
California bay-delta restoration............................. 83
Policy and administration.................................... 84
General provisions........................................... 85
TITLE III
Department of Energy:
Energy Supply................................................ 86
Renewable energy resources............................... 87
Electricity Energy Assurance............................. 90
Nuclear energy programs.................................. 91
Environment, safety, and health.......................... 94
Energy supply infrastructure............................. 94
Non-defense site acceleration completion..................... 95
Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund.. 96
Non-defense environmental service............................ 97
Science...................................................... 98
High energy physics...................................... 99
Nuclear physics.......................................... 99
Biological and environmental research.................... 100
Basic energy sciences.................................... 101
Fusion energy sciences................................... 102
Nuclear waste disposal fund.................................. 103
Departmental administration.................................. 104
Miscellaneous revenues................................... 104
Inspector General............................................ 105
Atomic energy defense activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons activities................................... 106
Defense nuclear nonproliferation..................... 114
Naval reactors....................................... 118
Office of the Administrator.......................... 119
Environmental and other defense activities:
Defense site acceleration completion..................... 121
Defense environmental services........................... 125
Other defense activities................................. 126
Defense nuclear waste disposal........................... 129
Power marketing administrations:
Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power
Administration......................................... 130
Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power
Administration......................................... 130
Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance,
Western Area Power Administration...................... 131
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission......................... 131
Salaries and expenses--revenues applied.................. 132
General provisions........................................... 146
TITLE IV
Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.............................. 148
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board...................... 148
Delta Regional Authority..................................... 149
Denali Commission............................................ 149
Nuclear Regulatory Commission................................ 150
Office of Inspector General.............................. 151
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board......................... 151
TITLE V
General provisions............................................... 152
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 152
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the
Senate......................................................... 152
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 153
Budgetary impact statement....................................... 154
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for
the fiscal year 2004 beginning October 1, 2003, and ending
September 30, 2004, for energy and water development, and for
other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources
development programs and related activities of the Department
of the Army, Civil Functions--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Civil Works Program in title I; for the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the
Department of Energy's energy research activities (except for
fossil fuel programs and certain conservation and regulatory
functions), including environmental restoration and waste
management, and atomic energy defense activities of the
National Nuclear Security Administration in title III; and for
related independent agencies and commissions, including the
Appalachian Regional Commission, Delta Regional Authority,
Denali Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
title IV.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The fiscal year 2004 budget estimates for the bill total
$26,946,164,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The
recommendation of the Committee totals $27,313,000,000. This is
$366,836,000 above the budget estimates and $1,236,805,000 over
the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.
The bill, as recommended, is in compliance with the
subcommittee allocation agreed to by the Committee and entered
into the Congressional Record on June 20, 2003.
Subcommittee Hearings
The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the
Committee on Appropriations held four sessions in connection
with the fiscal year 2004 appropriation bill. Witnesses
included officials and representatives of the Federal agencies
under the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The subcommittee received numerous statements and letters
from Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives,
Governors, State and local officials and representatives, and
hundreds of private citizens of all walks of life throughout
the United States. Information, both for and against many
items, was presented to the subcommittee. The recommendations
for fiscal year 2004 therefore, have been developed after
careful consideration of available data.
Votes in the Committee
By a vote of 29 to 0 the Committee on July 17, 2003,
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the
Senate.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
INTRODUCTION
The Committee remains concerned about the level of the
budget requests for the water resources programs of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The budget request for fiscal year
2004 is about $450,000,000 less than the amount appropriated to
the Corps in fiscal year 2003. The budget request is
extraordinarily unbalanced. Eight projects account for 29
percent of the proposed Construction, General budget with the
remainder of the projects severely underfunded. The proposed
General Investigations budget, which provides funding for
studies of water resources needs, is decimated. Only studies in
their final year were adequately funded, the remainder were
severely underfunded. The proposed Operations and Maintenance
budget appears to show an increase, however, when accounting
for inflation and proposed funding transfers that are unlikely
to be enacted, the final total is less than the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 2003. The budget proposed for the
Mississippi River and Tributaries project, is equally
inadequate.
If the proposed budget request were enacted, the Corps
would be forced to terminate on-going construction contracts
costing the government some $200,000,000 in termination fees,
demobilization costs, and delays in project schedules.
As has been the practice for the last several years, the
budget proposal contained no new construction ``starts''. The
budget proposal stated that this was done in order to only fund
the backlog of on-going work (estimated at $23,000,000,000 in
the budget proposal) and that within 10 years, this backlog
would be reduced to zero. Followed to conclusion, that would
mean that within 10 years the Corps would only be an operation
and maintenance agency to oversee past constructed work. Since
there are no other nationwide agencies that address water
resource problems and needs, one can only assume that all water
resource problems will be solved in the next 10 years or that
the Federal Government intends to no longer fund water resource
development.
The Committee does not share the views in the budget
proposal and remains concerned about the huge and increasing
backlog of infrastructure development, maintenance, and repair
over which the Corps has jurisdiction. The proposed budget
causes the backlog of unconstructed projects to increase from
$44,000,000,000 to $52,000,000,000 and ignores an accelerating
critical maintenance backlog which increases from $960,000,000
to $1,100,000,000. This maintenance backlog will soon become
entirely unmanageable under the weight of an aging and
crumbling inventory. Proposing no new discretionary
construction starts, underfunding on-going projects, and
providing minimal O&M funding for completed projects leads the
Committee to believe that the budget preparation may have been
influenced by very narrow interest groups as opposed to
providing for a robust national water resources development
program. The situation that the proposed budget poses to the
Nation's economy and quality of life leave the Committee no
option but to step forward in support of these vital projects.
The Committee recommendation for the Corps of Engineers
totals $4,426,700. This is $232,700,000 above the budget
request for fiscal year 2003, and is $212,127,000 below the
appropriation for the current year.
BUILDING AND SITE SECURITY
The Committee is aware of the heightened threat of
terrorist activity since the events of September 11, 2001, and
the subsequent financial burden this places on the Corps of
Engineers in managing the security of the many public assets
and critical infrastructure within its control. In order to
offset some of the financial burden of the Corps of Engineers,
the Committee provided $139,000,000 in the fiscal year 2003
supplemental appropriations bill to defray some of these costs.
The Committee encourages the administration to include funding
for specific security related costs in future budget
submissions for the Corps of Engineers, as many of these costs
are recurring.
CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE
The Committee is concerned that Corps of Engineers
technical and planning capabilities have diminished over the
past decade. This diminished capability has been evident in
recent controversial studies such as the Upper Mississippi
River and Illinois Waterway System Navigation Study and the
Delaware River Deepening Study. The Committee urges the Corps
of Engineers to review ways in which it can improve its
capability, to include concentrating its technical and planning
expertise in regional centers. The Committee believes that
there is much the Corps can do to leverage its highly skilled
workforce in an effort to better utilize their expertise on a
national level. With constrained budgets and ever-changing
technology, the current work environment lends itself well to
the movement of knowledge and information across great
distances in a matter of minutes. Therefore, the Committee
remains committed to the concept of the regional centers
because they will enable the Corps to maximize its expertise
across the country over a wide variety of projects and problems
just by tapping its own resources. Though many problems are
regionalized many of their solutions are not. With the
implementation of regional centers the Corps will be able to
manage the Agency's workload across the Nation rather than just
in a district or division.
BUDGET CONSTRAINTS
The budget allocation for non-Defense discretionary
programs contained in the Energy and Water Development bill for
fiscal year 2004 are constrained below what is necessary for a
robust, balanced national water resources program. Faced with
these budget realities, the Committee has had to make tough
decisions and choices in the development of the Corps of
Engineers' budget request for fiscal year 2004. However, while
the budget resources for non-Defense discretionary programs
have remained flat or have declined in real terms, the number
of requests of the Committee continue to increase. This year
the Committee received more than 1,200 requests for funding for
water projects within the Corps' Civil Works program. Many
supported the funding level in the budget request, but a
majority of the requests made of the Committee sought increases
over the budgeted amounts or items not contained in the
President's budget for both fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year
2004.
EXPENDITURE RATES
The Committee is aware that the Corps of Engineers has
exercised its existing authorities to take advantage of a good
construction season and as a result, has been executing its
construction program at an increased rate using funds available
from under-performing projects. This occurrence has compounded
over the last 2 years and has resulted in the Corps executing
construction projects at a rate which far outpaces their
respective appropriated amount. The Committee is very concerned
that this practice has led to a situation where the Corps,
despite Congressional intent expressed in the appropriations
Act, makes the decision on where to put its scarce resources to
the best use. Though the Committee understands that the Federal
government yields project benefits and cost savings when a
project is completed ahead of schedule or on time, opposed to
later, the Committee is not in favor of projects proceeding at
a faster rate than Congress intended without its concurrence.
The intent of Congress, with respect to water projects, is very
clear, specifically outlined in the detail tables on a project
by project basis.
Therefore, instead of retracting the Corps' reprogramming
authority, a privilege granted to the Corps, the Committee
expects the Corps, within 3 months of enactment of this Act, to
submit a report to the Senate Appropriations Committee on its
management plan for its appropriations and how it intends to
rectify the situation. Should the Corps not reign in its
expenditures to reflect the Congressional intent; the Committee
will seek to retract the Corps reprogramming authority.
TRUST FUND ACCOUNT USAGE
For fiscal year 2004, the administration proposes to expand
the use of both the Inland Waterways and the Harbor Maintenance
trust funds. In the case of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, a
fuel-tax fund which offsets construction costs of certain
inland waterways projects, the administration proposes to use
revenues to pay for one-quarter of the operations and
maintenance costs for all ``high use'' Federal inland
waterways, in addition to one-half the operating and
maintenance costs for all other Federal inland waterways.
During fiscal year 2004, this proposal would translate to
$110,000,000 in additional revenue tapped by the Corps. If the
Congress were to enact this proposal, it would effectively
raise the inland waterways users' diesel fuel tax from 20 cents
to 34 cents per gallon.
As for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, revenue is
derived from receipts from an ad valorem tax imposed on
commercial users of specified U.S. ports. The administration
proposes to use the fund to finance not only 100 percent of the
Federal share of the operation and maintenance costs for ports
and harbors, but also all Federal costs associated with coastal
port and channel construction.
If the Committee were to enact these two proposals, the
burden placed upon both trust funds would be so great that the
funds would likely be bankrupt within a few years' time. The
Committee believes that the changes contemplated by the
administration will dilute the funds' target for resources:
specific construction projects in the inland waterways system
and the maintenance of certain ports and harbors. Therefore,
the Committee dismisses the trust fund proposals and encourages
the administration, if it is indeed as concerned with the
funding needs of the Corps in these two areas, to increase the
budget request for direct appropriations for the Corps.
BASIS OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
In development of the fiscal year 2004 funding
recommendation for the Corps of Engineers, the Committee is not
able to include any new construction starts, and has
recommended only a limited number of new study starts in an
effort to restore balance to the water resource program of the
Corps, and to address high priority requests made to the
Committee. The limited resources available have been focused on
on-going projects where the Corps has contractual commitments.
While the Committee has not been able to fund all projects at
the optimum level, it has endeavored to provide sufficient
funding on each project to mitigate delays and increased costs,
to the greatest extent possible, across the entire Corps' Civil
Works program. One issue of great concern to the Committee is
that the fiscal year 2004 budget request only funded 18 of the
projects in the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase.
The Committee believes that this was done by the administration
as a means to constrict the future pressure on construction.
However, the administration did not responsibly take into
account the fact that for fiscal year 2003, the Congress
included funding for 84 of these projects, the majority of
which have Design Agreements signed, which are legally binding
contracts. As a result of the administration not funding these
projects, the Committee used its constrained resources to avoid
the Government breeching these contracts.
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $134,141,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 131,700,000
This appropriation funds studies to determine the need,
engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the
environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and
related land resource problems; and for preconstruction
engineering and design work, data collection, and interagency
coordination and research activities.
The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance
are shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Committee recommendation
Project title -------------------------------------------------------
Investigations Planning Investigations Planning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
BREWTON AND EAST BREWTON, AL............................ 300 .......... 300 ..........
CAHABA RIVER WATERSHED, AL.............................. 50 .......... 50 ..........
VILLAGE CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM WATERSHED).. 200 .......... 200 ..........
ALASKA
ADAK, AK................................................ .............. .......... 100 ..........
AKUTAN HARBOR, AK....................................... 100 .......... 100 200
ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK.......................... 50 .......... 200 ..........
BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, AK............... 200 .......... 1,000 ..........
COFFMAN COVE, AK........................................ .............. .......... 200 ..........
CRAIG HARBOR, AK........................................ 50 .......... 200 ..........
DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR, AK.............................. 200 .......... 566 ..........
EKLUTNA RIVER WATERSHED, AK............................. 100 .......... 300 ..........
HAINES HARBOR, AK....................................... 100 .......... 100 200
HOMER HARBOR, AK........................................ .............. .......... 100 ..........
KAKTOVIK BEACH EROSION STUDY, AK........................ .............. .......... 200 ..........
KETCHIKAN HARBOR, AK.................................... 50 .......... 200 ..........
KLAWOCK HARBOR, AK...................................... .............. .......... 100 ..........
KNIK BRIDGE CROSSING, AK................................ .............. .......... 200 ..........
KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, AK.......................... 50 .......... 250 ..........
LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK............................... 50 .......... 200 ..........
MATANUSKA, AK........................................... .............. .......... 100 ..........
MCGRATH BANK STABILIZATION, AK.......................... .............. .......... 300 ..........
MEKORYUK HARBOR, AK..................................... 50 .......... 100 ..........
PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK................................... 100 .......... 100 100
REGIONAL PORT STUDY, AK................................. .............. .......... 300 ..........
SAINT GEORGE NAVIGATION IMPROVEMETS, AK................. 50 .......... 400 ..........
SKAGWAY, AK............................................. .............. .......... 100 ..........
UNALAKLEET HARBOR, AK................................... 50 .......... 200 ..........
UNALASKA HARBOR, AK..................................... 150 .......... 500 ..........
VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK............................. 50 .......... 50 ..........
WHITTIER BREAKWATER, AK................................. 50 .......... 50 ..........
AMERICAN SOMOA
TUTUILA HARBOR, AS...................................... 46 .......... 46 ..........
ARIZONA
AGUA FRIA RIVER, AZ..................................... 150 .......... 150 ..........
CANADA DEL ORO WASH, AZ................................. 100 .......... 100 ..........
NAVAJO NATION, AZ, NM AND UT............................ 130 .......... 130 ..........
PIMA COUNTY, AZ......................................... 300 .......... 300 ..........
RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ.......................... 300 .......... 300 ..........
RIO SALADO OESTE, SALT RIVER, AZ........................ 250 .......... 250 ..........
SANTA CRUZ RIVER, GRANT RD TO FT LOWELL RD, AZ.......... 100 .......... 100 ..........
SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, AZ............. 152 .......... 152 ..........
VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT, AZ.... 370 .......... 370 ..........
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS RIVER LEVEES, AR............................... .............. .......... .............. 300
ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, AR AND OK.............. 1,070 .......... 1,270 ..........
HOT SPRINGS CREEK, AR................................... .............. .......... 32 ..........
MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR.............................. .............. .......... .............. 200
NORTH LITTLE ROCK, DARK HOLLOW, AR...................... .............. .......... .............. 200
PINE MOUNTAIN DAM, AR................................... .............. .......... .............. 300
RED RIVER NAVIGATION, SWAR, AR AND LA................... .............. .......... .............. 150
WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR AND MO.............. 300 .......... 500 ..........
WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS, AR........................... .............. .......... .............. 100
WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION, AR.............................. .............. .......... .............. 100
CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MINI-RAISE), CA.... .............. .......... 4,000 ..........
ALISO CREEK MAINSTEM, CA................................ 150 .......... 150 ..........
ARANA GULCH WATERSHED, CA............................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
ARROYO SECO WATERSHED RESTORATION, CA................... 150 .......... 150 ..........
BALLONA CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA................. 150 .......... 150 ..........
BOLINAS LAGOON, CA...................................... .............. .......... 200 ..........
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA............................... 141 .......... 141 ..........
COAST OF CALIFORNIA, (STORM AND TIDAL), CA.............. .............. .......... 700 ..........
COYOTE DAM, CA.......................................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA.................................. .............. .......... 200 ..........
GRAYSON AND MURDERER'S CREEKS, CA....................... 400 .......... 400 ..........
HUMBOLDT BAY LONG TERM SHOAL MANAGEMENT, CA............. .............. .......... 100 ..........
CITY OF INGLEWOOD, CA................................... .............. .......... 300 ..........
LA RIVER WATERCOURSE, HEADWORKS AREA, CA................ 250 .......... 250 ..........
LA RIVER WATERCOURSE, SAN JOSE CREEK, CA................ 100 .......... 100 ..........
LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA................................ 150 .......... 150 ..........
LAKE ELSINORE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA............. 50 .......... 50 ..........
LLAGAS CREEK, CA........................................ .............. .......... .............. 200
LOWER CACHE CREEK, YOLO COUNTY, CA...................... .............. .......... .............. 200
LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA................................. .............. .......... .............. 200
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA.................................. 150 .......... 150 ..........
MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA.............................. 270 .......... 270 ..........
MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA CREEK, CA.................... 150 .......... 150 ..........
MATILIJA DAM, CA........................................ 300 .......... 731 ..........
MIDDLE CREEK, CA........................................ .............. .......... .............. 100
MORRO BAY ESTUARY, CA................................... 250 .......... 250 ..........
MUGU LAGOON, CA......................................... 150 .......... 150 ..........
N CA STREAMS, LOWER SACRAMENTO RVR RIPARIAN REVEGETATI.. 200 .......... 200 ..........
NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA.................. 200 .......... 200 ..........
NAPA VALLEY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA.................... 150 .......... 150 ..........
NEWPORT BAY/SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED, CA............... 186 .......... 186 ..........
OCEAN BEACH, CA......................................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
ORANGE COUNTY SHORELINE, LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSH.. 100 .......... 100 ..........
ORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA................ 150 .......... 150 ..........
PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE, CA......................... .............. .......... .............. 200
PAJARO RIVER BASIN STUDY, CA............................ 100 .......... 100 ..........
PINE FLAT DAM, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, CA............ .............. .......... .............. 50
POSO CREEK, CA.......................................... 300 .......... 300 ..........
PRADO BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA............... 100 .......... 100 ..........
RUSSIAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA................. 150 .......... 150 ..........
SACRAMENTO--SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CA....................... 1,100 .......... 1,100 ..........
SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN STUDY,... 1,020 .......... .............. 1,020
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA............................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CA.............................. 100 .......... 215 ..........
SAN DIEGO SHORELINE, CA................................. .............. .......... .............. 200
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CA................................... 420 .......... 420 ..........
SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK, CA.............................. 100 .......... 100 ..........
SAN JACINTO RIVER, CA................................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
SAN JOAQUIN RB, W STANISLAUS, DEL PUERTO AND SALADO CREE 50 .......... 50 ..........
SAN JOAQUIN RB, WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, ORESTIMBA CREE.. 300 .......... 300 ..........
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, CONSUMNES AND MOKELUMNE 200 .......... 200 ..........
RIVERS,................................................
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, FRAZIER CREEK, CA.............. 100 .......... 100 ..........
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, TUOLUMNE RIVER, CA............. 350 .......... 350 ..........
SAN JUAN CREEK, SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY, CA................. 100 .......... 100 ..........
SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA............................. 200 .......... 200 ..........
SANTA ANA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BIG BEAR LAKE, CA...... 200 .......... 200 ..........
SANTA CLARA RIVER, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA............ 150 .......... 150 ..........
SANTA ROSA CREEK WATERSHED, CA.......................... 120 .......... 120 ..........
SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE FEASIBILITY STUDY, CA........ .............. .......... 400 ..........
SONOMA CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CA........................ 150 .......... 150 ..........
STRONG AND CHICKEN RANCH SLOUGHS, CA.................... 50 .......... 50 ..........
SUTTER COUNTY, CA....................................... 200 .......... 200 ..........
TAHOE BASIN, CA AND NV.................................. 1,000 .......... 1,000 50
TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY, CA................................ 100 .......... 100 ..........
UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER,CA................................ .............. .......... .............. 200
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA.............................. 460 .......... 460 ..........
UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSHED, CA..................... 150 .......... 150 ..........
VENTURA AND SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHORELINE, CA.......... 100 .......... 100 ..........
VENTURA HARBOR SAND BYPASS, CA.......................... 121 .......... 121 ..........
WESTMINSTER, COYOTE AND CARBON CANYON CREEK WATER- 150 .......... 150 ..........
SHEDS..................................................
WESTMINSTER, EAST GARDEN GROVE, CA...................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
WHITE RIVER AND DEER CREEK, CA.......................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CA.............................. .............. .......... .............. 200
WILDCAT AND SAN PABLO CREEKS, CA........................ 100 .......... 100 ..........
COLORADO
CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS, CO... 260 .......... 260 ..........
FOUNTAIN CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CO...................... 350 .......... 350 ..........
ZUNI AND SUN VALLEY REACHES, SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, CO..... .............. 186 .............. 186
COMMONWEALTH OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
ROTA HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI......................... 102 .......... 102 ..........
TINIAN HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI....................... 102 .......... 102 ..........
DELAWARE
DELAWARE COAST, CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, DE..... .............. 214 .............. ..........
CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, DE..................... .............. .......... 100 ..........
FLORIDA
HILLSBOROUGH RIVER, FL.................................. 340 .......... 340 ..........
LAKE WORTH INLET, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL................. 370 .......... 370 ..........
LIDO BAY, SARASOTA COUNTY, FL........................... .............. .......... .............. 200
LITTLE TALBOT ISLAND, FL................................ .............. .......... .............. 100
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL.............................. .............. .......... .............. 100
ST. JOHNS COUNTY. FL.................................... .............. .......... 100 ..........
ST. PETERSBURG HARBOR, FL............................... .............. .......... .............. 200
WALTON COUNTY BEACH AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORE, FL....... .............. .......... 300 ..........
WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER, FL................................. 340 .......... 340 ..........
GEORGIA
ALLATOONA LAKE, GA...................................... 150 .......... 150 ..........
ARABIA MOUNTAIN, GA..................................... 150 .......... 150 ..........
AUGUSTA, GA............................................. 300 .......... 300 ..........
INDIAN, SUGAR, ENTRENCHMENT AND FEDERAL PRISON CREEKS,.. 175 .......... 175 ..........
LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA................. 150 .......... 150 ..........
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION,GA............................ .............. .......... .............. 615
SAVANNAH HARBOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, GA............... 150 .......... 150 ..........
SAVANNAH HARBOR SEDIMENT CONTROL WORKS, GA AND SC....... 100 .......... 100 ..........
SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, GA AND SC........... 200 .......... 200 ..........
UTOY, SANDY AND PROCTOR CREEKS, GA...................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
HAWAII
ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI................................. 100 .......... 100 ..........
BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI............. 100 .......... 100 ..........
KAHUKU, HI.............................................. 100 .......... 100 ..........
KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, HAWAII, HI.... 100 .......... 150 ..........
KIHEI AREA EROSION, HI.................................. 100 .......... 100 ..........
NAWILIWILI HARBOR MODIFICATION, KAUAI, HI............... 100 .......... 100 ..........
WAIKIKI EROSION CONTROL, HI............................. .............. .......... .............. 250
WAILUPE STREAM FLOOD CONTROL STUDY, HI.................. .............. .......... .............. 300
GUAM
HAGATNA RIVER, GUAM..................................... .............. .......... 100 ..........
IDAHO
BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID.................................. 110 .......... 110 ..........
LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, ID.......................... 100 .......... 100 100
ILLINOIS
ALEXANDER AND PULASKI COUNTIES, IL...................... 103 .......... 103 ..........
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II)........................ 278 .......... 500 ..........
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL.................... 504 .......... 700 ..........
ILLINOIS RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, IL................ 148 .......... 200 ..........
PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL....................... .............. 600 .............. 600
ROCK RIVER, IL AND WI................................... 48 .......... 48 ..........
UPPER MISS AND ILLINOIS NAV STUDY, IL, IA, MN, MO AND WI 3,216 .......... 4,216 ..........
UPPER MISS RVR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IL, IA, MO, MN AND WI 494 .......... 2,600 ..........
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL..................................... .............. .......... .............. 100
WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL.................................... .............. .......... .............. 150
INDIANA
INDIANA HARBOR, IN...................................... 150 .......... 150 ..........
JOHN T. MYERS LOCK AND DAM, IN AND KY................... .............. .......... .............. 2,000
IOWA
DAVENPORT, IA........................................... .............. 159 .............. 159
DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA....................... 565 .......... 565 ..........
FORT DODGE, IA.......................................... 23 .......... 217 ..........
LOWER DES MOINES RIVER, IA AND MO....................... 50 .......... 50 ..........
KANSAS
BRUSH CREEK BASIN STUDY, KS AND MO...................... .............. .......... 100 ..........
TOPEKA, KS.............................................. 125 .......... 125 50
TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO........................... .............. 205 .............. 205
UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS.................................. 229 .......... 229 ..........
WALNUT AND WHITEWATER RIVER WATERSHEDS, KS.............. 160 .......... 160 ..........
KENTUCKY
GREENUP LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND OH............ .............. 2,895 .............. 2,895
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY........... 200 .......... 200 ..........
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, MILL CREEK BASIN, KY........... 176 .......... 176 ..........
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, SOUTHWEST, KY.................. 225 .......... 225 ..........
OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM SYSTEMS STUDY, KY, IL, IN, PA, WV.. 1,350 .......... 1,350 ..........
DEWEY LAKE WATER REALLOCATION, KY....................... .............. .......... 125 ..........
LOUISIANA
AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA... 50 .......... 50 ..........
AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BAYOU MANCHAC, LA.......... 100 .......... 300 ..........
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L.. 150 .......... 1,150 ..........
BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA................................... .............. 707 .............. 707
BOSSIER PARISH LEVEE AND FLOOD CONTROL, LA.............. .............. .......... 100 ..........
CALCASIEU LOCK, LA...................................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA............................... 50 .......... 50 ..........
CALCASIEU RIVER PASS SHIP CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT, LA....... .............. .......... 200 ..........
GIWW ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA.......................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA................................ 100 .......... 100 ..........
JEFFORSON PARISH, LA.................................... .............. .......... .............. 25
LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA.................................... .............. 645 .............. 645
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA........ 848 .......... 1,900 ..........
ORLEANS PARISH, LA...................................... .............. .......... .............. 25
PLAQUEMINES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA.............. 100 .......... 100 ..........
PORT OF IBERIA, LA...................................... 150 .......... 1,150 ..........
ST. BERNARD PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA.............. 100 .......... 100 ..........
ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA.............. 100 .......... 100 ..........
ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA......................... 100 .......... 300 ..........
WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA............................. .............. .......... .............. 100
WEST SHORE-LAKE PONTCHARTAIN, LA........................ .............. .......... .............. 400
MAINE
SEARSPORT HARBOR, ME.................................... .............. .......... 100 ..........
MARYLAND
ANACOSTIA RIVER, PG COUNTY LEVEE, MD AND DC............. 194 .......... 194 ..........
BALTIMORE METRO, GWYNN FALLS, MD........................ .............. .......... .............. 500
CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE EROSION, MD, VA AND DE......... 200 .......... 500 ..........
EASTERN SHORE, MID CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD............ 351 .......... 500 ..........
LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, ST MARY'S, MD.......... 200 .......... 200 ..........
MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN, MD.......................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
MASSACHUSETTS
BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, MA AND RI....... 50 .......... 50 ..........
BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA..................... 500 .......... 500 ..........
COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MA......... 170 .......... 170 ..........
SOMERSET AND SEARSBURG DAMS, MA AND VT.................. .............. .......... .............. 100
MICHIGAN
GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA.. 740 .......... 1,000 ..........
DETRIOT RIVER MASTERPLAN, MI............................ .............. .......... 100 ..........
DETRIOT RIVER SEAWALLS, MI.............................. .............. .......... .............. 200
LANSING, MI............................................. .............. .......... 100 ..........
ROUGE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, MI.................. .............. .......... 25 ..........
ROUGE RIVER SUPP PLAN, MI............................... .............. .......... 100 ..........
MINNESOTA
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED, UMR LAKE ITASCA TO L&D 2, M.. 250 .......... 250 ..........
RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN, ND, SD AND MANITOBA, C 1,200 .......... 1,200 ..........
SOUTH WASHINGTON CTY WATERSHED, UMR LAKE ITASCA TO L&D.. 250 .......... 250 ..........
MISSISSIPPI
GULFPORT AND HARRISON COUNTY WATERSHED STUDY, MS........ 100 .......... 100 ..........
HANCOCK COUNTY SEAWALL RESTORATION, MS.................. 150 .......... 150 ..........
PEARL RIVER WATERSHED, MS............................... 400 .......... 660 ..........
MISSOURI
CHESTERFIELD, MO........................................ .............. 439 .............. 439
JORDAN CREEK, MO........................................ .............. .......... 300 ..........
KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS................................. 316 .......... 650 ..........
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 AND R460-471, MO 150 .......... 150 ..........
RIVER DES PERES,MO...................................... .............. .......... .............. 100
SPRINGFIELD, MO......................................... 230 .......... 330 ..........
ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO.......................... .............. .......... .............. 100
ST. LOUIS HARBOR, MO.................................... .............. .......... .............. 100
SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO............. .............. .......... .............. 500
ST. LOUIS MISSISSIPPI RIVERFRONT, MO AND IL............. 151 .......... 151 ..........
WEARS CREEK, JEFFERSON CITY, MO......................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
MONTANA
YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT.......................... 209 .......... 209 ..........
NEBRASKA
LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE.................. 191 .......... 191 ..........
SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NE......................... .............. 546 .............. 546
WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NE....................... .............. 318 .............. 318
NEVADA
LAS VEGAS WASH, NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV..................... 50 .......... 50 ..........
LOWER LAS VEGAS WASH WETLANDS, NV....................... 50 .......... 50 ..........
TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV..................................... .............. .......... .............. 2,115
WALKER RIVER BASIN, NV.................................. 100 .......... 100 ..........
NEW HAMPSHIRE
CONNECTICUT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, NH AND VT...... 115 .......... 115 ..........
MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN, NH............................... 400 .......... 400 ..........
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA TURNING BASIN, NH...... .............. .......... 100 ..........
NEW JERSEY
BARNEGAT BAY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, NJ.................. .............. .......... .............. 200
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, NJ, NY, DE AND PA... 50 .......... 50 ..........
GOFFLE BROOK, BOROUGH OF HAWTHORNE, NJ.................. 25 .......... 100 ..........
GREAT EGG INLET TO TOWNSEND INLET, NJ................... .............. 539 .............. 539
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ..... 100 .......... 100 ..........
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ........ 25 .......... 25 ..........
MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLE, NJ.................... .............. .......... .............. 100
MID-DELAWARE BASIN COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, NJ.............. .............. .......... 100 ..........
NJIWW ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, NJ......................... .............. .......... .............. 200
NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLE.. 100 .......... 100 ..........
NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE LONG-TERM NOURISHMENT.. 100 .......... 100 ..........
LOWER PASSAIC RIVER NJ ENVIRO REST, NJ.................. 25 .......... 100 ..........
PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ............................. .............. .......... .............. 200
PECKMAN RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ....................... 200 .......... 200 ..........
RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ.................................. 150 .......... 150 ..........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ........... 200 .......... 200 ..........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, KEYPORT, NJ............. 200 .......... 200 ..........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ............ 150 .......... 150 ..........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK, PORT MONMOUTH, NJ........... .............. .......... .............. 200
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK UNION BEACH, NJ.............. .............. .......... .............. 100
SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ.................... 150 .......... 150 ..........
SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ.................... .............. .......... .............. 100
STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ.................. 200 .......... 200 ..........
UPPER PASSAIC RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ................. .............. .......... .............. 200
UPPER ROCKAWAY RIVER, NJ................................ 441 .......... 441 ..........
WOODBRIDGE RIVER BASIN, NJ.............................. 150 .......... 200 ..........
NEW MEXICO
EAST MESA, LAS CRUCES, NM............................... .............. .......... 130 ..........
ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE AND TRIBUTARIES, NM......... 50 .......... 510 20
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BOSQUE, NM............................ 225 .......... 300 ..........
RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO AND TX......................... 125 .......... 125 ..........
SANTA FE, NM............................................ 225 .......... 300 ..........
SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTIONS STUDY, NM............. .............. .......... .............. 250
NEW YORK
BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY................................... 50 .......... 50 ..........
BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, NY................ 52 .......... 52 ..........
FLUSHING BAY CREEK, NY.................................. .............. .......... .............. 25
FREEPORT CREEK, VILLAGE OF FREEPORT, NY................. 25 .......... 25 ..........
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS CANAL, NY AND NJ....... 255 .......... 255 ..........
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ...................... 685 .......... 785 ..........
HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NY.................... 25 .......... 25 25
JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY............ 147 .......... 147 ..........
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY................................. 85 .......... 85 ..........
NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE AREAS, NY..................... .............. .......... .............. 50
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, NY............... 134 .......... 134 ..........
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY................ 170 .......... 170 ..........
ONONDAGA LAKE, NY....................................... 307 .......... 307 ..........
SAW MILL RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NY...................... 50 .......... 50 ..........
SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY........................ 250 .......... 250 ..........
UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NY...................... 50 .......... 50 ..........
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN ENVIRON RESTORATION, NY... 200 .......... 200 ..........
NORTH CAROLINA
BOGUE BANKS, NC......................................... 400 .......... 400 ..........
CURRITUCK SOUND, NC..................................... 150 .......... 150 ..........
DARE COUNTY BEACHES, HATTERAS AND OCRACOKE ISLANDS, NC.. 150 .......... 200 ..........
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC............................. .............. .......... .............. 100
NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC................................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC................... 200 .......... 200 ..........
TAR RIVER BASIN, NC..................................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
OHIO
ASHTABULA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH.............. .............. 250 .............. 640
COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN AREA, OH.......................... 365 .......... 365 ..........
DUCK CREEK WATERSHED, OH................................ .............. .......... 100 ..........
HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, MONDAY CREEK, OH... 40 .......... 40 200
MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH AND PA........ 450 .......... 642 300
MUSKINGUM BASIN SYSTEM STUDY, OH........................ 357 .......... 357 ..........
WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH, IN AND MI.................. 130 .......... 130 ..........
WHEELING CREEK, OH...................................... .............. .......... 131 ..........
OKLAHOMA
MIAMI AND VICINITY, OK.................................. 231 .......... 231 ..........
GRAND LAKE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, OK...................... .............. .......... 100 ..........
MOUNTAIN FORK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, OK................. .............. .......... 100 ..........
OOLOGAH LAKE WATERSHED, OK AND KS....................... 259 .......... 259 ..........
SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE STUDY, OK............. 50 .......... 50 ..........
SPAVINAW CREEK, OK...................................... .............. .......... 100 ..........
WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK................................. .............. .......... 100 ..........
WISTER LAKE WATERSHED, OK............................... .............. .......... 200 ..........
OREGON
AMAZON CREEK, OR........................................ 250 .......... 250 ..........
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD WATERWAYS AND FERN RIDGE DAM, OR..... .............. .......... 200 ..........
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA... 250 .......... 250 ..........
TILLAMOOK BAY AND ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR..... 43 .......... 43 475
WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR AND WA.................. 439 .......... 500 ..........
WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR....................... 94 .......... 94 ..........
WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR............. 313 .......... 313 ..........
WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR............. 210 .......... 210 ..........
PENNSYLVANIA
CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, PA, DE AND MD................ 50 .......... 50 ..........
EMS, DASH AND MONT & DAMS UPPER OH RIVER NAV, PA........ .............. .......... 800 ..........
SCHUYKILL ESTUARINE RIVER BASIN, PA..................... .............. .......... 250 ..........
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, WISSAHICKON, PA....................... 50 .......... 50 ..........
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PA (PHASE II)............ 180 .......... 180 ..........
RHODE ISLAND
RHODE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, RI.................. 20 .......... 20 ..........
SOUTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC...................... 430 .......... 430 ..........
BROAD RIVER BASIN, SC................................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
EDISTO ISLAND, SC....................................... .............. .......... 100 ..........
PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC...................................... .............. .......... .............. 125
REEDY RIVER, SC......................................... 170 .......... 170 ..........
SANTEE DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, SC.............. 75 .......... 75 ..........
WACCAMAW RIVER, SC...................................... 50 .......... 50 ..........
SOUTH DAKOTA
JAMES RIVER, SD AND ND.................................. 150 .......... 500 ..........
WATERTOWN AND VICINITY, SD.............................. .............. .......... .............. 473
TENNESSEE
DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN..................................... 243 .......... 300 ..........
TEXAS
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES (MAINSTEM), TX............ .............. .......... .............. 500
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, WHITE OAK BAYOU, TX...... 100 .......... 100 ..........
CEDAR BAYOU, TX......................................... .............. .......... .............. 374
COLONIAS-LWR RIO ALONG TX AND MEXICO BORDER, TX......... .............. .......... .............. 325
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX......................... .............. .......... .............. 800
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX..................................... 250 .......... 250 ..........
FREEPORT HURRICANE PROTECTION LEVEE, TX................. 200 .......... 200 ..........
GIWW MODIFICATIONS, TX.................................. 350 .......... 350 ..........
GIWW, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT O'CONNOR, TX................. 361 .......... 361 ..........
GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER REALIGNMENTS, TX...... 200 .......... 200 ..........
GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX................... .............. 315 .............. 315
GIWW, MATAGORDA BAY, TX................................. .............. 100 .............. 100
GIWW, PORT O'CONNOR TO CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TX........... 400 .......... 400 ..........
GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX............................... .............. 774 .............. 774
GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX.............. 150 .......... 150 ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX.......................... 600 .......... 1,600 ..........
MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX................................. 50 .......... 250 ..........
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL (PORT LAVACA), TX................ .............. .......... 500 ..........
NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX................................... 300 .......... 300 ..........
NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX........................ 100 .......... 100 ..........
RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX.................................. .............. .......... .............. 800
RESACAS AT BROWNSVILLE, TX.............................. 300 .......... 300 ..........
RIVERSIDE OXBOW, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, FT WORTH, TX...... .............. 350 .............. 350
SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX............................. 300 .......... 350 ..........
SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX........................ 450 .......... 450 ..........
SOUTH MAIN CHANNEL, TX.................................. .............. .......... .............. 300
SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, TX............... 235 .......... 235 ..........
SULPHUR RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, TX............. 50 .......... 50 ..........
TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TX.................................. .............. .......... .............. 1,500
TRI-COUNTY FLOOD STUDY, SAN ANTONIO RIVER, TX........... 100 .......... 100 ..........
UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX........................... 400 .......... 600 ..........
UTAH
PARK CITY WATER SUPPLY, UT.............................. .............. .......... 500 ..........
PROVO AND VICINITY, UT.................................. 100 .......... 100 ..........
VIRGINIA
AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA......................... .............. 694 .............. 1,184
ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENV RESTORATION, VA (PHASE II)... 200 .......... 200 ..........
ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA...................... .............. 75 .............. 75
FOURMILE RUN, VA........................................ 150 .......... 150 ..........
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA................................. .............. .......... .............. 200
JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (SECTION 216).. 250 .......... 250 ..........
LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA............................... 300 .......... 300 ..........
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA.......... 56 .......... 56 ..........
POWELL RIVER WATERSHED, VA.............................. 197 .......... 197 ..........
WASHINGTON
CENTRALIA, WA........................................... .............. .......... .............. 100
CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA................................ 310 .......... 310 ..........
DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA...................... .............. .......... .............. 500
ELLIOT BAY SEAWALL, WA.................................. .............. .......... 500 ..........
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA.......................... 446 .......... 446 ..........
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA.... 350 .......... 350 ..........
SKAGIT RIVER, WA........................................ 350 .......... 500 ..........
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER BASIN, WA........................... .............. .......... .............. 200
WHITE RIVER FLOOD CONTROL AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, W.. 250 .......... 250 ..........
WEST VIRGINIA
LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV................................ 65 .......... 65 ..........
NEW RIVER BASIN, WV, NC AND VA.......................... 130 .......... 130 ..........
WISCONSIN
BARABOO RIVER, WI....................................... 500 .......... 500 ..........
FOX RIVER, WI........................................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
MISCELLANEOUS
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION........................... 2,500 .......... 2,500 ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES.............................. 100 .......... 100 ..........
EX POST FACTO NATIONAL STUDY............................ 2,000 .......... 2,000 ..........
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA....................................... 300 .......... 300 ..........
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES......................... 7,500 .......... 7,500 ..........
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES...................................... 400 .......... 400 ..........
INDEPENDENT REVIEW NATIONAL STUDY....................... 3,000 .......... 3,000 ..........
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES............................. 400 .......... 400 ..........
NATIONAL SHORELINE...................................... 500 .......... 500 ..........
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS............................. 4,850 .......... 4,850 ..........
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES........................... 6,000 .......... 6,340 ..........
PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE)........ 300 .......... 300 ..........
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT.... 200 .......... 200 ..........
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT................................ 22,000 .......... 22,500 ..........
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS............ 100 .......... 100 ..........
STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY).................. 500 .......... 500 ..........
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.................................. 500 .......... 500 ..........
TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS TECHNOLOGY CENTER.................. 450 .......... 450 ..........
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.......... -20,400 .......... -40,428 ..........
=======================================================
TOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS..................... 89,989 10,011 99,181 32,519
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akutan Harbor, AK.--The Committee recommendation includes
an additional $200,000 for planning, engineering, and design.
Barrow Coastal Storm Damage Reduction, AK.--The Committee
recommendation provides optimum funding to continue the
critical Barrow Storm Damage Reduction project in Alaska.
Haines Harbor, AK.--The Committee recommendation includes
an additional $200,000 for planning, engineering, and design.
Port Lions Harbor, AK.--The Committee recommendation
includes necessary funding for preconstruction, engineering,
and design work for the Port Lions Harbor, Alaska project.
Arkansas River Navigation Study, AR & OK.--The Committee
has provided funding for the completion of the Phase I Report
and for the continuation of Phase II of the feasibility study.
In addition, the funds provided advance the completion of this
needed study.
May Branch, Ft. Smith, AR.--The Committee has provided
funding for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase
of the project.
North Little Rock, Dark Hollow, AR.--The Committee has
included follow-on funding of this ongoing study for the
preconstruction, engineering, and design phase.
Pine Mountain Dam, AR.--The Committee recommendation
includes funding for the continuation of the General
Reevaluation Report, the Environmental Impact Statement, and
plans and specifications for the Pine Mountain Dam, AR project.
American River Watershed, CA.--The Committee has provided
$4,000,000 for continuing analyses on the American River
Watershed Long-Term Study. The Congress has methodically
authorized and funded improvements in the Sacramento region to
reduce flooding and these efforts should continue without
further delay. The Committee believes it is time to provide
Sacramento with much needed and deserved flood protection.
Further the Committee believes that it is inexcusable to allow
tens of thousands of citizens in the Sacramento, California
region to remain in jeopardy from catastrophic flooding while
narrow interest groups continue to debate competing flood
control proposals. The Committee strongly urges these competing
groups to resolve their differences before another flood event
strikes the area, potentially resulting in catastrophic losses.
Bolinas Lagoon, CA.--The Committee has included funding for
the Corps to complete the reformulated feasibility phase of the
project.
Coast of California Storm and Tidal, CA.--The Committee has
included funding for field data collection, beach transect,
wage gage deployment and analysis of coastal processes.
Humboldt Bay Long Term Shoal Management, CA.--The Committee
has included a $100,000 for the initiation of a reconnaissance
study to evaluate long-term solutions to shoaling in this
Federal channel.
City of Inglewood, CA.--The Committee recommendation
includes $300,000 for the Corps to continue to provide the City
of Inglewood technical assistance.
Solana-Encinitas Shore Projection, CA.--The Committee
recommendation includes $400,000 for this study which was not
included in the President's budget request.
Tahoe Basin, CA & NV.--The Committee has included
additional funds to initiate the preconstruction, engineering,
and design phase of the project.
Zuni and Sun Valley Reaches, South Platte River, CO.--The
Committee has fully funded the administration's request for
this project.
St. Johns County Shore Protection, FL.--The Committee has
provided $100,000 for the continuing study of this project.
Walton County Shore Protection, FL.--The Committee
recommendation includes $300,000 for the continued study of the
Walton County Shore Protection project.
Savannah Harbor Deepening, GA.--The Committee has provided
$615,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase
of this project.
Waikiki Shore Projection, HI.--The Committee has provided
$250,000 in the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase
of this project.
Wailupe Stream Flood Control Study, HI.--The Committee
recommendation includes $300,000 for the planning, engineering,
and design phase of the Wailupe study.
Des Plaines River, IL (Phase II).--The Committee has
included $500,000 to advance the hydraulic and economic damage
modeling, development of environmental modeling, and
formulation of alternative solutions.
Illinois River Ecosystem Restoration, IL.--The Committee
recommendation includes $200,000 for the preparation and review
of the draft Comprehensive Plan.
Upper Mississippi and Illinois Navigation Study, IL, IA,
MN, MO, & WI.--The Committee has provided an additional
$1,000,000 above the administration's request for this critical
study.
Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan, IL, IA, MO, MN,
& WI.--The Committee has included $2,600,000 for this study,
for development of an integrated strategy and plan for
systematic flood protection and flood damage reduction in the
Upper Mississippi River Watershed.
John T. Myers Locks Improvements, IN.--The Committee has
included $2,000,000 to continue the preconstruction,
engineering, and design phase of this necessary lock
replacement.
Davenport, IA.--The Committee has included the
administration's request for the Davenport, Iowa flood control
study. The Committee is pleased that the City of Davenport has
decided to embrace a flood damage reduction project,
particularly after three significant flood events in the last
10 years.
Fort Dodge, IA.--The Committee recommendation includes
$217,000 for the Fort Dodge study.
Brush Creek Basin Study, KS & MO.--The Committee has
provided $100,000 to initiate a reconnaissance study to examine
the full range of structural and nonstructural measures to
reduce recurring flooding in the basin.
Turkey Creek Basin, KS & MO.--The Committee has provided
$205,000, the administration's request, for this project.
Greenup Locks and Dam, Ohio River, KY & OH.--The Committee
has provided $2,895,000, the administration's full request for
this project.
Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, LA.--
The Committee recommendation includes an additional $1,000,000
to advance this study.
Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, LA.--The
Committee has included $1,900,000 for this study which allows
for the initiation of project implementation reports. The
Committee remains very concerned about the progress of this
study and that the Corps may not be maintaining the rigor
required for such a study, as is its tradition. Therefore, the
Committee directs the Corps to provide a report no later than
60 days after the enactment of this Act, on the study's
progress and how it plans to refocus this critical effort.
Port of Iberia, LA.--The Committee recommendation includes
an additional $1,000,000 for this project.
West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain, LA.--The Committee has
included $400,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and
design phase of this project, an on-going study which the
administration did not include in its budget request.
Baltimore Metro, Gwynn Falls, MD.--The Committee has
included $500,000 for preconstruction, engineering, and design
work related to this project.
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion, MD, VA & DE.--The
Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for this study,
which is $300,000 above the budget request.
Eastern Shore, Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island, MD.--The
Committee has included an additional $149,000 for this study.
Great Lakes Navigation System Study, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY,
OH, PA & WI.--The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000
to continue the work on the supplement to the reconnaissance
report for determination of the Federal interest.
Detroit River Masterplan, MI.--The Committee recommendation
includes $100,000 to initiate feasibility.
Detroit River Seawalls, MI.--The Committee has included
$200,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase
of this project.
Pearl River Watershed, MS.--The Committee has included
$660,000 for the continuation of the feasibility study. The
Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to investigate all
potentially feasible alternatives, including plans similar to
the plan currently referred to as LeFleur Lakes Flood Control
Project.
Kansas Citys, MO & KS.--The Committee has included $650,000
for the continuation of this feasibility study.
Missouri River Levee System, Units L455 & R460-471, MO &
KS.--The Committee recommendation includes $150,000 for
continuation of the feasibility study.
Springfield, MO.--The Committee has included an additional
$100,000 for the Springfield feasibility study.
St. Louis Harbor, MO.--The Committee has included $100,000
for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase of this
ongoing project which was not included in the budget request.
Swope Industrial Park, MO.--The Committee recommendation
includes $500,000 to complete the design phase of this project
which was not included in the budget request.
Missouri River Sedimentation, ND.--The Committee has
provided $50,000 for this project. The Committee's understands
that the Corps will use the funds provided along with
previously appropriated funds to continue the required
assessment study.
Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, NE.--The Committee has
included $546,000 for the Sand Creek Watershed study, as
requested by the administration.
Western Sarpy and Clear Creek, NE.--The Committee has
included $318,000 for the Western Sarpy and Clear Creek
project, as requested by the administration.
Truckee Meadows, NV.--The Committee has included $2,115,000
for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase of this
project which was not included in the budget request.
Portsmouth Harbor & Piscataqua River, Upper Turning Basin,
NH & ME.--The Committee has included $100,000 for the
initiation of a reconnaissance study to examine the viability
of increasing the size of the current turning basin.
Goffle Brook, Borough of Hawthorne, NJ.--The Committee has
included $75,000 above the budget request for this study.
Lower Passaic River, NJ.--The Committee recommendation
includes an additional $75,000 above the budget request for
this study.
Passaic River, New Jersey Environmental Restoration, NJ.--
The Committee understands that there exists some confusion
regarding this study and the Hudson Raritan Estuary-Lower
Passaic River, NJ study. The Passaic River, New Jersey
Environmental Restoration, in the past, has been referred to as
the Lower Passaic, NJ study and should be referred to by its
name, Passaic River, New Jersey Environmental Restoration. This
study should not be confused with the Hudson Raritan Estuary-
Lower Passaic River, NJ study.
Upper Passaic River and Tributaries, NJ.--The Committee has
included $200,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and
design phase of this project, which was not included in the
budget request.
East Mesa, Las Cruces, NM.--The Committee recommendation
includes funds for the completion of the reconnaissance phase
of the study and the initiation of the feasibility phase.
Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, NM.--The
Committee has provided $250,000 for the preconstruction,
engineering, and design phase of this project which was not
included in the budget request.
Dare County Beaches, Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands, NC.--
The Committee has included $200,000 for this study. Additional
funds are to be used for geotechnical and economic
investigations related to this project.
Ashtabula River Environmental Dredging, OH.--The Committee
has included $640,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and
design phase of this project.
Duck Creek Watershed, OH.--The Committee has included
$100,000 for the Duck Creek Watershed project which was not
included in the budget request.
Hocking River Basin Environmental Restoration, Monday
Creek, OH.--The Committee has included not only the $40,000 for
the completion of the feasibility phase of this study but also
$200,000 for the initiation of the preconstruction,
engineering, and design phase of this project.
Mahoning River Environmental Dredging, OH & PA.--The
Committee has included an additional $492,000 for the
completion of the feasibility study and the initiation of
preconstruction, engineering, and design phase.
Mountain Fork River Watershed, OK.--The Committee
recommendation includes $100,000 for the continued feasibility
study for water storage options in the watershed that was not
included in the budget request.
Spavinaw Creek, OK.--The Committee has included $100,000
for the continuation of this feasibility study which was not
included in the budget request.
Wister Lake Watershed, OK.--The Committee has included
$200,000 for the continuation of this feasibility study which
was not included in the budget request.
Tillamook Bay and Estuary Ecosystem Restoration, OR.--The
Committee has included funds for the completion of feasibility
and the initiation of the preconstruction, engineering, and
design phase.
Walla Walla River Watershed, OR & WA.--The Committee has
included an additional $61,000 for this study.
Schuylkill River Estuarine Study, PA.--The Committee has
included $250,000 for the continuation of the feasibility study
which was not included in the budget request.
Upper Ohio River Navigation System Study, PA.--The
Committee has included $800,000 for the continuation of this
critical study, which was not included in the budget request.
Edisto Island, SC.--The Committee has included $100,000 for
the initiation of a reconnaissance study to examine erosion
problems of portions of Edisto Island.
Pawley's Island, SC.--The Committee has included $125,000
for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase for this
ongoing project, which was not included in the budget request.
James River, SD & ND.--The Committee included $500,000 for
the continuation of the feasibility study for the James River
project.
Davidson County, TN.--The Committee has included $300,000
for the continuation of this feasibility study.
Lower Colorado River Basin, TX.--The Committee has included
an additional $1,000,000 for the initiation of two additional
interim studies.
Matagorda Ship Channel, TX.--The Committee has funded
$500,000 of the preconstruction, engineering, and design
portion of the study, which was not included in the
administration's request.
Middle Brazos River, TX.--The Committee recommendation
includes an additional $250,000 for the acceleration of the
schedule for the System Assessment Interim Feasibility Study.
Sabine-Neches Waterway, TX.--The Committee has included
additional funding to continue work on the Environmental Impact
Statement for the Sabine-Neches Waterway study.
Texas City Channel, TX.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,500,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and
design phase of this study, which was not included in the
budget request.
Upper Trinity River Basin, TX.--The Committee has included
an additional $200,000 for this regional flood control study.
Park City Water Supply Infrastructure, UT.--The Committee
has included $500,000 for the continuation of this feasibility
study which was not included in the budget request.
Elliot Bay Seawall, WA.--The Committee has included
$500,000 for the Elliot Bay Seawall project.
Coastal Field Data.--Within the funds provided, $500,000 is
provided for the Southern California Beach Process Study,
$500,000 is provided for the Hurricane Evaluation Studies in
the State of Hawaii and U.S. Territories.
Flood Plain Management Services.--Within the funds
provided, $200,000 is for the continuation of the foundational
GIS system in East Baton Rouge, LA and $200,000 is provided for
the Corps to assist the Pacific Islands in their response
measures regarding hurricanes and typhoons.
Planning Assistance to States.--Within the funds provided,
$40,000 is for the Urban Streambank Erosion Control, City of
Lincoln, NE planning effort, $100,000 is for the Salt Marsh
Habitat Inventory, RI effort to develop an inventory of
degraded coastal habitat sites, and $200,000 is provided for
planning assistance to the Riverfront Development Corporation,
for the Memphis Riverfront Development, TN project.
Salcha, AK.--The Committee is concerned about continued
flooding in the Salcha area that has forced repeated evacuation
of homes and businesses. The Corps is directed to provide
assistance to Salcha in developing a plan to address the
flooding, in consultation with the Natural Resource
Conservation Service and report back to the Committee on
Appropriations no later than Februrary 15, 2004.
Research and Development.--Within the funds provided for
the Corps of Engineers Research and Development Program,
$1,000,000 is provided for innovative technology demonstrations
for urban flooding and channel restoration. These
demonstrations shall be conducted in close coordination and
cooperation with the Urban Water Research Program of the Desert
Research Institute of Nevada. The Committee encourages the
Corps of Engineers to continue its work in the area of
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation or ``seagrasses'' and restoration
efforts in the Chesapeake Bay, MD.
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $1,744,598,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 1,350,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,538,000,000
This appropriation includes funds for construction, major
rehabilitation and related activities for water resources
development projects having navigation, flood control, water
supply, hydroelectric, environmental restoration, and other
attendant benefits to the Nation. The construction and major
rehabilitation projects for inland and costal waterways will
derive one-half of the funding from the Inland Waterway Trust
Fund. Funds to be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund will be applied to cover the Federal share of the Dredged
Material Disposal Facilities Program.
The appropriation provides funds for the Continuing
Authorities Program (projects which do not require specific
authorizing legislation), which includes projects for flood
control (Section 205), emergency streambank and shoreline
protection (Section 14), beach erosion control (Section 103),
mitigation of shore damages (Section 111), navigation projects
(Section 107), snagging and clearing (Section 208), aquatic
ecosystem restoration (Section 206), beneficial uses of dredged
material (Section 204), and project modifications for
improvement of the environment (Section 1135).
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
MOBILE HARBOR, AL............................................................... 2,003 2,003
WALTER F GEORGE POWERHOUSE AND DAM, AL AND GA (MAJOR REH........................ 12,035 13,479
WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA (MAJOR REHAB)............................. 3,000 3,000
ALASKA
DILLINGHAM EMERGENCY BANK, AK................................................... .............. 4,000
DILLINGHAM SMALL BOAK, AK....................................................... .............. 3,000
KAKE DAM, AK.................................................................... .............. 4,000
NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK.................................................... 6,000 6,000
SAND POINT,AK................................................................... .............. 1,000
SEWARD, AK...................................................................... .............. 1,000
SITKA, AK....................................................................... .............. 1,000
ST PAUL HARBOR, AK.............................................................. 3,826 3,826
WRANGELL, AK.................................................................... .............. 10,000
ARIZONA
RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ...................................................... .............. 3,500
RIO SALADO, PHOENIX AND TEMPE REACHES, AZ....................................... 11,600 11,600
TRES RIOS, AZ................................................................... .............. 7,000
TUSCON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ........................................................ .............. 5,000
ARKANSAS
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR............................. 3,300 3,300
MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR............................................... 20,000 27,000
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR (POWERHOUSE, MAJOR REHAB), AR................................. .............. 3,000
RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, AR, LA AND TX...................................... .............. 750
RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK, AR AND LA............................................. .............. 1,250
CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), C.......................... 4,000 4,000
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA.................................................... 4,000 4,000
GUADALUPE RIVER, CA............................................................. 13,000 13,000
HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA...................................... 2,000 3,000
HARBOR/SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING, CA............................................ .............. 4,000
IMPERIAL BEACH,(IMPERIAL BEACH-SILVER STRAND BEACH)............................. .............. 200
KAWEAH RIVER, CA................................................................ 8,400 8,400
MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA................................... 500 500
MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA........................................ 500 500
NAPA RIVER, CA.................................................................. 7,500 10,000
OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA............................................ 7,000 20,000
PETALUMA RIVER, CA.............................................................. 2,000 ..............
PORT OF LOS ANGELES, MAIN DEEPENING, CA......................................... .............. 15,000
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA.................................... 2,000 2,000
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA.................................................... 15,700 15,700
SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA............................................. 2,100 2,100
STOCKTON METROPOLITIAN FLOOD CONTROL REIMBURSEMENT, CA.......................... 500 ..............
SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY)........................................ 1,000 1,000
TULE RIVER, CA.................................................................. 1,600 1,600
UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA.................................. 1,000 1,000
DELAWARE
DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISL, DE............................ .............. 214
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, PORT MAHON, DE.......................................... .............. 500
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TO LEWES BEACH.......................... 2,008 2,008
DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE................................................... 285 285
DELAWARE COAST, REHOBOTH BEACH TO DEWEY BEACH, DE............................... 5,768 5,768
FLORIDA
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL............................................................ 2,000 2,000
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL................................................ 112,498 90,000
EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL.......................... 14,835 14,835
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS, FL..................................... .............. 1,000
HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (MAJOR REHAB)........................................... 1,000 1,000
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL......................................................... 2,000 2,000
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, FL AND GA (MAJOR R........................ 873 873
KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL............................................................. 17,706 17,706
MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL........................................................ 2,700 2,700
TAMPA HARBOR, FL................................................................ .............. 500
GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA............................................................ 4,500 6,000
BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB)............................................. 3,000 3,000
OATES CREEK, RICHMOND COUNTY, GA (DEF CORR)..................................... 500 500
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC....................................... 4,328 8,178
THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB)............................... 5,500 5,500
HAWAII
HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT, HI..................................................... .............. 1,000
LAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, HI.................................................... .............. 175
KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI........................................... 3,633 3,633
KAUMALAPAU HARBOR, LANAI, HI.................................................... .............. 2,500
MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI........................................................ 191 191
ILLINOIS
CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR).......................... 2,300 2,300
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL........................... 500 500
CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL........................................................... 24,000 25,000
EAST ST LOUIS, IL............................................................... 815 815
LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH........................ 13,000 17,000
LOVES PARK, IL.................................................................. 5,785 5,785
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL.............................................. 18,000 18,000
MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL AND MO............................................ 600 600
NUTWOOD LEVEE, IL............................................................... .............. 100
OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY.................................... 73,000 53,000
UPPER MISS RVR SYSTEM ENV MGMT PROGRAM, IL, IA, MN, MO.......................... 33,320 20,000
INDIANA
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, (ENVIRO INFRA.), IN....................................... .............. 500
INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY), IN................................. 5,700 5,700
INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN........................................... 2,600 2,600
LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN........................................................ 3,800 3,800
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB)............................................. 21,000 21,000
OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ACCESS, IN........................................... 1,000 1,000
IOWA
DES MOINES RECREATIONAL RIVER AND GREENBELT, IA................................. .............. 500
LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB)............................ 1,313 1,313
LOCK AND DAM 19, IA............................................................. .............. 750
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION, IA, NE, K.......................... 22,000 22,000
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS AND MO.................................. 7,000 13,600
PERRY CREEK, IA................................................................. 2,200 2,200
KANSAS
ARKANSAS CITY, KS............................................................... 2,600 2,600
KENTUCKY
DEWEY LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY)..................................................... 1,946 1,946
KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY...................................... 24,866 34,866
MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND IN................................... 26,100 40,000
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, BEARGRASS CREEK, KY.................................... 1,400 1,400
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY......................................... 2,500 2,500
LOUISIANA
ASCENSION PARISH, LA............................................................ .............. 500
COMITE RIVER, LA................................................................ 2,000 4,000
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, EI, LA................................................. .............. 500
GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LA..................................................... .............. 200
INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA.......................................... 7,000 12,000
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA................................................. 13,700 15,000
LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE PROTECT.......................... 3,000 6,000
LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION).............................. 461 461
LIVINGSTON PARISH, LA........................................................... .............. 500
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA.............................................. .............. 200
MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, L.......................... 196 196
NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)................................ 2,000 2,000
OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, LA....................................................... .............. 1,000
SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA......................................................... 16,500 35,000
WEST BANK AND VICINITY, NEW ORLEANS, LA......................................... 35,000 28,500
MARYLAND
ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD........................................................... 1,003 1,003
ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD.................................................. 500 500
CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRO. RES. AND PROTECTION, MD AND VA........................... .............. 1,600
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA....................................... 3,000 4,500
CUMBERLAND, MD.................................................................. .............. 4,000
POPLAR ISLAND, MD............................................................... 14,101 14,101
MASSACHUSETTS
CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, MA (MAJOR REHAB)................................ 9,895 9,895
MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOSTON, MA........................................... .............. 1,000
MICHIGAN
GENESSE COUNTY (ENVIRONMENTAL INFRA), MI........................................ .............. 200
NEGAUNEE, MI.................................................................... .............. 250
SAULT STE MARIE LOCK REPLACEMENT, MI............................................ .............. 2,000
TWELVE TOWNS DRAIN RETENTION FACILITY, MI....................................... .............. 388
MINNESOTA
BRECKENRIDGE, MN................................................................ .............. 1,000
CROOKSTON, MN................................................................... 1,043 1,043
LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN (MAJOR REHAB)............................. 600 600
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSISSIPPI PLACE, ST PAUL, MN......................... .............. 250
MISSISSIPPI
DESOTO COUNTY, MS............................................................... .............. 10,955
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS............................................................. .............. 2,500
MISSISSIPPI ENVIRON INFRA, SEC. 592, MS......................................... .............. 8,000
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS........................................................... 2,989 2,989
MISSOURI
BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO............................................... 2,000 2,500
BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO............................................. 6,000 10,000
BOIS BRULE LEVES, AND DRAINAGE, MO.............................................. .............. 500
MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO...................................... 2,000 3,000
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO.......................... 1,700 1,700
MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT, MO.......................... .............. 3,000
STE GENEVIEVE, MO............................................................... 150 150
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR (DAM SAFETY)......................................... 5,000 5,500
MONTANA
FORT PECK FISK HATCHERY, MT..................................................... .............. 8,000
RURAL MONTANA, MT............................................................... .............. 3,000
NEBRASKA
ANTELOPE CREEK, NE.............................................................. .............. 1,500
SAND CREEK WATERSHED, NE........................................................ .............. 500
WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NE............................................... .............. 500
MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE AND SD................................. 1,000 1,000
WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE.................................................... 1,082 1,082
NEVADA
RURAL NEVADA, NV................................................................ .............. 10,000
TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV............................................... 23,300 26,300
NEW JERSEY
BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG INLET (ABSECON ISLAND),........................... 1,000 1,000
BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG (BRIGANTINE ISLAND), NJ........................... .............. 500
CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ............................................ 1,728 1,728
DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA AND DE...................................... 300 10,000
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ....................................... 7,355 7,355
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ...................................... 1,841 2,500
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NJ.............................................. .............. 500
PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, N.......................... 1,000 500
PASSAIC RIVER STEAMBANK RESTORATION, (MINISH PARK), NJ.......................... .............. 500
RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, NJ.................................................... .............. 250
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ.............................................. 100 100
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ.................................. 6,488 7,000
SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ................................................ 3,000 3,000
TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ........................................... 9,200 10,000
NEW MEXICO
ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM.................................................. 1,800 2,500
ALAMOGORDO, NM.................................................................. 3,500 4,100
CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM.......................................................... .............. 6,000
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, NM.................................... .............. 600
RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE,........................... .............. 600
NEW YORK
ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT,.......................... 1,750 1,750
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET AND JAMAICA BAY,.......................... 1,250 1,250
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY............................................ 2,700 2,700
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY.......................................... 3,800 3,800
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ....................................... 115,000 100,000
NORTH CAROLINA
BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC.................................................... 2,040 2,040
CAROLINA BEACH AND VICINITY, NC................................................. 3,510 3,510
DARE COUNTY BEACHES, BODIE ISLAND, NC........................................... .............. 1,000
WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER (TOPSAIL BEACH), NC............................. .............. 200
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC........................................................... 9,650 20,000
NORTH DAKOTA
BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION,............................ 1,518 2,000
GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB).................................. 6,500 6,500
GRAFTON, PARK RIVER, ND......................................................... .............. 1,000
GRAND FORKS, ND-EAST GRAND FORKS, MN............................................ 23,496 37,000
MO RIVER RESTORATION, ND........................................................ .............. 50
SHEYENNE RIVER, ND.............................................................. 3,367 3,367
OHIO
HOLES CREEK, WEST CARROLLTON, OH................................................ .............. 2,000
METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH............................... 8,500 3,000
MILL CREEK, OH.................................................................. 3,900 1,000
WEST COLUMBUS, OH............................................................... 1,800 500
OKLAHOMA
CANTON LAKE (DAM SAFETY), OK.................................................... .............. 2,000
LAWTON, OK...................................................................... .............. 2,500
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)........................................... 4,400 4,400
OREGON
BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR AND WA (MAJOR REHAB)......................... 3,363 6,363
COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, OR AND WA.................................. .............. 5,000
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA........................... 2,900 2,900
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR.............................................................. 500 500
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA........................... 2,000 2,000
WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR........................................ 10,000 10,000
PENNSYLVANIA
LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA................................ 35,000 35,000
PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT).......................................... 600 600
SCHUYKILL RIVER PARK, PA........................................................ .............. 1,000
WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING).............................................. 10,021 10,021
PUERTO RICO
ARECIBO RIVER, PR............................................................... 1,000 1,000
PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR................................................. 5,200 3,000
RIO DE LA PLATA, PR............................................................. 1,100 1,100
RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR............................................................ 16,500 5,000
SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (DEEPENING AND WIDENING).................................. 5,000 5,000
FOLLY BEACH, SC................................................................. .............. 200
LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SC................................................... .............. 350
SOUTH DAKOTA
BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD................................................ 6,000 6,000
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD............................... 2,800 9,000
MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SD.................................................. .............. 500
PIERRE, SD...................................................................... 4,300 6,000
TENNESSEE
BLACK FOX, OAKLANDS AND MURFREE SPRINGS WETLANDS, TN............................ .............. 1,070
CUMBERLAND COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, TN.............................................. .............. 1,700
TEXAS
BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX........................................................ 4,700 6,000
CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX......................................................... 2,966 2,966
DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TX................................................... .............. 9,280
EL PASO, TX..................................................................... 2,800 2,800
HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX....................................... 18,726 40,000
JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX............................... 2,200 2,200
NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER BARRIER, TX.............................. 4,108 4,108
NORTH PADRE ISLAND, PACKERY CHANNEL, TX......................................... .............. 5,000
RED RIVER CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX AND OK........................................... .............. 2,000
SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX......................................................... 12,000 12,000
VERMONT
LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED INITIATIVE, VT......................................... .............. 500
VIRGINIA
AIWW, BRIDGE AT GREAT BRIDGE, VA................................................ 9,706 9,706
EMBREY DAM, VA.................................................................. .............. 3,000
JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (MAJOR REHAB).......................... 6,000 6,000
LAKE MERRIWEATHER, LITTLE CALFPASTURE, VA....................................... .............. 3,000
NORFOLK CHANNEL HARBOR AND DEPENING,VA.......................................... .............. 4,000
ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA.................................. 2,000 2,000
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)....................................... 2,294 2,294
WASHINGTON
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM GAS ABATEMENT, WA.............................................. 900 3,000
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR AND ID................................... 95,000 85,000
HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, WA..................................... 9,500 9,500
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR........................ 2,000 2,000
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA............................................... 200 900
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY)............................................... 1,400 1,400
PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS, WA............................................. .............. 1,500
SHOALWATER BAY SHORELINE EROSION, WA............................................ .............. 1,000
THE DALLES POWERHOUSE (UNITS 1-14), WA AND OR (MAJOR REH........................ 250 500
WEST VIRGINIA
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY)................................................. 2,600 4,300
GREENBRRIAR RIVER, WV........................................................... .............. 3,000
LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V.......................... 15,000 23,400
MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV.................................................. 52,154 65,200
ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV AND OH.............................. 2,500 2,500
WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV....................................... 2,000 2,000
WYOMING
JACKSON HOLE, WY................................................................ .............. 500
MISCELLANEOUS
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206)..................................... 10,000 15,000
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM................................................... 3,000 3,500
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL............................................. 3,000 3,000
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM............................. 8,000 14,000
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM.................................... 7,000 7,000
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SEC. 14)......................... 7,000 9,000
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION......................................................... 19,130 19,130
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205)............................................ 20,000 30,000
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD EXPENSE..................................... 45 45
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE..................................... 185 185
NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111)..................................... 500 1,500
NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107)............................................... 6,000 9,000
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONME.......................... 14,000 17,000
SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATIO.......................... 6,000 6,000
SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 103)..................................... 3,500 3,500
SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECT (SECTION 208)..................................... 500 500
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.................................. -116,095 -241,730
===============================
TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL............................................... 1,350,000 1,538,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sand Point, AK.--The Committee has included a provision
directing the Corps to proceed with construction of the Sand
Point Harbor in accordance with the Chief of Engineers Report.
Sitka Harbor, AK.--The Committee notes that in designing
the Sitka Harbor breakwater, the Corps failed to take into
account the severity of the wave activity. As a result, the
breakwater has failed to prevent wave action, particularly
during stormy weather. Therefore, the project must be
redesigned and modifications installed. The Committee has
included a provision to hold the City of Sitka harmless for any
additional cost sharing requirements that would otherwise be
mandated because of the Corps' design deficiency.
Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, AZ.--The Committee recommendation
includes $3,500,000 for the Rio de Flag project to continue
construction.
Rio Salado, Phoenix and Tempe Reaches, AZ.--The Committee
recommendation includes the full budget request by the
administration. The Committee is pleased that this unique
project is gaining the attention and interest of the business
community and the environmental community alike.
Tres Rios, AZ.--The Committee has included $7,000,000 for
this project in fiscal year 2004, which was not included in the
administration's budget request. The funds are for the
continuation of this project, including the flood control levee
and design of the pump stations for the wetlands.
Tuscon Drainage Area, AZ.--The Committee has included
$5,000,000 for this project, which was not included in the
budget request.
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, AR & OK.--The Committee has
provided additional funds for the continued construction of
this project.
Ozark-Jeta Taylor (Powerhouse, Major Rehab), AR.--During
calendar year 2001, the Ozark-Jeta Taylor turbines were down 63
percent of the time resulting in a revenues lost to the General
Fund of the Treasury. To address this, the Committee
recommendation includes $3,000,000 to continue this much-needed
rehabilitation project.
Harbor/South Bay Water Recycling, CA.--The Committee has
included $4,000,000 for this project with the expectation that
it will allow for the continued construction of the Madrona
Marsh Lateral and other related elements. As this project was
not included in the budget request, the Committee has included
scarce resources for its continued construction.
Imperial Beach (Imperial Beach-Silver Strand), CA.--The
Committee has included $200,000 for the continued design of the
Imperial Beach project.
Oakland Harbor (50 Foot Project), CA.--The Committee
recommendation includes $20,000,000 for this critical harbor
project. The Committee regrets that it cannot provide optimum
funding, efforts which are hampered because the administration
only requested $7,000,000 for this project. Given that this
project is already under construction, the Committee encourages
the administration to include realistic project funding in
future budget submissions.
Port of Los Angeles (Main Channel Deepening), CA.--The
Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 for this project.
Despite the fact this project is already under construction,
the administration did not propose any funding for this
project. The Committee expects the administration to budget for
a project of this scope more responsibly in the future.
South Sacramento County Streams, CA.--The Committee is
aware that there are hydrologic project design issues which
could impact the cost and schedule of the project. Therefore,
the Committee has only provided the budget request.
Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island,
Fenwick Island, DE.--The Committee recommendation includes
$214,000 for the continued construction of this project begun
in fiscal year 2003.
Delaware Bay Coastline, Port Mahon, DE.--The Committee has
included $500,000 for the continuation of construction begun
last fiscal year.
Central and Southern Florida, FL.--The Committee
recommendation includes $90,000,000 to continue the Everglades
Restoration projects, the same level of funding as fiscal year
2003. This should be in no way considered any diminution of
interest or support by the Committee for these vitally
important ecosystem restoration projects. The Committee also
encourages the Corps to respond to current concerns regarding
implementation of the restoration project.
Everglades and South Florida Restoration, FL.--The
Committee has included a provision that conditions expenditure
of funds appropriated in this Act for the purpose of
construction of the projects for the Everglades and South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration. The Committee directs that the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency certify by
September 30, 2003 and every 12 months thereafter until
September 30, 2006 to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee indicating that the water entering A.R.M. Loxahatchee
National Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National Park meets all
applicable State water quality standards and numeric criteria
adopted for phosphorus throughout A.R.M. Loxahatchee National
Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National Park, as well water
quality requirements set forth in the Consent Decree entered in
United States v. South Florida Water Management District and
that the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations respond
in writing to the report indicating that the funds are
available for expenditure.
Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements, FL.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,000,000 for the implementation of
the wastewater and stormwater improvements. The Committee
believes these efforts need to be carried out in concert with
the ongoing Everglades restoration work.
Tampa Harbor, FL.--The Committee has included $500,000 for
the continuation of the General Reevaluation Report examining
navigation improvements for the Federal portion of this
project.
Brunswick Harbor, GA.--The Committee recommendation
includes $6,000,000 for this project. The Committee is aware
that the bids for this project greatly exceeded the Government
estimate, and though there was a low bidder, there is a pending
protest. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Corps to
resolve this issue and reevaluate the cost of the project,
seeking additional authority if necessary.
Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake Wildlife Mitigation, GA &
SC.--The Committee has included $3,850,000 to complete the
execution of the Memorandum of Agreement and the documentation
and payment of the mitigation lands to the State of South
Carolina.
Hawaii Water Management, HI.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,000,000 for continuation of the construction phases
of this project for the water systems on the drought-plagued
portions of the State of Hawaii.
Iao Stream Flood Control, HI.--The Committee recommendation
includes $175,000 to complete the DDR and NEPA documentation,
and initiate the design phase.
Kaumalapau Harbor, Lanai, HI.--The Committee recommendation
includes $2,500,000 to continue the construction of this
project.
Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IL & KY.--The Committee
recommendation includes $53,000,000 for the Olmsted Locks and
Dam project. This reduced funding level should in no way be
considered any diminution of interest or support for the
project, but instead reflects the very limited resources of the
Committee. None of the funds provided for the Olmsted Locks and
Dam Project are to be used to reimburse the Claims and Judgment
Fund.
Nutwood Drainage and Levee District, IL.--The Committee is
aware of induced flooding issues which must be resolved prior
to the award of the construction contract, the completion of
plans and specifications, and the granting of a 404 permit. The
Committee is also aware of issues regarding credit for work
completed by the non-Federal sponsor. The Committee encourages
the Corps to resolve these issues expeditiously but expects
that any credit provided to the non-Federal sponsor shall not
be precedent setting.
Mississinewa Lake, IN.--The Committee has included
$21,000,000 for the completion of this project.
McAlpine Lock and Dam, IN & KY.--The Committee has included
$40,000,000 for the McAlpine Lock and Dam project. The
Committee has included additional funding because of the
project's critical nature.
Lock and Dam 19, Mississippi River, IA (Major
Rehabilitation).--The Committee recommendation includes
$750,000 to continue construction work begun in fiscal year
2003.
Missouri River Levee System, L-385 IA, NE, KS, & MO.--The
Committee has included sufficient funding to avoid work
stoppages and interest penalties; as well as completing the
project this fiscal year. The Committee has also included funds
to complete the final levee contract for L-15.
Comite River, LA.--The Committee recommendation includes
additional funds to award the Phase II construction contract
for the Lilly Bayou Control Structure.
Grand Isle and Vicinity, LA.--The Committee has included
$200,000 for the completion of the General Reevaluation Report
and expects the Corps to resolve any remaining issues so the
project may proceed.
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, LA.--The Committee has
included additional funds to complete the demolition of
eastside businesses on schedule and to initiate two levee
construction contracts, as well as continuing the engineering
and design work for the project.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--The Committee
recommendation includes $15,000,000 to continue construction of
necessary navigation channel refinements, land purchases, and
development for mitigation of project impacts, and construction
of project recreation and appurtenant features.
Ouachita River Levees, LA.--The Committee has included
funds for the completion of Levee Item 2 and to begin work on
Levee Item 3, which is to include gravel surfacing.
Southeast Louisiana, LA.--The Committee has included
$35,000,000 for the Southeast Louisiana project. Though the
Committee has included the additional funds, it remains very
concerned with the increasing scope and cost of this project.
Though the Federal Government has a responsibility to mitigate
the impacts of Federal channels and waterways on our
communities, the Committee is concerned that this project has
no foreseeable completion. Therefore, the Committee encourages
the Corps to better define the project's scope of work and plan
the construction's progression in order for the project to
fully realize its designed benefits as soon as is practicable.
Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection
Program, MD, VA, & PA.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,600,000, which was not included in the budget request. These
funds are for the completion of the Preconstruction,
Engineering and Design phase and the initiation of the Marsh
Creation Project.
Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, MD & VA.--The Committee has
included $4,500,000 for this continuing construction project.
The Committee remains concerned that the benefits of the
project will not be fully realized until the issue of
agricultural effluents is resolved.
Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, MA.--The Committee has
included $1,000,000 for the continued construction of the
project.
Twelve Towns Drain Retention Facility, MI.--The Committee
recommendation includes $388,000 for the completion of plans
and specifications.
DeSoto County, MS.--The Committee recommendation includes
$10,955,000 for the completion of this project.
Pascagoula Harbor, MS.--The Committee recommendation
includes $2,989,000, which is equal to the administration's
request.
Blue River Channel, Kansas City, MO.--The Committee has
included $10,000,000 to continue construction on the railroad
bridge alterations, complete plans and specifications, and the
General Reevaluation Report.
Bois Brule Levee and Drainage, MO.--The Committee has
included $500,000 for this project. The Committee is aware that
the project sponsor decided to proceed only with the deficiency
correction portion of the project and place the levee raise on
hold.
Rural Montana, MT.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000
for the development of the Project Cooperation Agreements,
Project Management Plans, and necessary NEPA documentation for
the Conrad, Belgrade, Drummond, Wisdom, Melston, and Manhattan
projects, as well as and other qualified participants.
Antelope Creek, NE.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,500,000 for the continued construction of this flood damage
reduction project.
Rural Nevada, NV.--The Committee has provided $10,000,000
for the Rural Nevada Project. Within the funds provided the
Corps is directed to give consideration to projects at Boulder
City, Lyon County, (Carson River Regional Water System)
Gerlach, Incline Village, Round Hill, Mesquite, Moapa, Spanish
Springs, Battle Mountain, Virgin Valley, Lawton-Verdi,
Esmeralda County, and Searchlight. Other communities that meet
the program criteria should be considered as funding allows.
Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV.--The Committee has
provided $26,300,000 to continue construction of this flood
control project. The Committee recommendation includes
$3,000,000 for work performed in accordance with section 211 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Absecon Island, NJ.--
The Committee recommendation includes additional funding for
the beachfill construction effort.
Delaware Mainstem Channel Deepening, NJ, DE & PA.--The
Committee has included $10,000,000 for this project which has
undergone a rigorous cost-benefit reanalysis. The Corps is to
be commended for initiating this effort, and, as expected, the
project has been validated by both the General Accounting
Office and outside auditors as having a cost-benefit ratio
which exceeds the mandated Federal standards.
Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, NJ.--The
Committee recommendation includes additional funds to initiate
Segment U levee and floodwall.
Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ.--The Committee has
included an additional $800,000 to initiate the construction of
the Hereford Inlet portion of the project.
Acequias Irrigation System, NM.--The Committee has included
an additional $700,000 for additional construction contract
awards. The Committee supports the program for rehabilitating
acequias in New Mexico, and feels that it is of historical and
cultural significance to the State. There is concern however,
that the process for determining environmental impacts of each
acequia project is disproportionately time consuming and
expensive. The Committee therefore directs the Corps to seek
ways to streamline the NEPA process, including the use of
``programmatic'' assessments addressing multiple projects where
practicable.
Central New Mexico, NM.--The Committee recommendation
includes $5,000,000 for the completion of the construction work
on the Double Eagle II Infrastructure Upgrade, the Bosque Farms
Plant, the Tijeras Water System upgrade and the Bernalillo
plant. In addition, the Committee has included $1,000,000 for
the Black Mesa Area Flood Management project.
Middle Rio Grande Flood Damage Reduction, NM.--The
Committee has provided $600,000 for the completion of the
General Reevaluation Report.
New York and New Jersey Harbor, NY & NJ.--The Committee
recommendation includes $100,000,000 for the Harbor project.
This reduced funding level should in no way be considered any
diminution of interest or support for the project, but instead
it reflects the very limited resources of the Committee.
Dare County Beaches, Bodie Island, NC.--The Committee has
included $1,000,000 to continue preconstruction monitoring and
real estate acquisition.
Wilmington Harbor, NC.--The Committee has included
$20,000,000 for this critical harbor project. The Committee
regrets that it cannot provide optimum funding at this time.
The Committee notes that the administration only requested
$9,650,000 for a project of this size, and encourages the
administration to request more realistic funding in future
fiscal years.
Buford-Trenton Irrigation District Land Acquisition, ND.--
The Committee recommendation includes funds for the purchase of
additional easements.
Devils Lake, ND.--The Committee continues to support the
construction of the Devils Lake outlet and notes that
$5,000,000 of previously appropriated funds for construction
remain available until expended. The Committee also urges the
Corps to request sufficient funding in future budget requests
to construct this project.
Grand Forks, ND-East Grand Forks, MN.--The Committee has
provided $37,000,000 for this project to continue construction.
Missouri River Sedimentation, ND.--The Committee has
provided $50,000 for this project. The Committee understands
that the Corps will use the funds provided, along with
previously appropriated funds, to continue the required
assessment study.
Holes Creek, West Carrollton, OH.--The Committee
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the Holes Creek project,
which was not included in the budget request. The Committee
expects that these funds will be sufficient to complete the
construction of additional floodwalls and relocations.
Canton Lake (Dam Safety), OK.--The Committee has included
$2,000,000 for the Canton Lake project. The Committee is aware
that there are improvements needed on the dam, including
stabilizing the existing spillway.
Lawton, OK.--The Committee has included $2,500,000 for this
project and expects the Corps to continue construction.
Columbia River Channel Improvements, OR & WA.--The
Committee has included $5,000,000 for this project, which
includes ecosystem restoration efforts. The Committee expects
that this effort will further improve the Corps' ``no
jeopardy'' biological opinion standings. Therefore, the
Committee expects that the administration should budget for
this project in a responsible manner.
Schuylkill River Park, PA.--The Committee has included
$1,000,000 for this project and expects the Corps to negotiate
and execute the Project Cooperation Agreement.
Charleston Harbor, SC.--The Committee has provided
$5,000,000 for this widening and deepening project, which is
the full capability of the Corps.
Lakes Marion and Moultrie, SC.--The Committee has provided
$350,000 for this project, which is all that can be provided
under the current project authorization.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.--The
Committee notes that Title VI of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999, as amended, authorizes funding to pay
administrative expenses, implementation of terrestrial wildlife
plans, activities associated with land transferred or to be
transferred, and annual expenses for operating recreational
areas. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs that
not more than $1,000,000 shall be provided for administrative
expenses, and that the Corps is to distribute remaining funds
as directed by Title VI to the State of South Dakota, the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.
Missouri River Restoration, SD.--The Committee has included
$500,000, the full Corps capability, to complete the assessment
and initiation of the implementation plan for the basin.
Pierre, SD.--The Committee has included $6,000,000 for the
Pierre, South Dakota flood damage reduction project.
Black Fox, Oaklands and Murfree Springs Wetlands, TN.--The
Committee has provided $1,070,000 for the continued
construction of this project, which was not included in the
budget request.
Cumberland County Water Supply, TN.--The Committee has
included funds for the continued construction of this project.
Brays Bayou, TX.--The Committee has included $6,000,000 for
this project related to flood damage reduction.
Dallas Floodway Extension, TX.--The Committee has provided
funds and legislative language to continue plans and
specification development, real estate activities and resume
project construction, including the Cadillac Heights segment of
the project.
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, TX.--The Committee
has included $40,000,000 for this high priority project which
is needed for the safe and cost-effective movement of cargo.
Red River Chloride Control Project, TX & OK.--The Committee
has included $2,000,000 for the continued construction of this
project.
Embrey Dam, VA.--The Committee has included $3,000,000 for
this continuing construction project.
Lake Merriweather, Little Calfpasture (Goshen Dam), VA.--
The Committee has included $3,000,000 for the continuation of
this project.
Norfolk Harbor and Channels (Deepening), VA.--The Committee
has included $4,000,000 for the continuation of this necessary
navigation project.
Chief Joseph Dam Gas Abatement, WA.--The Committee
recommendation includes $3,000,000 for the continued
construction of this project. The additional funds are provided
for the award of construction contracts related to the right
abutment, staging area and cofferdam fabrication.
Columbia River Fish Mitigation, WA, OR & ID.--The Committee
has provided $85,000,000 for the Fish Mitigation project. This
reduced funding level should in no way be considered any
diminution of interest or support for the project, but instead
it reflects the very limited resources of the Committee.
Mt. St. Helens Sediment Control, WA.--The Committee
recommendation includes $700,000 above the administration's
request. These funds are for the initiation of a sensitivity
analysis to Cowlitz River tributaries as a result of elevating
river stages and proceeding with the analysis of alternatives
to find a permanent solution to the sediment control. In
addition, the Committee expects the Corps to initiate a General
Reevaluation Report.
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper
Cumberland River, WV, KY, & VA.--The Committee has provided
$23,400,000 for continuation of the project. Within the funds
provided, the Committee recommendation includes $17,000,000 for
the Buchanan County, Dickenson County, and Grundy, VA elements.
Further, the Committee recommendation includes $6,400,000 for
Kermit, Lower Mingo County, McDowell County, Upper Mingo and
Wayne County, WV.
Aquatic Plant Control Program.--The Committee has included
$3,500,000 for the Aquatic Plant Control program's base
research and development activities. The Committee is aware of
the growing aquatic invasive plant infestation problem around
the county and supports the efforts of the Corps, and private
sector, to develop new management and control technologies.
Currently, the Committee is aware that approximately 25 Federal
agencies are involved in invasive species activities and that
the estimated economic impacts from all invasive species totals
as much as $137,000,000,000. The Committee further believes
that success in the management of these invasive species is
dependent upon a strong, stable research program. In an effort
to maximize limited funding for eradication and harvesting, the
Committee strongly recommends that these efforts be undertaken
only where a local sponsor agrees to provide 50 percent of the
cost of the work. Within the funds provided, $300,000 is for a
cost shared effort with the State of South Carolina and
$400,000 is for a cost shared effort with the State of Vermont.
The Committee urges the Corps to establish a cost shared
program with the State of Hawaii.
Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program.--The
Committee recommendation includes $14,000,000 for the program.
Within the funds provided, $6,000,000 is provided for the Corps
to continue work on Waterbury Dam in Vermont.
Ability to Pay.--Section 103(m) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986, as amended, requires that all project
cooperation agreements for flood damage reduction projects, to
which non-Federal cost sharing applies, will be subject to the
ability of non-Federal sponsors to pay their shares. Congress
included this section in the landmark 1986 Act to ensure that
as many communities as possible would qualify for Federal flood
damage reduction projects, based more on needs and less on
financial capabilities. The Secretary published eligibility
criteria in 33 CFR 241, which requires a non-Federal sponsor to
meet an ability-to-pay test. However, the Committee believes
that the Secretary's test is too restrictive and operates to
exclude most communities from qualifying for relief under the
ability-to-pay provision. For example, 33 CFR 241.4(f)
specifies that the test should be structured so that reductions
in the level of cost-sharing will be granted in ``only a
limited number of cases of severe economic hardship,'' and
should depend not only on the economic circumstances within a
project area, but also on the conditions of the state in which
the project area is located. While within the letter of the
law, the Secretary's policies do not appear to be keeping the
spirit of the law. The Secretary is directed to report to the
Appropriations Committees within 90 days of enactment of this
Act on a proposal intended to be published in the Federal
Register to revise 33 CFR 241 eligibility criteria to allow a
more reasonable and balanced application of the ability-to pay
provision.
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
The continuing project authorities listed below, allow the
Corps great flexibility to respond to various, limited-scope,
water resource problems facing communities throughout the
Nation. This program has proven to be remarkably successful in
providing a quick response to serious local problems. These
problems range from flood control and navigation to bank
stabilization and environmental restoration. The Committee has
provided funds in excess of the budget request for virtually
all of these accounts. As a general rule, once a project has
received funds for the initial phases of any of these
authorities, the project will continue to be funded as long as
it proves to be environmentally sound, technically feasible,
and economically justified, as applicable. With this in mind,
the Committee has chosen to limit explicit direction of these
project authorities.
The Committee is aware that there are funding requirements
for ongoing, continuing authorities projects that may not be
accommodated within the funds provided for each program. It is
not the Committee's intent that ongoing projects be terminated.
If additional funds are needed to keep ongoing work in any
program on schedule, the Committee urges the Corps to reprogram
the necessary funds.
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).--The Committee
has provided $15,000,000 for the Section 206 Program. Within
the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $200,000 for
Tamarisk Eradication, CO for plans and specifications; $200,000
for Yampa River/Hayden restoration project (Upper Yampa Water
Conservancy District), CO; $200,000 for Sqauw Creek, IL
ecosystem restoration for plans and specifications; $250,000
for Chariton River/Rathburn Lake Watershed, IA to complete
plans and specifications; $192,000 for Duck Creek-Fairmont Park
Wetlands restoration, Scott County, IA for planning and design
analysis; $304,000 for Lemay Wetlands, MO to initiate and
complete restorations; $200,000 for Bottomless Lake State Park,
NM; $100,000 for James Wallace Memorial Dam, Santa Rosa, NM;
$100,000 for Jemez River Aquatic and Riparian Habitat, NM;
$200,000 for Concord Streams Restorations, Concord, NC; $75,000
for the design phase of Little Sugar Creek, NC aquatic
ecosystem restoration; $100,000 for project modifications to
East Harbor State Park, OH; $100,000 for Cherokee Creek Aquatic
ecosystem restoration, OK for a feasibility study; $100,000 for
Crow Creek Aquatic ecosystem restoration, OK; $100,000 for
Alsop Brownwood, Johnson Creek, OR for a feasibility study;
$100,000 for Oaks Bottom, OR for a feasibility study; $100,000
for Brush Neck Cove, Warwick, RI for a feasibility study;
$150,000 for Ninigret and Cross Mills Ponds, Charlestown, RI
for construction; $300,000 for Mad Island Aquatic ecosystem
restoration, TX; and $50,000 for Underwood Creek restoration,
Milwaukee, WI.
Navigation Mitigation Projects (Section 111).--The
Committee has provided $1,500 for the Section 111 Program.
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes
$1,280,000 to continue construction of the Saco River and Camp
Ellis Beach, ME project to mitigate shoreline damages caused by
the Federal navigation project.
Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment
(Section 1135).--The Committee has provided $17,000,000 for the
Section 1135 Program. Within the amount provided, the
recommendation includes: $170,000 for Big Creek Spillway, IA
for a modifications project; $550,000 for construction of the
Honey Creek Wetlands, Greenville Marsh, Lucas County, IA;
$310,000 for Lower Rouge River restoration, Wayne County, MI
for a feasibility study; $320,000 for Rouge River Oxbow
restoration, MI for a feasibility study; $100,000 for Upper
Rouge River restoration, Wayne County, MI for a feasibility
study; $700,000 for riparian and wetland restoration, Pueblo of
Santa Ana, NM; $200,000 for Joe Creek habitat restoration, OK;
$250,000 for Lower Columbia Slough, OR for construction; and
$100,000 for Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey barriers, VT.
Emergency Streambank & Shoreline Protection Projects
(Section 14).--The Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the
Section 14 Program. Within the amount provided, the
recommendation includes: $60,000 for the planning and design
analysis at Beaver Creek, Ackley, IA; $341,000 for Iowa River,
Sac and Fox Settlement, Tama County, IA; $40,000 for planning
and design analysis for Red Duck Creek, KY; $300,000 for
Ramsay, Bessemer, Township, Gogebic County, MI for planning and
design analysis and construction; $100,000 for planning and
design analysis at Sturgeon River, Baraga County, MI; $800,000
for Rio Puerco, NM; and $250,000 for Burlington, VT.
Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--The Committee has
provided $30,000,000 for the Section 205 Program. Within the
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $75,000 for a
feasibility study at Bono, AR; $155,000 for Oak Creek,
Florence, CO for a feasibility study; $225,000 for plans and
specifications at East Boyer River, Denison, IA; $150,000 for a
feasibility study at Kitty Creek and Maquoketa River, City of
Monticello, IA; $200,000 for Olive Hill, KY for a feasibility
study; $60,000 for a feasibility study at Red Duck Creek, KY;
$100,000 to investigate flooding problems along Bayou Choupique
in the vicinity of the Chitimacha Reservation in St. Mary
Parish, LA; $40,000 for Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Flood
Control Project, LA for a feasibility study; $350,000 for plans
and specifications and to initiate construction at Granite
Falls, MN; $800,000 for Little Puerco River, Gallup, NM;
$200,000 for Hobbs, NM; $200,000 for Hatch, NM; $500,000 to
continue the Spanish Springs Valley, NV flood prevention
project; $1,000,000 for construction of the Wahpeton, ND, flood
control project; $100,000 for Cane Creek, TN for a feasibility
study; $100,000 for Jones Creek, TN for a feasibility study;
and $100,000 for Jamestown Island Seawall, VA for plans and
specifications.
Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material (Section 204).--The
Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Section 204 Program.
Within the amount provided the recommendation includes $212,000
for Blackbottoms, Des Moines County, IA,
Shoreline Protection Projects (Section 103).--The Committee
has provided $3,500,000 for the Section 103 Program. Within the
amount provided, the recommendation includes $75,000 for Luna
Pier, MI for a feasibility study.
Small Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has
provided $9,000,000 for the Section 107 Program. Within the
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $750,000 for
Aun'u Harbor, American Samoa for a preliminary study; $200,000
for Ta'u Harbor, American Samoa; $350,000 for Horseshoe Bend
erosion project, KY; $100,000 for Detroit River navigation
improvements, MI; $75,000 for Ontonagon Harbor, MI for a
feasibility study; and $60,000 for Charlestown Breachway
navigation study, RI.
Snaging and Clearing for Flood Control (Section 208).--The
Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the Section 208 Program.
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes $25,000
for Deer Creek, Webster County, KY for a planning, design and
analysis.
Tribal Partnership Program.--The Committee acknowledges the
serious impacts of coastal erosion and flooding due to
continued climate change in Alaska. The Committee expects the
Corps to continue its work in this area.
FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ARKANSAS, ILLINOIS,
KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, AND TENNESSEE
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $342,334,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 280,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 329,000,000
This appropriation funds planning, construction, and
operation and maintenance activities associated with water
resource projects located in the lower Mississippi River Valley
from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project title Budget estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA.................................................... 435 435
DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA................................................ 800 900
SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR........................................................ ............... 100
SPRING BAYOU, LA.............................................................. 500 500
TENSAS RIVER BASIN, LA........................................................ ............... 200
COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS................................ 185 350
FLETCHER CREEK, TN............................................................ 120 120
GERMANTOWN, TN................................................................ 51 51
MILLINGTON AND VICINITY, TN................................................... 84 84
MORGANZA TO THE GULF, LA...................................................... 3,487 5,000
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA............................................ 695 695
---------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS........................................ 6,357 8,435
CONSTRUCTION
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN.............................. 39,562 41,000
FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH (EIGHT MILE CREEK), AR........................... 2,050 2,050
HELENA AND VICINITY, AR....................................................... 2,180 2,180
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN......................... 42,919 47,000
ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO.................................................... 2,365 3,000
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA........................................ 7,768 8,000
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA......................................................... 14,075 15,000
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA.................................................. 3,200 3,200
HORN LAKE CREEK, MS........................................................... ............... 395
BACKWATER PUMP, MS............................................................ ............... 12,000
MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, LA & MS............................ ............... 30
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS.......................................... 890 1,000
DALTA HEADWATERS PROJECT, MS.................................................. ............... 17,000
MAIN STEM, MS................................................................. ............... 25
REFORMULATION UNIT, MS........................................................ ............... 500
YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS.................................................. 205 205
YAZOO BASIN, UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS......................................... 6,645 12,000
ST. JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO................................... ............... 1,000
NONCONNAH CREEK, TN & MS...................................................... 2,618 3,200
WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN....................................................... ............... 1,600
---------------------------------
Subtotal, CONSTRUCTION.................................................. 124,477 170,385
MAINTENANCE
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN.............................. 69,688 69,688
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR............................................ 370 370
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR............................................. 466 466
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR.......................................... 105 105
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR.......................................... 135 135
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN......................... 6,340 7,000
ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO.................................................... 7,505 9,000
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA................................ 2,400 2,400
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR..................................................... 1,290 1,290
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL............................................. 50 50
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY............................................. 35 35
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA........................................ 2,450 2,450
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA......................................................... 13,335 13,335
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA........................................... 15 281
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA............................................ 85 85
BONNET CARRE, LA.............................................................. 1,975 1,975
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA............................................. 550 550
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA........................................ 2,207 2,207
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA.................................................. 910 910
OLD RIVER, LA................................................................. 9,915 9,915
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA......................................... 3,425 3,425
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS......................................................... 30 250
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS............................................. 296 296
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS.......................................................... 35 345
YAZOO BASIN:.................................................................. (32,050) (40,645)
ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS........................................................ 6,300 7,500
BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS................................................... 170 2,800
ENID LAKE, MS............................................................. 5,505 6,200
GREENWOOD, MS............................................................. 650 850
GRENADA LAKE, MS.......................................................... 6,170 7,000
MAIN STEM, MS............................................................. 1,480 3,480
SARDIS LAKE, MS........................................................... 8,630 9,500
TRIBUTARIES, MS........................................................... 1,135 1,135
WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS........................................... 470 470
YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS.................................................. 730 900
YAZOO CITY, MS............................................................ 810 810
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO............................................. 167 167
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO........................................................... 4,265 4,265
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN............................................. 101 101
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN............................................. 1,010 1,010
MAPPING....................................................................... 1,235 1,235
---------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, MAINTENANCE................................................... 162,440 173,986
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE................................ -13,274 -23,806
=================================
TOTAL, FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES................. 280,000 329,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believes that it is essential to provide
adequate resources and funding to the Mississippi River and
Tributaries program in order to protect the large investment in
flood control facilities. Although much progress has been made,
considerable work remains to be done for the protection and
economic development of the rich national resources in the
Valley. The Committee expects the additional funds to be used
to advance ongoing studies, initiate new studies, and advance
important construction and maintenance work. In conjunction
with efforts to optimize use of the additional funding
provided, the Committee expects the Corps to make the necessary
adjustments in lower priority activities and non-critical work
in order to maximize the public benefit within the Mississippi
River and Tributaries program.
General Investigations
Southeast Arkansas, AR.--The Committee has included
$100,000 for the continued study of the Southeast Arkansas
project.
Tensas River Basin, LA.--The Committee has included
$200,000 to continue the feasibility phase of the Tensas River
Basin study.
Construction
Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, & TN.--
The Committee has included $47,000,000 for the continuation of
the construction on the Mississippi River Levees project,
including the plans and specifications and initiation of
construction on the Lower Mississippi River Museum and
Riverfront Interpretive Site.
Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, Yazoo Backwater Project (Pumping
Plant and Nonstructural Features), MS.--The Committee has
included $12,000,000 and statutory language directing the Corps
to complete the design of the pumping plant, real estate
acquisition and the initiation of the pump supply contract.
Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, Mississippi Delta Headwaters
Project, MS.--The Committee has included $17,000,000 for this
essential project which consists of sixteen watersheds with
efforts including bank stabilization to grade control
structures and channel modifications.
Maintenance
Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, & TN.--
The Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000 which includes
funds for gravel surfacing at selected locations.
St. Francis River and Tributaries, AR & MO.--An additional
$1,495,000 has been provided above the budget request for
maintenance items in Missouri.
Grand Prairie Region, AR.--The Committee has included bill
language directing the Corps, using previously appropriated
funds, to continue construction of the water withdrawal
features associated with the project as directed in the
conference report accompanying the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2002.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $1,927,556,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 1,939,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,949,000,000
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
ALABAMA-COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL..................................... 285 285
ALABAMA-COOSA RIVER, AL......................................................... 2,961 2,961
BAYOU LA BATRE, AL.............................................................. 2,000 2,000
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL.......................................... 22,100 23,100
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL.................................................. 5,000 5,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL............................................... 50 50
MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM............................................. .............. 5,429
MOBILE HARBOR, AL............................................................... 19,040 22,040
ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL................................................. 5,726 5,726
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL............................................. 100 100
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL............................ 1,500 1,500
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS......................................... 21,500 22,500
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA......................................... 6,892 6,892
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK............................................................ 2,969 2,969
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK........................................................... 3,259 3,259
COOK INLET SHOALS, AK........................................................... .............. 1,000
CORDOVA HARBOR, AK.............................................................. 400 400
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK........................................................... 906 906
HOMER HARBOR, AK................................................................ 370 370
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK............................................... 41 41
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK............................................................ 239 239
NOME HARBOR, AK................................................................. 285 1,285
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK................................................... 533 533
ARIZONA
ALAMO LAKE, AZ.................................................................. 1,563 1,563
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ............................................... 87 87
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ............................................................ 1,498 1,498
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ............................................. 35 35
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ........................................................... 184 184
ARKANSAS
BEAVER LAKE, AR................................................................. 4,297 4,297
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR............................................... 6,126 6,126
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR.......................................................... 1,751 1,751
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR............................................................ 5,180 5,180
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR..................................................... 5,319 5,319
DEGRAY LAKE, AR................................................................. 7,103 7,103
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR................................................................ 1,567 1,567
DIERKS LAKE, AR................................................................. 1,131 1,131
GILLHAM LAKE, AR................................................................ 1,531 1,531
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR........................................................... 6,391 6,391
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR.............................................. 25 400
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR............................................... 192 192
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR............................. 29,493 35,493
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR............................................................... 1,503 1,503
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR................................................... 5,559 5,559
NIMROD LAKE, AR................................................................. 2,036 2,036
NORFORK LAKE, AR................................................................ 3,471 3,471
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR.............................................................. 25 750
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA............................................ 10,221 10,221
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR.............................................. 3,917 3,917
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR................................................... 6 6
WHITE RIVER, AR................................................................. 200 200
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR............................................................ 15 126
CALIFORNIA
BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA............................................................ 2,269 2,269
BODEGA BAY, CA.................................................................. .............. 2,800
BUCHANAN DAM, H V EASTMAN LAKE, CA.............................................. 2,526 2,526
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA........................................... 3,401 3,401
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA................................... 4,421 4,421
FARMINGTON DAM, CA.............................................................. 341 341
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA.................................................... 2,621 2,621
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA..................................................... 6,945 6,945
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA............................................... 1,167 1,167
ISABELLA LAKE, CA............................................................... 1,365 1,365
LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBOR MODEL, CA......................................... 175 175
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA............................................ 4,931 4,931
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA....................................................... 280 280
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA............................................................ 282 282
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA............................................................ 1,460 1,460
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA.............................................................. 2,789 2,789
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA........................................ 1,697 1,697
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA.............................................................. 6,785 9,285
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA............................................................ 1,160 1,160
PETALUMA RIVER, CA.............................................................. .............. 1,250
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA.............................................................. 2,732 2,732
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA................................................... 1,960 1,960
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA............................................................. 6,250 6,250
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA.......................................... 2,106 2,106
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA........................... 1,255 1,255
SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY, CA............................................. 60 60
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA.................................... 1,273 1,273
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL)................................ 2,189 2,189
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA........................................................ 2,092 2,092
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA........................................................... 2,065 3,000
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA....................................................... 3,815 3,815
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA........................................................ 1,905 1,905
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA............................................. 1,447 1,447
SUCCESS LAKE, CA................................................................ 2,132 2,132
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA.......................................................... 5,172 5,172
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA................................................... 1,818 1,818
VENTURA HARBOR, CA.............................................................. 2,910 2,910
YUBA RIVER, CA.................................................................. 66 66
COLORADO
BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO............................................................. 282 282
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO.............................................................. 1,690 2,023
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO........................................................... 839 1,172
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO............................................... 92 92
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO....................................................... 2,338 2,338
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO............................................. 292 292
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO............................................................... 1,441 1,775
CONNECTICUT
BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT............................................................. 343 343
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT........................................................ 459 459
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT.......................................................... 252 252
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT.............................................................. 857 857
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT............................................... 81 81
LONG ISLAND SOPUND, TREATMENT OF DREDGE MATERIAL, CT............................ .............. 500
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT....................................................... 406 406
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT....................................................... 330 330
NORWALK HARBOR, CT.............................................................. .............. 1,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT................................................... 1,303 1,303
SOUTHPORT HARBOR, CT............................................................ .............. 500
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT.................................................. 353 353
THOMASTON DAM, CT............................................................... 442 442
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT.......................................................... 452 452
DELAWARE
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, D.......................... 14,994 14,994
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, D.......................... 48 48
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE................................................... 55 55
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE........................................................... 4,366 4,366
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC............................................... 7 7
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL)................................ 1,100 1,100
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC................................................... 35 35
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC........................................................... 50 50
FLORIDA
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL............................................................ 3,800 3,800
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL................................................ 13,005 13,005
ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL................................................. 1,000 1,000
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL........................................................... 2,556 2,556
FORT PIERCE HARBOR, FL.......................................................... 65 65
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL............................................... 200 200
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL................................ 680 1,880
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL......................................................... 6,551 6,551
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA......................... 6,686 6,686
MIAMI HARBOR, FL................................................................ 1,515 1,515
MIAMI RIVER, FL................................................................. 5,850 5,850
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL......................................................... 4,316 4,316
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL........................................................... 1,916 1,916
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL.......................................................... 500 500
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL............................................................ 1,500 1,500
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL...................................................... 1,255 1,255
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL................................................... 1,000 1,000
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL................................................... 3,400 3,400
TAMPA HARBOR, FL................................................................ 3,985 3,985
GEORGIA
ALLATOONA LAKE, GA.............................................................. 6,000 6,000
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL &.......................... 1,500 4,709
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA.............................................. 178 178
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA............................................................ 3,993 3,993
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA........................................... 9,100 9,100
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA........................................................ 10,012 10,012
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC........................................................ 13,964 13,964
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA............................................... 41 41
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC................................................ 11,747 11,747
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC....................................... 7,746 8,746
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA............................................................. 12,540 12,540
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA................................................ 154 154
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL.............................................. 6,600 6,600
HAWAII
BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI........................................................ 176 176
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI............................................... 191 191
MANELE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, HI.................................................... 656 656
PORT ALLEN HARBOR, KAUAI, HI.................................................... 90 90
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI................................................... 485 485
IDAHO
ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID............................................................ 2,202 2,202
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID.................................................. 2,271 3,271
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID............................................... 72 72
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID............................................................. 2,167 2,167
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID............................................. 394 394
ILLINOIS
CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN............................................. 3,985 3,985
CARLYLE LAKE, IL................................................................ 4,410 4,410
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL.............................................................. 2,319 2,319
CHICAGO RIVER, IL............................................................... 362 362
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL....................................................... 213 213
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND IN...................................... 25,726 25,726
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND IN...................................... 1,889 1,889
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL............................................... 546 546
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL.................................................. 1,688 1,688
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL..................................................... 537 537
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL............................................................ 5,495 5,495
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION).......................... 44,429 45,429
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION).......................... 17,374 18,374
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL................................................... 30 30
REND LAKE, IL................................................................... 4,818 4,818
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL.................................... 111 111
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL............................................................. 2,027 2,027
INDIANA
BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN............................................................. 684 684
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN....................................................... 2,774 2,774
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN............................................................ 635 635
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN......................................................... 745 745
INDIANA HARBOR, IN.............................................................. 316 316
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN............................................... 346 346
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN......................................................... 951 951
MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN........................................................ 1,970 1,970
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN........................................................... 1,234 1,234
MONROE LAKE, IN................................................................. 762 762
PATOKA LAKE, IN................................................................. 687 687
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN................................................... 55 55
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN.............................................................. 681 681
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN.................................... 115 115
IOWA
CORALVILLE LAKE, IA............................................................. 3,037 3,700
FORT MADISON, IA................................................................ .............. 50
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA............................................... 190 190
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA............................. 157 157
MISSOURI RIVER--RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS AND MO................................ 5,355 6,000
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA AND NE................................... 2,260 2,260
MUSCATINE, IA................................................................... .............. 205
RATHBUN LAKE, IA................................................................ 3,438 3,438
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA.............................................. 3,663 5,000
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA............................................................ 4,223 4,223
SCHELDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, IA............................................ .............. 334
KANSAS
CLINTON LAKE, KS................................................................ 1,857 1,857
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS.......................................................... 1,760 1,760
EL DORADO LAKE, KS.............................................................. 939 939
ELK CITY LAKE, KS............................................................... 650 650
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS............................................................. 1,385 1,500
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS.............................................................. 759 759
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS.............................................. 2,025 2,025
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS.............................................................. 1,269 1,269
MARION LAKE, KS................................................................. 2,443 3,000
MELVERN LAKE, KS................................................................ 1,731 1,731
MILFORD LAKE, KS................................................................ 2,783 2,783
PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS............................................... 984 984
PERRY LAKE, KS.................................................................. 2,090 2,890
POMONA LAKE, KS................................................................. 1,931 1,931
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS............................................. 129 129
TORONTO LAKE, KS................................................................ 464 464
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS........................................................... 1,839 1,839
WILSON LAKE, KS................................................................. 1,377 1,377
KENTUCKY
BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN......................................... 8,902 8,902
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY........................................................... 2,484 2,484
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY............................................................ 35 35
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY............................................................... 1,394 1,394
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY............................................................. 1,448 1,448
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY............................................................... 819 819
DEWEY LAKE, KY.................................................................. 1,636 1,636
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY................................................ 25 ..............
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY............................................................... 1,681 1,681
GRAYSON LAKE, KY................................................................ 1,241 1,241
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY..................................................... 1,205 1,205
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY............................................................ 2,359 2,359
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY............................................... 97 97
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY.............................................................. 17 17
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY........................................................... 1,572 1,572
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY........................................................... 583 583
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY.......................................... 92 92
NOLIN LAKE, KY.................................................................. 2,056 2,056
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN AND OH.................................... 31,372 31,852
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN AND OH................................. 4,560 4,560
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY............................................................ 1,030 1,030
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY................................................... 6 6
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY............................................................ 2,848 2,848
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY........................................................... 981 981
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY............................................. 10,670 10,670
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY............................................................. 1,082 1,082
LOUISIANA
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L.......................... 19,367 20,367
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA...................................................... 286 3,000
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA...................................................... 864 864
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA................................. 133 1,200
BAYOU LACOMBE, LA............................................................... .............. 315
BAYOU PIERRE, LA................................................................ 31 31
BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA..................................................... 165 1,300
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA............................................. 35 35
BAYOU TECHE, LA................................................................. 48 354
CADDO LAKE, LA.................................................................. 183 183
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA.................................................... 12,064 12,064
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA............................................................ 1,558 1,558
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA.................................................. 19,418 19,418
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA...................................................... 1,242 1,242
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA............................................... 797 797
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA................................................. 12,013 15,013
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA...................................................... 32 421
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA......................................................... 13 80
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA............................................................. 2,651 2,651
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA......................................... 1,841 5,116
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO,........................... 56,206 56,206
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA.............................................. 13,485 13,485
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA................................................... 80 80
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA................................................... 2,000 2,000
WALLACE LAKE, LA................................................................ 312 312
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA............................................ 7 247
WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO B DULAC, LA.............................. 37 237
MAINE
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME............................................... 17 17
KENNEBEC RIVER, ME.............................................................. 45 45
NARRAGUAGUS, ME................................................................. .............. 1,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME................................................... 1,886 1,886
SCARGOROUGH RIVER, ME........................................................... .............. 500
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME.................................... 17 17
WELLS HARBOR, ME................................................................ 50 50
MARYLAND
BALTIMORE HARBOR ANCHORAGES AND CHANNELS, MD AND VA............................. 68 68
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD..................................... 18,416 18,416
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL)............................................ 500 500
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSI.......................... 676 676
CHESTER RIVER, MD............................................................... 930 930
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV................................................. 165 165
FISHING CREEK, MD............................................................... .............. 300
HONGA RIVER AND TAR BAY, MD..................................................... 80 1,500
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD............................................... 34 34
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV............................................... 1,774 1,774
KNAPPS NARROWS, MD.............................................................. 651 651
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD.............................. 960 960
POCOMOKE RIVER, MD.............................................................. 989 989
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD................................................... 365 365
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD............................................. 96 96
TILGHMAN ISLAND HARBO, MD....................................................... .............. 555
TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, MD.......................................................... 1,364 1,364
UPPER THOROFARE, SOMERSET, MD................................................... .............. 792
WICOMICO RIVER, MD.............................................................. 1,514 1,514
MASSACHUSETTS
AUNT LYDIA'S COVE, CHATHAM, MA.................................................. 300 300
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA............................................................. 486 486
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA.............................................................. 450 450
BOSTON HARBOR, MA............................................................... 3,000 3,000
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA............................................................ 447 447
CAPE COD CANAL, MA.............................................................. 7,772 7,772
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA................................... 227 227
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA........................................................... 171 171
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA......................................................... 301 301
GREEN HARBOR, MA................................................................ 310 310
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA.......................................................... 428 428
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA............................................... 114 114
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA............................................................. 453 453
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA............................................................ 364 364
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER,........................... 300 300
NEW BEDFORD AND FAIRHAVEN HARBOR, MA............................................ .............. 500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA................................................... 1,316 1,316
TULLY LAKE, MA.................................................................. 412 412
WEST HILL DAM, MA............................................................... 573 573
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA.............................................................. 407 407
MICHIGAN
ARCADIA HARBOR, MI.............................................................. 20 20
BLACK RIVER, PORT HURON, MI..................................................... 16 16
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI.................................................. 466 466
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI........................................................... 119 119
DETROIT RIVER, MI............................................................... 3,458 3,458
FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI............................................................ 3,112 3,112
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI.......................................................... 810 810
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI.............................................................. 618 618
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI............................................... 153 153
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI........................................................... 428 428
LELAND HARBOR, MI............................................................... 20 170
LEXINGTON HARBOR, MI............................................................ 10 10
LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI.......................................................... 12 208
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI............................................................ 946 946
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI............................................................. 227 227
MARQUETTE HARBOR, MI............................................................ 10 10
MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND WI..................................................... 154 154
MONROE HARBOR, MI............................................................... 138 138
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI............................................................. 21 21
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI............................................................ 473 473
PENTWATER HARBOR, MI............................................................ 45 45
PORT AUSTIN HARBOR, MI.......................................................... 20 214
PORT SANILAC HARBOR, MI......................................................... 27 27
PORTAGE LAKE HARBOR, MI......................................................... 1,167 1,167
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI................................................... 182 182
ROUGE RIVER, MI................................................................. 177 177
SAGINAW RIVER, MI............................................................... 2,001 2,501
SAUGATUCK HARBOR, MI............................................................ 1,203 1,203
SEBEWAING RIVER (ICE JAM REMOVAL), MI........................................... 7 7
ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI............................................................. 1,565 1,565
ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MI........................................................... 561 561
ST. MARYS RIVER, MI............................................................. 19,092 19,092
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI.................................... 2,410 2,410
MINNESOTA
BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD........................................ 255 255
DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI............................................... 4,991 4,991
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN............................................... 107 107
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN........................................ 568 568
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN............................................................. 175 175
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION).......................... 36,056 36,056
ORWELL LAKE, MN................................................................. 1,045 1,045
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN................................................... 67 67
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN.......................................................... 99 99
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN............................... 4,196 4,196
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN.................................... 273 273
MISSISSIPPI
ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS.............................................................. 685 685
BILOXI HARBOR, MS............................................................... .............. 1,250
CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS....................................................... 8 87
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS.................................................. 170 170
ENID LAKE, MS................................................................... 682 682
GRENADA LAKE, MS................................................................ 700 700
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS............................................................. 2,500 2,500
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS............................................... 57 57
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS........................................................ 26 51
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS.............................................................. 1,600 1,600
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS........................................................... 4,460 4,460
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA.......................................................... 343 343
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS................................................... 180 180
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS............................................................. 21 604
SARDIS LAKE, MS................................................................. 545 545
WOLF AND JORDAN RIVERS, MS...................................................... .............. 1,000
YAZOO RIVER, MS................................................................. 115 115
MISSOURI
CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO....................................................... 30 330
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO..................................... 6,440 6,440
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO............................................................. 1,959 1,959
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO............................................ 10,977 10,977
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO............................................... 817 817
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO..................................................... 850 850
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO............................................................ 875 875
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO.......................... 18,099 18,099
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO........................................................... 22 340
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO......................................................... 1,828 1,828
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO................................................... 6 6
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO............................................. 316 316
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO............................................................. 1,118 1,118
STOCKTON LAKE, MO............................................................... 5,362 5,362
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MO..................................................... .............. 374
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO............................................................. 5,772 5,772
UNION LAKE, MO.................................................................. 10 10
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO............................................................. 234 234
MONTANA
FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT........................................................ 5,413 5,413
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT............................................... 12 12
LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT................................................... 1,453 1,453
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT............................................. 87 87
NEBRASKA
GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE AND SD............................... 8,422 8,422
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE.......................................................... 1,486 1,486
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE............................................... 122 122
MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL, NE, IA, KS, MO,........................... 350 350
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, NE....................................... 564 564
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE.................................................. 708 708
NEVADA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV............................................... 43 43
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA.................................................... 552 552
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV.............................................. 288 368
NEW HAMPSHIRE
BLACKWATER DAM, NH.............................................................. 461 461
COCHECO RIVER, NH............................................................... .............. 1,000
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH....................................................... 481 481
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH.......................................................... 500 500
HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH..................................................... 887 887
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH............................................... 12 12
NEW HAMPSHIRE UPLAND DISPOSAL SITE.............................................. .............. 300
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH............................................................ 537 537
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH................................................... 300 300
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH......................................................... 498 498
NEW JERSEY
BARNEGAT INLET, NJ.............................................................. 1,520 1,520
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ........................................................... 500 500
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ.................................................... 20 20
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA AND DE.......................... 19,290 20,800
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ................................. 3,615 3,715
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ............................................... 89 89
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ............................................ 1,815 1,815
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ................................... 100 100
MANAQUAN RIVER, NJ.............................................................. .............. 175
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ......................................... 425 425
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ................................................... 785 785
RARITAN RIVER, NJ............................................................... 450 450
SANDY HOOK BAY AT LEONARD, NJ................................................... 70 70
SALEM RIVER, NJ................................................................. .............. 825
SHARK RIVER, NJ................................................................. 70 70
NEW MEXICO
ABIQUIU DAM, NM................................................................. 1,712 3,882
COCHITI LAKE, NM................................................................ 2,569 7,079
CONCHAS LAKE, NM................................................................ 1,560 2,460
GALISTEO DAM, NM................................................................ 434 634
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM............................................... 137 137
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM............................................................ 637 3,287
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM..................................................... 1,176 1,646
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM............................................. 227 227
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM.............................................................. 463 463
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL, NM..................................... .............. 1,500
NEW YORK
ALMOND LAKE, NY................................................................. 471 471
ARKPORT DAM, NY................................................................. 275 275
BARCELONA HARBOR, NY............................................................ 3 3
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY..................................... 2,950 2,950
BROWNS CREEK, NY................................................................ 80 80
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY.............................................................. 1,263 1,263
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY.......................................................... 300 300
CATTARAUGUS CREEK HARBOR, NY.................................................... 5 5
DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY.............................................................. 305 305
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY......................................................... 140 140
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY............................................................ 500 500
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY............................................ 2,350 2,350
GLEN COVE CREEK, NY............................................................. 100 100
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY........................................................ 350 350
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT)........................................................ 2,510 2,510
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C).......................................................... 2,935 2,935
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY............................................... 454 454
JAMAICA BAY, NY................................................................. 140 140
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY........................................... 2,000 2,000
MORICHES INLET, NY.............................................................. 30 630
MT. MORRIS LAKE, NY............................................................. 2,753 2,753
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY............................................ 3,660 3,660
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY............................................................. 4,460 4,460
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL)...................................... 5,344 5,344
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSIT.......................... 750 750
OLCOTT HARBOR, NY............................................................... 5 5
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY................................................... 1,220 1,220
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY............................................................ 55 55
RONDOUT HARBOR, NY.............................................................. 150 150
SAG HARBOR, NY.................................................................. 100 100
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY............................................................ 416 1,500
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY.................................... 774 774
STURGEON POINT HARBOR, NY....................................................... 20 20
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY.................................... 586 586
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY.......................................................... 1,044 1,044
WILSON HARBOR, NY............................................................... 3 3
NORTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC.............................................. 831 831
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC............................................... 1,993 1,993
BEAUFORT HARBOR, NC............................................................. 400 400
BOGUE INLET AND CHANNEL, NC..................................................... 866 866
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC............................................ 803 803
CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC........................................................ 1,088 1,088
FALLS LAKE, NC.................................................................. 2,113 2,113
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC............................................... 33 33
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC....................................................... 1,017 1,017
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC..................................................... 6,390 6,390
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC..................................... 50 50
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC........................................................ 12,917 12,917
NEW RIVER INLET, NC............................................................. 839 839
NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC................................... 665 665
PAMLICO AND TAR RIVERS, NC...................................................... 219 219
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC................................................... 75 75
ROANOKE RIVER, NC............................................................... 178 178
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC.............................................. 2,853 2,853
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC........................................................... 6,906 6,906
NORTH DAKOTA
BOWMAN-HALEY LAKE, ND........................................................... 163 163
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND................................................ 12,664 12,964
HOMME LAKE, ND.................................................................. 921 921
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND............................................... 68 68
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND............................................. 1,944 1,944
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND............................................................... 461 461
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND............................................. 113 113
SOURIS RIVER, ND................................................................ 340 340
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND.................................... 29 29
OHIO
ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH............................................................. 699 1,500
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH............................................................ 1,245 1,245
BERLIN LAKE, OH................................................................. 1,690 1,690
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH........................................................... 1,490 1,490
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH........................................................ 888 888
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH............................................................ 3,235 3,235
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH............................................................. 579 879
COOLEY CANAL, OH................................................................ 20 20
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH............................................................. 637 637
DELAWARE LAKE, OH............................................................... 1,181 1,181
DILLON LAKE, OH................................................................. 532 532
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH............................................................. 735 735
HURON HARBOR, OH................................................................ 108 108
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH............................................... 210 210
LORAIN HARBOR, OH............................................................... 4,483 4,483
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.......................................... 25 25
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH.......................................... 793 793
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH......................................................... 1,176 1,176
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH....................................................... 7,799 7,799
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH............................................ 185 185
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH............................................................ 788 788
PORT CLINTON HARBOR, OH......................................................... 10 10
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH................................................... 129 129
ROCKY RIVER, OH................................................................. 3 503
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.......................................... 30 30
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH............................................................. 825 825
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH.................................... 165 165
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH............................................................... 4,004 4,004
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH............................................................. 238 238
TOUSSAINT RIVER, OH............................................................. 20 20
VERMILION HARBOR, OH............................................................ 28 528
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH................................................ 455 455
WEST HARBOR, OH................................................................. 3 503
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH....................................................... 941 941
OKLAHOMA
ARCADIA LAKE, OK................................................................ 715 715
BIRCH LAKE, OK.................................................................. 482 482
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK............................................................. 1,684 1,684
CANDY LAKE, OK.................................................................. 20 20
CANTON LAKE, OK................................................................. 2,302 2,302
COPAN LAKE, OK.................................................................. 707 707
EUFAULA LAKE, OK................................................................ 5,889 5,889
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK............................................................ 6,463 6,463
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK............................................................ 846 846
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK...................................................... 514 514
HEYBURN LAKE, OK................................................................ 612 612
HUGO LAKE, OK................................................................... 1,638 1,638
HULAH LAKE, OK.................................................................. 1,230 1,230
KAW LAKE, OK.................................................................... 2,016 2,016
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK............................................................... 6,834 6,834
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK................................................................ 2,099 2,099
OPTIMA LAKE, OK................................................................. 406 406
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK.................................. 35 35
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK............................................................. 921 921
ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIRS, OK................................... 4,275 4,495
SARDIS LAKE, OK................................................................. 1,096 1,096
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK............................................. 387 387
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK............................................................... 1,353 1,353
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK........................................................ 3,217 3,217
WAURIKA LAKE, OK................................................................ 1,241 1,241
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK.................................................. 6,551 6,551
WISTER LAKE, OK................................................................. 948 948
OREGON
APPLEGATE LAKE, OR.............................................................. 666 666
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR............................................................. 261 261
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA.............................................. 4,849 4,849
CHETCO RIVER, OR................................................................ .............. 300
COLUMBIA AND LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLA...................... 16,674 16,674
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA.......................................... 10,028 10,028
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, O.......................... 382 382
COOS BAY, OR.................................................................... 3,598 3,598
COQUILLE RIVER, OR.............................................................. .............. 300
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR.......................................................... 724 724
COUGAR LAKE, OR................................................................. 3,577 3,577
DEPOE SLOUGH, OR................................................................ .............. 400
DETROIT LAKE, OR................................................................ 2,002 2,002
DORENA LAKE, OR................................................................. 535 535
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR............................................................. 464 464
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR............................................................. 956 956
GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR.................................................... 2,545 2,545
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR............................................................ 4,895 4,895
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR............................................... 161 161
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA................................................ 4,038 4,538
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR.......................................................... 2,027 2,027
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR............................................................. 5,154 5,154
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA.................................................. 5,484 5,484
PORT ORFORD, OR................................................................. .............. 300
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR................................................... 200 200
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR............................................. 60 60
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR............................................................... .............. 200
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR.................................... 134 134
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, WA....................................................... .............. 300
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR........................................ 259 259
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR............................................ 58 58
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR........................................................... 599 599
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR...................................................... 1,228 1,228
PENNSYLVANIA
ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA............................................................. 4,596 4,596
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA............................................................ 712 712
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA....................................................... 254 254
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA............................................................. 1,095 1,095
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA............................................................. 2,810 2,810
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA........................................................ 962 962
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA............................................................. 3,118 3,118
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA.......................................................... 1,369 1,369
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA........................................................... 743 743
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA.............................................. 1,057 1,057
ERIE HARBOR, PA................................................................. 135 135
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA.................................................... 789 789
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA........................................................ 681 1,000
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA...................................... 348 348
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA............................................... 271 271
JOHNSTOWN, PA................................................................... 997 997
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA.......................................... 1,437 1,437
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA............................................................. 885 885
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA......................................................... 820 820
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA........................................................... 15,158 15,158
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH AND WV........................................ 22,504 22,504
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH AND WV..................................... 488 488
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA................................................... 21 21
PROMPTON LAKE, PA............................................................... 455 455
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA................................................................ 17 17
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA............................................................... 5,674 5,674
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA............................................. 57 57
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA............................................................ 1,360 1,360
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA......................................................... 1,829 1,829
STILLWATER LAKE, PA............................................................. 385 385
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA.................................... 79 79
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA......................................................... 3,852 3,852
TIONESTA LAKE, PA............................................................... 1,790 1,790
UNION CITY LAKE, PA............................................................. 224 224
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA......................................................... 810 810
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA........................................................ 691 691
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD.............................................. 1,804 1,804
RHODE ISLAND
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI............................................... 6 6
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI................................................... 2,163 2,163
PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, RI................................................. 21,000 21,000
SOUTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC.............................................. 269 1,432
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC........................................................... 9,740 10,500
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC............................................. 3,380 3,380
FOLLY RIVER, SC................................................................. 277 452
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC........................................................... 2,719 2,719
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC............................................... 26 26
MURRELLS INLET, SC.............................................................. 45 45
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC................................................... 229 229
TOWN CREEK, SC.................................................................. 419 419
SOUTH DAKOTA
BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD................................................... 6,715 6,715
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE, SD..................................... .............. 5,000
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD............................................................. 238 238
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD..................................................... 192 192
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD......................................... 6,873 6,873
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD............................................... 21 21
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN........................................................ 907 907
MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND GAVINS PT, SD, MT.......................... 410 410
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND.................................................. 13,768 13,768
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD............................................. 48 48
TENNESSEE
CENTER HILL LAKE, TN............................................................ 8,604 8,604
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN....................................................... 5,612 5,612
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN............................................................ 2,480 2,480
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN.............................................. 3,870 3,870
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN............................................................ 6,120 6,120
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN............................................... 127 127
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN............................................ 3,150 3,150
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN.................................................... 7,685 7,685
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN................................................... 6 6
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN............................................................. 16,521 18,826
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN........................................................... 20 510
TEXAS
AQUILLA LAKE, TX................................................................ 589 589
ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL--AREA VI............................. 1,262 1,262
BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX.................................................... 659 659
BARDWELL LAKE, TX............................................................... 1,598 1,598
BELTON LAKE, TX................................................................. 3,299 3,299
BENBROOK LAKE, TX............................................................... 2,038 2,038
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX............................................... 2,413 2,413
CANYON LAKE, TX................................................................. 2,770 2,770
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX................................................. 6,650 6,650
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX.................................................... 8,500 8,800
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX...................................... 3 3
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, TX...................................... 2,660 2,660
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX............................................................. 4,500 4,500
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX................................................ 4,676 4,676
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX........................................................ 1,568 1,568
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX.............................................................. 2,596 2,596
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX.................................................. 21,329 21,329
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX............................................................ 1,223 1,223
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX........................................................ 13,539 13,539
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX............................................... 256 256
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX............................................................ 1,141 1,141
JOE POOL LAKE, TX............................................................... 626 626
LAKE KEMP, TX................................................................... 487 487
LAVON LAKE, TX.................................................................. 3,312 3,312
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX.............................................................. 3,124 3,124
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX...................................................... 4,690 4,690
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX.......................................................... 1,597 1,597
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX................................... 1,711 1,711
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX..................................................... 1,419 1,419
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX.............................................................. 794 794
PROCTOR LAKE, TX................................................................ 1,683 1,683
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX................................................... 50 50
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX............................................................ 689 689
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX...................................................... 8,849 8,849
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX............................................... 5,618 5,618
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX............................................. 190 190
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX............................................................. 3,323 3,323
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX....................................................... 2,487 2,487
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX..................................................... .............. 1,000
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX........................................... 100 100
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX......................................... 1,946 1,946
WACO LAKE, TX................................................................... 2,316 2,316
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX............................................................ 958 958
WHITNEY LAKE, TX................................................................ 4,695 4,695
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX.................................................. 3,404 3,404
UTAH
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT............................................... 65 65
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT............................................. 464 464
VERMONT
BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT.......................................................... 651 651
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT............................................... 42 42
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY............................................ 50 50
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT......................................................... 582 582
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT...................................................... 621 621
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT.............................................................. 595 595
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT........................................................... 545 545
WINHALL BROOK, VT............................................................... .............. 830
VIRGINIA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA......................................... 1,991 1,991
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA......................................... 1,033 1,033
BONUM CREEK, VA................................................................. 705 705
CAPE CHARLES CITY HARBOR, VA.................................................... 25 25
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA.......................................................... 915 915
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA............................................... 1,756 1,756
HAMPTON CREEK, VA............................................................... 733 733
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS HBR, VA (DRIFT REM........................ 1,200 1,200
HOSKINS CREEK, VA............................................................... 1,479 1,479
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA............................................... 111 111
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA......................................................... 3,107 3,107
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA AND NC..................................................... 10,839 10,839
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA.......................................... 1,341 1,341
LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA............................................................. 200 200
MONROE BAY AND CREEK, VA........................................................ 422 422
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA.............................................................. 7,115 7,115
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS.......................... 200 200
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA.............................................. 343 343
OYSTER CHANNEL, VA.............................................................. 310 310
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA............................................................... 3,854 3,854
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA................................................... 750 750
QUINBY CREEK, VA................................................................ 40 40
RUDEE INLET, VA................................................................. 1,180 1,180
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA........................................... 1,285 1,285
YORK RIVER, VA.................................................................. 1,585 1,585
WASHINGTON
BELLINGHAM HARBOR, WA........................................................... 50 50
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA............................................................ 711 711
COLUMBIA RIVER BTN CHINOOK AND HEAD, WA......................................... .............. 500
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA.......................................... 1,579 1,579
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA............................................. 8,377 8,377
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA........................................................... 2,050 2,050
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA..................................................... 7,770 7,770
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA............................................... 295 295
LAKE CROCKETT (KEYSTONE HARBOR), WA............................................. 7 7
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA.................................................. 6,262 6,262
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA................................................... 1,342 1,342
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA.................................................. 2,074 2,074
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA............................................... 2,004 2,004
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA............................................................. 1,196 1,196
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA............................................... 263 263
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA............................................................ 2,931 2,931
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA................................................... 347 347
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA............................................ 961 961
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA............................................. 472 472
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA.............................................................. 985 985
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA......................................................... 254 254
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA.................................... 62 62
SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA........................................................... 520 520
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA...................................................... 115 115
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR.............................................. 3,278 3,278
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA.................................................... 510 510
WEST VIRGINIA
BEECH FORK LAKE, WV............................................................. 1,061 1,061
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV.............................................................. 1,074 1,074
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV............................................................. 1,446 1,446
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV.............................................................. 1,609 1,609
ELKINS, WV...................................................................... 18 18
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV............................................... 106 106
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV................................................ 7,655 7,655
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY AND OH........................................ 24,270 24,270
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY AND OH..................................... 2,366 2,366
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV............................................................. 1,457 1,457
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV...................................................... 836 836
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV........................................................... 1,469 1,469
SUTTON LAKE, WV................................................................. 1,785 1,785
TYGART LAKE, WV................................................................. 4,195 4,195
WISCONSIN
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI........................................................ 1,599 1,599
FOX RIVER, WI................................................................... 3,929 3,929
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI............................................................ 3,492 3,492
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI............................................... 47 47
KENOSHA HARBOR, WI.............................................................. 178 178
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI............................................................. 120 120
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI............................................................ 63 63
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI............................................................ 781 781
PORT WASHINGTON HARBOR, WI...................................................... 170 170
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI................................................... 96 96
SHEBOYGAN HARBOR, WI............................................................ 991 991
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI............................ 317 317
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI.................................... 472 472
TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI........................................................... 1,200 1,200
WYOMING
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY............................................... 11 11
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY......................................................... 1,217 1,217
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY............................................. 86 86
MISCELLANEOUS
AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH............................................... 725 1,025
AUTOMATED BUDGET SYSTEM (ABS)................................................... 285 285
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM.................................................. 2,750 2,750
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION)............................................ 1,545 1,545
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE.................................................... 8,000 8,000
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM............................ 1,180 1,180
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER)........................... 6,755 6,755
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM................................... 1,545 1,545
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM............................................ 300 300
FACILITY PROTECTION............................................................. 13,000 13,000
GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELS........................................... 1,000 1,000
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION.......................................... 675 675
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS............................................... 4,120 4,120
LONG TERM OPTION ASSESSMENT FOR LOW USE NAVIGATION.............................. 1,000 1,000
MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS..................................... 1,750 1,750
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM..................................................... 45 45
NATIONAL DAM SECURITY PROGRAM................................................... 30 30
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP).................................. 6,000 6,000
NATIONAL LEWIS AND CLARK COMMEMORATION COORDINATOR.............................. 310 310
PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM..................................... 815 815
PROTECT, CLEAR AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS(SEC 3)................................... 50 50
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM (RMSP).................................... 1,545 1,545
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.............................. 1,545 1,795
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHABILITATION............................. 675 675
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS....................................................... 500 650
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS)....................................... 725 725
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS.................................................. 4,745 4,745
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.................................. -13,491 -102,538
===============================
TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.......................................... 1,933,571 1,949,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee continues to believe that it is essential to
provide adequate resources and attention to operation and
maintenance requirements in order to protect the large Federal
investment. Yet, current and projected budgetary constraints
require the Committee to limit the amount of work that can be
accomplished in the fiscal year. In order to cope with the
current situation, the Corps has had to defer or delay
scheduled maintenance activities.
Maintenance backlogs continue to grow, with much of the
backlog being essential maintenance dredging needed to keep the
Nation's ports, harbors, and waterways open and able to
efficiently handle important national and international trade
activities. Yet, the Committee is aware that out-year budget
planning guidance for the Corps of Engineers projects that the
current appropriations for their critical operation and
maintenance activities will continue to decline for the
foreseeable future. If additional resources are not made
available, the Committee will be forced to cut back on
services, and begin to terminate and close many projects and
activities.
The Committee is aware of the Corps' efforts to stretch the
limited resources to cover all of its projects and to effect
savings through a variety of means. With an increasing number
of projects entering the inventory, and budgetary constraints
increasing, it is clear that the Corps will have to find
innovative ways of accomplishing required maintenance work,
while reducing operational and other costs. Adjustments in
lower-priority programs and noncritical work should optimize
limited resources while maximizing the public benefit.
The budget request has proposed that no navigation project
with less than one billion ton-miles of cargo be eligible for
maintenance dredging. The Committee believes that this is in
direct conflict with the way projects are analyzed. Project
analysis is based upon Economic and Environmental Principles
and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources
Implementation Studies (1983), the Corps of Engineers Planning
Guidance Notebook (2000), and other polices and procedures. For
navigation studies, the analysis centers on transportation
savings to the Nation considering the ultimate origins and
destinations of commodities to be moved. Operation and
maintenance costs are considered as a part of this analysis and
are figured into the benefit to cost ratio utilized to make the
investment decision. By applying an arbitrary ton-mile figure
to determine O&M funding decisions, the budget request has
essentially obviated the need for any of the previous studies
undertaken to determine the investment decision.
The Committee is concerned about the annual proposals for
reductions of maintenance funding for ``low use waterways and
ports''. These tributary waterways naturally do not enjoy the
same level of relative efficiencies as mainstem waterways. The
Mississippi and Ohio Rivers handle tremendous volumes of
traffic over long distances and so generate impressive ton-mile
statistics. Tributaries, by nature, provide generally short,
smaller channels with lower traffic densities. Consequently,
``ton-mile'' statistics for tributary waterways are dwarfed by
statistics for the mainstem waterways. It is important to
recognize that the commerce on the tributaries is usually only
a small part of the total journey between producer and
consumer. When these statistics are compared on a system basis,
nearly all of these waterways appear to ``pay their way'' and
are performing as the economic analysis indicated when they
were originally authorized.
Uncertainties in maintenance funding for lower use
projects, seriously impact their abilities to compete and
become higher use facilities. Without funding to provide a
stable channel and authorized depths and widths, industries and
shippers are reluctant to make the necessary investments in
using these projects. The Committee believes that proposed
elimination of maintenance funding for authorized projects is
not only a serious disservice to the public, but is
demonstrates a profound lack of respect for the congressional
oversight committees that have jurisdiction for authorization
and deauthorization of such projects.
The Committee is not in favor of funding projects which are
no longer economically viable nor environmentally sustainable.
Unfortunately, the administration has chosen a path of under-
funding, or an entire lack of funding, for projects in an
effort to achieve de facto deauthorization through the
appropriations process by utilizing the billion-ton-mile model.
Therefore, the Committee has determined, in the best interest
of the Corps, to deauthorize projects which are listed as
``inactive'' by the Corps, those projects which are authorized
to which no funds have been obligated.
Further, the Committee believes much could be learned by
the open exchange of how ``low use'' waterways and ports are
calculated, for the billion-ton-mile does not adequately
reflect the flow of commerce today. The Committee remains
concerned about the economic impacts of not maintaining all of
our waterways and ports at their authorized depths. As a result
of waterways not being maintained at the authorized depths,
shippers are forced to divide their cargo and place it on a
number of smaller ships in order to make passage to the final
destination, with an approximate cost to industry of
$1,000,000,000 a year. This adds significantly to the cost and
time of the movement of products in and around our waterways,
something which the administration does not appropriately take
into account when formulating the budget for the Corps.
Therefore, the Committee strongly encourages the administration
to put forth a proposal for a model which better reflects the
flow of goods along all of our ports and waterways, including
lightering. Until then, however, the Committee believes the
administration has the responsibility to budget for each and
every project such that the authorized widths and depths are
maintained.
MANAGEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDS
The Committee is concerned that current and projected
budgetary constraints will only exacerbate the increasing
impact of inadequate funding necessary for the effective
protection of the Federal investment in Corps of Engineers
facilities. With that in mind, the Committee feels it
imperative that careful consideration be given to the
disposition of appropriated funds such that they are applied
effectively. It is the feeling of the Committee that too often,
surplus O&M funding is held and reprogrammed in one part of the
organization, while shortages in other parts of the
organization slow the execution of vital operation and
maintenance of facilities. Though the Committee has considered
retracting the 100 percent reprogramming authority, a privilege
granted to the Corps, it instead requests that the Corps,
within 3 months of enactment of this Act, report back to the
Senate Appropriations Committee with a plan for ensuring
effective management and expenditure of O&M funds.
CORPS HOPPER DREDGE FLEET
During fiscal year 2002, the Committee requested the
General Accounting Office [GAO] to review the benefits and
effects of current and proposed restrictions on the Corps'
hopper dredge fleet. The Committee faces significant future
investments in the Corps hopper dredge fleet, as it is rapidly
aging. The Committee believes that the investment decisions
must take into consideration the subsequent use of the fleet.
The final GAO report, released March, 2003, reviewed the
impacts of operational changes to the fleet since fiscal year
1993. GAO's findings made it clear to the Committee that
additional costs have been imposed upon the Corps with the
decreased use of the fleet, but that the benefits have not been
realized. Additionally, the GAO found that the Corps'
contracting process for hopper dredges was not effective. Most
importantly, the GAO reported that the Corps of Engineers' did
not have even a limited system to evaluate the costs and
benefits of the varying operational levels of its hopper dredge
fleet, nor did it have a means to make maintenance and repair
decisions of the fleet taking operational use into
consideration. The Committee remains concerned that since 2000,
the Corps has provided a report to Congress which has been
found to have no analytical basis, thus calling into question
the ready reserve policy.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to
report to the Committee within 6 months of enactment of this
Act, with a detailed plan of how it intends to rectify the
current situation. The plan is to include how the Corps intends
to establish a baseline for determining the appropriate use of
the Corps' hopper dredge fleet in the future. Finally, the
Corps shall include a comprehensive analysis of the costs and
benefits of the existing and proposed restrictions on the use
of the fleet. Overall, the Committee expects the Corps to put
in place measures by which better investment decisions
regarding the fleet can be made.
Alabama-Coosa River, AL.--The Committee has included an
additional $2,961,000 for annual maintenance dredging of the
Alabama-Coosa River and for work at Swift Creek Park.
Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, AL.--The Committee has
included an additional $1,000,000 for the removal of materials
from the upland disposal site and repairs to lock gates at Holt
Lock. Within the funds available, the Committee directs the
Corps to begin the relocation, process of office warehouse,
shop, and dock facilities in Tuscaloosa, AL.
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, AL & MS.--The Committee
recommendation includes a total of $22,500,000. Within the
funds provided, $1,500,000 is provided to maintain mitigation
on State managed lands.
McClellan-Kerr Navigation System, AR & OK.--The Committee
has included additional funding for Tainter gate replacement,
bridge pads and gate seals, and additional funding is provided
for Tar Creek, OK.
Bodega Bay, CA.--The Committee has provided funds for the
preparation of the upland disposal site for the dredging of
Bodega Bay.
Oakland Harbor, CA.--The Committee has included an
additional $2,500,000 for maintenance dredging of Oakland
Harbor to its authorized depth.
San Joaquin River, CA.--The Committee has included funds
for additional maintenance dredging.
Cherry Creek, Chatfield and Trinidad Lakes, CO.--The
Committee has included $1,000,000 over the budget request for
these three lakes. Frequent inundation of recreation areas are
causing health and safety concerns requiring repair or
replacement of the facilities. This action in no way is
intended to alter the Corps of Engineers' lease and property
accountability policies. It is the Committee's understanding
that the State of Colorado has agreed to cost share this
project on a 50-50 basis. It is also the understanding of the
Committee that the Secretary is not to assume, nor share in the
future cost of the operation and maintenance of these
recreation facilities.
Treatment of Dredge Material from Long Island Sound, CT.--
$500,000 is provided to continue the demonstration program for
the use of innovative technologies for the treatment of dredge
material from Long Island Sound. The Committee also expects the
Corps to initiate work on the Environmental Impact Statement
for open water disposal of dredge material from Long Island
Sound.
Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, DE
& MD.--The Committee recommendation is $14,994,000. Funds are
provided for routine operation and maintenance activities and
for immediate reimbursement to the State of Delaware for normal
operation and maintenance costs incurred by the State for the
SR-1 Bridge, from station 58 +00 to station 293 +00, between
October 1, 2003 and September 30, 2004. The reimbursable costs
include electric lighting and associated late fees, power
sweeping, drainage cleaning, snow removal, surface deicing, and
periodic bridge inspections. The Corps shall initiate necessary
repairs to the SR-1 Bridge once repair recommendations
resulting from the bridge inspections are received.
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, GA, AL, &
FL.--The Committee recommendation includes $4,709,000 which
includes annual dredging of the river channel, annual
operations and maintenance of the George W. Andrews Lock, spot
dredging of shoals, continuation of slough mouth restorations,
continuation of restoration efforts at Corley Slough, and
routine operations and maintenance of the project.
Richard B. Russell Dam, GA & SC.--The Committee has
included an additional $1,000,000 for the mandated mitigation
payment related to turbine operations at Richard B. Russell
Dam.
Dworshak Reservoir, ID.--The Committee has included an
additional $1,000,000 for critical work at the Dworshak
Reservoir.
Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis,
(MVR & MVS Portions), IL, IA, MN, MO, & WI.--The Committee has
provided an additional $1,000,000 above the budget request for
each portion for ongoing major maintenance items. The Corps
should give consideration to Tow Haulage Unit Replacement and
the conservation of the endangered Higgins Eye Mussel.
Coralville Lake, IA.--The Committee has included an
additional $663,000 above the budget request for needed repairs
at Coralville Lake.
Missouri River-Rulo to the Mouth, IA, NE, KS, & MO.--The
Committee has included an additional $645,000 above the budget
request for maintenance dredging.
Red Rock Dam and Lake Red Rock, IA.--The Committee has
included additional funds for stabilizing rim erosion,
rebuilding of pumps, and levee repairs at Red Rock Dam and Lake
Red Rock.
Fall River Lake, KS.--Additional funds are provided for
needed repairs at Fall River Lake.
Marion Lake, KS.--The Committee has included an additional
$557,000 for needed repairs at Marion Lake.
Perry Lake, KS.--The Committee has included additional
funds to complete the repair of the flood gates at Perry Lake.
Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, LA.--
The Committee has provided additional funds for maintenance
dredging.
Barataria Bay Waterway, LA.--The Committee has included
additional funds for maintaining the authorized depth of the
project, construction of a necessary breakwater, and dredging
in the bar channel.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--Funds provided above the
budget request are for bank stabilization repairs, dredging
entrances to oxbow lakes, routine operation and maintenance
activities, annual dredging requirements, and backlog
maintenance.
Narraguagus River, ME.--$1,000,000 has been provided for
the dredging of the Narraguagus River to the authorized depth
and width.
Scarborough River, ME.--$500,000 has been provided for the
dredging of the Scarborough River.
Saginaw River, MI.--The Committee has included funding to
initiate preparations for the maintenance dredging of the
Saginaw River.
Cocheco River, NH.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,000,000 for the construction of the dredge disposal site.
Delaware River, Philadelphia to Trenton, NJ.--Of the funds
provided, the Committee has included additional funds for
needed maintenance dredging.
Cochiti Lake, NM.--The recommendation includes full funding
to complete the necessary Environmental Impact Statement work
regarding the lowering of water levels at Cochiti in response
to the requirements of the pending biological opinion on the
Rio Grande. Also funds are included for the alternative Al
Black area.
Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, ND.--The Committee has
included funding for limited facility improvements and mosquito
control.
Alum Creek Lake, OH.--The Committee has included an
additional $801,000 above the budget request to repair spillway
gates at Alum Creek Lake.
Conneaut Harbor, OH.--The Committee has included additional
funding for the dredging of Conneaut Harbor.
Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam, OK.--The Committee has
included an additional $220,000 above the budget request for
the repair of the lock's mitre gates.
Tar Creek, OK.--The Committee is aware of the significant
environmental, economic, and human health impacts caused by the
abandoned mining operations in the Tar Creek and Spring River
watersheds, located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma. The Committee
is aware of the extent and complexity of the problems which
require a coordinated effort from multiple Federal, State,
tribal, and local agencies pursuant to the Memorandum of
Understanding among the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Interior
signed May 2003. Further, the Committee expects the Corps to
pursue efforts at Tar Creek as its authorities allow.
Bonneville Lock and Dam, OR and WA.--Within available
funds, the Corps should begin repairs to the Washington Shore
Visitor Center's Fish Viewing Building.
John Day Lock and Dam, OR and WA.--The Committee has
provided $500,000 for serious safety repairs for this vital
link in the Columbia-Snake Waterway system. The Committee
believes that the budget request does not adequately address
the serious nature of the problems at this structure and has
accordingly provided funds above the budget request. The
problems being experienced at this structure are indicative of
the way maintenance of structures in the Federal inventory has
been shortchanged. Timely, adequate maintenance funding would
have likely prevented the costly measures that must now be
undertaken to correct the problems. The Committee strongly
encourages that adequate funding for maintenance be included in
future budget submissions.
Tillamook Bay and Bar, OR.--The Committee has included
$300,000 to begin the repairs in Tillamook Bay.
Francis E. Walter Dam, PA.--The Committee has included an
additional $319,000 above the budget request for the needed
road repair/relocation work.
Providence River and Harbor, RI.--The Committee has
included $21,000,000 to continue the Providence River and
Harbor project, which is the same as the administration's
request.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, SC.--The Committee has
included additional funds to complete maintenance dredging from
Charleston to Winyah Bay began in fiscal year 2003.
Charleston Harbor, SC.--The Committee has included an
additional $760,000 above the budget request for the dredging
of the entrance channel of Charleston Harbor.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.--The
Committee notes that Title VI of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999, as amended, requires that funding to
inventory and stabilize cultural and historic sites along the
Missouri River in South Dakota, and to carry out the
terrestrial wildlife habitat programs, shall be provided from
the Operation and Maintenance account. The Committee has
provided $5,000,000 to protect cultural resource sites and
provide funding to the State and Tribes for approved
restoration and stewardship plans and in compliance with the
requirements of Title VI, directs the Corps to contract with or
reimburse the State of South Dakota and affected Tribes to
carry out these duties.
Tennessee River, TN.--The Committee expects that of the
funds provided, $275,000 shall be made available to dredge
Florence Port, Alabama.
Denison Dam (Lake Texoma), TX.--The Committee has included
additional funding for the replacement of gate seals at Denison
Dam.
Texas City Ship Channel, TX.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,000,000 for maintenance dredging of the Texas City
Ship Channel.
Lower Granite Lock and Dam, WA.--The Committee has provided
$2,074,000 for this project. Within available funds assessments
and improvements should be undertaken to prepare for the
Confluence Project in Asotin County, WA.
Aquatic Nuisance.--The Committee has included an additional
$300,000 above the budget request for the Corps to address the
hydrilla at Lake Ouachita, AR and aquatic nuisance on the
Tangipahoa River, LA.
Facility Protection.--The Committee has provided
$13,000,000. The Committee has been informed that this is the
average annual cost for guards at critical facilities.
Lewis and Clark Commemoration.--The Committee has provided
the budget request for the Lewis and Clark Commemoration
Coordinator. The Committee expects the Corps, within available
funds, to continue to perform maintenance and repair of the
recreation facilities related to the Lewis and Clark
Bicentennial Commemoration. The Committee is aware of the lead-
time required to repair and rehabilitate recreational
facilities for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration.
Therefore, the Corps of Engineers may, within available funds,
perform maintenance and repair these facilities as is
considered necessary to accommodate the anticipated visitor
population.
Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program.--
Additional funds have been provided to initiate a demonstration
project at Benson Beach, WA.
Removal of Sunken Vessels.--The Committee has included an
additional $150,000 for the Corps to perform a detailed
examination of the remains of the vessel ``State of
Pennsylvania'' located in the Christina River in an effort to
assess the cost and method of removal to this impediment to
navigation.
REGULATORY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $138,096,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 144,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 139,000,000
An appropriation of $139,000,000 is recommended for the
regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers.
This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred
administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters,
including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
The appropriation helps maintain program performance,
protects important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships
with States and local communities through watershed planning
efforts.
The Committee is aware that in approving the certificate of
public convenience and necessity for the Islander East Pipeline
project, the FERC adopted a specific project purpose for the
pipeline. In the course of its 404 evaluations, the Committee
understands the Corps may have undertaken to alter that project
purpose. The Committee directs the Corps to rely exclusively on
the project purpose as established by the FERC and conduct
their analysis of alternatives accordingly.
The Committee urges the Corps to take into account the
geographical and/or hydrological conditions and criteria
necessary for determining jurisdiction, including such
regulatory terms as adjacent, isolated, and tributary while
formulating its proposed rule which responds to the Supreme
Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County
v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers No. 99-1178.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $144,057,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 140,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 140,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000
to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 2004.
The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was
transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the Fiscal Year
1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Public
Law 105-62.
FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program
was established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic
Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup
of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the
Department of Energy through existing appropriation accounts.
In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy.
The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies.
The Committee always intended for the Corps' expertise be used
in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under
FUSRAP. The Committee expects the Corps to continue programming
and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers--
Civil program.
REVOLVING FUND
Business Process and Computer Modernization
The Committee is aware that the Corps has undertaken an
effort to modernize its business processes and systems and
understands the efficiencies that may be gained through such an
effort. However, the Committee remains very concerned that, to
date, the Project Management Business Plan [PMBP] and its
associated computer modernization (P2) have not been deployed.
In addition, the Committee is concerned that this effort may be
outside the realm of expertise and experience possessed within
the Corps. Further, the Committee is concerned that too much
emphasis is being placed on the process of their work, and that
accomplishment of the Corps mission is suffering at the hands
of developing complicated business processes and upward
reporting systems that are as yet unproven. By its own
acknowledgement, it is of utmost importance to the Corps to
attract and maintain high quality project management expertise.
Therefore the Committee is greatly concerned that imposing a
prescriptive project management system will undermine the
Corps' ability to attract and maintain such expertise. In order
to ensure that desirable results are achieved, the Committee
directs the Corps' to provide, within 45 days of enactment of
this Act, and quarterly thereafter, a progress report on the
implementation of the Project Management Business Plan [PMBP],
and computer modernization (P2) to the Committee. The report
shall include milestones for achieving desired goals, cost
accounting describing sunk costs and cost to complete, as well
as results and cost savings realized or expected.
Notwithstanding the Committees desire to see this effort
expedited, the Corps is cautioned that the systems should not
be deployed until they are fully functional, and capable of
completely serving their intended purposes. Lastly, the
Committee understands that the Corps has undertaken a survey of
how the Project Management Business Process is being received
in the field, and would be very interested in seeing the
results of that survey.
Replacement of Corps of Engineers Aircraft
The Committee realizes that reliable and readily available
transportation is necessary for the Corps of Engineers to
effectively perform many of its missions, especially those
related to emergencies, and that the Corps division offices
support these missions in the geographic regions for which they
are responsible. The Committee found the report required as
part of the fiscal year 2003 appropriations activities lacking
and therefore directs the Corps to re-evaluate the costs and
benefits of the Corps maintaining its own aircraft. This
reanalysis must include all other options for air
transportation, including the use of military aircraft. With
constricted budgets, the Committee is skeptical that the
possession and maintenance of an aircraft by any division or
district is both cost-effective and mission-essential when
compared to alternatives, such as use of military aircraft and
leasing. Therefore, the Corps must present to the House and
Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water
Development a justification that includes a complete and
thorough economic analysis for approval before any additional
aircraft are acquired. The Corps is directed to submit, within
6 months, a justification and economic analysis to support the
continued maintenance of aircraft by the Corps as an asset.
general expenses
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $154,143,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 171,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 160,000,000
This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office,
Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research
and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. The
Committee recommendation is $160,000,000.
Executive Direction and Management.--The Office of the
Chief of Engineers and eight division offices supervise work in
38 district offices.
Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.--This support
center provides administrative services (such as personnel,
logistics, information management, and finance and accounting)
for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate
field operating activities.
Institute for Water Resources.--This institute performs
studies and analyses amd develops planning techniques for the
management and development of the Nation's water resources.
United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.--This
center provides centralizes support for all Corps finance and
accounting sites.
Office of Congressional Affairs.--The Committee has
included statutory language for the past several years
prohibiting any funds from being used to fund an Office of
Congressional Affairs within the executive office of the Chief
of Engineers. The Committee believes that an Office of
Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works Program would hamper
the efficient and effective coordination of issues with the
Committee staff and Members of Congress. The Committee believes
that the technical knowledge and managerial expertise needed
for the Corps headquarters to effectively address Civil Works
authorization, appropriation, and Headquarters policy matters
resides in the Civil Works organization. Therefore the
Committee strongly recommends that the office of Congressional
Affairs not be a part of the process by which information on
Civil Works projects, programs, and activities is provided to
Congress.
The Committee reminds the Corps that the General Expenses
Account is to be used exclusively for executive oversight and
management of the Civil Works Program.
In 1998, The Chief of Engineers issued a Command Directive
transferring the oversight and management of the General
Expenses account, as well as the manpower associated with this
function, from the Civil Works Directorate to the Resource
Management Office. General Expense funds are appropriated
solely for the executive management and oversight of the Civil
Works Program under the direction of the Director of Civil
Works.
The Committee is pleased with the efforts of the Corps to
restructure the management of general expense funds. It
continues to believe that the general expense dollars are
ultimately at the discretion of the Chief of Engineers and are
intended to be utilized in his effort to carry out the Corps'
mission. The new controls put in place to manage the general
expense dollars and evaluate the needs of the Corps address the
Committee's previous concerns. The Committee requests the Corps
provide biannual written notification of the dispersal of
general expense funds.
General Accounting Office Audit
The Committee is aware that there has been a change in
which entity conducts the financial audits of the Army Corps of
Engineers. Traditionally, audits on the Corps have been
performed by the Army Audit Agency [AAA] pursuant to the Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990. Since fiscal year 1993, AAA has
audited the Corps' at the direct delegation and oversight of
the Department of Defense Inspector General, which has
concurred on each AAA audit of the Corps. The Committee is
further aware that AAA issued an unqualified opinion of the
Corps' statements for the Southwest Division in fiscal year
1997. Disclaimers were received elsewhere within the Corps'
financial statements that year primarily due to automation of
the Corps' financial accounting systems. By fiscal year 2000,
most issues were resolved with regard to the outstanding areas
of AAA's concerns and in fiscal year 2001, the Corps received a
qualified opinion on its balance sheets. This was done with the
full knowledge and concurrence of the Department of Defense
Inspector General.
The Committee understands that the fiscal year 2002 audit
is uncompleted because AAA was abruptly relieved of its audit
responsibilities of the Corps, now being handled by the
Department of Defense Inspector General. As a result of this
change in auditors, the Committee believes it is an opportune
time to establish a baseline for future audit work of the
Corps, including audit standards and procedures as required by
the CFO Act of 1990. Therefore, the Committee requests that a
full financial audit be conducted by the General Accounting
Office in an effort to establish a baseline for future audit
work. This audit is to include the financial evaluation
information from both the Defense Inspector General that has
assumed the work of AAA, as well as the work previously
conducted by AAA. The Committee strongly believes that this
review will establish transparent goals and measures by which
future audits of the Corps will be conducted.
Corps Reevaluation and Transformation
The Committee applauds the Corps' effort of reevaluating
its functions and responsibilities over the last year. This
effort has been done both internally and externally within the
Corps and has included a wide variety of stakeholders. The
Committee is pleased that the Corps has taken the initiative to
address the many issues facing them and their stakeholders,
particularly given the many recent controversies regarding
cost/benefits analysis of Corps' projects. The Committee
supports the Corps' efforts to transform itself into a more
effective, more responsive agency through the ``2012''
initiative, and hopes that the Corps will be able to implement
needed changes. However, until that roadmap is complete, the
Committee is reluctant to fund the full increase sought for the
``General Expense'' account. Therefore, the Committee has
included $160,000,000 for the Corps, an increase over this
year's budget by $6,000,000, approximately a 4 percent increase
to cover inflation. The Committee also directs the Corps of
Engineers to continue with this important effort and report
regularly to the Committee on the progress made and the
impediments to change.
FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $14,902,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 70,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,000,000
The Committee has included $40,000,000 for the FCCE
account, $30,000,000 over the previous fiscal year. The funds
provided are less than the request and have been provided
without prejudice. The Committee believes that the amount
provided better reflects the constrained budget environment.
This account provides funds for preparedness activities for
natural and other disasters, response, and emergency flood
fighting and rescue operations, hurricane response, and
emergency shore protection work. It also provides for emergency
supplies of clean water where the source has been contaminated
or where adequate supplies of water are needed for consumption.
RAPID DEPLOYMENT FLOOD WALL
The Committee is aware of the successful testing of the
Rapid Deployment Flood Wall at the Engineering Research and
Development Center in Vicksburg, Mississippi. This technology
has proven to be promising in the effort to fight floods, cost-
effective, quick to deploy and successful in protecting
property from flood damage, damages which total millions each
year. The Committee therefore encourages the Corps to pursue
the use of this technology in its efforts to fighting floods.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
Language included under Section 101 restates language
contained in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2000, Public Law 106-60 which places a limit on credits
and reimbursements allowable per project and annually.
Sec. 102. The Committee has included a provision which
prohibits the reorganization or change of the Corps and its
statutory mission without a subsequent Act of Congress.
Sec. 103. The Committee has included a new provision
regarding the Alamogordo, NM flood control project.
Sec. 104. The Committee has included a new provision
regarding the continuing contracts of the General
Investigations Appropriation.
Sec. 105. The Committee has provided a new provision making
technical corrections to the Kake Dam Replacement, Kake, Alaska
project.
Sec. 106. The Committee has included a new provision for
the deauthorization of inactive Corps projects.
Sec. 107. The Committee has included a general provision
regarding the deauthorization of some components of the Federal
Channel in RI.
Sec. 108. The Committee has included a new provision
regarding Tar Creek, OK.
Sec. 109. The $2,000,000 of the Construction, General funds
appropriated in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2003, shall be used to provide, technical assistance at
full Federal expense, to the Alaskan communities of Bethel,
Dillingham, Shishmaref, Kakatovik, Kivalina, Unalakleet, and
Newtok to address coastal erosion. Due to rapid erosion in
Shishmaref, $1,000,000 of the technical assistance should be
provided to that community.
Sec. 110. The Committee has included a new provision
regarding the American and Sacramento Rivers, CA project.
The bill includes language in Section 111 which directs
that none of the funds made available in fiscal year 2002 may
be used to carry out any activity relating to closure or
removal of the St. Georges Bridge across the Intracoastal
Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and
Maryland.
Sec. 112. The Committee has included language extending the
date for which the Corps can except funds from non-Federal
entities to process permits.
Sec. 113. The Committee has included a provision regarding
Sec. 353 of Public Law 105-227.
Sec. 114. The Committee has included a new provision
regarding special authority for emergency project restoration.
Sec. 115. Amends Sec. 595 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999.
Sec. 116. The Committee has included a provision regarding
PMA receipts.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project Completion Account
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $35,992,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 44,191,000
Committee recommendation................................ 44,191,000
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2004 to carry
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act
totals $44,191,000. An appropriation of $36,063,000 has been
provided for Central Utah project construction; $9,423,000 for
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation.
The Committee recommendation provides $1,728,000 for program
administration and oversight.
The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II-VI of
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the central
Utah project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.
The Act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish,
wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes
an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and
of other contributions for mitigation and conservation
activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account.
The Act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the
Act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation
of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.
Bureau of Reclamation
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $808,203,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 771,217,000
Committee recommendation................................ 853,517,000
An appropriation of $853,517,000 is recommended by the
Committee for general investigations of the Bureau of
Reclamation. The water and related resources account supports
the development, management, and restoration of water and
related natural resources in the 17 Western States. The account
includes funds for operating and maintaining existing
facilities to obtain the greatest overall level of benefits, to
protect public safety, and to conduct studies on ways to
improve the use of water and related natural resources. Work
will be done in partnership and cooperation with non-Federal
entities and other Federal agencies.
BUDGET LIMITATIONS AND REDUCTIONS
Constrained spending limits have made it difficult for the
Committee to formulate a balanced Energy and Water Development
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. In order to adhere to
the subcommittee's allocations, address the critical ongoing
activities, correct program imbalances contained in the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget, and respond to the
numerous requests of the Members, the Committee finds it
necessary to recommend numerous adjustments to funding levels
proposed in the budget. Finally, the Committee regrets that
many worthwhile projects could not be recommended for funding
because of the lack of authorization and the shortfall in
resources.
The Committee is concerned with the way in which
underfinancing is applied to the Water and Related Resources
Account. Accordingly, the Committee has made changes to the
Water and Related Resources line item for underfinancing. The
Committee has divided underfinancing between the Resources
Management Subaccount and the Facilities Operation and
Maintenance Subaccount. The Committee directs that the
underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied
uniformly across all projects within the subaccounts. Upon
applying the underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming
procedures should be undertaken to account for schedule
slippages, accelerations or other unforeseen conditions.
The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the
following table along with the budget request.
BUILDING AND SITE SECURITY
The Committee is aware of the heightened threat of
terrorist activity since the events of September 11, 2001, and
the subsequent financial burden this places on the Bureau of
Reclamation in managing the security of the many public assets
and critical infrastructure within its control. In order to
offset some of the financial burden of the Bureau, the
Committee provided $25,000,000 in the fiscal year 2003
supplemental appropriations' bill to defray some of these
costs, which were not included in the Bureau's fiscal year 2003
budget request. The Committee encourages the Administration to
include funding for specific security related costs in future
budget submissions for the Bureaus, as many of these costs are
recurring.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Committee
------------------------ recommendation
Project title -----------------------
Resources Facilities Resources Facilities
management OM&R management OM&R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIZONA
AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT.............. .......... 5,743 .......... 5,743
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER BASIN................... 34,009 78 34,009 78
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I.......... 751 10,499 751 10,499
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM...................... 3,500 .......... 4,250 ..........
FORT MCDOWELL SETTLEMENT ACT.................................... 1,000 .......... 1,000 ..........
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM......................... 325 .......... 325 ..........
PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJ........... 250 .......... 250 ..........
SALT RIVER PROJECT.............................................. 87 .......... 87 ..........
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJ............... 4,017 .......... 4,017 ..........
SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................... 775 .......... 775 ..........
TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION................................ 630 .......... 630 ..........
TUCSON AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE STUDY................... .......... .......... .......... ..........
YUMA AREA PROJECTS.............................................. 1,552 21,120 1,552 21,120
CALIFORNIA
CACHUMA PROJECT................................................. 751 665 751 665
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAMS.............................. 215 .......... 215 ..........
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PROJECT............ 700 .......... 700 ..........
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:
AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION..................................... 1,966 7,033 1,966 7,033
AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT.................................... 9,899 100 9,899 100
DELTA DIVISION.............................................. 10,039 6,041 11,539 6,041
EAST SIDE DIVISION.......................................... 1,465 2,450 1,465 2,450
FRIANT DIVISION............................................. 2,393 3,782 3,143 3,782
MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS.............................. 13,284 1,087 18,784 1,087
REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINT............ .......... 24,000 .......... 18,000
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION................................... 4,215 1,808 6,715 1,808
SAN FELIPE DIVISION......................................... 745 .......... 745 ..........
SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION........................................ 383 .......... 383 ..........
SHASTA DIVISION............................................. 831 7,134 1,581 7,134
TRINITY RIVER DIVISION...................................... 7,616 2,970 7,616 2,970
WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS.................................. 1,800 11,076 1,800 11,076
WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT.................... 40,437 6,538 11,437 6,538
YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION............................. 1,000 .......... 1,000 ..........
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT........................ 200 .......... 1,500 ..........
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT............. 1,100 .......... 1,100 ..........
LONG BEACH DESALINATION RESEARCH/DEVELOPMENT PROJ............... .......... .......... 700 ..........
MISSION BASIN BRACKISH GROUNDWATER DESALTING DEMO............... .......... .......... .......... ..........
NAPA-SOMOMA-MARIN AGRICULTURAL REUSE PROJECT.................... .......... .......... 500 ..........
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT............. 1,300 .......... 1,300 ..........
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WTR RECLAMATION PROJ, PHS 1.............. 1,300 .......... 2,500 ..........
ORLAND PROJECT.................................................. 41 445 41 445
PASADENA RECLAIMED WATER PROJECT................................ .......... .......... .......... ..........
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT..................................... 1,000 .......... 2,000 ..........
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM........................ 4,300 .......... 4,300 ..........
SAN DIEGO RIVER RESTORATION..................................... .......... .......... .......... ..........
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT....................................... 1,300 .......... 1,300 ..........
SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION PROJECT........................... .......... .......... .......... ..........
SAN JOSE WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM.................... 1,000 .......... 1,000 ..........
SOLANO PROJECT.................................................. 1,522 2,693 1,522 2,693
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...................... 1,135 .......... 1,135 ..........
WATSONVILLE AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT........................ .......... .......... .......... ..........
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT........................................... 529 .......... 529 ..........
COLORADO
ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP SECTIONS 5 AND 8.................. 58,000 .......... 57,000 ..........
COLLBRAN PROJECT................................................ 184 1,513 184 1,513
COLORADO--BIG THOMPSON PROJECT.................................. 12 10,198 12 10,198
COLORADO--BIG THOMPSON PROJECT--HORSETOOTH DAM.................. .......... 3,153 .......... 3,153
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................................. 77 .......... 77 ..........
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II............................. 206 546 206 546
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II........................... 52 2,050 52 2,050
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT........................................ 69 145 69 145
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT...................................... .......... 5,443 200 5,443
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY............................... 593 1,838 593 1,838
MANCOS PROJECT.................................................. 88 57 88 57
PINE RIVER PROJECT.............................................. 141 113 141 113
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT......................................... 356 4,237 356 4,237
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT............................................. 181 124 181 124
HAWAII
HAWAIIAN RECLAIM AND REUSE STUDY................................ .......... .......... 100 ..........
IDAHO
BOISE AREA PROJECTS............................................. 2,637 4,047 2,637 4,047
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT................ 19,000 .......... 19,000 ..........
DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, BOISE............................. 200 .......... 200 ..........
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................................... 580 .......... 580 ..........
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS.......................................... 3,459 2,041 3,459 2,041
MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT............... 200 .......... 200 ..........
KANSAS
KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................................... 143 .......... 143 ..........
WICHITA PROJECT................................................. 7 208 7 208
MONTANA
FORT PECK PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM............................ .......... .......... 8,000 ..........
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT............................................ .......... 1,056 .......... 1,056
MILK RIVER PROJECT.............................................. 1,045 558 1,045 558
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS.......................................... 533 .......... 533 ..........
ROCKY BOY'S/NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL WATER, MT.................... .......... .......... 915 ..........
NORTH DAKOTA
DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................................. 223 .......... 223 ..........
DAKOTAS TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........................... 326 .......... 326 ..........
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM, GARRISON DIVERSION........... 13,928 3,386 25,000 3,386
NEBRASKA
MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT............................................ .......... 58 .......... 58
NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................................. 191 .......... 191 ..........
NEW MEXICO
ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER AND RECLAMATION REUSE.............. .......... .......... 1,362 ..........
CARLSBAD PROJECT................................................ 2,036 1,056 2,036 1,056
CONCHAS PROJECT STUDY........................................... .......... .......... .......... ..........
EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY................................. .......... .......... 250 ..........
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT....................................... 6,467 10,921 13,567 20,921
NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............................ 300 .......... 300 ..........
NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT.............................. 391 .......... 391 ..........
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT......................... .......... 127 .......... 327
RIO GRANDE PROJECT.............................................. 796 3,186 796 3,186
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..................... 179 .......... 179 ..........
SANTA FE--WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT................... .......... .......... 250 ..........
SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROG.............. .......... .......... .......... ..........
TUCUMCARI PROJECT............................................... 104 4 104 4
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................... .......... .......... .......... ..........
NEVADA
CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS WATER REUSE, NV......................... .......... .......... 1,000 ..........
HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY...................................... 100 .......... 600 ..........
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT (HUMBOLT, NEWLANDS, WASHOE).............. 6,467 2,446 6,467 2,446
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM................................ 1,408 .......... 1,408 ..........
SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT......................... .......... .......... 3,000 ..........
OKLAHOMA
ARBUCKLE PROJECT................................................ .......... 205 700 205
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT............................................. .......... 460 .......... 460
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT........................................... .......... 267 .......... 267
NORMAN PROJECT.................................................. 250 176 250 176
NORTH FORK OF THE RED RIVER PROJECT............................. .......... .......... 150 ..........
OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................................. 188 .......... 188 ..........
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT............................................. .......... 314 .......... 314
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT........................................... .......... 887 .......... 887
OREGON
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT........................................... 212 465 212 465
DESCHUTES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT......................... 500 .......... 750 ..........
DESCHUTES PROJECT............................................... 418 155 418 155
DESCHUTES PROJECT, TUMALO, BEND FEED CANAL...................... .......... .......... 500 ..........
DESCHUTES PROJECT, WICKIUP DAM.................................. .......... 3,000 .......... 3,000
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS......................................... 781 280 781 280
GRANDE RONDE WATER OPTIMIZATION STUDY........................... 100 .......... 100 ..........
KLAMATH PROJECT................................................. 20,041 776 20,041 776
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................................... 620 .......... 620 ..........
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, SAVAGE RAPIDS PUMPING PLNTS.......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION...................... 554 172 554 172
TUALATIN PROJECT................................................ 287 127 287 127
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY.................. .......... .......... .......... ..........
UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT, PHASE III STUDY......................... 200 .......... 400 ..........
UMATILLA PROJECT................................................ 601 2,101 601 2,101
WILLOW LAKE NATURAL TREATMENT SYSTEM, OR........................ .......... .......... 300 ..........
SOUTH DAKOTA
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER PROJECT............................. .......... .......... 20,000 ..........
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT.................................. 2,000 15 15,000 15
MNI WICONI PROJECT.............................................. 6,717 6,254 20,217 6,254
PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT............................. .......... .......... 1,000 ..........
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM............................. .......... 28 .......... 28
TEXAS
AUSTIN WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT................................ .......... .......... .......... ..........
BALMORHEA PROJECT............................................... .......... .......... .......... ..........
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT.......................................... .......... 117 .......... 117
EL PASO WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE............................. .......... .......... 371 ..........
LEON CREEK QUARRY/MITCHELL LAKE WATER REUSE PROJECT............. .......... .......... .......... ..........
LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES......................... .......... .......... 6,000 ..........
NUECES RIVER.................................................... .......... 536 .......... 536
SAN ANGELO PROJECT.............................................. .......... 276 .......... 276
TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................................... 202 .......... 202 ..........
UTAH
HYRUM PROJECT................................................... 128 62 128 62
MOON LAKE PROJECT............................................... 45 15 45 15
NAVAJO SANDSTONE AQUIFER RECHARGE STUDY......................... .......... .......... .......... ..........
NEWTON PROJECT.................................................. 61 24 61 24
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............................ 280 .......... 280 ..........
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT............................................. 373 40 373 40
PROVO RIVER PROJECT............................................. 843 355 843 355
SCOFIELD PROJECT................................................ 121 66 121 66
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............................ 300 .......... 300 ..........
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT....................................... 198 7 198 7
WEBER BASIN PROJECT............................................. 1,650 431 1,650 431
WEBER RIVER PROJECT............................................. 87 63 87 63
WASHINGTON
COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT.......................................... 4,547 4,435 4,547 4,435
LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY.............. 25 .......... 100 ..........
MAKAH INDIAN COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY................. 25 .......... 200 ..........
SALMON CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION, WA.......................... .......... .......... .......... ..........
STORAGE DAM FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY...................... 550 .......... 550 ..........
TULALIP TRIBES WATER QUALITY FEASIBILITY STUDY.................. 50 .......... 150 ..........
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............................... 525 .......... 525 ..........
YAKIMA PROJECT.................................................. 1,179 6,066 1,179 6,066
YAKIMA PROJECT, KEECHELUS DAM, SOD.............................. .......... 3,700 .......... 3,700
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.................... 12,730 .......... 12,730 ..........
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE................................ .......... .......... 500 ..........
WYOMING
KENDRICK PROJECT................................................ 6 4,048 6 4,048
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT............................................ 10 1,038 10 1,038
SHOSHONE PROJECT................................................ 10 1,193 10 1,193
WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................................. .......... .......... .......... ..........
VARIOUS
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I.......... 9,198 .......... 9,198 ..........
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, (CRSP), SECTION 5............... 7,553 2,469 7,553 2,469
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 8....................... 4,914 .......... 3,992 ..........
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM................ 450 .......... 450 ..........
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:
DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM............................... .......... 1,700 .......... 1,700
INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION.............................. .......... 40,900 .......... 40,900
SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS.......................... .......... 18,000 .......... 18,000
SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION STUDIES.................... .......... 500 .......... 500
DEPARTMENTAL IRRIGATION DRAINAGE PROGRAM........................ 2,623 .......... 3,623 ..........
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE.................................... 1,120 .......... 3,120 ..........
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM................................... 3,265 .......... 3,265 ..........
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM................ .......... 450 .......... 450
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION...................... 13,371 .......... 13,371 ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ACTIVITIES........... 1,804 .......... 1,804 ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION............................ 1,483 .......... 1,483 ..........
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES.............................. .......... 5,521 .......... 5,521
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM......................... .......... 1,575 .......... 1,575
GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES........................................ 1,989 .......... 2,089 ..........
INITIATIVES..................................................... 11,000 .......... 7,400 ..........
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM............................... 8,994 .......... 8,994 ..........
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM.............................. .......... .......... .......... ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM......................... 13,822 .......... 13,822 ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..................... 325 .......... 325 ..........
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS.......................... .......... 639 .......... 639
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION........................... .......... .......... .......... ..........
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM................................. 8,600 .......... 8,600 ..........
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING............... 1,571 .......... 1,571 ..........
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................... 344 1,029 344 1,029
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM, OTHER PROJECTS............... 2,998 34,709 2,998 34,709
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES.......................................... 991 250 1,241 250
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM................................ 565 .......... 565 ..........
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION.................................. 4,491 .......... 4,491 ..........
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT............................... 2,800 .......... 2,800 ..........
RECREATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMIN.................. 1,720 .......... 1,720 ..........
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM:
ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT DESALINATION PROGRAM............... 2,000 .......... 2,000 ..........
APPLIED SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT.................. 4,190 .......... 4,190 ..........
DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM............... 775 .......... 7,375 ..........
HYDROELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION/ENHANCE............. 990 .......... 990 ..........
TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT...................................... 350 .......... 350 ..........
WATERSHED/RIVER SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.................. 1,000 .......... 1,000 ..........
SITE SECURITY................................................... .......... 28,583 .......... 28,583
SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION.................................. 267 .......... 267 ..........
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES.................................. 1,908 .......... 1,908 ..........
TITLE XVI, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM.................. 1,430 .......... 3,130 ..........
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--TECHNICAL SUPPORT........... .......... .......... .......... ..........
WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM....................... 6,639 .......... 6,639 ..........
WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT............................................ .......... .......... .......... ..........
UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON ANTICIP DELAYS................. -40,030 .......... -38,945 -7,133
RESCISSION...................................................... .......... .......... .......... ..........
===============================================
TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES........................ 422,965 348,252 508,198 345,319
===============================================
LOAN PROGRAM
VARIOUS
LOAN ADMINISTRATION............................................. 200 .......... 200 ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, AZ.--The
Committee has included an additional $750,000 for the All
American Canal Regulating Reservoir under the Colorado River
Front Work and Levee System.
Tres Rios Wetland Demonstration, AZ.--An amount of $630,000
has been provided for the Bureau for the Tres Rios Wetland
Demonstration program. The Committee strongly supports this
cost shared effort, and believes it is important that this
wetland habitat and environmental research and development
activities continue. This program provides essential data
needed to support the development and success of the larger
Tres Rios environmental restoration project, and the Rio Salado
project being carried out by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Colusa Basin Integrated Resources Management Plan, CVP,
Sacramento River Division, CA.--The Committee has provided
$400,000 for the completion of the feasibility study.
Glen Colusa Fish Screen, CVP, Sacramento River Division,
CA.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,600,000 the
fish screen project.
Arkansas Valley Conduit, CO.--The Committee has included an
additional $200,000 to continue the reevaluation report. The
Committee supports these efforts but believes that the project
needs appropriate review by the authorizing committee, in
particular, the Committee notes that the project, if
authorized, should follow the standard Reclamation policy of an
M&I project of the beneficiaries paying 100 percent of the
allocated costs.
Carter Lake, CO.--The Committee is aware of the issues
surrounding the Carter Lake, CO project and encourages the
Bureau to continue working with the conservancy district.
Hawaii Resources Study, HI.--The Committee has included
$100,000 for water recycling opportunities in the State of
Hawaii.
Fort Peck/Dry Prairie Rural Water System, MT.--The
Committee has included $8,000,000 for the continued
construction of this mandated rural water delivery project. The
Committee remains disappointed that the administration, despite
the fact the project is in peak construction, chose not to
budget for this project. The Committee understands that the
Final Engineering Report is to sit before Congress 90 days
before construction and that due to the delays within the
fiscal year 2003 enactment, there was a reduced capability. The
Committee expects that those funds will be made available for
this project when needed, as intended by Congress.
Rocky Boy's/North Central Regional Water System, MT.--The
Committee has included $915,000 for this project. The funds are
provided to allow for completion of the Final Engineering
Report, NEPA compliance documents, and a Water Conservation
Plan for the system.
Garrison Diversion Unit, ND.--The Committee has provided
$28,386,000 for the continued construction and operation of
this project. This funding level should in no way be considered
any diminution of interest or support for the project, but
instead reflects the very limited resources of the Committee.
Middle Rio Grande Project, NM.--The Committee is aware of
the current drought situation and the recent court decision
relating to the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow. As a result of the
decision, the Committee has determined that the ESA Workgroup,
though well intentioned, has not produced the much needed
results to further efforts to meet the Biological Opinion
requirements. Therefore, the Committee has only provided
$7,000,000 for this effort this year and has also included a
new general provision which provides for increased oversight of
the Workgroup and minnow efforts. Of the $7,000,000 provided,
the Bureau of Reclamation is to fund the following activities:
silvery minnow population management, fish passage activities,
non-native species management, water management activities, and
improvement of water quality. Prior to the obligation of funds,
the Bureau is to submit the funding levels for each category,
accompanied by a detailed spending plan, to the Committee for
approval. The Committee reiterates that the cost-share
requirements for this program are 75 percent Federal/25 percent
non-Federal. The Committee has also included $100,000 for the
Isleta Pueblo water planning studies.
Middle Rio Grande Project, Endangered Species Collaborative
Program, NM.--The Committee is concerned that efforts on the
part of the Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program
Workgroup (Workgroup) have been protracted and inefficient. To
that end, the Committee calls for the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service,
to establish an executive committee for purposes of
streamlining and expediting the efforts of the Workgroup. For
fiscal year 2004, the Committee requires that a detailed
spending plan be submitted for approval prior to appropriated
funds being obligated or expended. The Committee further
requests that the Bureau of Reclamation and the Fish and
Wildlife Service, within 45 days of enactment of this Act,
appraise the current composition, structure, and decision-
making processes of the Workgroup, identify any impediments to
its' efficiency, and report back to the Committee with a
remedial plan of improvement. Support of future appropriations
by the Committee will be largely contingent on the success
demonstrated by the executive committee in achieving the
desired improvements.
Middle Rio Grande Project, Middle Rio Grande Levees, NM.--
The Committee has provided an additional $10,000,000 for the
repair of the Middle Rio Grande levees, work began in fiscal
year 2003.
Pecos River Basin Water Supply Salvage Project, NM.--The
Committee is aware that the Bureau of Reclamation carries out
the Pecos River Basin Water Supply Salvage project in
collaboration with the State of New Mexico. The Committee
directs that the Bureau of Reclamation, within funds
appropriated for the Facilities and Maintenance and
Rehabilitation, not to provide less than $200,000 for this
eradication effort. Finally, the Committee is pleased that the
Bureau and the State of New Mexico have forged a good working
relationship with regard to the contentious issues relating to
the Pecos River.
Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer, OK.--The Committee has included
$700,000 to continue Phase One of the investigation assessing
the hydrology of the aquifer and the future management of water
resources.
North Fork of the Red River, OK.--The Committee has
provided $150,000 to expand the scope of the current W.C.
Austin Water Availability Study to develop a groundwater flow
model on the North Fork of the Red River drainage and to
investigate potential opportunities for augmenting water
supply.
Deschutes Project, Tumalo, Bend Feed Canal, OR.--The
Committee has included $500,000 for the continued construction
of this project.
Umatilla Basin Phase III Feasibility Study, OR.--The
Committee has included an additional $200,000 for the Bureau to
evaluate the feasibility of several options for improving water
quality and instream flows.
Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, SD.--The Committee has
provided $20,000,000 for this continuing construction project.
The Committee is disappointed that the administration has
chosen not to request funding for this project, despite that it
is in peak construction. The Committee urges the administration
to budget for this project more responsibly in the future.
Mid-Dakota Rural Water System, SD.--The Committee has
included $15,000,000 for this continuing construction project.
Mni Wiconi Project, SD.--The Committee has provided
$20,217,000 for this continuing construction project. This
funding level should in no way be considered any diminution of
interest or support for the project, but instead reflects the
very limited resources of the Committee.
El Paso Water Reclaim and Reuse Project, TX.--The Committee
has included $371,000 for this continued project.
Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources, TX.--The Committee
has included $6,000,000 for the Bureau to begin the
implementation of cost sharing agreements.
Columbia Basin Project, WA.--Of the funds provided,
$250,000 is for the final design of Phase 2 of the Icicle Creek
Restoration project.
Yakima River Basin Water Storage Study, WA.--The Committee
has provided $500,000 for the continued feasibility study,
which was not in the administration's budget request.
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project: Title I.--
The Committee is concerned that the Bureau of Reclamation is
having to make excess releases of more than 100,000 acre feet
of water per year from storage in Colorado River reservoirs in
order to meet the delivery requirements of the Mexican Water
Treaty. This loss of water has become particularly acute due to
the drought in the Colorado River Basin, and the loss of more
than 100,000 acre feet per year depletes all seven Basin States
of badly needed water.
Title I of the Salinity Control Act of 1974 to implement
the agreement with Mexico, known as Minute 242, identified
construction of the Yuma Desalting Plant as the solution
preferred by the United States, Mexico, and the seven Colorado
River Basin States.
The Bureau of Reclamation is urged to expedite its
modifications to the existing Yuma Desalting Plant to
accomplish state of the art operation and accelerate the
permitting and environmental compliance process for the
operation of the Plant and report the status to the Committee
within 180 days of enactment of this Act.
Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program.--The Committee
has included an additional $750,000 for the Uncompahgre, CO
selenium project, and an additional $250,000 for the completion
of the Stewart Lake/Middle Green River, UT selenium project.
Drought Emergency Assistance Program.--The Committee has
provided an additional $1,000,000 for drought assistance to the
Navajo Nation, NM; and $1,000,000 for the completion of the
emergency wells in Santa Fe, NM and within the funds
appropriated for drought emergency assistance, the Committee
urges the agency to provide full and fair consideration of the
request for drought assistance from the State of Hawaii. The
Committee understands the impacts of the significant drought
which has lasted several years in the West, and has provided
additional funds for drought assistance in an effort to
mitigate some effects of the drought.
General Planning Studies.--The Committee has included an
additional $100,000 for the continuation of the Arch Hurley
Water Conservation Study, NM.
Western Water Initiative.--The dire drought the West is
currently experiencing, combined with an unprecedented number
of water users and endangered species and related requirements,
make water use efficiencies more critical than ever. The
Committee has provided $7,400,000 for this new initiative
proposed by the administration. The Committee regrets that it
could not fully fund this effort and the reduction does not
reflect the Committee's strong support for this effort but
instead its budget constraints. The initiative is an effort to
enhance efficiency and performance in water and power delivery.
Ultimately, the Committee believes that the initiative, if
successfully carried out, will result in enhanced efficiency in
the operation of Reclamation programs and projects. Of the
funds provided $1,400,000 is for the Desert Research Institute
to address water quality and environmental issues in ways that
will bring industry and regulators to mutually acceptable
answers.
The Committee believes that the water resource and
efficiency issues, combined with the drought and endangered
species listings, make the Rio Grande River in New Mexico the
embodiment of the Western Water Initiative. Therefore, the
Committee has included $2,000,000 to provide for efficiency and
water improvements related to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
district, including a system evaluation, siphons, flow
measurement gages, gates and the automation of diversions.
Power Program Services.--The Committee has included an
additional $250,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to evaluate a
pilot project to optimize the production of hydropower from the
Colorado River Storage Project.
Science and Technology, Desalination Research and
Development Program.--The Committee has included an additional
$6,600,000 for desalination efforts for research and
development of new, advanced technologies to create new
additional water supplies using desalination and related
technologies. The Commissioner is directed to assess the
potential use of advanced water treatment technologies as a
resource to create new net water supplies and to evaluate
project benefits, economic values and environmental effects.
Further, the Commissioner should identify resource needs that
can be met through these technologies and inter-party
transfers, and to identify obstacles to be overcome (physical,
financial, institutional, and regulatory). In using the funds
provided, the Bureau shall pay particular attention to research
and development of shallow well pretreatment, brine disposal
and recycling, micro-filtration and ultra-filtration, and water
conditioning. Further, the Committee continues to urge the
Bureau of Reclamation to place a higher priority on
desalination activities in future budgets given the importance
of sustainable water supplies to the West and to other regions
of the country.
Of the funds provided, $4,000,000 is for the continuation
of the project in Tularosa, NM. The Committee notes that, with
regard to the Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research
Center, section 7 of the Water Desalination Act of 1996 does
not apply to the project because it is a joint Federal effort.
In addition, $2,600,000 is provided to further desalination
research and development activities of the Bureau.
Title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse.--The Committee has
included $500,000 in additional funds for the Alamogordo, NM
desalination study.
The Committee has also included $1,000,000 in additional
funds for the WateReuse Foundation. The funds shall be
available to support the Foundation's research priorities.
The Committee recommends $200,000 for the Bureau to work
with local authorities in Hawaii to investigate and identify
opportunities for reclamation and reuse of municipal,
industrial, domestic, and agricultural wastewater, and
naturally occurring impaired ground and surface waters and to
design and construct demonstration and permanent facilities to
reclaim and reuse such waters.
Water Management and Conservation Program.--Within the
funds provided, the Committee has provided $500,000 to continue
urban water conservation programs within the service area of
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and
$200,000 for the Bureau to initiate a cost shared, industrial
recirculation water efficiency study to determine the benefits
and liabilities related to recirculating water use by
industries in Southern California to conserve water.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $48,586,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 39,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 39,600,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,600,000,
the same as the budget request for the Central Valley Project
Restoration Fund.
The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of
Public Law 102-575. This fund was established to provide
funding from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration,
improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife
restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of
California. Revenues are derived from payments by project
beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project
beneficiaries include several required by the Act (Friant
Division surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to
non-CVP users, and tiered water prices) and, to the extent
required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation
and restoration payments.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003....................................................
Budget estimate, 2004................................... $15,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
This account funds activities that are consistent with the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18
State and Federal Agencies and representatives of California's
urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals
of the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water
supply reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-
San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California's
water distribution system.
The CALFED Program was established in May 1995, for the
purpose of developing a comprehensive, long-term solution to
the complex and inter-related problems in the San Francisco
Bay-Delta area of California. The program's focus is on the
health of the ecosystem and improving water management. In
addition, this program addresses the issues of uncertain water
supplies, aging levees, and threatened water quality.
Absent authorizing legislation, the Committee has
recommended no funding under the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem
Restoration Project. In order to support the efforts of the
State of California to provide a safe, clean water supply and
improve the environment, the Committee has provided funds for
previously authorized studies under the Central Valley Project.
These studies will support and further the goals of the overall
CALFED Program until such time as the California Bay-Delta
Ecosystem Restoration Project is reauthorized.
The Committee has provided an additional $7,500,000 over
the budget request for the Central Valley Project. Additional
funds to support the goals of CALFED are provided as follows:
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL WATER ACCOUNT
Miscellaneous Project Programs.--$1,000,000 to acquire
water and ground water storage.
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Delta Division Oversight.--$500,000 to continue
coordination, administration, planning, performance tracking
and science activities in coordination with CALFED Program
Implementation Plan.
STORAGE
Delta Division.--$1,000,000 for Reclamation to continue
participating in planning and study activities associated with
enlarging Los Vaqueros reservoir.
Friant Division.--$750,000 to continue storage
investigations in the Upper San Joaquin Watershed.
Sacramento River Division.--$500,000 to continue planning
and study activities for Sites reservoir.
Shasta Division.--$750,000 to continue evaluating the
potential impacts of the proposed Shasta raise.
CONVEYANCE
Miscellaneous Project Programs.--$1,000,000 for the
continuation of feasibility levels studies and technical
assistance to the State of California; $1,000,000 for the
Bureau for the administration of storage, conveyance, water use
efficiency, ecosystem restoration, science and water transfer;
$1,000,000 for the environmental water account.
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $54,513,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 56,525,000
Committee recommendation................................ 56,525,000
The Committee recommendation for general administrative
expenses is $56,525,000. This is the same as the budget
request.
The policy and administrative expenses program provides for
the executive direction and management of all reclamation
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in
Washington, DC, Denver, CO, and five regional offices. The
Denver office and regional offices charge individual projects
or activities for direct beneficial services and related
administrative and technical costs. These charges are covered
under other appropriations.
Endangered Species Requirements.--The Committee is aware
that the Bureau of Reclamation is facing increasing costs for
endangered species requirements which currently are not tracked
nor reflected in the Bureau's budget documents. The Committee
believes that these costs are dramatically increasing each year
as the listing of species grows, however the Bureau's budget
submission, in most instances, does not necessarily reflect
these costs. Since there is no specific account or activity
related to the general ESA efforts the Bureau carries out,
these increasing costs erode the base funding of the budget,
something which needs to be addressed. Therefore, the Committee
requests that the Bureau of Reclamation, within 9 months of
enactment of this Act, is to provide the Committee with a
report which contains a cost accounting of the ESA expenditures
the Bureau bears as it carries out its mission. The Committee
is interested in both costs that are carried in the Water and
Related Resources account as well as the OM&R account.
Contracting Out.--The Committee continues to be committed
to increasing the contracting out of the Bureau's functions
which are reasonably done in the private sector, particularly
planning, engineering and design work. However, the Committee
also believes that some Federal capability is necessary and
needs to be maintained. The Committee is pleased that the
Bureau made the 10 percent target for fiscal year 2003, and
looks forward to working with the Commissioner to further the
administration's initiative in this area with regards to the
Bureau.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Section 201. The Committee has included a continuing
provision regarding the Indian Self Determination Act and the
Bureau of Reclamation.
Section 202 of the bill includes language regarding the San
Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
Section 203 of the bill includes language that States
requirements for purchase or lease of water from the Middle Rio
Grande or Carlsbad Projects, New Mexico.
Section 204 of the bill includes language concerning
Drought Emergency Assistance.
Section 205. The Committee has included a new general
provision regarding ESA requirements on the Rio Grande River,
NM.
Section 206. The Committee has included a new general
provision which reforms the ESA Collaborative Workgroup.
Section 207. The Committee has included a new general
provision regarding the cost-sharing on the Tularosa
Desalination Facility, NM.
Section 208. The Committee has included a continuing
provision regarding CALFED studies.
Section 209. The Committee has included a new provision
regarding the Western Water Initiative.
Section 210. The Committee has included a new provision
regarding a study authority for Hawaii.
Section 211. The Committee has included a new provision
regarding the CUP account.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Title III provides for the Department of Energy's programs
relating to energy supply, environmental management, science,
national security and other related programs, including the
power marketing administrations, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
REPROGRAMMINGS
The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully
inform the Committee when a change in program execution or
funding is required during the fiscal year. A reprogramming
includes the reallocation of funds from one activity to another
within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a
program, project, or activity described in the agency's budget
justification, including contemplated site budgets as presented
to and approved or modified by Congress in an appropriations
act or the accompanying statement of managers or report. For
construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the
reallocation of funds from one construction project identified
in the justifications to another or a significant change in the
scope of an approved project.
Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new
programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the
Act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions
are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be
submitted in advance to the Committee and be fully explained
and justified. The Committee has not provided the Department
with any internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year
2004, unless specifically identified in the House, Senate, or
conference reports. Any reallocation of new or prior year
budget authority or prior year deobligations must be submitted
to the Committees in writing and may not be implemented prior
to approval by the Committees on Appropriations.
Energy Supply
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $696,858,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 861,805,000
Committee recommendation................................ 920,357,000
The purposes of the programs funded under Energy Supply are
to develop new energy technologies and improve existing energy
technologies through basic and applied research and targeted
programs in technology development. This account provides funds
for both operating expenses and capital equipment for the
advancement of the various energy technologies. The Energy
Supply account includes the following major programs: renewable
energy resources; nuclear energy; electricity transmission and
distribution; environment, safety and health; energy support
activities; and energy supply infrastructure.
RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $419,492,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 444,207,000
Committee recommendation................................ 358,476,000
The Committee recommendation provides $358,476,000 for
renewable energy resources, a decrease of $61,016,000 from the
current year level.
This program undertakes research and development of
renewable energy and related technologies to meet the growing
need for clean and affordable energy. Program activities range
from basic research in universities and national laboratories
to cost-shared applied research, development, and field
validation in partnership with the private sector.
The recommendation for Renewable Energy Resources reflects
the Committee's strong belief that only a balanced portfolio of
production and distribution technologies and strategies will
fulfill our Nation's long-term needs and goals for both energy
and the environment.
Renewable Energy Technologies
Biomass/Biofuels--Energy Systems.--The Committee
recommendation includes $75,005,000 for biomass/biofuels energy
systems, an increase of $5,255,000 over the request.
The Department has indicated a desire to end direct support
to the Regional Biomass Energy Program [RBEP]. The Committee
believes that the RBEP has been a successful partnership with
the five distinct regions it has served. The Committee
recommendation includes $2,000,000 and directs the Department
to work with regional governors' organizations to make RBEP
even more successful. The Committee recommendation also
includes $3,500,000 for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology
Research, a successful consortium of 34 universities and 33
agribusinesses and trade associations. The recommendation
includes $20,000,000, the amount of the request, for the
Bioconversion Production Integration Program.
Geothermal.--The Committee recommends $26,300,000 for
geothermal technology development, an increase of $800,000 over
the request, including continued funding (at current year
levels) for GeoPowering the West.
Hydrogen Research.--The Committee recommendation strongly
supports and endorses the administration's broad new
investments in hydrogen technology through the FreedomCAR and
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and recognizes hydrogen to be a highly
promising and cost effective energy carrier. As such, the
Committee recommendation includes $87,982,000 for hydrogen
research, the amount of the request and $48,522,000 above the
current year level.
Industrial consumption of hydrogen, especially by the
petro-chemical and fertilizer communities is large and growing.
The rate of petro-chemical hydrogen consumption necessary for
gasoline-powered vehicles will accelerate as global reserves of
sweet crude oil diminish. The dominant resource for hydrogen
production today is natural gas whose reformation into hydrogen
and carbon dioxide contributes significantly to atmospheric
greenhouse gases. Moreover, natural gas reserves are
insufficient to service simultaneously domestic heating and
electricity requirements, industrial hydrogen consumption, and
future demands by hydrogen powered vehicles and other fuel cell
applications that would accompany the future ``Hydrogen
Economy.'' Thus, the Committee recommendation seeks to focus
the resources of the initiative on developing the most
economical means of producing hydrogen from renewable sources
and nuclear power.
The administration proposes to eliminate the funding of
fuel cell activities within the Energy & Water Development
appropriation. The Committee rejects that portion of the budget
request and expects appropriate fuel cell activities to
continue within this appropriation.
The Committee understands that the funding provided in
fiscal year 2004 will support several competitive solicitations
for research, development, and demonstration proposals on
production, delivery, storage, and infrastructure validation
technologies. The Committee directs that at least $5,000,000
should be used to support a competitive solicitation for solid
oxide fuel cell research under a cost-shared grant program to
look at the application of solid oxide electrochemical
technology for co-production of hydrogen and electricity and
also for storage of electricity through closed and open system
regenerative fuel cells.
Hydropower.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for
hydropower, a reduction of $2,489,000 from the request. The
amount includes $400,000 to assess low head and low power
resources.
Solar Energy.--The Committee recommendation for solar
energy programs is $89,693,000, an increase of $10,000,000
above the budget request.
The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for the
Southeast and Southwest photovoltaic experiment stations. The
Department should continue to fully support the success of the
public/private Million Solar Roofs initiative. Based on new
information before the Committee that calls into question
earlier concerns raised by the National Research Council
regarding the potential of concentrating solar power
technologies, the Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000
from within available funds for concentrating solar power. If
the Department needs more than $5,000,000 in fiscal year 2004
to regain lost momentum in the CSP program, the Committee urges
the Department to seek a reprogramming.
Zero Energy Buildings.--The Committee recommendation
includes no funding for zero energy building technologies and
supports the full transfer and incorporation of these
activities into the building technologies program funded under
the jurisdiction of Interior and Related Agencies
appropriations.
Wind.--The Committee recommendation includes $41,600,000
for wind, the same as the request. The Committee expects the
Department to utilize funds to accelerate development and
deployment of low wind speed turbines. The Wind Powering
America initiative is to be continued at last year's funding
level. The Committee continues to recognize the need for a set-
aside for small wind programs.
The Committee is aware that the potential for expanding
wind generated energy to new locations is significant, but
further development in the Dakotas and the Upper Midwest is
stymied by transmission constraints. The Committee is committed
to developing the potential of wind energy in the United States
and especially on tribal lands. The Committee directs the
Department to work with the transmission industry to conduct a
comprehensive analysis of upper Midwest wind energy locations
and transmission requirements and to report to the Committee on
Appropriation by May 31, 2004.
Intergovernmental Activities.--The Committee recommendation
includes a total of $9,500,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 from
the budget request. The intergovernmental activities total
includes $5,000,000 for the tribal energy program to help
Native Americans develop renewable energy resources on their
lands and helps tribal leaders develop energy plans. Within the
funds provided to the tribal energy program, the Committee
includes $1,000,000 for the Council of Renewable Energy
Resource Tribes [CERT] to provide technical expertise and
training of Native Americans in renewable energy resources
development and electric generation facilities management. The
intergovernmental total includes $4,500,000 for the
International Renewable Energy program to promote the use of
renewable energy resources in international markets. From
within the funds provided, the Committee recommendation
includes $750,000 for the Renewable Energy Policy Project
[REPP] to conduct a survey of all commercially viable renewable
energy technologies to determine the job and skill requirements
relating to the manufacturing, installation, and operation and
maintenance for each technology.
The Committee is aware that in October 2002 the Department,
on behalf of an interagency working group of nine Federal
agencies, released a 5-year strategic plan to implement the
Clean Energy Technology Exports [CETE] Initiative. The
Committee notes that the CETE strategic plan outlines a program
to increase U.S. clean energy technology exports to
international markets through increased coordination among
Federal agency programs as well as to enhance program
coordination with non-governmental, private sector, and other
international partners. The Committee is disappointed by the
apparent lack of progress. Recognizing that opportunities to
open and expand international markets and export U.S. clean
energy technologies are very important to helping achieve
national and international energy security, economic, trade,
environmental, and climate change objectives, the Committee
directs the interagency working group, through the Department
of Energy and other Federal agency partners, to provide the
Appropriations Committee with a report, no later than January
15, 2004, on the status of the implementation of the strategic
plan and specific actions that each of the participating
agencies have taken in fiscal year 2003 and will take in fiscal
year 2004 to engage non-governmental, private sector, and other
international partners.
Renewable Support and Implementation
Departmental Energy Management Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,800,000, an increase of $310,000
over the current year level. The Department should continue to
fund, through internal competition, the most cost effective
opportunities to improve energy efficiency in the Department's
facilities, employing renewable or other technologies as
appropriate.
Renewable Energy Production Incentive.--The Committee
recommendation includes $4,000,000, the amount the Department
requested under the electricity reliability sub-program. The
Committee instead funds the requested amount under renewable
support and implementation.
Renewable Program Support.--The Committee recommendation
includes $4,000,000 to continue the efforts of the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] to develop renewable energy
resources uniquely suited to the Southwestern United States
through its virtual site office in Nevada.
National Climate Change Technology Initiative
The Department's budget request proposes to create and fund
this new initiative to support competitive solicitations to
promote applied research that has, as its primary goal, the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions or the sequestration of
greenhouse gases. The Committee strongly supports the goals of
this initiative and has recommended funding for the development
of these technologies within the existing renewable energy and
nuclear energy programs. The Committee recommendation does not
include separate funding for the national climate change
technology initiative.
Facilities and Infrastructure
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.--The Committee
recommendation includes $7,700,000 for facilities and
infrastructure, an increase of $3,500,000 over the current year
level. The recommendation includes $4,200,000 for operation and
maintenance of facilities and $3,500,000 for construction of
Project 04-E-001, Science and Technology Facility, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory.--The Committee
recommendation includes $750,000 for engineering and design of
the energy reliability and efficiency laboratory.
Program Direction
The Committee recommendation includes $13,146,000, a
decrease of $2,750,000 from the current year level, and
primarily reflects the transfer of those resources to the new
Office of Electricity and Energy Assurance.
ELECTRICITY AND ENERGY ASSURANCE
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $0
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 0
Committee recommendation................................ 100,425,000
The Committee directs the creation of a new Office for
Electricity and Energy Assurance, reporting directly to the
Under Secretary for Energy, Science and Environment. The
Committee's recommendation is consistent with the principles
espoused in the President's National Energy Policy report
issued in May, 2001, and section 926 of S. 1005, the Energy
Policy Act of 2003. The office shall lead a national effort to
modernize and expand our Nation's electricity delivery system
to ensure economic and national security. The office should be
primarily responsible for the full spectrum of transmission,
distribution, demand response, storage, transmission siting and
permitting, and other technologies that affect supply and
demand in the delivery of electricity. In carrying out this
effort, the office shall coordinate and develop a
comprehensive, multi-year strategy to improve the Nation's
electricity transmission and distribution; ensure that the
recommendations of the Secretary's National Transmission Grid
Study are implemented; carry out the research, development, and
demonstration functions; grant authorizations for electricity
import and export; perform other electricity transmission and
distribution-related functions assigned by the Secretary; and
develop programs for workforce training in power and
transmission engineering. The office shall also assume the
responsibilities of the energy security and assurance program.
Activities previously funded under the electric energy
systems and storage program within the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the energy security and
assurance program shall be consolidated and funded under this
new office.
The Committee recommendation includes $100,425,000 for
these activities, including $7,587,000 for program direction.
The Committee recommendation includes a total of $20,000,000 in
additional funds for the Department's energy assurance mission.
Of the additional funds included, $16,000,000 shall be
available for the National Energy Technology Laboratory [NETL]
to support the Department in accordance with its National
Agenda for Energy Assurance activities, and $4,000,000 shall be
available to support construction, renovation, furnishing, and
demolition of NETL facilities in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and
Morgantown, West Virginia, as authorized in Public Law 107-63.
NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $259,990,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 390,601,000
Committee recommendation................................ 437,422,000
The Committee recommendation provides $437,422,000 for
nuclear energy, an increase of $44,821,000 above the request.
Radiological Facilities Management.--The Committee
recommendation includes $66,650,000, an amount that is
$4,000,000 above the request for radiological facilities
management. The Department is directed to use the additional
resources for upgrades of radiological facilities at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.--The
Committee recommends $22,000,000 for university reactor fuel
assistance and support, an increase of $3,500,000 over the
request. University nuclear engineering programs and university
research reactors represent a fundamental and key capability in
supporting our national policy goals in health care, materials
science and energy technology.
The Committee strongly supports both the University Reactor
Fuel Assistance and Support program's efforts to provide
fellowships, scholarships, and grants to students enrolled in
science and engineering programs at U.S. universities, as well
as efforts to provide fuel assistance and reactor upgrade
funding for university-owned research reactors.
The Committee notes the progress of the Department in
carrying out congressional direction to establish and support
regional university reactor consortia. Although progress is
visible, the Committee remains concerned about the ability of
the Nation to respond to the growing demand for trained experts
in nuclear science and technology in the face of financial and
other challenges affecting engineering programs and research
reactor facilities at American universities. The Committee
recommendation includes an increase of $3,500,000 over the
request to fund additional consortia and strongly encourages
the Department to request sufficient funding in future years to
fund all meritorious proposals, including appropriate proposals
to support health physics university programs.
The Committee commends the State of South Carolina for
recently creating one of the first new graduate nuclear
engineering programs in the last 20 years. The Committee
strongly encourages the Department to support the University of
South Carolina's new nuclear engineering graduate program,
using Departmental resources to further leverage the
investments recently made by the State of South Carolina. The
Committee is also aware that the University of Nevada-Las Vegas
is contemplating the addition of a graduate nuclear engineering
program to their curriculum. The Committee hopes and expects
that the Department will be supportive of this worthy effort.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research
and development includes a total of $151,746,000, an increase
of $24,721,000 over the budget request.
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $12,000,000, the same as the budget
request.
Nuclear Energy Technologies.--The Committee recommendation
includes a total of $55,721,000, an increase of $7,721,000 over
the budget request.
The recommendation includes $24,973,000 for nuclear power
2010, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the request, and the
Department is directed to focus the resources on the
demonstration of the regulatory licensing processes of 10 CFR
Part 52 for early site permits, design certifications, and
combined construction and operating licenses. The Committee
recommendation does not includes direct support of gas reactor
fuel technologies within nuclear power 2010, and instead funds
such activities under the generation IV nuclear systems
initiative.
The recommendation includes $29,720,000 for the generation
IV nuclear energy systems initiative, an increase of
$20,000,000 over the request, and the Department is directed to
use the additional resources to begin the research, development
and design phase of an advanced reactor hydrogen co-generation
project at Idaho National Laboratory.
The Committee remains interested in the potential use and
application of small modular reactors that would be inherently
safe, be relatively cost effective, contain intrinsic design
features which would deter sabotage or diversion, require
infrequent refuelings, and be primarily factory constructed and
deliverable to remote sites. The Department shall continue to
support the international effort to develop this technology.
The recommendation does not include the requested funding
for the national climate change technology initiative.
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.--The Committee recommendation
includes $8,000,000, an increase of $4,000,000 over the
request. The additional funding is provided to support research
and development necessary to support-high-temperature
electrolysis and sulfur-iodine thermochemical technologies
necessary to the advanced reactor hydrogen co-generation
project at Idaho National Laboratory. Additionally, the
recommendation includes $2,000,000 to continue the development,
in partnership with industry and national laboratories, of an
efficient high temperature heat exchanger at the University of
Nevada-Las Vegas. These funds shall be provided to the UNLV
Research Foundation.
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $78,025,000, an increase of $15,000,000
over the budget request. The initiative should continue to
focus on development of fuel cycle technologies that minimize
the toxicity of final waste products resulting from spent fuel
while recovering energy remaining in spent fuel; maximizing the
utility of the Yucca Mountain repository, consistent with
statutory limits on its contents, or any future repository; and
minimizing proliferation concerns and environmental impacts of
the fuel cycle. The initiative shall assist the Secretary with
development of alternative technology options that may
influence the Secretary's 2007 statutorily required
recommendation for the need to develop a second repository.
The Committee notes that the January 2003 Report to
Congress on this project focused primarily on use or
modification of existing reprocessing technologies. The
Committee directs that the Department shall also explore new
and alternative approaches to provide high confidence that the
options finally chosen are the best for further development.
The Department shall also contract for studies to determine the
probable extent of global uranium reserves and global uranium
demand. Based on these studies, and on a range of assumptions
about the available capacity of monitored retrievable storage
and repositories in the country, the project shall identify
time scales on which elements of an advanced fuel cycle must be
operational in order to impact national requirements for
management of spent fuel. This study should include information
to guide Congress in establishing the date by which an advanced
recycle facility must be available for performing research on
scalable, proliferation resistant, waste efficient, recycle
technologies as well as other key facilities supporting future
spent fuel management strategies. Based on these studies, the
Secretary is directed to report to Congress by March 2005 with
quantitative goals for the program including evaluation of
future spent fuel inventories, and detailed analysis of the
various options to achieve these goals.
To provide confidence in the technology options proposed,
the project will use Department of Energy national laboratory
and University expertise to perform research and development of
advanced technologies for spent fuel treatment and
transmutation of plutonium, higher actinides and long-lived
fission products. Advanced nuclear material recycle and
safeguard technologies, proliferation-resistant nuclear fuels,
and transmutation systems shall be investigated. Both reactor-
based and a combination of reactor and accelerator-based
transmutation approaches may be included as part of the
research and systems analysis.
The project shall use international and university
collaborations to provide cost effective use of research
funding. Within the funds made available for this initiative,
$1,500,000 is provided for the Idaho Accelerator Center,
$4,500,000 for the University of Nevada Las Vegas, and
$3,000,000 for directed research aimed at enhancing university-
based collaborations focused on the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative with U.S. universities. All university research
shall be closely coordinated with the technical projects
conducted by principal investigators within the national
laboratories.
IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommendation includes $78,160,000, an
increase of $12,600,000 over the request. The recommendation
includes an additional $6,000,000 for the addition of a high-
temperature gas loop in the Advanced Test Reactor, and an
additional $6,600,000 for deferred landlord activities
including the development of a remote treatment facility to
treat remote-handled transuranic waste, remediation of an
industrial waste pond, and to address other critical
infrastructure issues.
PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommendation includes $60,207,000 for
program direction, the amount of the request.
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $22,553,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 22,437,000
The Committee recommendation includes $22,437,000 for non-
defense environment, safety, and health which includes
$15,641,000 for program direction.
ENERGY SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $0
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 0
Committee recommendation................................ 17,600,000
The Committee recommendation provides $17,600,000 for
energy supply infrastructure.
The Energy Supply Infrastructure program provides
assistance, technical support, and project funding to specific
energy projects. The Committee recommendation includes
$2,000,000 for the Upper Lynn Canal power supply project,
$5,000,000 for the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee segment of the
Southeastern Alaska Intertie System, $1,000,000 for the
Tazimina hydroelectric project, $2,000,000 for the Juneau/
Green's Creek/Hoonah intertie project, $100,000 for the Hope
distribution line relocation, $500,000 to support the planning
and permitting of the Petersburg/Kake intertie project, and
$2,000,000 for the Lake Louise/Glenallen facility.
The Committee recommendation also includes $5,000,000 for
the National Center on Energy Management and Building
Technologies and directs that this initiative shall be subject
to the cost-sharing requirements of a research project rather
than a demonstration project.
Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $0
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 170,875,000
Committee recommendation................................ 171,875,000
The Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion program is
responsible for managing and addressing the environmental
legacy resulting from nuclear energy and civilian energy
research programs. The programs and activities are funded
within the following subprograms.
2006 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS
The Committee recommendation includes $48,677,000, the same
as the request. This program provides funding for completing
cleanup and closing down facilities with an accelerated cleanup
plan closure date of 2006 or earlier (such as Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory). In addition, this program provides
funding for environmental management sites where overall site
cleanup will not be complete by 2006 but cleanup projects
within a site (for example, spent fuel removal and TRU waste
shipped off-site) will be complete by 2006.
2012 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS
The Committee recommendation includes $119,750,000, the
same as the request. This program provides funding for
completing cleanup and closing down facilities with an
Accelerated Cleanup Plan closure date of 2007 through 2012
(such as, Brookhaven National Laboratory and West Valley
Demonstration Project). In addition, this program provides
funding for environmental management sites where overall site
cleanup will not be complete by 2012 but cleanup projects
within a site (for example, spent fuel removal and TRU waste
shipped off-site) will be complete by 2012.
The Committee understands that the Department recently
issued a Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact related to remediation of the Energy
Technology and Engineering Center [ETEC]. The Committee is
concerned that under the Department's plans, the ETEC site will
not be remediated to CERCLA standards. The Committee
understands that the Department intends to remediate 5,500
cubic meters of soil around one installation, leaving in place
an additional 400,000 cubic meters of contaminated soil. This
may represent an unacceptable deviation from the Department's
commitment in a 1995 Department of Energy-EPA Joint Policy.
Under that agreement, the Department committed to fund an EPA
radiological survey of the ETEC site and to remediate the site
to CERCLA standards. The Committee urges the Department to
fulfill those commitments and reassess whether the decision
meets the joint policy and CERCLA standards.
2035 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS
The Committee recommendation includes $6,448,000, an
increase of $4,000,000 over the request. This program provides
funding for completing cleanup and closing down facilities that
are expected to be completed beyond 2012 but by 2035. The
Committee recommendation includes a total of $6,000,000 for the
Department to continue activities related to accelerated
remediation of the former Atlas Mill Site in Moab, Utah. In
evaluating alternatives for site remediation, the Department
shall give full consideration to removal or relocation given
the sites on the Colorado River.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
The Committee recommendation includes the use of $3,000,000
in prior year balances.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $0
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 418,124,000
Committee recommendation................................ 396,124,000
The Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund supports projects to
maintain, decontaminate, decommission and otherwise remediate
the gaseous diffusion plants at Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah,
Kentucky; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In addition, the Uranium/
Thorium Licensee Reimbursement program activities are funded
within this appropriation.
Decontamination and Decommissioning.--The Committee
recommendation includes $370,124,000, an increase of $3,000,000
above the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes
$167,359,000 for activities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and
$80,894,000 for Portsmouth, Ohio, the amounts of the budget
request. The Committee recommendation provides a total of
$121,871,000 for activities related to the Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant, including $2,000,000 for continued support of
the Kentucky Consortium for Energy and Environment.
The Committee is dismayed by the failure of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Department to reach an
agreement on accelerated cleanup at the Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant. Recognizing that environmental contamination
poses an unacceptable risk to the health and well being of the
citizens of western Kentucky, this Committee has generously
provided ample resources for cleanup at Paducah for several
consecutive years. However, the inability of State and Federal
regulators to work cooperatively in the best interests of the
citizens of Kentucky in reaching an agreement places the
continued availability of such funds in jeopardy. It should be
noted that Kentucky is the only State that has not yet signed a
letter of intent to enter into an accelerated cleanup agreement
with the Department. The Committee eagerly awaits the
completion of a report from the General Accounting Office
examining the slow pace of cleanup at the Paducah facility. The
Committee expects GAO's report to show the absence of an
agreement and continued intransigence of all parties have
unnecessarily delayed the cleanup of environmental hazards at
Paducah.
Uranium/Thorium Reimbursement.--The Committee
recommendation includes $26,000,000, a reduction of $25,000,000
from the budget request, but an increase of $10,000,000 over
the current year level and $25,000,000 over the fiscal year
2002 level.
Non-Defense Environmental Services
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $0
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 292,121,000
Committee recommendation................................ 302,121,000
The Non-Defense Environmental Services program supports
non-defense related activities that indirectly support the
primary environmental management mission of accelerated risk
reduction and closure. The programs and activities are funded
within the following subprograms.
COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT
The Committee recommendation includes $1,034,000, the same
as the request. This program funds activities that are
indirectly related to on-the-ground cleanup results but are
integral to the Office of Environmental Management's ability to
conduct cleanup at specific sites (for example, Agreements in
Principles with State regulators and tribal nations and Site
Specific Advisory Boards).
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP PROJECTS
The Committee recommendation includes $43,842,000, the same
as the request. This program provides funds to support the
transfer of additional contaminated excess facilities to the
environmental management program from other Departmental
programs for surveillance and maintenance and eventual
decontamination and decommissioning (for example, the Fast Flux
Test Facility beginning in 2004). These transfers constitute
new work for the Office of Environmental Management.
NON-CLOSURE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES
The Committee recommendation includes $257,245,000, the
same as the request. This program provides funds for activities
that indirectly support the Department's accelerated cleanup
and closure mission such as gaseous diffusion plant uranium
programs. These activities, while not in direct support of
cleanup, provide valuable services to other Departmental
priorities and missions.
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Project, Paducah,
Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio.--The Committee recommendation
includes a total of $100,000,000 including $96,800,000 for the
construction line item (02-U-101) and $3,200,000 in operating
funding. The Department shall use these funds only for the
project scope as described in the budget justifications and
none of the funds provided may be used to cover administrative
costs at other Departmental sites. The additional $10,000,000
shall be used for construction at the Paducah, Kentucky
facility. The additional funding shall have no effect on the
amounts available for the Portsmouth, Ohio facility.
Science
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $3,261,328,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 3,310,935,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,360,435,000
The Science account funds investment in basic research
critical to the success of the Department's missions in
national security, energy security and economic security.
Programs funded under this account perform a leadership role in
advancing the frontiers of knowledge in the physical sciences
and areas of biological, environmental and computational
sciences. The programs are also responsible for providing
world-class research facilities for the Nation's broader
scientific enterprise. The Science account includes the
following major programs: high energy physics, nuclear physics,
biological and environmental research, basic energy sciences,
advanced scientific computing research, science laboratories
infrastructure, and fusion energy sciences.
GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES
Investment in the physical sciences and engineering plays a
critical role in enabling U.S. technological innovation and
global economic leadership. It is essential to the development
and utilization of our energy resources, as well as innovations
in the areas of defense, the environment, communications and
information technologies, health care and much more. Over the
past 50 years, half of U.S. economic growth has come from prior
investment in science and technological innovation. Life
expectancy has grown from 55 years in 1900 to nearly 80 years
today.
The Department of Energy is the leading source of Federal
investment for R&D facilities and fundamental research in the
physical sciences. Yet investment in the Department's R&D has
declined in constant dollars from $11,200,000,000 in 1980 to
$7,700,000,000 in 2001. As a percentage of GDP, total Federal
investment in the physical sciences and engineering has been
cut roughly in half since 1970.
Shrinking investment in the physical sciences and
engineering poses serious risks to DOE's ability to perform its
mission. It also threatens the Nation's science and technology
enterprise. DOE faces a shortage of nearly 40 percent in its
technical workforce over the next 5 years. To meet its needs,
DOE must compete with industry for a shrinking pool of skilled
workers, many of whose leaders also report serious shortages of
scientists and engineers.
American educational institutions are failing to attract
sufficient numbers of U.S. students, especially women and
minorities, into undergraduate and graduate programs in the
physical sciences and engineering. For these skills the United
States is now more heavily dependent on foreign nations than
ever before. The H1-B visa has become a main element of U.S.
technology policy.
As fewer foreign students choose to pursue their education
in the United States, and too few U.S. students enter these
fields, our vulnerability grows. The National Science
Foundation reports that between 1996 and 1999, the number of
Ph.D.s in science and engineering awarded to foreign students
declined by 15 percent. Only 5 percent of U.S. students now
earn bachelors degrees in natural science or engineering. Since
1986, the total number of bachelors degrees in engineering is
down 15 percent. Between 1994 and 2000, the number of Ph.D.s
awarded in physics in the United States declined by 22 percent.
These trends must be reversed. Many DOE user facilities do
not operate at their designed capacity. As a result,
opportunities and momentum are lost as researchers and students
encounter barriers to the pursuit of their studies, including
promising research opportunities at the boundaries of the life
sciences, physical sciences, engineering, and computer
sciences. Future U.S. global leadership and technological
leadership will rely upon today's investment in research in all
of the science and engineering disciplines.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $722,264,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 737,978,000
Committee recommendation................................ 737,978,000
The Committee recommendation includes $737,978,000 for high
energy physics, an increase of $15,714,000 over the current
year level.
The high energy physics program focuses on gaining insights
into the fundamental constituents of matter, the fundamental
forces in nature, and the transformations between matter and
energy at the most elementary level. The program encompasses
both experimental and theoretical particle physics research and
related advanced accelerator and detector technology R&D. The
primary mode of experimental research involves the study of
collisions of energetic particles using large particle
accelerators or colliding beam facilities.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $381,872,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 389,430,000
Committee recommendation................................ 389,430,000
The Committee recommends $389,430,000 for nuclear physics,
an increase of $7,558,000 over the current year level.
The nuclear physics program supports and provides
experimental equipment to qualified scientists and research
groups conducting experiments at nuclear physics accelerator
facilities. These facilities provide new insights and advance
our knowledge of the nature of matter and energy and develop
the scientific knowledge, technologies and trained manpower
needed to underpin the Department's nuclear missions. The
Committee supports the Continuous Electron Bean Accelerator
Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
and encourages the Jefferson Lab to increase operational time
and thereby reduce the significant backlog of peer reviewed and
approved scientific experiments and begin work toward the 12
GeV upgrade. Therefore, the Committee urges the Department to
grant approval and include adequate funds in its fiscal year
2005 request to continue this process.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $506,685,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 499,535,000
Committee recommendation................................ 534,035,000
The Committee recommendation includes $534,035,000 for
biological and environmental research, an increase of
$34,500,000 over the current year level.
The biological and environmental research program develops
the knowledge base necessary to identify, understand, and
anticipate the long-term health and environmental consequences
of energy use and development. The program utilizes the
Department's unique scientific and technological capabilities
to solve major scientific problems in the environment,
medicine, and biology. The Committee recommendation includes an
additional $3,000,000 for the Environmental Molecular Sciences
Laboratory at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Washington
and $7,776,000 for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. The
Committee recommendation includes the budget request of
$17,496,000 for low dose radiation research.
Genomes to Life.--The Committee recommendation continues
its strong support of the ``genomes to life'' activities aimed
at understanding the composition and function of biochemical
networks that carry out essential processes of living
organisms. This activity is funded at $69,039,000, an increase
of $10,000,000 over the request.
Energy-Water Supply Technologies.--The Committee
recommendation includes an additional $15,500,000 to support a
research and demonstration program to study energy-related
issues associated with water resources and issues associated
with sustainable water supplies for energy production. The
recommendation includes $6,000,000 to continue the arsenic
removal research in conjunction with the American Water Works
Association Research Foundation as begun in fiscal year 2003;
$4,000,000 in support of desalination research consistent with
the Desalination and Water Purification Technology Roadmap in
partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation; and $1,500,000 to
support the public/private ZeroNet Energy-Water Initiative. The
Committee recommendation also includes $4,000,000 to fund a
demonstration of a stand-alone stirling engine that will run on
any fuel. The engine shall be a portable, closed-cycle,
reciprocating, and regenerative heat engine used in conjunction
with an electrical generator to convert heat, external to the
engine, into electricity and usable thermal power. This engine
should be combined with an advanced vapor compression
distillation system for making drinking water from virtually
any water source. The water system shall remove all
contaminants, including volatile compounds. The goal of the
combined stirling and water system is to provide safe water and
power in remote rural areas. The value and efficiency of the
combined system will come from using the emission free engine's
waste heat to help power the water purifier. The demonstration
of this technology should take place on Native American
reservations.
Molecular Medicine.--The Committee recommendation includes
an additional $6,000,000 for programs that bring together PET
imaging, systems biology and nanotechnology to develop new
molecular imaging probes. These probes should provide a
biological diagnosis of disease that is informative of the
molecular basis of disease and specific for guiding the
development of new molecular therapies. The programs must bring
together chemists, physicists, biologists and imaging
scientists to produce new technologies and science in the
stated area. The particular disease orientation is in cancers
such as breast, prostrate, colorectal, melanoma and others and
degenerative neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's and
Parkinson's diseases.
The Committee is concerned about consequence mitigation
activities and public health impacts associated with the threat
of any radiological event and strongly encourages the
Department to develop therapeutic radiological countermeasures
to protect against exposure to the effects of ionizing
radiation. The Committee is aware of the potential of inositol
signaling molecules as a therapy for exposure to ionizing
radiation and encourages the Department to support research of
this emerging technology. The Committee recommends the Science
and Technology Division of the Department of Energy fund
medical therapy research arid other treatment options to
protect the public health against radiation exposure.
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $1,023,305,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 1,008,575,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,008,575,000
The Committee recommendation includes $1,008,575,000, the
same as the budget request.
The basic energy sciences [BES] program funds basic
research in the physical, biological and engineering sciences
that support the Department's nuclear and non-nuclear
technology programs. The BES program is responsible for
operating large national user research facilities, including
synchrotron light and neutron sources, a combustion research
facility, as well as smaller user facilities such as materials
preparation and electron microscopy centers. The BES program
supports a substantial basic research budget for materials
sciences, chemical sciences, energy biosciences, engineering
and geosciences.
Research
The Committee recommendation includes $788,625,000, the
amount of the request, for materials sciences, engineering
research, chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy
biosciences.
Construction
Spallation Neutron Source.--The Committee recommendation
includes the budget request of $124,600,000 to continue
construction at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the
Spallation Neutron Source [SNS] to meet the Nation's neutron
scattering needs.
Nanoscale Science Research Centers.--The Committee
recommendation supports the high priority given to nanoscale
research and has included the budget request totaling
$87,850,000 for the nanoscale science research centers at
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the joint effort
between Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos National
Laboratory.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
The Committee recommendation provides $183,490,000 for
advanced scientific computing research, an increase of
$10,000,000 over the current year level.
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research [ASCR] program
supports advanced computational research--applied mathematics,
computer science, and networking--to enable the analysis,
simulation and prediction of complex physical phenomena. The
program also supports the operation of large supercomputer user
facilities.
SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE
The Committee recommends $48,590,000, an increase of
$5,000,000 for Oak Ridge National Laboratory infrastructure.
The program supports infrastructure activities at the five
national labs under the direction of the Office of Science.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $248,375,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 257,310,000
Committee recommendation................................ 257,310,000
The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is
$257,310,000, an amount that is equal to the budget request.
The fusion energy sciences program supports research
emphasizing the underlying basic research in plasma and fusion
sciences, with the long-term goal of harnessing fusion as a
viable energy source.
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor.--The
Committee recommendation includes the budget request of
$1,990,000 to allow the Department to enter multilateral
international negotiations aimed at building the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor [ITER], a burning plasma
physics experiment many view as an essential next step toward
eventually developing fusion as a commercially viable energy
source. Reasonably conservative estimates suggest that the
United States' participation in ITER will require approximately
$1,500,000,000 over the next 10 years in direct contributions
to the construction of ITER and in supporting science. The
Department's request of less than $2,000,000 in direct support
of the ITER project for fiscal year 2004 certainly leads the
Committee to question the Department's commitment to supporting
ITER without prejudice or damage to alternative fusion
technologies, much less other Departmental science programs.
The Department's proposed fiscal year 2004 budget proposes
to cut severely long-term activities in fusion technology and
advanced design that will have significant impact on the
ultimate attractiveness of fusion power. The Committee
recommends that, within available funds, the Department should
make adjustments to redress the imbalance resulting from these
cuts.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommendation provides $51,887,000 for
safeguards and security, an increase of $3,760,000 over the
request.
The safeguards and security line identifies the funding
necessary for the physical protection, protective forces,
physical security, protective systems, information security,
cyber security, personnel security, materials control and
accountability and program management activities for national
laboratories and facilities of the Office of Science.
SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommendation provides $6,470,000 for
science workforce development, an increase of $1,045,000 from
the current year level.
The science workforce development program provides limited
funding to train young scientists, engineers, and technicians
to meet the demand for a well trained scientific and technical
workforce, including the teachers that educate the workforce.
The Committee encourages the Department of Energy to provide
funds and technical expertise for high school students to
participate in the 2004 For Inspiration and Recognition of
Science and Technology [FIRST] Robotics competition. FIRST has
proven to be a valuable program to introduce and mentor
students in math and science.
SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommendation provides $147,053,000 for
science program direction, an increase of $11,554,000 from the
current year level.
Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $144,058,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 161,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 140,000,000
The Committee recommendation includes $425,000,000 for
nuclear waste disposal. Of that amount, $140,000,000 is derived
from the nuclear waste fund, and $285,000,000 shall be
available from the ``Defense nuclear waste disposal'' account.
The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the State of
Nevada and $8,000,000 for affected units of local government in
accordance with the statutory restrictions contained in the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act. These funds are direct payments, not
grants or cooperative agreements, and are available until
expended. The failure of the Department to request any funding
for state or county oversight programs in fiscal year 2004
indicates a disturbing lack of support for congressionally-
mandated programs to identify impacts, to make comments and
recommendations to the Secretary, and to provide information
about the repository to local residents, particularly
concerning policy developments at the national level. The
Committee strongly urges the Department to include funding for
states and affected units of local government in the fiscal
year 2005 budget request. During fiscal year 2003, audits of
affected unit of local government funds provided to Nye and
Lincoln Counties in Nevada resulted in nearly $2,000,000 in
disallowed costs. These costs were disallowed despite the
advance approval of the county work plans by the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Nuclear Waste. However, the disallowed
costs should be borne by the the affected units of local
government [AULGs]. The balance of funds appropriated for the
AULGs should be made available for appropriate and allowable
programs and activities of the AULGs and should not be utilized
by the Department for any other purpose. The Committee expects
the Department and the AULGs to do a substantially better job
of complying with congressional direction concerning
appropriate uses for these funds. The Department and the AULGs
should work cooperatively to set funding guidelines to prevent
a repeat of these problems.
The Committee recommendation includes funding for the
following research and oversight activities: $2,500,000 for the
University of Nevada-Reno to conduct nuclear waste repository
research in the areas of materials evaluation, fundamental
studies on degradation mechanisms, alternate materials and
design, and computational and analytical modeling; $1,500,000
for the Research Foundation at the University of Nevada-Las
Vegas to conduct safety and risk analyses, simulation and
modeling, systems planning, and operations and management to
support radioactive and hazardous materials transportation;
$1,000,000 for the Research Foundation at the University of
Nevada-Las Vegas to assess earthquake hazards and seismic risk
in Southern Nevada; $2,500,000 for the Desert Research
Institute's Yucca Mountain Environmental Monitoring Program;
$2,500,000 for the University of Nevada-Reno to expand the
earthquake engineering and simulation facility. These funds are
available until expended. In fiscal year 2003, the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Nuclear Waste appeared to some to be
dilatory in releasing funding required by Congress to the State
of Nevada, the affected units of local government, and other
grant recipients. The Committee directs the Department to
deliver a report to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, by no later than October 31, 2003, detailing how
and when all fiscal year 2004 grants will be distributed.
Departmental Administration
(GROSS)
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $205,280,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 326,306,000
Committee recommendation................................ 309,564,000
(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)
Appropriations, 2003.................................... -$120,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... -146,668,000
Committee recommendation................................ -146,668,000
The Department recommends $309,564,000 for departmental
administration, a net appropriation of $162,896,000. This
amount represents a decrease of $16,742,000 from the budget
request and is detailed further in the table at the end of the
portion of the report regarding Title III.
The Departmental Administration account funds policy
development and analysis activities, institutional and public
liaison functions, and other program support requirements
necessary to ensure effective operation and management. The
account also covers salaries and expenses for the Office of the
Secretary; Board of Contract Appeals; Chief Information
Officer; Congressional and intergovernmental affairs; Economic
impact and diversity; General Counsel; Office of Management,
Budget and Evaluation; Policy and International Affairs; and
Public Affairs.
The Committee recommendation includes an additional
$5,000,000 for the Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation
for increased oversight and reporting on new Office of
Environmental Management acceleration contracts.
The National Research Council [NRC] observed progress in
improving DOE project management procedures over the past 3
years, but noted that it is still too soon to observe any
measurable affect on project performance. The NRC found that it
will require several more years to determine if changes in DOE
project management culture have increased its ability to
undertake projects that support its missions and whether DOE
project managers have the ability plan and execute them
successfully. Accordingly, the Committee directs DOE to
contract with the NRC to provide continued oversight until
sustained improvement in project performance can be documented
and measured.
Inspector General
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $37,426,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 39,462,000
Committee recommendation................................ 39,462,000
The Committee has provided $39,462,000 for the Office of
the Inspector General, the same as the budget request.
The Office of the Inspector General provides agency-wide
audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and
correct management and administrative deficiencies which create
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste,
and mismanagement.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Atomic energy defense activities of the Department of
Energy are provided for in two categories--the National Nuclear
Security Administration and Environmental and Other Defense
Activities. Appropriation accounts under the National Nuclear
Security Administration [NNSA] are Weapons Activities, Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the
Administrator. Environmental and Other Defense Activities
include appropriation accounts for Defense Site Acceleration
Completion, Defense Environmental Services, Other Defense
Activities, and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal.
National Nuclear Security Administration
The National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA], a
separately organized and semi-autonomous agency within the
Department of Energy, came into existence on March 1, 2000. The
missions of the NNSA are: (1) to enhance United States national
security through the military application of nuclear energy;
(2) to maintain and enhance the safety, reliability, and
performance of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile,
including the ability to design, produce, and test, in order to
meet national security requirements; (3) to provide the United
States Navy with safe, militarily effective nuclear propulsion
plants and to ensure the safe and reliable operation of those
plants; (4) to promote international nuclear safety and
nonproliferation; (5) to reduce global danger from weapons of
mass destruction; and (6) to support United States leadership
in science and technology. The programs and activities of the
NNSA are funded through the following appropriation accounts:
Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval
Reactors, and Office of the Administrator.
Weapons Activities
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $5,914,409,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 6,378,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,473,814,000
The Weapons Activities account provides for the maintenance
and refurbishment of nuclear weapons in order to sustain
confidence in their safety, reliability, and performance; the
expansion of scientific, engineering, and manufacturing
capabilities to enable certification of the enduring nuclear
weapons stockpile; and the manufacture of nuclear weapon
components under a comprehensive test ban. The Weapons
Activities account also provides for maintaining the capability
to return to the design and production of new weapons and to
underground nuclear testing if so directed by the President.
The major elements of the program include the following:
directed stockpile work, campaigns, readiness in technical base
and facilities, facilities and infrastructure, secure
transportation asset, and safeguards and security.
Weapons Activities Reprogramming Authority.--The conference
agreement provides limited reprogramming authority within the
Weapons Activities account without submission of a
reprogramming to be approved in advance by the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations. The reprogramming thresholds will
be as follows: directed stockpile work, science campaigns,
engineering campaigns, inertial confinement fusion, advanced
simulation and computing, pit manufacturing and certification,
readiness campaigns, and operating expenses for readiness in
technical base and facilities. In addition, funding of not more
than $5,000,000 may be transferred between each of these
categories and each construction project subject to the
following limitations: only one transfer may be made to or from
any program or project; the transfer must be necessary to
address a risk to health, safety or the environment or to
assure the most efficient use of weapons activities funds at a
site; and funds may not be used for an item for which Congress
has specifically denied funds or for a new program or project
that has not been authorized by Congress. Congressional
notification within 15 days of the use of this reprogramming
authority is required. Transfers during the fiscal year which
would result in increases or decreases in excess of $5,000,000
or which would be subject to the limitations outlined above
require prior notification and approval from the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.
DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK
The Committee recommendation includes $1,367,786,000 for
directed stockpile work, an increase of $3,000,000 over the
request.
The directed stockpile work program encompasses all
activities that directly support specific weapons in the
stockpile. These activities include maintenance and day-to-day
care; planned refurbishment; reliability assessments; weapon
dismantlement and disposal; and research, development, and
certification technology efforts to meet future stockpile
requirements.The NNSA Administrator shall insure that all of
the assessments provided to him have utilized the judgements of
independent, expert, and cognizant reviewers who are not
normally involved in the stewardship of the assessed nuclear
warheads or their associated delivery systems.
Stockpile Research and Development.--The Committee
recommends $433,150,000, the same as the budget request.
Stockpile R&D provides for assessment, certification,
surveillance and maintenance research and development for
systems comprising our enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. The
recommendation also includes $21,000,000, the amount of the
request for advanced concept initiative activities.
Stockpile Maintenance.--The Committee recommends
$415,746,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the request, to
provide for stockpile maintenance and production and exchange
of limited life components in the enduring stockpile, as well
as major refurbishment activities to extend the stockpile life
of the W87, W76, W80, and B61 weapons systems. The additional
resources are intended to support activities at the Y-12 Plant
in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Stockpile Evaluation.--The Committee recommends
$202,886,000, the amount of the request, to support new
material laboratory tests, new material flight tests, stockpile
laboratory tests, stockpile flight tests, quality evaluations,
special testing, and surveillance of weapons systems to support
assessment of the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons
stockpile, all of which contributes to the Annual Certification
to the President.
Dismantlement/Disposal.--The Committee recommends
$37,722,000, the amount of the request. The program includes
all activities associated with weapon retirement and
disassembly.
Production Support.--The Committee recommends $271,113,000,
a reduction of $7,000,000 from the request to adjust for a
lower-than-expected program growth.
CAMPAIGNS
The Committee recommendation includes $2,370,655,000 for
campaigns, a reduction of $24,800,000 from the budget request.
The campaigns program focuses on scientific, technical and
engineering efforts to develop and maintain critical
capabilities and tools needed to support stockpile
refurbishment and continued assessment and certification of the
stockpile for the long term in the absence of underground
nuclear testing. The major elements of the campaigns program
are: science campaigns, engineering campaigns, inertial
confinement fusion and high yield, advanced simulation and
computing, pit manufacturing and certification, and readiness
campaigns.
Science Campaigns
Primary Certification.--The Committee recommends
$64,849,000, a reduction of $1,000,000 to adjust for a lower-
than-expected program growth.
Dynamic Materials Properties.--The Committee recommends
$87,251,000 an increase of $5,000,000 from the request. The
Committee commends the administration for its investment in the
future through university grants, partnerships and cooperative
agreements. Using $5,000,000 of the available funds, the
Administration is directed to make full use of existing and
developing capabilities for materials properties studies,
including the subcritical experiments at the U1a facility,
Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research facility and
the Atlas facility at the Nevada Test Site. The Committee
understands that this materials work is essential to predicting
the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons in the absence of
nuclear weapons testing.
Advanced Radiography.--The Committee recommends
$65,985,000, the same as the request. The recommendation
includes $24,844,000 for advanced radiography requirements and
technology development.
Secondary Certification and Nuclear Systems Margins.--The
Committee recommends $54,463,000, a reduction of $1,000,000 to
adjust for a lower-than-expected program growth, for radiation
source development, radiation, case dynamics studies radiation
transport and the effects of aging, and refurbishment on
secondary performance.
Engineering Campaigns
Enhanced Surety.--The Committee recommends $36,974,000, a
reduction of $1,000,000 to adjust for a lower-than-expected
program growth, to develop and demonstrate advanced initiation
concepts and enhanced use denial concepts, and to enhance
efforts to establish high precision, micro-system technologies
for enhanced surety of future weapon systems.
Weapons Systems Engineering Certification.--The Committee
recommends $27,238,000, a reduction of $1,000,000 to adjust for
a lower-than-expected program growth, to accelerate the
acquisition of experimental data necessary to validate new
models and simulation tools being developed in the Advanced
Simulation and Computing Campaign.
Nuclear Survivability.--The Committee recommends
$22,977,000, a reduction of $1,000,000 to adjust for a lower-
than-expected program growth, to develop and validate tools to
simulate nuclear environments for survivability assessments and
certification; restore the capability to provide nuclear-
hardened microelectronics and microsystem components for the
enduring stockpile; and accelerate the qualification and
certification of the neutron generator and the arming, fusing
and firing system for the refurbished W76.
Enhanced Surveillance.--The Committee recommendation
includes $92,781,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the
request to adjust for a lower-than-expected program growth.
Advanced Design and Production Technologies.--The Committee
recommendation includes $77,917,000, a reduction of $2,000,000
from the request to adjust for a lower-than-expected program
growth.
Project 01-D-108 Microsystem and Engineering Science
Applications [MESA], SNL, Albuquerque, NM.--The Committee
recommendation includes an additional $43,200,000 to accelerate
the construction schedule consistent with projected stockpile
needs.
Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield
The Committee recommends $432,769,000, a decrease of
$34,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee
recommendation includes $150,000,000 for National Ignition
Facility construction, Project 96-D-111, and $282,769,000 for
the ICF ignition and high yield program.
National Ignition Facility.--The Committee recommendation
includes $150,000,000 for construction and $96,300,000 for the
NIF demonstration program, consistent with the revised NIF
project baseline. All construction and support activities
related to the NIF should be funded from either the NIF
construction line or the NIF demonstration program. The
Committee is concerned about the dramatic growth in other NIF-
related activities funded elsewhere in the inertial confinement
fusion campaign and specifically rejects that portion of the
budget request. As such, the budget request for experimental
support technologies is reduced by $44,000,000, and the balance
of that sub-program is directed towards the support of other
high energy density physics laboratories and facilities.
Inertial Fusion Technology.--The Committee recommendation
includes $5,000,000 to initiate assessments and initial
development and testing of Z-Pinch inertial fusion energy.
Petawatt Lasers.--The Committee also includes an additional
$5,000,000 for university grants and other support. Within this
amount, $2,500,000 is provided for continued development of an
ultra short pulse petawatt laser at the University of Texas;
and $2,500,000 is provided to continue short-pulse laser
development and research at the University of Nevada, Reno.
The Committee understands that high intensity laser physics
enables major new areas of science and engineering endeavor in
the United States and that advances in this field will enable
important progress in critical aspects of basic science, fusion
energy, and national security. A robust, coordinated program in
high intensity lasers will affordably maintain U.S. leadership
in this critically important area. Accordingly, the Committee
directs that Department to pursue a joint high intensity laser
program with the National Science Foundation. The Committee
further directs the NNSA and the Department's Office of Science
to develop, in collaboration with the NSF, a report that
identifies the benefits and disadvantages of multi-agency
coordinated research in high intensity laser science and
delineates how a joint program in this area will be structured.
This report should be delivered to the Committee no later than
April 15, 2004.
Advanced Simulation and Computing
The Committee recommendation includes $725,626,000, an
amount that is $25,000,000 below the budget request.
Currently the National Academies Computer Science and
Telecommunications Board and the JASONs are completing separate
reports due to the Committee on August 1, 2003 as directed in
the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, Public Law
108-7. The recommendation of the Committee to reduce the
program by $25,000,000 still leaves the program with just under
a $60,000,000 increase over the adjusted current year level,
excluding construction. The recommended reduction is without
prejudice and the Committee expects to revisit the appropriate
level of funding at conference with the benefit of the National
Academies' and JASONs' reports.
Pit Manufacturing and Certification
The Committee recommendation includes a total of
$320,228,000 for the pit manufacturing and certification
campaign, the same as the budget request. This amount includes
$235,365,000 to support the manufacturing and certification of
a W88 pit consistent with the project baseline. The Committee
directs the NNSA to revise as appropriate the pit production
and certification plan and submit the report to the relevant
congressional committees by March 31, 2003, and annually
thereafter.
Modern Pit Facility.--The Committee recommendation includes
a total of $22,810,000, the same as the budget request. The
recommendation includes $7,000,000 to continue conceptual
design of the modern pit facility and $15,810,000 to support a
site selection decision for the modern pit facility in fiscal
year 2004.
Readiness Campaigns
Stockpile Readiness Campaign.--The Committee recommends
$55,158,000 for the stockpile readiness campaign the amount of
the request. This program, initiated in fiscal year 2001,
enables the Y-12 National Security Complex to replace or
restore production capability and to modernize aging
facilities. At present, all of the critical manufacturing
capabilities required for weapons refurbishments at Y-12 do not
exist.
High Explosives Manufacturing and Weapons Assembly/
Disassembly Readiness.--The Committee recommends $27,649,000, a
reduction of $2,000,000 to adjust for lower-than-expected
program growth, to establish production-scale high explosives
manufacturing and qualification; to deploy and validate
technologies and facilities for production re-qualification;
and, to demonstrate and validate Enterprise Integration and
Collaborative Manufacturing.
Non-Nuclear Readiness.--The Committee recommends
$34,397,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 to adjust for lower-
than-expected program growth, to deploy commercial products and
processes for components supporting the B61, W80, and W76
stockpile life extension programs; to modify existing tritium
loading and cleaning facilities to support stockpile life
extension programs; and, to support neutron target loading and
detonator production.
Tritium Readiness.--The Committee recommendation includes
$134,893,000 for the tritium readiness campaign, the same as
the request.
Cooperative Agreements.--The Committee recognizes that
cooperative agreements with universities are important
resources for developing essential technical data for stockpile
stewardship. Additionally, such long-term relationships with
universities allow considerable opportunity for promoting
advanced studies and recruiting the future workforce in
technical areas that are critical to the continuing stewardship
enterprise. The Committee remains supportive of this activity
and directs the administration to honor existing cooperative
agreements as this new office implements its responsibilities.
The Committee is aware of the successful partnerships between
the NNSA and the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and the
University of Nevada-Reno that have been fostered through a
series of cooperative agreements. The Department is encouraged
to renew these agreements at higher levels as appropriate.
READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES
The Committee recommendation includes $1,731,585,000, an
increase of $118,114,000 from the budget request.
The readiness in technical base and facilities [RTBF]
program provides the underlying physical infrastructure and
operational readiness for the directed stockpile work and
campaign programs. RTBF activities include ensuring that
facilities are operational, safe, secure, and in compliance
with regulatory requirements, and that a defined level of
readiness is sustained at facilities funded by the Office of
Defense Programs.
Operations of Facilities.--The Committee recommends
$1,091,773,000, an increase of $117,000,000, to maintain warm
standby readiness for all RTBF facilities with some allowance
for inflation. Within available funds, an additional
$10,000,000 is provided to support the operation of facilities
at the Nevada Test Site, including the Device Assembly
Facility, the Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental
Research facility, operations associated with the Atlas
relocation project, U1a operations, general plant projects and
other NTS support facilities.
For continued facility upgrades, refurbishments, operations
and maintenance costs associated with and for the National
Center for Combating Terrorism, an additional $25,000,000 is
provided. The Committee directs that not less than $5,000,000
of the funds for the NCCT be provided jointly to the Institute
for Security Studies at UNLV and the comparable program at the
University of Nevada-Reno.
The Committee recommendation also includes an additional
$10,000,000 for facility operations at Pantex, an additional
$10,000,000 for operation of facilities at Y-12, an additional
$20,000,000 for the Kansas City Plant to address pension
liability issues, an additional $15,000,000 for the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, and an additional $20,000,000
for the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Committee
recommendation includes an additional $8,000,000 for
modification of the Z-Beamlet laser to the Z Machine at Sandia
National Laboratories.
Technology Transfer and Industrial Partnerships.--The
Committee recognizes that partnerships with industry may enable
the weapons complex to accomplish its mission more efficiently.
Such partnership can provide access to new technologies,
processes, and expertise that improve NNSA's mission
capabilities. One of the most successful technology transfer
and commercialization efforts in the Department of Energy has
occurred with the not-for-profit Technology Ventures
Corporation around Sandia National Laboratories, resulting in
over 30 start-up ventures and thousands of jobs created. The
Committee has included an additional $3,000,000 and directs the
NNSA to continue to support this highly successful public/
private partnership at the NNSA laboratories and the Nevada
Test Site. The Committee recommendation also includes
$1,000,000 for the NNSA to utilize the capabilities of its
laboratories for a joint effort with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission on sensor technologies and applications.
Program Readiness.--The Committee recommends $131,093,000,
the same as the budget request, to enhance readiness and
maintain materials processing and component manufacturing
readiness.
Special Projects.--The Committee recommendation includes
$60,025,000 for special projects. Within available funds,
$6,900,000 is provided for the New Mexico Education Enrichment
Foundation; $500,000 for the design, fabrication, and
installation of exhibits at the Atomic Testing History
Institute; $2,500,000 for stockpile stewardship research at the
Nevada terrawatt facility at the University of Nevada-Reno; and
$6,900,000 for the Sandia National Laboratories. The Los Alamos
County Schools Program is funded at the level of the
President's request.
The Committee is aware of concerns expressed by the City of
Oak Ridge and Anderson and Roane counties in the State of
Tennessee regarding the level of financial assistance provided
by the Department of Energy. As a Manhattan Project atomic
energy community, the Department has a special relationship
with Oak Ridge. Although the area receives modest support from
the Department as part of the Payment in Lieu of Tax program,
economic development has been severely limited by extensive
Federal ownership of lands, aging infrastructure, and
disproportionately high local tax rates. Unfortunately, Oak
Ridge has not achieved the level of self-sufficiency envisioned
by the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955. The Committee urges
the Department to work with city and county officials to
develop a plan to help the Oak Ridge community achieve
financial self-sufficiency.
Material Recycle and Recovery.--The Committee recommends
$76,189,000, the amount of the budget request.
Nuclear Weapons Incident Response.--The Committee
recommends $89,694,000, the amount of the request, to enhance
the state of response readiness at various locations.
Construction Projects.--The Committee recommends an
appropriation of $274,940,000, for construction projects under
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities.
The following list details changes in appropriations for
construction projects under Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities:
Project 04-D-103 Project Engineering and Design [PED],
Various Locations.--The Committee recommendation includes
$3,564,000, an increase of $1,564,000. The additional amount is
to support the replacement of Fire Station No. 1, Nevada Test
Site, Nevada. The base request also includes $800,000 to
support the replacement of Fire Station No. 2, Nevada Test
Site, Nevada. The Department is directed to provide a study of
the potential benefits in terms of both time and cost of
utilizing a design-build process for the replacement of these
fire stations. Neither station meets current fire regulations
which has practical and potential impacts on the state of test
readiness. This report shall be provided to the House and
Senate Committee by August 31, 2003.
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM
The Committee recommendation includes $265,123,000, the
same as the budget request.
The facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program
is a multi-year but limited term effort to restore the physical
infrastructure of the weapons complex and eliminate the
maintenance backlog. The program provides funds to accomplish
deferred maintenance and utilities replacement while improving
facility management practices to preclude further
deterioration.
The FIRP program was designed to be a program of limited
duration to accomplish these purposes. The Committee notes its
concern that the regular maintenance budgets within the RTBF
account remain under funded and are thus still contributing to
the deferred maintenance backlog--3 years after the FIRP
program was created, and during a period when weapons complex
funding increased from an annual rate of approximately
$5,000,000,000 to approximately $6,700,000,000. The Committee
directs the NNSA to request a budget that allows all sites
within the complex to adequately fund maintenance activities at
appropriate levels to achieve an orderly reduction of the
infrastructure deferred maintenance backlog down to the private
industry standard for comparable facilities. The NNSA shall
establish procedures to ensure the site managers and laboratory
managers are appropriately funding maintenance.
SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET
The Committee recommendation includes a total of
$162,400,000, a reduction of $20,000,000 from the budget
request. The fiscal year 2003 supplemental included an
additional $20,000,000 for the secure transportation asset and
the Committee directs the use of these carryover balances for
fiscal year 2004.
The secure transportation asset program provides for the
safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear
material, and weapon components between military locations and
nuclear complex facilities within the United States.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommendation includes $585,750,000, the
same as the budget request.
The safeguards and security line identifies the funding
necessary for all safeguard and security requirements (except
for personnel security investigations) at NNSA landlord sites,
specifically the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, the
Nevada Test Site, Kansas City Plant, Pantex Plant, Y-12 Plant,
and the Savannah River Site Tritium Facilities.
The Committee encourages the Administration to support a
joint Air Force/NNSA research and development program in
physical security systems and technologies at the Sandia
National Laboratory.
The Committee remains concerned about the unintended
effects of the misguided effort to fund security as a separate
line item, rather than as an element of overhead. This
situation results in the relative inability of line management
to control the resources required to execute the security
mission and interferes with the risk-management decisions
necessary to effective management by the laboratory directors
and plant or site managers. Ironically, the separate funding of
security, introduced 3 years ago as a measure to improve
security, restricts the ability of managers to move monies into
security activities when needed. Therefore, the Committee
directs the NNSA to eliminate the separate line-item treatment
of the security budget in its fiscal year 2005 budget request
in a manner consistent with the recommendation of the April
2002 Report of the Commission on Science and Security (``Hamre
Commission''). Furthermore, the Administrator of the NNSA shall
have the ability to authorize the augmentation of the
Safeguards and Security account upon the request of a
laboratory director, plant manager, or site manager in order to
address urgent security needs or provide enhanced protection
for special weapons projects. The augmentation of funds shall
be permissible with 15 days advance notification to the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees and shall not require the
approval of a formal reprogramming action by the Congress.
Funds for security augmentation shall be derived from other
NNSA accounts or from indirect funds of the laboratory, plant
or site.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $1,020,860,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 1,340,195,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,340,195,000
The Committee recommendation includes $1,340,195,000 for
defense nuclear nonproliferation, the same as the budget
request.
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account funds programs
and activities to (1) prevent the spread of materials,
technology, and expertise relating to weapons of mass
destruction; (2) detect the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction worldwide; (3) provide for international nuclear
safety, and (4) eliminate inventories of surplus fissile
materials usable for nuclear weapons. These highly important
initiatives address the danger that hostile nations or
terrorist groups may acquire weapons of mass destruction or
weapons-usable material, dual-use production technology or
weapons of mass destruction expertise. The major elements of
the program include the following: nonproliferation and
verification research and development, nonproliferation and
international security, and nonproliferation programs with
Russia.
The fiscal year 2003 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act provided $1,020,860,000 for nuclear
nonproliferation activities. Since that time, Congress has
appropriated an additional $148,000,000 for defense nuclear
nonproliferation in supplemental appropriations bills.
Unfortunately, a substantial portion of the total appropriated
funding for fiscal year 2003 remains unspent and unobligated.
These programs are of critical interest to this Committee
and to Congress as a whole. However, success is still coming
much too slowly. Security upgrades have still not begun on more
than 100 tons of Russia's plutonium and HEU. In the year since
United States and Russian officials proclaimed the removal of
HEU from 24 research institutes around the world a high
priority, none has been removed. Many of Russia's nuclear
warhead storage sites have yet to receive interim security
upgrades and few if any have received permanent upgrades. And
this is added to a complete lack of credible information on the
location and status of Russia's substantial stockpile of
tactical nuclear weapons. There is no question that the Russian
bureaucracy is slow and problematical, but such should not be
used as an excuse for the difficulty of the task, but as the
reason these issues deserve greater levels of coordination and
attention at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that the rate of
expenditure for nonproliferation programs lags substantially
behind that of the rest of the National Nuclear Security
Administration. Carry-over rates of 40 percent are not
uncommon. Although the Committee recognizes the difficulty in
implementing nonproliferation activities in Russia, the
Committee strongly urges the Department to improve on this
level of performance. However, the Committee does not expect
the Department to carry out these programs with any less
rigorous oversight in ensuring efficient and cost-effective
implementation. The securing and safeguarding of fissile
nuclear material abroad is a critical component of our Nation's
terrorism prevention effort.
NONPROLIFERATION VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommendation includes $234,873,000, an
increase of $31,000,000 from the request.
The nonproliferation and verification research and
development program conducts applied research, development,
testing, and evaluation leading to prototype demonstrations and
detection systems that are critical to the United States
response to current and projected threats posed by the
proliferation of nuclear weapons, and diversion of special
nuclear material. The program works directly with agencies
responsible for monitoring proliferation and combating
terrorism.
The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 to
complete funding for the Incorporated Research Institutions for
Seismology PASSCAL Instrument Center. The Committee
recommendation includes $8,000,000 in emergency response
funding for the Remote Sensing Laboratory to recover eroding
emergency response infrastructure, repair and replace aging
equipment, and begin upgrading capabilities to current
technology. From within the funds provided to RSL, the
Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the University
of Nevada-Reno for the development of state-of-the-art
chemical, biological, and nuclear detection sensors. The
Committee also encourages the Office of Nuclear
Nonproliferation to assess the capabilities of the Fire
Training Academy in Elko, Nevada, to determine if it has
utility to the Department as a place to conduct nuclear
exposure training activities. The Department should report back
to the House and Senate Committees by December 31, 2003.
The Committee recommendation includes an additional
$20,000,000 in support of the nuclear and radiological national
security program. The NNSA is directed to provide for the
sustained development of advanced technologies needed to
counter nuclear terrorism threats and should focus on improving
capabilities through research and development in threat
assessment and prediction, basic nuclear understanding, sensors
and detection systems, consequence mitigation, forensics and
attribution and render-safe technologies. From within the funds
provided for ground-based nuclear explosion monitoring, the
Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 in support of the
3-year research effort by the Caucasus Seismic Information
Network.
NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
The Committee recommendation includes $121,734,000, an
increase of $20,000,000 from the request.
The nonproliferation and international security program
supports activities to: control the export of items and
technology useful for weapons of mass destruction [WMD];
implement international safeguards in conjunction with the
International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]; monitor and
implement treaties and agreements; develop and implement policy
in support of international security efforts aimed at securing
high-risk nuclear material; develop and implement transparency
measures to assure international nonproliferation and arms
control commitments; and explore and implement innovative
approaches to improve regional security.
The Committee recommendation includes $8,270,000 for
continuing the efforts for disposition of spent nuclear fuel in
Kazakhstan.
The Committee commends the NNSA for engaging the wider U.S.
scientific community in contributions to the treaty monitoring
program. The Committee will not continue direction that the
NNSA compete a specific portion of the treaty monitoring
program, but strongly encourages the laboratories to continue
to incorporate more industry and academic involvement and to
establish metrics that will allow the Committee to track
progress in this effort.
The Committee recommendation includes an additional
$20,000,000 to reinvigorate initiatives focused on removing
nuclear weapons-usable materials from vulnerable sites around
the world. These activities are essential to prevent terrorist
groups or states hostile to the United States from acquiring
destructive nuclear capabilities. The Administrator, working
with the Secretary, must utilize the NNSA's strength in the
inter-agency process to become the lead agency for all such
governmental activities world-wide.
NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA
The Committee recommendation includes $1,030,505,000, a
decrease of $4,083,000 from the request.
International Materials Protection, Control, and
Cooperation.--The Committee recommendation includes
$226,000,000, the same as the request. This program will
continue to improve the security for nuclear material and
weapons in Russia by installing basic rapid upgrades and
through comprehensive security improvements.
The increased funding from fiscal year 2003 supplemental
appropriations and the fiscal year 2004 recommendation will
allow for additional material consolidation and control work.
The Committee continues to believe that these activities are
critical elements of the United States nonproliferation
efforts.
Regarding the second line of defense activities within the
MP,C&C program, the Committee urges the NNSA to continue its
efforts in the use of integrated monitoring methodology for
special nuclear monitoring detection at airports, ports, and
border crossing in the former Soviet Union and newly
independent States and to continue to accelerate the Megaports
initiative funded with $84,000,000 in the fiscal year 2003
supplemental.
The Committee directs that $5,000,000 of the total amounts
available to the NNSA to address the threats of radiological
dispersion devices be made available to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for bilateral and international efforts to
strengthen regulatory controls over radioactive sources that
are at the greatest risk of being used in RDDs.
Accelerated Materials Disposition.--The Committee
recommendation recommends $30,000,000, the amount of the budget
request to accelerate the purchase of Russian HEU in amounts
beyond the 1993 United States-Russia HEU Purchase Agreement.
These additional amounts would be used to: establish a reserve
inventory of low enriched uranium for use as fuel in the United
States; accelerate development of low enriched research reactor
fuel designs, and increase the amount of Russian HEU down-
blended under the material consolidation and conversion
program.
Russian Transition Initiatives.--The Committee
recommendation includes $50,000,000 to support the Initiatives
for Proliferation Prevention [IPP] and the Nuclear Cities
Initiative [NCI] programs to reduce the risk of adverse
migration of former Soviet nuclear and other WMD expertise, and
to work with the Russians in downsizing their nuclear weapons
complex. The Committee recommendation includes an additional
$10,000,000 over the budget request for IPP.
HEU Transparency Implementation.--The Committee
recommendation includes $18,000,000 to support continued work
with Russia to provide confidence to the United States that the
Russian highly enriched uranium [HEU] being converted is from
its military stockpile, consistent with the 1993 United States-
Russia HEU Purchase Agreement.
International Nuclear Safety.--With the completion of the
Soviet-designed reactor safety program in fiscal year 2003, the
Committee recommendation does not continue a separately funded
international nuclear safety program. The Committee strongly
recommends the remaining programs in research reactor safety
and shutdown in the former Soviet Union, Kazakhstan BN-350
reactor shutdown, nuclear power plant protection, nuclear
safety cooperation with China and other international
organizations, and international emergency management and
cooperation shall be consolidated and continued within the
nonproliferation and international security program.
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production
Program.--The Committee recommendation includes $50,000,000 for
this program to assist the Russian Federation in ceasing its
production of weapons-grade plutonium production by providing
replacement power production capacity.
Fissile Materials Disposition.--The Committee
recommendation includes $656,505,000, the same as the budget
request. This program conducts activities in both the United
States and Russia to dispose of fissile materials that would
pose a threat to the United States if acquired by hostile
nations or terrorist groups.
Excess weapons grade plutonium in Russia is a clear and
present danger to the security of the United States because of
the possibility that it will fall into the hands of non-Russian
entities or provide Russia with the ability to rebuild its
nuclear arsenal at a rate the United States may be unable to
equal. For that reason, the Committee considers the
Department's material disposition program of comparable
importance to weapons activities; both are integral components
of our national effort to reduce any threat posed to the United
States and to deter the threat that remains.
The Committee recommendation includes $193,805,000 for U.S.
surplus materials disposition, the same as the budget request.
Construction.--
Project 99-D-141 Pit Disassembly & Conversion Facility.--
The Committee recommends $13,600,000, the same as the budget
request.
Project 99-D-143 Mixed Oxide [MOX] Fuel Fabrication
Facility.--The Committee recommends $402,000,000, the same as
the budget request.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
The Committee recommendation includes the use of
$46,917,000 in prior year balances.
Naval Reactors
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $702,196,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 768,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 768,400,000
The Committee recommendation includes $768,400,000, the
same as the budget request.
The Naval Reactors account funds the design, development,
and testing necessary to provide the Navy with safe, militarily
effective nuclear propulsion plants in keeping with the
Nation's nuclear-powered fleet defense requirements. During
2003, the program expects to exceed 126 million miles safely
steamed by the nuclear fleet, and will continue to support and
improve operating reactors and plant components, and carry out
test activities and verification. Additionally, Naval Reactors
will continue to develop nuclear reactor plant components and
systems for the Navy's new attack submarine and next-generation
aircraft carriers, and continue to maintain the highest
standards of environmental stewardship by responsibly
inactivating shut down prototype reactor plants.
Office of the Administrator
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $325,102,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 347,980,000
Committee recommendation................................ 337,980,000
The Committee recommendation includes $337,980,000, a
reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request.
The Office of the Administrator account provides corporate
planning and oversight for programs funded by the Weapons
Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval
Reactors appropriations including the National Nuclear Security
Administration field offices. This account provides the Federal
salaries and other expenses of the Administrator's direct
staff, headquarters employees, and employees at the field
service center and site offices. Program Direction for Naval
Reactors remains within that program's account, and program
direction for the Secure Transportation Asset remains in
Weapons Activities.
The National Nuclear Security Administration Act and
subsequent Appropriations Acts have included requirements or
direction to develop and implement a planning, programming, and
budgeting system. The Committee directs the Department to
retain the Institute for Defense Analysis to conduct an
independent assessment of the NNSA's PPBS process and
structure, including its comparability to that of the
Department of Defense. The review should also determine whether
the NNSA's PPBS is capable of being used as the central
decision making process for resource allocation decisions and
the extent to which it has been incorporated by NNSA M&O
contractors.
In December 2003, the National Nuclear Security
Administration [NNSA] implemented a major reorganization. The
new organizational structure eliminated a layer of management
and set the NNSA to achieve an overall 20 percent reduction in
Federal personnel, with Headquarters committing to take a 30
percent cut. The Administrator said the reorganization follows
the principles of the President's Management Agenda, which
strives to improve Government through performance and results.
As a result of this organizational change, the NNSA field
operation was affected the most. An NNSA Service Center was
established in Albuquerque, New Mexico, consolidating numerous
functions from the previous field operations offices. This
consolidation of functions was done to streamline business
functions and involves the movement of personnel from the
previous Nevada and Oakland Operations Offices. The movement of
personnel is scheduled to be complete by the end of fiscal year
2004. The Committee directs the Administrator to forward to the
House and Senate Committees, no later than October 31, 2003, a
position-by-position listing of the exact Headquarters jobs to
be eliminated in order to achieve the agreed-to 30 percent
Federal personnel reduction.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
The 2004 budget proposes to restructure Environmental
Management programs. Activities funded under the Defense
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management account, the
Defense Facilities Closure Projects account, and the Defense
Environmental Management Privatization account in 2003 and
prior years are transferred to the Defense Site Acceleration
Completion account and the Defense Environmental Services
accounts.
The Department is pursuing alternative accelerated cleanup
and risk-reduction strategies that are intended to
significantly reduce life-cycle cost and schedules for cleanup
of the former nuclear weapons production complex. When the
Department reaches agreement with regulatory officials on these
strategies, establishes a new funding profile and estimates the
cost savings for the alternate cleanup strategy, these
activities will be funded within the appropriate Defense or
Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion accounts.
The Department's defense environmental management program
is responsible for identifying and reducing health and safety
risks, and managing waste at sites where the Department carried
out defense nuclear energy or weapons research and production
activities which resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed
waste contamination. The Environmental Management program goals
are to eliminate and manage the urgent risk in the system;
emphasize health and safety for workers and the public;
establish a system that increases managerial and financial
control; and establish a stronger partnership between DOE and
its stakeholders.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONTRACT PERFORMANCE AND OVERSIGHT
The Committee notes with concern the recent notification by
the Department that the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant,
Richland, Washington, construction project baseline would
increase from $4,350,000,000 to $5,781,000,000, an increase of
over $1,400,000,000. The relative lack of outrage over a
baseline change of that magnitude speaks volumes about what the
Congress and public have come to expect from the Department's
clean-up program. The tank waste treatment project has a long
and sordid history that indicates both the magnitude of the
task before the Department, as well as the Department's
historic combination of overly optimistic cost estimates
coupled with consistent project mismanagement. The Committee
notes its concern in the demonstrated pattern of Departmental
officials announcing reform of some aspect of the clean-up
program, only to depart and be replaced by a new set of
officials coming before the Committee to describe dramatic cost
overruns on the project baselines promised by their
predecessors, and claiming no responsibility for the
assumptions underlying those previous commitments.
The Department is now into the second year of entering into
new acceleration and reform agreements consistent with the
policy conclusions of the Secretary's 2001 top-to-bottom review
of the environmental clean-up program. The effort is
commendable in its success in focusing the Department and its
stakeholders on the importance of completing clean-up
activities decades earlier than planned. The acceleration
agreements entered into at the various clean-up sites have
allowed the Department to book huge paper out-year savings and
acceleration of completion dates. For example, the Department
is claiming savings of $12,000,000,000 and 20 years at the
Savannah River Site, South Carolina; $30,000,000,000 and 35
years at Hanford, Washington; $2,000,000,000 and 6 years at Oak
Ridge, Tennessee; and $19,000,000,000 and 35 years at Idaho. In
many cases the savings are based on assumed changes in law,
yet-to-be reformed regulatory environments, contractor savings,
and other highly optimistic assumptions. The Department has had
its successes, most notably Rocky Flats, Colorado, and should
be commended. But even with such highlights, the weight of the
historical record leaves the Committee to question who will be
around in the future (other than the taxpayers) when these
estimated cost savings will inevitably be revised.
Thus, the Committee recommendation includes an additional
$5,000,000 for the Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation
to increase its oversight of the Department's new acceleration
and reform clean-up agreements. The Department is directed to
report back to the Committee by March 15, 2004, on a proposal
to utilize the additional funds to establish a formal process
by which the Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation shall
certify to the Committees that new acceleration and reform
agreements based on the site performance management plans are
comprehensive in their cost estimates and contain adequate
contingency. Among the items that should be considered are, for
example, whether the contract cost estimate is dependent on any
change of existing law or regulation, whether contract success
is dependent on the development of certain technology; whether
the contract estimate contains reserves for normal or
foreseeable project evolution; or other items that would allow
both the Department and the Congress to improve oversight and
confidence in the cost savings promised in the acceleration and
reform agreements.
Defense Site Acceleration Completion
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $0
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 5,814,635,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,770,695,000
The Defense Site Acceleration Completion account funds
programs responsible for managing and addressing the
environmental legacy resulting from nuclear weapons related
activities. The account's activities are funded within the
following subprograms.
2006 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS
The Committee recommendation includes $1,245,171,000, the
same as the budget request. This program includes all
geographic sites with an accelerated cleanup plan closure date
of 2006 or earlier (such as Rocky Flats, Fernald and Mound). In
addition, this account provides funding for Environmental
Management [EM] sites where overall site cleanup will not be
complete by 2006 but cleanup projects within a site will be
complete by 2006.
The Committee strongly urges the Department to establish
and implement a plan, or use existing plans, in which the waste
material in the Fernald silos will be packaged, transported,
and disposed at a commercial, NRC-licensed or Agreement State-
licensed facility. The Fernald silos' waste is waste from
processing ore for its source material content and disposal of
this waste as if it were ``11e.(2) by-product material'' is
critical to meeting the congressional expectation of a safe,
timely and cost-effective closure of the Fernald facility by
2006.
2012 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS
The Committee recommendation includes $2,221,714,000, a
reduction of $6,600,000 from the request. This program includes
all geographic sites with an accelerated cleanup plan closure
date of 2007 through 2012 (such as Pantex and Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory--Site 300). In addition, this
account provides funding for EM sites where overall site
cleanup will not be complete by 2012 but cleanup projects
within a site will be complete by 2012.
The Committee recommendation reflects the transfer of
$6,600,000 from the Office of Environmental Management to the
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology at Idaho
National Laboratory for support of deferred landlord
activities.
2035 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS
The Committee recommendation includes $1,899,384,000, an
increase of $6,500,000 above the request. This program provides
funding for site closures and site specific cleanup and closure
projects that are expected to be completed after 2012 but by
2035.
The Department is expected to continue making PILT payments
to counties that have the Hanford reservation within their
boundaries and at last year's level. Within available funds for
activities on the Hanford reservation, the Committee also
directs the Department to fund the following: The Hazardous
Waste Worker Training Program at levels consistent with fiscal
year 2003 levels. The Committee recommendation includes
$6,000,000 for the worker training programs at the Hazardous
Materials Management and Emergency Response Training and
Education Center [HAMMER] and $1,000,000 to support
communications infrastructure, oversight, and management
activities for HAMMER. In fiscal year 2003 the Committee
directed that this program was to be transferred to the
Department of Homeland Security and is disappointed that this
has not yet occurred. The Committee recognizes the critical
importance of HAMMER to Washington State and the Nation and
expects the Department to make every effort to transfer this
program to the Department of Homeland Security during fiscal
year 2004 and beyond. Finally, the Committee provides
$1,000,000 to the State of Oregon to cover costs of its clean-
up effort, including emergency drills, planning activities,
technical review of Departmental waste management and clean-up
plans, participation in the Hanford Advisory Board meetings and
other meetings at Hanford.
The Department is directed to pay its title V air
permitting fees at the Idaho National Laboratory consistent
with prior year levels.
The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of
$1,356,000 for activities at Amchitka Island, Alaska.
The Committee also encourages the Office of Environmental
Management to assess the capabilities of the Fire Training
Academy in Elko, Nevada, to determine if it has utility to the
Department as a place to conduct environmental management
training activities. The Department should report back to the
House and Senate Committees by December 31, 2003.
The conferees are aware that the resolution of the Pit 9
dispute at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory has been in process for over 5 years at the cost of
tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses with no
appreciable progress. In the Statement of the Managers
accompanying the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act,
the Department of Energy was directed to participate in
mediation and failing that to go to binding arbitration to end
this dispute and proceed with clean up activities. The
conferees note with disappointment that the Department has made
little or no progress toward that end. The Pit 9 litigation
should be brought to an end as expeditiously as possible.
Carlsbad Field Office.--The recommendation includes an
additional $3,500,000 which shall be made available to the
Carlsbad community for educational support, infrastructure
improvements, and related initiatives to address the impacts of
accelerated operations.
The Committee understand that the Carlsbad Field Office has
established a joint task force with the City of Carlsbad to
evaluate the needs, functions, and requirements of a record
center in Carlsbad. In order to provide more timely information
in a useable format to citizens, researchers, stakeholders, and
regulators, the Committee provides an additional $2,000,000
directs the Department to consolidate at Carlsbad, all record
archives relevant to the operations of WIPP and the TRU waste
in the repository.
The Committee directs the Department to utilize up to
$5,000,000 from within funds available to the Office of
Environmental Management to support the important work of the
National Border Technology Partnership Program to reduce waste
streams that threaten public health and safety in collaboration
with the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission.
Waste Analysis Requirements for the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant.--The Committee recognizes that the WIPP facility is
central to the cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex and that
waste should be emplaced as quickly and safely as possible--for
reasons of reducing clean-up costs, public safety, and with the
growing threat of radiological terrorism, for national
security. Current law and regulation regarding the sampling and
analysis of waste destined for WIPP produces substantial health
and safety risks to workers with little if any corresponding
public benefit. Both the New Mexico Environmental Evaluation
Group, an independent WIPP oversight group, and the National
Academy of Sciences have strongly suggested that waste destined
for disposal at WIPP should not undergo hazardous waste
sampling and analysis. To this end, the Committee believes that
eliminating dangerous and excessive waste confirmation
requirements that offer little if any benefit to the health and
safety of the public will serve the national interests inherent
in the safe and expeditious cleanup of the nuclear weapons
complex. For these reasons, the Committee has included language
in section 310 that requires that waste characterization be
limited to determining that the waste is not ignitable,
corrosive, or reactive. This confirmation will be performed
using radiography or visual examination of a representative
subpopulation of the waste. The language further directs the
Secretary of Energy to seek a modification to the WIPP
Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to implement the provisions of
this bill by December 31, 2003. The Committee recommendation
includes $1,000,000 for regulatory and technical assistance to
the State of New Mexico to amend the existing WIPP Hazardous
Waste Permit to comply with the provisions of the bill.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommendation includes $299,977,000, the
same as the request. The safeguards and security line
identifies the funding necessary for all safeguard and security
requirements for sites at which Office of Environmental
Management has responsibility. This includes activities related
to site-specific safeguards and security plans; facilities
master security plans, cyber security plans, and personnel
security programs at EM sites.
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT
The Committee recommendation includes $85,080,000, an
increase of $21,160,000 over the budget request. This program
focuses on high priority technical needs at near-term closure
sites and projects. In addition, the technology program will
focus on identifying technical vulnerabilities and alternative
solutions in support of the Department's accelerated cleanup
strategies.
Within available funds, the Committee provides $6,000,000
for the Western Environmental Technology Office; $6,000,000 for
the Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory; and
$4,350,000 for the University Research Programs in Robotics.
The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the
subsurface science research institute under development with
Idaho National Laboratory and the Inland Northwest Research
Alliance [INRA] institutions.
The Department is directed to renew its cooperative
agreements with the University of Nevada-Las Vegas through its
Research Foundation, and the University of Nevada-Reno.
The Department shall continue its support of the Tribal
Colleges Initiative grant, involving Crownpoint Institute of
Technology, Dine College, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
Institute, to develop high-quality environmental programs at
tribal colleges.
The Committee recommendation includes an additional
$4,000,000 for continued support of the international agreement
and collaboration with AEA Technology to address alternative
cost effective technologies for cleaning up legacy waste.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
The Committee recommendation for Defense Site Acceleration
Completion includes a funding adjustment of $65,000,000 for use
of prior year balances and anticipated schedule slippage, a
reduction of $15,924,000 from the current year level.
Defense Environmental Services
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $0
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 995,179,000
Committee recommendation................................ 987,679,000
The Defense Environmental Services account funds defense
related activities that indirectly support the primary
environmental management mission of accelerated risk reduction
and closure. The programs and activities are funded within the
following subprograms.
COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT
The Committee recommendation includes $63,837,000, an
increase of $2,500,000 over the request. This program funds
activities that are indirectly related to on-the-ground cleanup
results and are integral to the Department's ability to conduct
cleanup at sites (for example, Agreements in Principle with
State regulators and tribal nations, and Site Specific Advisory
Boards).
The Committee recommendation includes an additional
$2,500,000 for the Waste Management Education and Research
Consortium consistent with the terms of its cooperative
agreement with the Department. From within available funds,
$500,000 shall be used to support the Energy and Environmental
Hispanic Community Participation project of the Self Reliance
Foundation needed to increase Hispanic community understanding
of and participation in environmental management initiatives of
the Department.
The Committee encourages the Department of Energy to
continue to work collaboratively with the Western States to
reach consensus on mutually agreeable routes for the
transportation of transuranic nuclear waste to the Waste
Isolation Plant in New Mexico. The Committee believes that the
success of the WIPP Program Implementation Guide agreed to by
the Department and the Western Governor's Association can be
attributed to the cooperative relationship between the States
and DOE. The Committee urges DOE to continue to work in a
cooperative fashion with the States toward consensus and
concurrence on proposed shipping routes.
FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND
DECOMMISSIONING [D&D] FUND
The Committee recommendation includes $452,000,000, the
same as the budget request. This program funds the Federal
Government contribution to the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund, as
required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
NON-CLOSURE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES
The Committee recommendation includes $189,698,000, the
same as the budget request. This program funds ongoing
activities that indirectly support the Environmental Management
accelerated cleanup and closure mission. These activities
provide valuable support to other Departmental priorities and
missions.
PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommendation includes $282,144,000, a
reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request. This program
provides the funding necessary for oversight and management
functions for the EM program, including Federal salaries and
benefits, travel, and other costs.
Other Defense Activities
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $511,659,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 522,678,000
Committee recommendation................................ 492,209,000
The Other Defense Activities account provides funding for
the following Departmental offices and functions: security;
intelligence; counterintelligence; independent oversight and
performance assurance; defense-related environment, safety and
health support; worker and community transition, legacy
management; and hearings and appeals.
SECURITY
The Committee recommendation includes $211,757,000, the
same as the budget request.
The security program consists of the following elements:
nuclear safeguards and security, security investigations, and
program direction. These programs provide policy for the
protection of the Department's nuclear weapons, nuclear
materials, classified information, and facilities. They ensure
a Department-wide capability to continue essential functions
across a wide range of potential emergencies, allowing DOE to
uphold its national security responsibilities and provide
security clearances for Federal and contractor personnel.
INTELLIGENCE
The Committee recommendation includes $39,823,000 for
intelligence activities, the same as the budget request.
The intelligence program is focused on providing the
Department, other U.S. Government policy makers, and the
Intelligence Community with foreign intelligence technical
analyses and technology applications relevant to the
Department's core missions and unique capabilities.
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
The Committee recommendation includes $45,955,000, the same
as the budget request.
The counterintelligence program is responsible for the
development and implementation of an effective program
throughout the Department to identify, neutralize and deter
foreign government or industrial intelligence, and
international terrorist activities at or involving departmental
programs, personnel, facilities, technologies, classified
information and unclassified sensitive information.
The Department has proposed consolidating the
counterintelligence activities of the National Nuclear Security
Administration into one office within the Department of Energy.
While the Department's concerns about the duplication of effort
and inefficiency are valid, the Committee is not prepared to
accept the notion that the Department, rather than the NNSA, is
the appropriate home for the consolidated counterintelligence
program. The most critical counterintelligence programs are
currently found in the NNSA, not the Department. In the view of
the Committee, a preferable solution may be to move the
Department's counterintelligence programs into the NNSA.
INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE
The Committee recommendation includes $22,575,000 for
independent oversight and performance assurance, the amount of
the budget request.
The Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance program
provides independent evaluation and oversight of safeguards,
security, environment, safety, health emergency management,
cyber security and other critical functions for the Department.
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH
The Committee recommendation includes a total of
$105,761,000, a decrease of $1,925,000 from the budget request.
The recommendation includes $17,410,000 for program direction,
a reduction of $3,000,000 from the budget request.
The defense-related environment, safety and health program
is a corporate resource that provides Departmental leadership
and management to protect the workers, public, and environment
in the areas of oversight, health studies, radiation effects
research, employee compensation support, and program direction.
The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to
continue the DOE worker records digitization project through
the Research Foundation at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.
The Committee continues to be concerned that the Department has
failed to recognize the importance of automating records
management processes and continues to encumber extraordinary
costs by employing labor intensive procedures in support of
these requirements. Though the Committee recommended a
Department-wide standardization of processes to ensure data
preservation and access, the Committee is not aware of a
comprehensive coordinated effort being undertaken within the
Department. The Committee is also aware that even within the
Environment Safety & Health organization, parallel activities
were undertaken to digitize worker records while another part
of the organization sought the digitization of similar worker
records to support the Employee Compensation Initiative. To the
extent that there is a desire to digitize records in support of
the ECI, the Committee strongly encourages the Department to
utilize the existing program at UNLV.
The Committee recommends $3,075,000, an increase of
$2,075,000 above the request, for medical monitoring at the
gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth,
Ohio, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This will fully fund, as
required by law, the worker screening program for both current
and former workers. The Committee strongly supports and
requires the continued use of helical low-dose CAT scanning for
early lung cancer detection in workers with elevated risks of
lung cancer. Such tests may detect lung cancers at an early
stage even when they are not visible with conventional x-rays.
The program in place at the gaseous diffusion plants is
successfully identifying early lung cancers at a stage when
they are treatable and can be expected to dramatically increase
survival rates.
The Committee supports and is pleased with the Department's
efforts to expand the Voluntary Protection Program [VPP] and
other voluntary cooperative programs. The Department's work in
expanding participation in the program and promoting prompt
review and processing of applications is particularly
noteworthy. In fiscal year 2004, the Committee expects DOE to
continue to place priority on the DOE-VPP as it is an important
part of the Department's ability to ensure worker safety and
health.
The Committee urges the Department to consider, as
appropriate, requiring its contractor at the Nevada Test Site
to assume responsibility for self-insuring for worker
compensation for all diagnosed occupationally induced hearing
loss claims for those employed at the Nevada Test Site prior to
1994, to notify former employees and the State of Nevada, and
to reimburse the DOE contractor for the related costs.
Energy Employees Compensation Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $16,000,000, the amount of the request,
for the Energy Employees Compensation Initiative. Title 36 of
the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-
398) established the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation program to provide benefits to DOE contractor
workers made ill as a result of exposures from nuclear weapons
production. The Department is responsible for establishing
procedures to assist workers in filing compensation claims.
LEGACY MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommendation includes $57,525,000, an
increase of $10,000,000 from the budget request.
The Department proposes the creation of a new Office of
Legacy Management in fiscal year 2004. The purpose of the
office would be to conduct stewardship activities at sites
where active environmental remediation as a result of weapons
production has been completed. These activities include records
management, ground-water monitoring and the administration of
post closure contractor liabilities. The Committee endorses the
creation of such an office and also recommends that the new
Office of Legacy Management incorporate the mission and budget
of the Office of Worker and Community Transition. Beginning in
fiscal year 2004, those activities carried out pursuant to
section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1993
to provide options to assist workers affected by workforce
restructuring, assistance to communities, and disposition of
excess assets shall be carried out by the new Office of Legacy
Management.
The Committee directs the Department to complete without
further delay the remaining record of decision for the Weldon
Spring Site Remedial Action Project and provide such funding as
it necessary for remaining site clean-up activities.
NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 for
National Security Programs Administrative support. This fund
pays for departmental services that are provided in support of
the National Nuclear Security Administration.
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
The Committee recommendation includes $3,797,000 for the
Office of Hearings and Appeals, the same as the budget request.
The Office of Hearings and Appeals conducts all of the
Department's adjudicative process and provides various
administrative remedies as may be required.
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $312,952,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 430,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 285,000,000
The Committee recommends $285,000,000 for defense nuclear
waste disposal, a decrease of $65,000,000 from the budget
request.
This account provides the Federal Government's fiscal year
2004 contribution to the nuclear waste repository program to
support nuclear waste repository activities attributed 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 [BPA] is the Federal
electric power marketing agency in the Pacific Northwest, a
300,000 square-mile service area that encompasses Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and small portions of
adjacent states in the Columbia River basin. BPA markets
hydroelectric power from 21 multipurpose water resource
projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 10 projects of
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, plus some energy from non-
Federal generating projects in the region. These generating
resources and BPA's transmission system are operated as an
integrated power system with operating and financial results
combined and reported as the Federal Columbia River Power
System [FCRPS]. BPA is the largest power wholesaler in the
Northwest and provides about 45 percent of the region's
electric energy supply and about three-fourths of the region's
electric power transmission capacity.
BPA finances its operations on the basis of the self-
financing authority provided by Federal Columbia River
Transmission System Act of 1974 (Transmission Act) (Public Law
93-454) and the borrowing authority provided by the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Pacific
Northwest Power Act) (Public Law 96-501) for energy
conservation, renewable energy resources and capital fish
facilities. Authority to borrow is available to the BPA on a
permanent, indefinite basis.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $4,505,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 5,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,100,000
The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric
power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11
Southeastern States. There are 23 projects now in operation
with an installed capacity of 3,092 megawatts. Southeastern
does not own or operate any transmission facilities and carries
out its marketing program by utilizing the existing
transmission systems of the power utilities in the area. This
is accomplished through transmission arrangements between
Southeastern and each of the area utilities with transmission
lines connected to the projects. The utility agrees to deliver
specified amounts of Federal power to customers of the
Government, and Southeastern agrees to compensate the utility
for the wheeling service performed.
The Committee recommendation includes $34,400,000 for
purchase power and wheeling activities, an increase of
$19,937,000 over the current year level.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $27,200,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 28,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,600,000
The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing
agent for the power generated at Corps of Engineers'
hydroelectric plants in the six-State area of Kansas, Oklahoma,
Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana with a total installed
capacity of 2,158 megawatts. It operates and maintains some
1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating projects, and
24 substations, and sells its power at wholesale primarily to
publicly and cooperatively owned electric distribution
utilities.
The Committee recommendation includes $2,800,000 for
purchase power and wheeling activities, an increase of
$1,288,000 over the current year level.
CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE WESTERN AREA
POWER ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $167,760,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 171,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 177,950,000
The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for
marketing electric power generated by the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International
Boundary and Water Commission which operate hydropower
generating plants in 15 Central and Western States encompassing
a 1.3-million-square-mile geographic area. Western is also
responsible for the operation and maintenance of almost 17,000
miles of high-voltage transmission lines with more than 260
substations.
Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund.--This fund is
dedicated primarily for environmental mitigation expenditures
covering fish and wildlife, and recreation resources impacted
by the Central Utah Project and the Colorado River Storage
Project in the State of Utah. For fiscal year 2004, the
President's Budget proposes to transfer the authorities and
future contributions for the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Account from the Secretary of Energy, Western Area
Power Administration, to the Secretary of the Interior, Bureau
of Reclamation. The Committee recommendation does not include
this change in law. Of the total resources available to the
Western Power Administration, $6,200,000 shall be transferred
to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission.
The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 on a non-
reimbursable basis for a transmission study on the placement of
500 MW of wind energy in North Dakota and South Dakota.
The Committee recommendation includes $186,100,000 for
purchase power and wheeling activities, an increase of
$29,976,000 over the current year level.
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND
The Committee recommendation is $2,640,000, the same as the
budget request.
Creation of the Falcon and Amistad Operating and
Maintenance Fund was directed by the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, fiscal years 1994-95. 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.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $192,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 199,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 199,400,000
SALARIES AND EXPENSES--REVENUES APPLIED
Appropriations, 2003.................................... -$192,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... -199,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ -199,400,000
The Committee recommendation includes $199,400,000, the
amount of the budget request, for the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission [FERC]. Revenues are established at a rate equal to
the amount provided for program activities, resulting in a net
appropriation of zero.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
regulates key interstate aspects of the electric power, natural
gas, oil pipeline, and hydropower industries. Regulated
entities pay fees and charges sufficient to recover the
Government's full costs of operations.
The Federal Power Act [FPA] requires the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to collect from non-Federal hydropower
project licensees reasonable annual charges to recompense the
United States for a project's use, occupancy, and enjoyment of
Federal lands, but in setting such charges, to seek to avoid
increasing the price of power to the consumer. Since 1987, the
Commission has used an established U.S. Forest Service [USFS]
and Bureau of Land Management [BLM] assessment system. The
method satisfies the legislative mandate to collect reasonable
fees without increasing the cost of power to the consumer and
provides significant administrative savings.
Recently, the General Accounting Office [GAO] conducted an
analysis of the Commission's charges for use of Federal lands
(GAO-03-383), and although not determining what would be a
reasonable fee pursuant to the FPA, attempted to determine the
net benefits of a select few hydropower projects as a
substitute for fair market value. It should be noted here that
the provisions of section 10(e) of the FPA do not call for the
Commission to collect either fair market value or net benefits.
Nevertheless, GAO concluded that the Commission is only
collecting 2 percent of the fair market value. As the GAO
Report itself acknowledges, the analysis of such a limited
sample of projects cannot reliably be extrapolated to the
unstudied projects; to obtain valid results, all projects would
have to be analyzed. The cost of undertaking such analyses
would be prohibitive, which was a major reason the Commission
has never adopted a project-specific valuation methodology. The
GAO's project-specific methodology would in most cases, result
in drastic increases in charges to licensees that ultimately
would be passed on to the consumers and would require extensive
data collection and analysis thereby increasing the
Commission's administrative costs, which would increase costs
to almost all licensees, not only those which occupy Federal
lands. Also, there would be a high probability that the
assessed charges would be challenged resulting in further
increases in administrative costs. Considering all of these
factors, the GAO net benefits methodology appears to be
inconsistent with the previously stated requirements of the
FPA.
Therefore, the Commission's continued use of locally
determined values for fixing annual charges is appropriate,
administratively efficient, and consistent with the
requirements of setting reasonable charges that seek to avoid
increasing the costs of power to the consumer, as required by
section 10(e) of the FPA.
Defense Environmental Management Privatization
(RESCISSION)
The Committee recommendation includes the rescission of
$15,329,000 from Defense Environmental Management
Privatization. The balances shall be derived as follow:
$13,329,000 from the Paducah Disposal Facility Privatization
(OR-574) and $2,000,000 from the Portsmouth Disposal Facility
Privatization (OR-674).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee's detailed funding recommendation for
programs in Title III, Department of Energy, are contained in
the following table.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY SUPPLY
RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
Renewable energy technologies:
Biomass/biofuels energy systems............................................. 69,750 75,005
Geothermal technology development........................................... 25,500 26,300
Hydrogen research........................................................... 87,982 87,982
Hydropower.................................................................. 7,489 5,000
Solar energy................................................................ 79,693 89,693
Zero energy building........................................................ 4,000 ..............
Wind energy systems......................................................... 41,600 41,600
Intergovernmental activities................................................ 12,500 9,500
Electricity reliability..................................................... 76,866 ..............
-------------------------------
Total, Renewable energy technologies...................................... 405,380 335,080
Electric energy systems and storage............................................. .............. ..............
Renewable support and implementation:
Departmental energy management.............................................. 2,300 1,800
International renewable energy program...................................... .............. ..............
Renewable energy production incentive program............................... .............. 4,000
Renewable Indian energy resources........................................... .............. ..............
Renewable program support................................................... .............. 4,000
-------------------------------
Total, Renewable support and implementation............................... 2,300 9,800
National climate change technology initiative................................... 15,000 ..............
Facilities and infrastructure:
National renewable energy laboratory........................................ 4,200 4,200
Construction:
02-E-001 Project engineering and design, NREL Golden, CO............ .............. ..............
04-E-001 Science and technology facility............................ .............. 3,500
-------------------------------
Total, National renewable energy laboratory....................... 4,200 7,700
Oak Ridge National Laboratory:
Construction: 04-E-TBD Plant engineering and design (PED), energy 750 750
reliability and efficiency laboratory..................................
-------------------------------
Total, Facilities and infrastructure................................ 4,950 8,450
Program direction............................................................... 16,577 13,146
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Renewable Energy Resources...................................... 444,207 366,476
===============================
Use of prior year balances...................................................... .............. ..............
Reduction for nuclear hydrogen initiative....................................... .............. -8,000
-------------------------------
TOTAL, RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES......................................... 444,207 358,476
===============================
ELECTRICITY ENERGY AND ASSURANCE
Office of Electricity and Energy Assurance...................................... .............. 45,000
High temperature superconducting R&D............................................ .............. 47,838
Program direction............................................................... .............. 7,587
-------------------------------
TOTAL, ELECTRICITY AND ENERGY ASSURANCE................................... .............. 100,425
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Radiological facilities management:
Space and defense infrastructure............................................ 36,230 40,230
Medical isotopes infrastructure............................................. 26,425 26,425
Isotope support and production.......................................... .............. ..............
Construction: 599-E-201 Isotope production facility (LANL).......... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Isotope support and production.......................... .............. ..............
Offsetting collections.................................................. .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Medical isotopes infrastructure............................. 26,425 26,425
-------------------------------
Total, Radiological facilities management............................. 62,655 66,655
University reactor fuel assistance and support.................................. 18,500 22,000
Research and development:
Nuclear energy plant optimization........................................... .............. ..............
Nuclear energy research initiative.......................................... 12,000 12,000
Nuclear energy technologies................................................. 48,000 55,721
Nuclear hydrogen initiative................................................. 4,000 8,000
Advanced fuel cycle initiative.............................................. 63,025 78,025
-------------------------------
Total, Research and development........................................... 127,025 153,746
Fast flux test facility (FFTF).................................................. .............. ..............
Idaho facilities management:
Radiological facilities..................................................... .............. ..............
ANL-West operations......................................................... 31,615 44,215
-------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................................. 31,615 44,215
INEEL infrastructure........................................................ 31,605 31,605
Test reactor area landlord.............................................. .............. ..............
Construction:
99-E-201 Isotope production facility (LANL)......................... .............. ..............
99-E-200 Test reactor area electrical utility upgrade, Idaho 1,840 1,840
National Engineering Lab, ID.......................................
95-E-201 Test reactor area fire and life safety improvements, Idaho 500 500
National Engineering Lab, ID.......................................
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.......................................... 2,340 2,340
-------------------------------
Subtotal, INEEL infrastructure.................................. 33,945 33,945
-------------------------------
Total, Idaho facilities management.............................. 65,560 78,160
Idaho sitewide safeguards and security.......................................... 56,654 56,654
Nuclear facilities management:
EBR-II shutdown............................................................. .............. ..............
Disposition of spent fuel and legacy materials.............................. .............. ..............
Disposition technology activities........................................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Total, Nuclear facilities management...................................... .............. ..............
Advanced fuel cycle initiative.................................................. .............. ..............
Program direction............................................................... 60,207 60,207
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear Energy.................................................. 390,601 437,422
===============================
Use of prior year balances...................................................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY..................................................... 390,601 437,422
===============================
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH
Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense).......................... 10,000 6,796
Program direction............................................................... 20,000 15,641
-------------------------------
TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH..................................... 30,000 22,437
===============================
ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
Technical information management program........................................ .............. ..............
Program direction........................................................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.......................................... .............. ..............
===============================
ENERGY SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE
Energy Supply Infrastructure.................................................... .............. 17,600
-------------------------------
TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE....................................... .............. 17,600
===============================
Subtotal, Energy supply................................................... 864,808 936,360
===============================
General reduction............................................................... .............. -13,000
Less security charge from reimbursable work..................................... -3,003 -3,003
===============================
TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY...................................................... 861,805 920,357
===============================
NON-DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION COMPLETION
Accelerated completions, 2006................................................... 48,677 48,677
Accelerated completions, 2012................................................... 119,750 119,750
Accelerated completions, 2035................................................... 2,448 6,448
-------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................................. 170,875 174,875
Use of prior year balances...................................................... .............. -3,000
===============================
TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION COMPLETION........................... 170,875 171,875
===============================
NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Site closure.................................................................... .............. ..............
Site/project completion......................................................... .............. ..............
Post 2006 completion............................................................ .............. ..............
Fast flux test facility (FFTF).................................................. .............. ..............
Long-term stewardship........................................................... .............. ..............
Excess facilities............................................................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Non-Defense Environmental Management............................ .............. ..............
===============================
Use of prior year balances...................................................... .............. ..............
===============================
TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT............................... .............. ..............
===============================
URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECOMTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND
Decontamination and decommissioning............................................. 367,124 370,124
Uranium/thorium reimbursement................................................... 51,000 26,000
===============================
TOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT D&D FUND........................................ 418,124 396,124
===============================
NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Community and regulatory support................................................ 1,034 1,034
Environmental cleanup projects.................................................. 43,842 43,842
Non-closure environmental activities............................................ 160,445 160,445
Construction: 02-U-101 Depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion project, 86,800 96,800
Paducah, KY and Portsmouth, OH.............................................
===============================
TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES............................... 292,121 302,121
===============================
URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund:
Decontamination and decommissioning......................................... .............. ..............
Uranium/thorium reimbursement............................................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Total, Uranium enrichment D&D fund........................................ .............. ..............
Other Uranium Activities:
Maintenance and pre-existing liabilities.................................... .............. ..............
02-U-101 Depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion project, Paducah, KY and .............. ..............
Portsmouth, OH.............................................................
96-U-201 DUF6 cylinder storage yard, Paducah, KY............................ .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Total, Other uranium activities........................................... .............. ..............
Use of prior year balances...................................................... .............. ..............
===============================
TOTAL, URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION..................... .............. ..............
===============================
SCIENCE
High energy physics............................................................. .............. ..............
Research & Technology....................................................... .............. ..............
Facility operations......................................................... .............. ..............
Proton accelerator-based physics............................................ 399,494 399,494
Electron accelerator-based physics.......................................... 159,486 159,486
Non-accelerator physics..................................................... 43,000 43,000
Theoretical physics......................................................... 42,256 42,256
Advanced technology R&D..................................................... 81,242 81,242
-------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................................. 725,478 725,478
Construction: 98-G-304 Neutrinos at the main injector, Fermilab............. 12,500 12,500
-------------------------------
Total, High energy physics................................................ 737,978 737,978
Nuclear physics................................................................. 389,430 389,430
Biological and environmental research........................................... 499,535 534,035
Construction: 01-E-300 Laboratory for Comparative and Functional Genomics, .............. ..............
ORNL.......................................................................
-------------------------------
Total, Biological and environmental research............................ 499,535 534,035
Basic energy sciences:
Research:
Materials sciences and engineering research............................. 567,711 567,711
Chemical sciences, geosciences and energy biosciences................... 220,914 220,914
Engineering and geosciences............................................. .............. ..............
Energy biosciences...................................................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Research.................................................... 788,625 788,625
Construction:
04-R-313-Nanoscale science research center, the molecular foundry....... 35,000 35,000
04-R-314 Nanoscale science research center, the center for integrated 29,850 29,850
nontechnologies, SNL/LASL..............................................
03-SC-002 Project engineering & design (PED) SLAC....................... 7,500 7,500
03-R-312 Center for nanophase materials sciences, ORNL.................. 20,000 20,000
03-R-313 Center for Integrated Nenotechnology........................... .............. ..............
02-SC-002 Project engineering and design (VL)........................... 3,000 3,000
99-E-334 Spallation neutron source (ORNL)............................... 124,600 124,600
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................................................ 219,950 219,950
-------------------------------
Total, Basic energy sciences.......................................... 1,008,575 1,008,575
Advanced scientific computing research.......................................... 173,490 183,490
Energy research analyses........................................................ .............. ..............
Science laboratories infrastructure:
Infrastructure support...................................................... 1,520 1,520
Oak Ridge landlord.......................................................... 5,079 10,079
Excess facilities disposal.................................................. 5,055 5,055
Construction:
04-SC-001 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations....... 2,000 2,000
03-SC-001 Science laboratories infrastructure project engineering and .............. ..............
design (PED), various loc..............................................
MEL-001 Multiprogram energy laboratory infrastructure projects, various 29,936 29,936
locations..............................................................
02-SC-001 Multiprogram energy laboratories, project engineering design, .............. ..............
various locations......................................................
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................................................ 31,936 31,936
-------------------------------
Total, Science laboratories infrastructure............................ 43,590 48,590
Fusion energy sciences.......................................................... 257,310 257,310
Safeguards and security......................................................... 48,127 51,887
Science workforce development................................................... 6,470 6,470
Science program direction:
Field offices............................................................... 83,802 80,102
Headquarters................................................................ 58,217 58,217
Science education........................................................... .............. ..............
Technical information management program.................................... 7,774 7,714
Energy research analyses.................................................... 1,020 1,020
-------------------------------
Total, Science program direction.......................................... 150,813 147,053
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Science......................................................... 3,315,318 3,364,818
===============================
General reduction/use of prior year balances.................................... .............. ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable work...................................... -4,383 -4,383
Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108-11)................................. .............. ..............
===============================
TOTAL, SCIENCE............................................................ 3,310,935 3,360,435
===============================
NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
Repository program.............................................................. 85,830 64,830
Program direction............................................................... 75,170 75,170
===============================
TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL............................................. 161,000 140,000
===============================
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
Administrative operations:
Salaries and expenses:
Office of the Secretary................................................. 4,624 4,624
Board of Contract Appeals............................................... 653 653
Chief information officer............................................... 42,214 35,214
Congressional and intergovernmental affairs............................. 4,724 4,724
Economic impact and diversity........................................... 4,701 4,701
General counsel......................................................... 22,879 22,879
International affairs................................................... .............. ..............
Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation............................. 104,210 109,210
Policy office........................................................... .............. ..............
Policy and international affairs........................................ 17,777 14,777
Public affairs.......................................................... 4,465 4,465
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Salaries and expenses....................................... 206,247 201,247
Program support:
Minority economic impact................................................ 1,400 1,192
Policy analysis and system studies...................................... 1,000 397
Energy security and assurance........................................... 2,000 2,000
Environmental policy studies............................................ 1,500 569
Engineering and construction management reviews......................... .............. ..............
Cybersecurity and secure communications................................. 26,432 26,432
Corporate management information program................................ 37,632 27,632
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Program support............................................. 69,964 58,222
-------------------------------
Total, Administrative operations...................................... 276,211 259,469
Cost of work for others......................................................... 75,095 75,095
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Departmental Administration..................................... 351,306 334,564
===============================
Use of prior year balances and other adjustments................................ .............. ..............
Funding from other defense activities........................................... -25,000 -25,000
-------------------------------
Total, Departmental administration (gross)................................ 326,306 309,564
===============================
Miscellaneous revenues.......................................................... -146,668 -146,668
===============================
TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net).................................. 179,638 162,896
===============================
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Office of Inspector General..................................................... 39,462 39,462
===============================
TOTAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL........................................ 39,462 39,462
===============================
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
Directed stockpile work:
Stockpile research and development.......................................... 433,150 433,150
Stockpile maintenance....................................................... 405,746 415,746
Stockpile evaluation........................................................ 202,885 202,885
Dismantlement/disposal...................................................... 37,722 37,722
Production support.......................................................... 278,113 271,113
Field engineering, training and manuals..................................... 7,170 7,170
-------------------------------
Total, Directed stockpile work............................................ 1,364,786 1,367,786
Campaigns:
Science campaigns:
Primary certification................................................... 65,849 64,849
Dynamic materials properties............................................ 82,251 87,251
Advanced radiography.................................................... 65,985 65,985
Secondary certification and nuclear systems margins..................... 55,463 54,463
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Science campaigns........................................... 269,548 272,548
Engineering campaigns:
Enhanced surety............................................................. 37,974 36,974
Weapons system engineering certification.................................... 28,238 27,238
Nuclear survivability....................................................... 23,977 22,977
Enhanced surveillance....................................................... 94,781 92,781
Advanced design and production technologies................................. 79,917 77,917
Engineering campaigns construction activities............................... 4,500 4,500
Construction: 01-D-108 Microsystem and engineering science applications 61,800 105,000
(MESA), SNL, Albuquerque, NM...........................................
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Engineering campaigns & construction...................... 66,300 109,500
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Engineering campaigns..................................... 331,187 367,387
Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield......................... 316,769 282,769
Construction: 96-D-111 National ignition facility, LLNL................. 150,000 150,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Inertial confinement fusion................................. 466,769 432,769
Advanced simulation and computing........................................... 713,326 688,326
Construction:
01-D-101 Distributed information systems laboratory, SNL, Livermore, 12,300 12,300
CA.................................................................
00-D-103, Terascale simulation facility, LLNL, Livermore, CA........ 25,000 25,000
00-D-105 Strategic computing complex, LANL, Los Alamos, NM.......... .............. ..............
00-D-107 Joint computational engineering laboratory, SNL, .............. ..............
Albuquerque, NM....................................................
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.......................................... 37,300 37,300
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Advanced simulation and computing..................... 750,626 725,626
Pit manufacturing and certification......................................... 320,228 320,228
Readiness campaigns:
Stockpile readiness..................................................... 55,158 55,158
High explosives manufacturing and weapons assembly/disassembly readi- 29,649 27,649
ness...................................................................
Non-nuclear readiness................................................... 37,397 34,397
Materials readiness..................................................... .............. ..............
Tritium readiness....................................................... 59,893 59,893
Construction: 98-D-125 Tritium extraction facility, SR.............. 75,000 75,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Tritium readiness....................................... 134,893 134,893
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Readiness campaigns..................................... 257,097 252,097
-------------------------------
Total, Campaigns.................................................. 2,395,455 2,370,655
Readiness in technical base and facilities:
Operations of facilities.................................................... 972,773 1,091,773
Program readiness........................................................... 131,093 131,093
Special projects............................................................ 42,975 60,025
Material recycle and recovery............................................... 76,189 76,189
Containers.................................................................. 16,006 16,006
Storage..................................................................... 11,365 11,365
Nuclear weapons incident response........................................... 89,694 89,694
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and fac............................. 1,340,095 1,476,145
Construction:
04-D-101 Test capabilities revitalization, Sandia National Laboratories, 36,450 36,450
Albuquerque, NM........................................................
04-D-102 Exterior communications infrastructure modernization, Sandia 20,000 20,000
National Laboratories..................................................
04-D-103 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations........ 2,000 3,564
04-D-104 National security sciences building, Los Alamos National 50,000 50,000
Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.............................................
04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy facility replacement project, Los 20,500 20,500
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.............................
04-D-126 Building 12-44 production cells upgrade, Pantex plant, 8,780 8,780
Amarillo, TX...........................................................
04-D-127 Cleaning and loading modifications, Savannah River site, Aiken, 2,750 2,750
SC.....................................................................
04-D-128 TA-18 mission relocation project, Los Alamos Laboratory, Los 8,820 8,820
Alamos, NM.............................................................
03-D-101 Sandia underground reactor facility SURF, SNL, Albuquerque, NM. .............. ..............
03-D-102 LANL Administration Building (LANL)............................ .............. ..............
03-D-103 Project engineering and design various locations............... 10,570 10,570
03-D-121 Gas transfer capacity expansion, Kansas City Plant, Kansas 15,300 15,300
City, MO..............................................................
03-D-122 Purification facility, Y-12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN............... .............. ..............
03-D-123 Special nuclear materials requalification, Pantex plant, 7,628 7,628
Amarillo, TX...........................................................
02-D-103 Project engineering and design, various locations.............. 10,950 10,950
02-D-105 Engineering technology complex upgrade, LLNL, CA............... 9,776 9,776
02-D-107 Electrical power systems safety communications and bus 2,887 2,887
upgrades, NV...........................................................
01-D-103 Project engineering and design (PE&D), various locations....... 1,600 1,600
01-D-107 Atlas relocation, Nevada test site, NV......................... .............. ..............
01-D-108 Microsystems and engineering sciences applications complex .............. ..............
(MESA), SNL, Albuquerque, NM...........................................
01-D-124 HEU materials facility, Y-12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN.............. 45,000 45,000
01-D-126 Weapons Evaluation Test Laboratory Pantex Plant, Amarillo, TX.. 2,838 2,838
01-D-800 Sensitive compartmented information facility, LLNL, CA......... .............. ..............
99-D-103 Isotope sciences facilities, LLNL, Livermore, CA............... .............. ..............
99-D-104 Protection of real property (roof reconstruction--Phase II), 3,500 3,500
LLNL, Livermore, CA....................................................
99-D-106 Model validation & system certification center, SNL, .............. ..............
Albuquerque, NM........................................................
99-D-108 Renovate existing roadways, Nevada Test Site, NV............... .............. ..............
99-D-125 Replace boilers and controls, Kansas City plant, Kansas City, .............. ..............
MO.....................................................................
99-D-127 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Kansas City 12,475 12,475
plant, Kansas City, MO.................................................
99-D-128 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Pantex .............. ..............
consolidation, Amarillo, TX............................................
98-D-123 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Tritium factory .............. ..............
modernization and consolidation, Savannah River, SC....................
98-D-124 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Y-12 .............. ..............
consolidation, Oak Ridge, TN...........................................
97-D-123 Structural upgrades, Kansas City plant, Kansas City, MO........ .............. ..............
96-D-102 Stockpile stewardship facilities revitalization (Phase VI), 1,552 1,552
various locations......................................................
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.............................................. 273,376 274,940
-------------------------------
Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities................... 1,613,471 1,751,085
Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program.......................... 261,404 261,404
Construction: 04-D-203 Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization 3,719 3,719
program (FIRP), project engineering design (PED), various locations........
-------------------------------
Total, Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program........... 265,123 265,123
Secure transportation asset:
Operations and equipment.................................................... 123,605 123,605
Program direction........................................................... 58,795 58,795
Use of prior year balances.................................................. .............. -20,000
-------------------------------
Total, Secure transportation asset........................................ 182,400 162,400
Safeguards and security......................................................... 582,067 582,067
Construction: 99-D-132 SMRI nuclear material safeguards and security upgrade 3,683 3,683
project (LANL), Los Alamos, NM.............................................
-------------------------------
Total, Safeguards and security.......................................... 585,750 585,750
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons activities............................................ 6,406,985 6,502,799
Use of prior year balances...................................................... .............. ..............
General reduction............................................................... .............. ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable work...................................... -28,985 -28,985
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons activities.............................................. 6,378,000 6,473,814
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-117)................................... .............. ..............
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-206)................................... .............. ..............
Rescission (Public Law 107-206)................................................. .............. ..............
Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108-11)................................. .............. ..............
===============================
TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES................................................. 6,378,000 6,473,814
===============================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Nonproliferation and verification, R&D.......................................... 203,873 234,873
Construction: 00-D-192 Nonproliferation and international security center .............. ..............
(NISC), LANL...............................................................
-------------------------------
Total, Nonproliferation and verification, R&D........................... 203,873 234,873
Nonproliferation and international security..................................... 101,734 121,734
Nonproliferation programs with Russia:
International materials protection, control, and cooperation................ 226,000 226,000
Accelerated highly enriched uranium (HEU) disposition....................... .............. ..............
Russian transition initiative............................................... 40,000 50,000
HEU transparency implementation............................................. 18,000 18,000
International nuclear safety................................................ 14,083 ..............
Elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production program................... 50,000 50,000
Accelerated materials disposition........................................... 30,000 30,000
Fissile materials disposition:
U.S. surplus materials disposition...................................... 193,805 193,805
Russian surplus materials disposition................................... 47,100 47,100
Construction:
01-D-407 Highly enriched uranium (HEU) blend down, Savannah River, .............. ..............
SC.................................................................
99-D-141 Pit disassembly and conversion facility Savannah River, SC. 13,600 13,600
99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah River, SC.. 402,000 402,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction............................................ 415,600 415,600
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Fissile materials disposition........................... 656,505 656,505
-------------------------------
Total, Nonproliferation programs with Russia...................... 1,034,588 1,030,505
Program direction............................................................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense nuclear nonproliferation................................ 1,340,195 1,387,112
Use of prior year balances...................................................... .............. -46,917
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-117)................................... .............. ..............
Regular appropriations (Public Law 107-206)..................................... .............. ..............
Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108-11)................................. .............. ..............
===============================
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION................................... 1,340,195 1,340,195
===============================
NAVAL REACTORS
Naval reactors development...................................................... 724,600 724,600
Construction:
03-D-201 Cleanroom technology facility, Bettis atomic power lab, West 300 300
Mifflin, PA............................................................
01-D-200 Major office replacement building, Schenectady, NY............. .............. ..............
90-N-102 Expended core facility dry cell project, Naval Reactors 18,300 18,300
Facility, ID...........................................................
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................................................ 18,600 18,600
-------------------------------
Total, Naval reactors development..................................... 743,200 743,200
Program direction............................................................... 25,200 25,200
===============================
TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS..................................................... 768,400 768,400
===============================
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
Office of the Administrator..................................................... 347,980 337,980
Defense nuclear nonproliferation................................................ .............. ..............
===============================
TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR........................................ 347,980 337,980
===============================
TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION........................... 8,834,575 8,920,389
===============================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT.
Site/project completion:
Operation and maintenance................................................... .............. ..............
Construction:
03-D-414, Preliminary project engineering and design (PE&D), Aiken, SC.. .............. ..............
02-D-402 Intec cathodic protection system expansion project, INEEL, .............. ..............
Idaho Falls, ID........................................................
02-D-420 Plutonium packaging and stabilization, Savannah River.......... .............. ..............
01-D-414 Preliminary project, engineering and design (PE&D), various .............. ..............
locations..............................................................
99-D-402 Tank farm support services, F&H area, Savannah River site, .............. ..............
Aiken, SC..............................................................
99-D-404 Health physics instrumentation laboratory (INEL), ID........... .............. ..............
98-D-453 Plutonium stabilization and handling system for PFP, Richland, .............. ..............
WA.....................................................................
96-D-471 CFC HVAC/chiller retrofit, Savannah River site, Aiken, SC...... .............. ..............
86-D-103 Decontamination and waste treatment facility (LLNL), Livermore, .............. ..............
CA.....................................................................
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.............................................. .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Total, Site/project completion...................................... .............. ..............
Post 2006 completion:
Operation and maintenance................................................... .............. ..............
Construction: 93-D-187 High-level waste removal from filled waste tanks, .............. ..............
Savannah River, SC.........................................................
Office of River Protection:
Operation and maintenance............................................... .............. ..............
Construction:
03-D-403 Immobilized high-level waste interim storage facility, .............. ..............
Richland, WA.......................................................
01-D-416 Hanford waste treatment plant, Richland, WA................ .............. ..............
97-D-402 Tank farm restoration and safe operations, Richland, WA.... .............. ..............
94-D-407 Initial tank retrieval systems, Richland, WA............... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction............................................ .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of River Protection.............................. .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Total, Post 2006 completion....................................... .............. ..............
Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution........................................ .............. ..............
Science and technology.......................................................... .............. ..............
Excess facilities............................................................... .............. ..............
Multi-site activities........................................................... .............. ..............
Safeguards and security......................................................... .............. ..............
Program direction............................................................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense environmental management................................ .............. ..............
Use of prior year balances...................................................... .............. ..............
General reduction............................................................... .............. ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable work...................................... .............. ..............
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-117)................................... .............. ..............
Rescission (Public Law 107-206)................................................. .............. ..............
Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108-11)................................. .............. ..............
===============================
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRON. RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT........................ .............. ..............
===============================
DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS
Site closure.................................................................... .............. ..............
Safeguards and security......................................................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS................................ .............. ..............
===============================
DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION COMPLETION
Accelerated completions, 2006................................................... 1,245,171 1,245,171
Accelerated completions, 2012................................................... 1,512,554 1,505,954
Construction:
04-D-414 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations....... 23,500 23,500
04-D-423 Container surveillance capability in 235-F, Savannah River..... 1,134 1,134
02-D-402 Intec cathodic protection system expansion project, INEEL, 1,126 1,126
Idaho Falls, ID........................................................
01-D-416 Hanford waste treatment plnt, Richland WA...................... 690,000 690,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................................................ 715,760 715,760
-------------------------------
Total, Accelerated completions, 2012.................................. 2,228,314 2,221,714
Accelerated completions, 2035................................................... 1,892,884 1,899,384
Construction:
04-D-408 Glass waste storage building #2, Savannah River................ 20,259 20,259
03-D-403 Immobilized high-level waste interim storage facility, 13,954 13,954
Richland, WA..........................................................
03-D-414 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations........ 51,500 51,500
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................................................ 85,713 85,713
-------------------------------
Total, Accelerated completions, 2035.................................. 1,978,597 1,985,097
Safeguards and security......................................................... 299,977 299,977
Technology development and deployment........................................... 63,920 85,080
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense site acceleration completion............................ 5,815,979 5,837,039
Less security charge for reimbursable work...................................... -1,344 -1,344
Use of prior year balances...................................................... .............. -65,000
===============================
TOTAL, DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION COMPLETION............................... 5,814,635 5,770,695
===============================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION
Privatization initiatives, various locations.................................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. PRIVATIZATION.......................... .............. ..............
===============================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Community and regulatory support................................................ 61,337 63,837
Federal contribution to the uranium enrichment.................................. 452,000 452,000
Non-closure environmental activities............................................ 189,698 189,698
Program direction............................................................... 292,144 282,144
-------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES..................................... 995,179 987,679
===============================
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT................................... 6,809,814 6,758,374
===============================
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Other national security programs:
Energy security and assurance:
Energy security......................................................... .............. ..............
Program direction....................................................... 4,272 ..............
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Energy security and assurance............................... 4,272 ..............
Office of Security:
Nuclear safeguards and security......................................... 104,713 104,713
Security investigations................................................. 54,554 54,554
Corporate management information program................................ .............. ..............
Cyber security and secure communications................................ .............. ..............
Program direction....................................................... 52,490 52,490
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of Security.......................................... 211,757 211,757
Intelligence................................................................ 39,823 39,823
Counterintelligence......................................................... 45,955 45,955
Independent oversight and performance assurance............................. 22,575 22,575
Advanced accelerator applications........................................... .............. ..............
Environment, safety and health (Defense).................................... 87,276 88,351
Program direction--EH................................................... 20,410 17,410
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Environment, safety & health (Defense)...................... 107,686 105,761
Worker and community transition............................................. 12,321 ..............
Program direction--WT................................................... 2,679 ..............
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Worker and community transition............................. 15,000 ..............
Office of Legacy Management................................................. 47,525 45,216
Program Direction....................................................... .............. 12,309
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of Legacy Management................................. 47,525 57,525
National Security programs administrative support........................... 25,000 25,000
Office of hearings and appeals.............................................. 3,797 3,797
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Other defense activities........................................ 523,390 512,193
Use of prior year balances...................................................... .............. -15,000
Less security charge for reimbursable work...................................... -712 -712
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-117)................................... .............. ..............
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-206)................................... .............. ..............
Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108-11)................................. .............. ..............
Less transfer of Energy Security and Assurance.................................. .............. -4,272
===============================
TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........................................... 522,678 492,209
===============================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
Defense nuclear waste disposal.................................................. 430,000 285,000
CERRO GRANDE FIRE ACTIVITIES
Cerro Grande fire activities (rescission)....................................... -75,000 ..............
===============================
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES................................... 16,522,067 16,455,972
===============================
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Purchase power and wheeling................................................. 15,000 34,400
Program direction........................................................... 5,100 5,100
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance....................................... 20,100 39,500
Offsetting collections.......................................................... .............. -19,400
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106-377)..................................... -15,000 -15,000
Use of prior year balances...................................................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION.................................. 5,100 5,100
===============================
SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Operating expenses.......................................................... 4,663 4,663
Purchase power and wheeling................................................. 288 2,800
Program direction........................................................... 19,205 19,205
Construction................................................................ 4,732 4,732
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance....................................... 28,888 31,400
Offsetting collections.......................................................... .............. -2,512
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106-377)..................................... -288 -288
Use of prior year balances...................................................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION.................................. 28,600 28,600
===============================
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Construction and rehabilitation............................................. 12,200 12,950
System operation and maintenance............................................ 36,204 36,204
Purchase power and wheeling................................................. 20,000 186,100
Program direction........................................................... 126,588 126,588
Utah mitigation and conservation............................................ .............. 6,200
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance....................................... 194,992 368,042
Offsetting collections.......................................................... .............. -166,100
Offsetting collections (Public Law 98-381)...................................... -3,992 -3,992
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106-377)..................................... -20,000 -20,000
Use of prior year balances...................................................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION.................................. 171,000 177,950
===============================
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND
Operation and maintenance....................................................... 2,640 2,640
===============================
TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS.................................... 207,340 214,290
===============================
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Federal energy regulatory commission............................................ 199,400 199,400
FERC revenues................................................................... -199,400 -199,400
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Federal energy regulatory commission............................ .............. ..............
Defense Environmental Management Privatization (rescission)..................... .............. -15,329
===============================
GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY......................................... 22,163,367 22,148,203
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The following list of general provisions are recommended by
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions
which have been included in previous Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:
Language under section 301 prohibits the use of funds to
award, amend or modify a contract in a manner that deviates
from the Federal Acquisition Regulations unless on a case-by-
case basis, a waiver is granted by the Secretary of Energy.
Similar language was contained in the Energy and Water
Development Act, 2003.
Language is included under section 302 which prohibits the
use of funds in this Act to develop or implement a workforce
restructuring plan or enhanced severance payments and other
benefits for Federal employees of the Department of Energy
under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of
Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 484. A similar provision was
contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2003.
Language is included under section 303 which prohibits the
use of funds for severance payments under the worker and
community transition program. A similar provision was contained
in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2003.
Language is included under section 304 which prohibits the
use of funds in this Act to initiate requests for proposals or
expression of interest for new programs which have not yet been
presented to Congress in the annual budget submission, and
which have not yet been approved and funded by Congress. A
similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water
Development Act, 2003.
Language is included under section 305 which permits the
transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this
bill. A similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water
Development Act, 2003.
Language is included under section 306 that prohibits the
use of funds by the Bonneville Power Administration to enter
into energy efficiency contracts outside its service area.
Language is included under section 307 which provides that
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration may authorize 2 percent of the amount allocated
to a nuclear weapons production plant for the production plant
to engage in research, development, and demonstration
activities with respect to the Engineering and manufacturing
capabilities of the plant in order to maintain and enhance such
capabilities at the plant. A similar provision was contained in
the Energy and Water Development Act, 2003.
Language is included in section 308 specifically
authorizing intelligence activities pending enactment of the
fiscal year 2004 Intelligence Authorization Act.
Language is included under section 309 which provides that
none of the funds in this Act may be used to dispose of
transuranic waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant which
contains concentrations of plutonium in excess of 20 percent by
weight for the aggregate of any material category on the date
of enactment of this Act, or generated after such date. A
similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water
Development Act, 2003.
Language is included in section 310 that requires that
waste characterization at WIPP be limited to determining that
the waste is not ignitable, corrosive, or reactive. This
confirmation will be performed using radiography or visual
examination of a representative subpopulation of the waste. The
language directs the Department of Energy to seek a
modification to the WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to
implement the provisions of this bill by December 31, 2003.
Language is included in section 311 that allows the
Department to dispose of certain waste at Fernald, Ohio as
``byproduct material'' as defined by section 11e.(2) of the
Atomic Energy Act.
Language is included in section 312 that requires the
Secretary to collect fees for Army Corps of Engineers
hydropower operation and maintenance funding under certain
conditions.
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $70,827,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 33,145,000
Committee recommendation................................ 71,145,000
The Committee recommendation for the Appalachian Regional
Commission totals $71,145,000, $38,000,000 more than the
request.
The Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] is a regional
economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed
of the Governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a Federal
cochairman who is appointed by the President.
Consistent with the administration's budget request, the
Committee recommendation does not include funding for ARC
highways. Funding for ARC development highways is provided
through the Highway Trust Fund in fiscal years 1999 through
2004 consistent with provision contained in the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and
investment opportunities to the Appalachian region, and is
encouraged by the findings of a preliminary trade report
determining that Appalachian firms might find significant trade
and investment opportunities, particularly in the energy, high
technology, and transportation sectors, in the Republic of
Turkey and the surrounding region. In this regard, the
Committee supports the Appalachian-Turkish Trade Project
[ATTP], a project to promote opportunities to expand trade,
encourage business interests, stimulate foreign studies, and to
build a lasting and mutually meaningful relationship between
the Appalachian States and the Republic of Turkey, as well as
the neighboring regions, such as Greece. The Committee commends
the ARC for its leadership role in helping to implement the
mission of the ATTP. The Committee expects the ARC to continue
to be a prominent ATTP sponsor.
The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 to
construct a multi-purpose facility for Noxubee County,
Mississippi. The Committee typically does not choose to direct
funding to specific projects within the jurisdiction of the
Appalachian Regional Commission. However, the Committee notes
the severe economic conditions in this poor rural area require
immediate action, and believes it appropriate to exercise the
Congressional prerogative in this case.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $18,876,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 19,559,000
Committee recommendation................................ 19,559,000
An appropriation of $19,559,000, the amount of the request,
is recommended for fiscal year 2004.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by
the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The
Board, composed of five members appointed by the President,
provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy
regarding public health and safety issues at the Department's
defense nuclear facilities. The Board is also responsible for
investigating any event or practice at a defense nuclear
facility which has or may adversely affect public health and
safety. The Board is responsible for reviewing and evaluating
the content and implementation of the standards relating to the
design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of defense
nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy.
Delta Regional Authority
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $7,948,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 2,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,000,000 for
the Delta Regional Authority.
The Delta Regional Authority [DRA], authorized by Public
Law 106-554, was established to assist an eight-state, 236-
county region of demonstrated distress in obtaining
transportation and basic public infrastructure, skills
training, and opportunities for economic development essential
to strong local economies.
Denali Commission
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $47,688,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 9,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 48,500,000
The Committee recommendation includes $48,500,000 for the
Denali Commission.
The Denali Commission is a regional economic development
agency established in 1998 for the intended purpose of
delivering basic utilities, including affordable power, and
other essential infrastructure to the nation's most
geographically isolated communities. The Committee is
encouraged by the progress of the Denali Commission in
assisting distressed communities throughout Alaska, and urges
continued work among local and State agencies, non-profit
organizations and other participants in meeting the most
pressing infrastructure needs.
The Committee recommendation includes funding for the Eyak
power plant remediation project, relocation and modernization
of the Nome power plant, the Tok/Chistochina transmission line,
the Fire Island power line extension, and the CVEA co-
generation project.
Of the amounts provided to the Denali Commission,
$5,000,000 is for community showers and washeteria in villages
with homes with no running water; $5,000,000 is for multi-
purpose community facilities including the Bering Straits
Region; $10,000,000 is for teacher housing in remote villages
such as Savoogna, Allakaket, Hughes, Huslia, Minto, Nulato, and
Ruby where there is limited housing available for teachers
which, in some instances, forces teachers to live in their
schools; $10,000,000 is for facilities serving Native elders
and senior citizens to enable them to remain in their home
village; and $5,000,000 is for (1) the Rural Communications
service to provide broadcast facilities in communities with no
television or radio station or no more than one television or
radio station and (2) the Public Broadcasting Digital
Distribution Network to link rural broadcasting facilities
together to improve economies of scale, share programming, and
reduce operating costs.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
salaries and expenses
gross appropriation
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $577,806,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 618,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 618,800,000
revenues
Appropriations, 2003.................................... -$520,087,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... -538,844,000
Committee recommendation................................ -538,844,000
net appropriation
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $57,719,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 79,956,000
Committee recommendation................................ 79,956,000
The Committee recommendation includes $79,956,000, the same
amount as the request, for the Commission.
Nuclear energy received a strong endorsement in the
National Energy Policy of May 2001 and serious industry
interest has emerged in building a new generation of nuclear
power plants in the United States to meet the Nation's
electricity demands. Three nuclear utilities have announced
intentions to submit early site permit applications to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC]. Others are also expected
to submit early site permit applications over the next few
years. Industry has proposed a new risk-informed regulatory
framework to license the next generation of plants. The
framework would build on the successful structure of the
revised reactor oversight process and be reactor design
neutral. NRC should evaluate the merits of this approach and
establish the new framework through rulemaking.
The Committee recommendation for the NRC is $618,800,000.
This amount is offset by estimated revenues of $538,844,000
resulting in a net appropriation of $79,956,000.
Fee Recovery.--Pursuant to the agreement reached in fiscal
year 2001, the NRC is required to recover 92 percent of its
budget authority, less the appropriation from the Nuclear Waste
Fund, by assessing license and annual fees.
Reports.--The Committee directs the Commission to continue
to provide monthly reports on the status of its licensing and
other regulatory activities. In addition, continued
congressional oversight is necessary to ensure the NRC
streamlines its business processes to improve regulatory
efficiency while reducing unnecessary burden on licensees.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
gross appropriation
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $6,797,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 7,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,300,000
revenues
Appropriations, 2003.................................... -$6,392,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... -6,716,000
Committee recommendation................................ -6,716,000
This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee
recommends an appropriation of $584,000 for fiscal year 2004.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $3,179,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 3,177,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,177,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,177,000 for
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act of 1987 directed the Board to evaluate
the technical and scientific validity of the activities of the
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The
Board must report its findings not less than two times a year
to the Congress and the Secretary of Energy.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The following list of general provisions are recommended by
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions
which have been included in previous Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Acts:
Language is included under section 501 which provides that
none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used in any
way, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action
on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before
Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as
described in section 1913 of Title 18, United States Code. A
similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water
Development Act, 2000, Public Law 106-60.
Language is included under section 502 which requires that
American-made equipment and goods be purchased to the greatest
extent practicable. A similar provision was contained in the
Energy and Water Development Act, 2000, Public Law 106-60.
Language is included under section 503 making a technical
correction to the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003.
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 2004, is currently in conference with the House.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 17, 2003,
the Committee ordered reported en bloc: S. 1427, an original
bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004; S. 1424, an original
bill making appropriations for Energy and Water Development for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004; and S. 1426, an
original bill making appropriations for Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and related programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2004; each subject to amendment and each
subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 29-0,
a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law
proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing
law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is
printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman.
With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the
Committee that it is necessary to dispense with these
requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate.
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation \1\ bill allocation \1\ bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in the
Budget Resolution for 2004: Subcommittee on Energy
and Water Development:
Discretionary..................................... 27,313 27,313 27,359 \1\ 27,310
Projections of outlays associated with the
recommendation:
2004.............................................. .............. ........... .............. \2\ 18,112
2005.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 7,815
2006.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 1,342
2007.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 36
2008 and future years............................. .............. ........... .............. 17
Financial assistance to State and local governments NA 119 NA 23
for 2004............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2004
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+
or -)
Item 2003 Budget House allowance Committee ----------------------------------------------------
appropriation estimate deg. recommendation 2003 Budget House
Pappropriation estimate allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
General investigations............ 134,141 100,000 131,700 -2,441 +31,700
Construction, general............. 1,744,598 1,350,000 1,538,000 -206,598 +188,000
Flood control, Mississippi River 342,334 280,000 329,000 -13,334 +49,000
and tributaries, Arkansas,
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and
Tennessee........................
Operation and maintenance, general 1,927,556 1,939,000 1,949,000 +21,444 +10,000
Supplemental appropriations 39,000 ................. ............... -39,000 ...............
(Public Law 108-11)..........
Regulatory program................ 138,096 144,000 139,000 +904 -5,000
FUSRAP............................ 144,057 140,000 140,000 -4,057 ...............
Flood control and coastal 14,902 70,000 40,000 +25,098 -30,000
emergencies......................
General expenses.................. 154,143 171,000 160,000 +5,857 -11,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, title I, Department 4,638,827 4,194,000 4,426,700 -212,127 +232,700
of Defense--Civil..........
=====================================================================================================================
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Central Utah Project Completion
Account
Central Utah project construction. 23,489 42,463 42,463 +18,974 ...............
Fish, wildlife, and recreation 11,186 ................. ............... -11,186 ...............
mitigation and conservation......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................... 34,675 42,463 42,463 +7,788 ...............
Program oversight and 1,317 1,728 1,728 +411 ...............
administration...................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Central Utah project 35,992 44,191 44,191 +8,199 ...............
completion account.........
Bureau of Reclamation
Water and related resources....... 808,203 771,217 853,517 +45,314 +82,300
Supplemental appropriations 25,000 ................. ............... -25,000 ...............
(Public Law 108-11)..........
Loan program...................... ............... 200 200 +200 ...............
(Limitation on direct loans).. ............... ................. ............... ............... ...............
Central Valley project restoration 48,586 39,600 39,600 -8,986 ...............
fund.............................
California Bay-Delta restoration.. ............... 15,000 ............... ............... -15,000
Working capital fund (rescission). ............... -4,525 -4,525 -4,525 ...............
Policy and administration......... 54,513 56,525 56,525 +2,012 ...............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Bureau of Reclamation 936,302 878,017 945,317 +9,015 +67,300
=====================================================================================================================
Total, title II, Department 972,294 922,208 989,508 +17,214 +67,300
of the Interior............
=====================================================================================================================
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Energy supply..................... 696,858 861,805 920,357 +223,499 +58,552
Non-defense site acceleration ............... 170,875 171,875 +171,875 +1,000
completion.......................
Non-defense environmental 213,624 ................. ............... -213,624 ...............
management.......................
Uranium enrichment decontamination ............... 418,124 396,124 +396,124 -22,000
and decommissioning fund.........
Non-defense environmental services ............... 292,121 302,121 +302,121 +10,000
Uranium facilities maintenance and 453,409 ................. ............... -453,409 ...............
remediation......................
Science........................... 3,261,328 3,310,935 3,360,435 +99,107 +49,500
Supplemental appropriations 11,000 ................. ............... -11,000 ...............
(Public Law 108-11)..........
Nuclear Waste Disposal............ 144,058 161,000 140,000 -4,058 -21,000
Departmental administration....... 205,280 326,306 309,564 +104,284 -16,742
Miscellaneous revenues........ -120,000 -146,668 -146,668 -26,668 ...............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net appropriation......... 85,280 179,638 162,896 +77,616 -16,742
Office of the Inspector General... 37,426 39,462 39,462 +2,036 ...............
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National Nuclear Security
Administration:
Weapons activities............ 5,914,409 6,378,000 6,473,814 +559,405 +95,814
Supplemental 67,000 ................. ............... -67,000 ...............
appropriations (Public
Law 108-11)..............
Defense nuclear 1,020,860 1,340,195 1,340,195 +319,335 ...............
nonproliferation.............
Supplemental 148,000 ................. ............... -148,000 ...............
appropriations (Public
Law 108-11)..............
Naval reactors................ 702,196 768,400 768,400 +66,204 ...............
Office of the Administrator... 325,102 347,980 337,980 +12,878 -10,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, National 8,177,567 8,834,575 8,920,389 +742,822 +85,814
Nuclear Security
Administration.........
Environmental and Other Defense
Activities:
Defense environmental 5,428,806 ................. ............... -5,428,806 ...............
restoration and waste
management...................
Supplemental 6,000 ................. ............... -6,000 ...............
appropriations (Public
Law 108-11)..............
Defense facilities closure 1,130,915 ................. ............... -1,130,915 ...............
projects.....................
Defense site acceleration ............... 5,814,635 5,770,695 +5,770,695 -43,940
completion...................
Defense environmental 157,369 ................. ............... -157,369 ...............
management privatization.....
Defense environmental services ............... 995,179 987,679 +987,679 -7,500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense 6,723,090 6,809,814 6,758,374 +35,284 -51,440
environmental management...
Other defense activities.......... 511,659 522,678 492,209 -19,450 -30,469
Supplemental appropriations 4,000 ................. ............... -4,000 ...............
(Public Law 108-11)..........
Defense nuclear waste disposal.... 312,952 430,000 285,000 -27,952 -145,000
Cerro Grande fire activities ............... -75,000 ............... ............... +75,000
(rescission).....................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Environmental and 7,551,701 7,687,492 7,535,583 -16,118 -151,909
Other Defenses Activities..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Atomic Energy Defense 15,729,268 16,522,067 16,455,972 +726,704 -66,095
Activities.................
Power Marketing Administrations
Operation and maintenance, 4,505 5,100 5,100 +595 ...............
Southeastern Power Administration
Operation and maintenance, 27,200 28,600 28,600 +1,400 ...............
Southwestern Power Administration
Construction, rehabilitation, 167,760 171,000 177,950 +10,190 +6,950
operation and maintenance,
Western Area Power Administration
Falcon and Amistad operating and 2,716 2,640 2,640 -76 ...............
maintenance fund.................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Power Marketing 202,181 207,340 214,290 +12,109 +6,950
Administrations............
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Salaries and expenses............. 192,000 199,400 199,400 +7,400 ...............
Revenues applied.................. -192,000 -199,400 -199,400 -7,400 ...............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Federal Energy ............... ................. ............... ............... ...............
Regulatory Commission......
Defense Environmental Management ............... ................. -15,329 -15,329 -15,329
Privatization (rescission).......
=====================================================================================================================
Total, title III, Department 20,834,432 22,163,367 22,148,203 +1,313,771 -15,164
of Energy..................
=====================================================================================================================
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission... 70,827 33,145 71,145 +318 +38,000
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 18,876 19,559 19,559 +683 ...............
Board............................
Delta Regional Authority.......... 7,948 2,000 7,000 -948 +5,000
Denali Commission................. 47,688 9,500 48,500 +812 +39,000
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Salaries and expenses......... 577,806 618,800 618,800 +40,994 ...............
Revenues...................... -520,087 -538,844 -538,844 -18,757 ...............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................... 57,719 79,956 79,956 +22,237 ...............
Office of Inspector General... 6,797 7,300 7,300 +503 ...............
Revenues...................... -6,392 -6,716 -6,716 -324 ...............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................... 405 584 584 +179 ...............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Nuclear Regulatory 58,124 80,540 80,540 +22,416 ...............
Commission.................
Nuclear Waste Technical Review 3,179 3,177 3,177 -2 ...............
Board............................
=====================================================================================================================
Total, title IV, Independent 206,642 147,921 229,921 +23,279 +82,000
agencies...................
=====================================================================================================================
Grand total:................
New budget 26,652,195 27,427,496 27,794,332 +1,142,137 +366,836
(obligational)
authority..............
Appropriations...... (26,652,195) (27,507,021) (27,814,186) (+1,161,991) (+307,165)
Rescissions......... ............... (-79,525) (-19,854) (-19,854) (+59,671)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------