94–673 PDF 

Calendar No. 96 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 114–54 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2016 

MAY 21, 2015.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. ALEXANDER, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted 

the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 2028] 

The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the bill 

(H.R. 2028) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2016, and for other purposes, reports the same with an amendment 

in the nature of a substitute, and recommends that the bill as 

amended do pass. 

New obligational authority 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $36,118,168,000 

Amount of 2015 appropriations ............................... 34,780,277,000 

Amount of 2016 budget estimate ............................ 36,646,014,000 

Amount of House allowance .................................... 36,010,658,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2015 appropriations .......................................... ∂1,337,891,000 

2016 budget estimate ........................................ ¥527,846,000 

House allowance ................................................ ∂107,510,000 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 4 

Summary of Estimates and Recommendations ..................................................... 4 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4 

Title I: 

Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army: 

Corps of Engineers—Civil: 

Investigations ..................................................................................... 9 

Construction ....................................................................................... 19 

Mississippi River and Tributaries .................................................... 25 

Operations and Maintenance ............................................................ 28 

Regulatory Program ........................................................................... 47 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ......................... 47 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .......................................... 47 

Expenses ............................................................................................. 48 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) .......... 48 

General Provisions—Corps of Engineers—Civil .............................. 48 

Title II: 

Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project Completion Account .............................................. 49 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Water and Related Resources ........................................................... 51 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ......................................... 62 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ...................................................... 62 

Policy and Administration ................................................................. 63 

Indian Water Rights Settlements ..................................................... 63 

San Joaquin Restoration Fund ......................................................... 63 

General Provisions—Department of the Interior .................................... 63 

Title III: 

Department of Energy: 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ............................................... 69 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ............................................ 75 

Nuclear Energy .......................................................................................... 79 

Fossil Energy Research and Development .............................................. 81 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................... 85 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve .................................................................... 85 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ..................................................... 85 

Energy Information Administration ........................................................ 86 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ..................................................... 86 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund .. 87 

Science ........................................................................................................ 88 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ........................................ 93 

Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs ......................................... 93 

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program .................................. 93 

Tribal Indian Energy Loan Guarantee Program .................................... 94 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program ............. 94 

Departmental Administration .................................................................. 94 

Office of the Inspector General ................................................................ 96 

Weapons Activities .................................................................................... 97 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................................................... 101 

Naval Reactors .......................................................................................... 102 

Federal Salaries and Expenses ................................................................ 103 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................. 104 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Federal Contribution ................................................................................... 106 
Page

3 

Title III—Continued 

Department of Energy—Continued 

Other Defense Activities ........................................................................... 106 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Bonneville Power Administration Fund ........................................... 106 

Operations and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ................................................................................................... 106 

Operations and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ................................................................................................... 106 

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration .................................................... 107 

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund ................. 107 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and Expenses ......... 107 

General Provisions—Department of Energy ........................................... 132 

Title IV: 

Independent Agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission .......................................................... 133 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ................................................. 133 

Delta Regional Authority .......................................................................... 134 

Denali Commission ................................................................................... 134 

Northern Border Regional Commission ................................................... 134 

Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .............................................. 134 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............................................................. 135 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................ 137 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board .................................................. 138 

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects ........................................................................................ 138 

Title IV: General Provisions ................................................................................... 138 

Title V: General Provisions ..................................................................................... 139 

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 139 

Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 140 

Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 141 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 145 

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 146 
(4) 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for fiscal 

year 2016, beginning October 1, 2015, and ending September 30, 

2016, for energy and water development, and for other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources development programs 

and related activities of the Corps of Engineers’ civil works program in title I; for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the Department of Energy’s energy research 

activities, including environmental restoration and waste management, and atomic energy defense activities of the National Nuclear 

Security Administration in title III; and for 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 2016 budget estimates for the bill total 

$36,646,014,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The recommendation of the Committee totals $36,118,168,000. This is 

$527,846,000 below the budget estimates and $1,337,891,000 above 

the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year. 

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development held four sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2016 appropriations bill. Witnesses included officials and representatives of 

the Federal agencies under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

The recommendations for fiscal year 2016, therefore, have been 

developed after careful consideration of available data. 

VOTES IN THE COMMITTEE

By a vote of —— to —— the Committee on —————, recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the Senate. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Committee recommends $35,368,000,000 for the Energy and 

Water Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016, including adjustments, an increase of $1,165,723,000 over fiscal year 

2015. Within the amount recommended, $19,002,000,000 is classified as defense and $16,366,000,000 is classified as non-defense 

spending. The Committee recommendation complies with the Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended. 

The Committee’s constitutional responsibility to oversee the Federal Government’s expenditure of taxpayer dollars requires setting 

priorities and ensuring these funds are executed as Congress has 
5 

directed. To develop this recommendation, the Committee held four 

budget hearings in March and April 2015 to examine the budget 

requests for the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, 

and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The hearings provided officials from the agencies an opportunity to present their most 

pressing priorities to the Committee. The Committee also invited 

and received recommendations from Senators. 

The Committee’s recommendation reflects that process, and includes funding for the highest priority activities across several Federal agencies. The recommendation includes funds for critical water 

infrastructure, including our Nation’s inland waterways, ports, and 

harbors; agricultural water supply and drought relief in the West; 

groundbreaking scientific research and development, including 

world-class supercomputing; support for the Nation’s nuclear weapons, non-proliferation, and nuclear Navy programs; and critical economic development. The Committee did not recommend funding for 

low-priority programs, and rescinded unused funds from prior 

years. 

OVERSIGHT

To ensure appropriate oversight of taxpayer dollars, the Committee’s recommendation includes financial reporting requirements in 

each title of the bill, and provides additional Congressional control 

points in the recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee describes these new requirements in detail in 

the relevant sections. 
(6) 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,499,500,000 for the Corps of Engineers, an increase of $767,500,000 from the budget request. The 

Committee also recommends rescinding $128,000,000 of unobligated prior year balances, for a net appropriation of 

$5,371,500,000. 

The Committee recommendation sets priorities by supporting our 

Nation’s infrastructure. Specifically, the Committee recommendation provides adequate appropriations to utilize all of the estimated 

fiscal year 2016 revenues from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund 

and meets the target prescribed in the Water Resources Reform 

and Development Act [WRRDA] of 2014 for projects eligible for 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds. This level of funding will help 

modernize our Nation’s ports and waterways as we prepare for 

completion of the Panama Canal expansion. 

INTRODUCTION

The Corps of Engineers’ civil works mission is to provide quality, 

responsive engineering services to the Nation in peace and war. 

Approximately 23,000 civilians and about 290 military officers are 

responsible for executing the civil works mission. This bill only 

funds the civil works functions of the Corps of Engineers. 

The Corps of Engineers maintains our inland waterways, keeps 

our ports open, manages a portion of our drinking water supply, 

provides emission free electricity from dams, looks after many of 

our recreational waters, helps manage the river levels during flooding, provides environmental stewardship, and emergency response 

to natural disasters. The annual net economic benefit generated by 

the Corps of Engineers’ civil works mission is estimated to be 

$87,000,000,000, which equates to a return of about $16 for every 

$1 expended. 

The Corps of Engineers’ responsibilities include: 

—navigation systems, including 13,000 miles of deep draft channels, 12,000 miles of inland waterways, 236 lock chambers, and 

926 harbors which handle over 2.3 billion tons of cargo annually; 

—flood risk management infrastructure, including 707 dams, 

14,700 miles of levees, and multiple hurricane and storm damage risk reduction projects along the coast; 
7 

—municipal and industrial water supply storage at 136 projects 

spread across 25 States; 

—environmental stewardship, infrastructure, and ecosystem restoration; 

—recreation for approximately 370 million recreation visits per 

year to Corps of Engineers’ projects; 

—regulation of waters under Federal statutes; and 

—maintaining hydropower capacity of nearly 24,000 megawatts 

at 75 projects. 

PROGRAM COORDINATION AND EXECUTION

The Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to execute the 

civil works program in accordance with congressional direction included in this report and the accompanying act. This includes moving individual projects forward in accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the Committee realizes that many factors outside the Corps of Engineers’ control may dictate the 

progress of any given project or study. The Committee directs the 

Corps of Engineers to notify the Committee of any major deviations 

as soon as practicable, including a detailed justification and updates of cost, schedule, or scope for the project or study. A major 

deviation is defined as any reprogramming action that requires 

Committee notification as identified in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015, or a 

schedule change that causes completions, as identified in the fiscal 

year 2015 or fiscal year 2016 budget requests to be delayed beyond 

the fiscal year stated. 

FISCAL YEAR 2016 WORK PLAN

The Committee has recommended funding above the budget request for Investigations, Construction, Operations and Maintenance, and Mississippi River and Tributaries. The Corps of Engineers is directed to submit a work plan, not later than 45 days 

after the date of enactment of this act, to the Committee proposing 

its allocation of these additional funds. The Corps of Engineers is 

directed not to obligate any funding above the budget request for 

studies or projects until the Committee has approved the work plan 

for fiscal year 2016. The work plan shall be consistent with the following general guidance, as well as the specific direction the Committee provides within each account. 

—None of the funds may be used for any item for which the 

Committee has specifically denied funding. 

—Except for funds proposed for new starts, the additional funds 

are provided for ongoing studies or projects that were either 

not included in the budget request or for which the budget request was inadequate. 

—The work plan shall include a single group of new starts for 

Investigations and Construction. 

—Funding associated with a category may be allocated to eligible 

studies or projects within that category. 

—Funding associated with a subcategory may be allocated only 

to eligible studies or projects within that subcategory. 
8 

—The Corps of Engineers may not withhold funding from a study 

or project because it is inconsistent with the administration’s 

policy. 

—The Committee notes that these funds are in excess of the administration’s budget request, and that administration budget 

metrics should not disqualify a study or project from being 

funded. 

PROCUREMENT

The Committee remains concerned about the high unemployment 

rate of the Nation’s construction industry. Despite the efforts of the 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy to increase communication between procurement officers and industry, the Committee believes 

that local contractors very often do not know about nor have the 

opportunity to compete for local construction projects funded in this 

act. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary to ensure that 

regional/district offices responsible for construction projects inform 

and engage local construction industry contractors, especially small 

businesses, minority-owned businesses, and women-owned businesses, about Federal procurement opportunities and the bidding 

process. The Committee requests a clear outreach plan from the 

Secretary no later than 90 days after enactment of this act. This 

plan should modernize traditional outreach methods to reach a 

broader group of local contractors. 

REPROGRAMMING

The Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation provided in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2015. 

NEW STARTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

The Committee recommends new starts in both the Investigations and Construction accounts for fiscal year 2016. The Committee decision is based, in part, on the budget request providing 

funding to complete 11 feasibility studies, 2 preconstruction engineering design [PED] studies, and 9 construction projects. 

Investments in our infrastructure are investments in our economy. These investments should be continued even during constrained budgets, as the benefits continue to accrue for decades. 

The Committee recommends up to 10 new feasibility study starts, 

and 6 new construction starts, including the following 4 proposed 

in the administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2016: Port 

Lions Harbor, Alaska; Coyote & Berryessa Creeks, California; Ohio 

River Shoreline, Paducah, Kentucky; and, Marsh Lake, Minnesota. 

The Corps of Engineers is directed to propose, not later than 45 

days after the date of enactment of this act, a single group of new 

starts to the Committee as a part of the work plan, under the direction included above under the heading ‘‘Fiscal Year 2016 Work 

Plan’’. 

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE

Savings and slippage [S&S] is a budgetary term that recognizes 

that nothing ever goes completely as planned. The Committee rec-
9 

ognizes that many changes may occur between the Corps of Engineers’ budget formulation—beginning 22 months before it is submitted to the Committee—and when funds are actually appropriated. Although the Committee has attempted to identify and address changes through coordination with the Corps of Engineers, 

the Committee realizes that actual appropriations may not be enacted until later in the year. Accordingly, the Committee has included, as in prior years, a reasonable percentage of S&S within 

Investigations, Construction, and Operations and Maintenance as a 

way to accommodate additional project needs, even if funding is insufficient. Upon applying the S&S amounts, normal reprogramming procedures should be undertaken to account for schedule slippages, accelerations, or other unforeseen conditions. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

The Committee did not accept or include Congressionally Directed Spending, as defined in section 5(a) of rule XLIV of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate. However, the Committee has recommended additional programmatic funds for Investigations, Construction, Operations and Maintenance, and Mississippi River and 

Tributaries to address deficiencies in the budget request. In some 

cases, these additional funds have been included within defined 

categories, as in prior years, and are described in more detail in 

their respective sections, below. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY

The Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office is directed to study the cumulative economic impact of all the 

shallow draft ports on the Mississippi River between St. Louis, 

Missouri, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The study should include 

the revenue and jobs created locally and nationally, the importance 

of these ports to inland waterways shippers, the economic effects 

that would result from any single port closing down, the economic 

effects that would result from all ports closing down, the increase 

in barge traffic that these ports may see with the expansion of the 

Panama Canal, and the ability or inability of these ports to meet 

that expansion under the current funding environment. Finally, 

the study shall make a recommendation regarding the establishment of one funding stream for dredging these small inland ports 

as compared to historical funding mechanisms. 

INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $122,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 97,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 113,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 109,000,000 

The Committee recommends $109,000,000 for Investigations, an 

increase of $12,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee’s 

recommendation allows the Corps of Engineers to begin up to 10 

new feasibility study starts. 
10 

INTRODUCTION

Funding in this account is used to develop feasibility and PED 

studies to address the Nation’s water infrastructure needs, in support of project authorization. The Committee is very concerned that 

only one-third of the budget request for Investigations is directed 

to specifically authorized studies, with the remainder directed to 

nationwide programs that will not result in construction recommendations. Further, the budget request proposes funding for 

only 51 specifically authorized feasibility studies, as compared to 

over 100 studies receiving appropriations in fiscal year 2015. Additional funding recommended for Investigations will allow a more 

balanced planning program. 

The Committee is also concerned about the administration’s failure to efficiently fund ongoing studies to completion, with completion being defined as the end of the PED phase. The budget request 

does not include funding to move any of the 34 feasibility studies 

that were completed in the prior fiscal year into the PED study 

phase. If the Committee were to adopt the budget request without 

modification, a backlog of at least 40 studies would be created from 

just the past 2 fiscal years. The Committee recognizes that the administration’s budget does not provide adequate Investigations, and 

specifically PED funding to allow many of America’s most important waterways to move efficiently from planning to construction. 

The Committee therefore recommends additional funding to be 

used to seamlessly continue feasibility studies into the PED study 

phase. 

NEW STARTS

The Committee’s recommendation includes funding for up to 10 

new feasibility study starts. Each new feasibility study shall be selected based on the Corps of Engineers’ prioritization process and 

included as a part of the Investigations work plan. Not less than 

50 percent of the additional funds recommended for Investigations 

shall be used to seamlessly continue studies into the PED phase, 

which have a Chief’s Report dated prior to October 1, 2015. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The table below displays the budget request and the Committee’s 

recommendation for Investigations. Funding is classified as either 

for feasibility or PED studies, as indicated in the columns, to provide greater transparency in the study phases. 
11 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee 

recommendation 

FEAS PED FEAS PED FEAS PED 

ALABAMA 

MOBILE HARBOR DEEPENING AND WIDENING, AL ............................................................................................................................................ 400 ................ 400 ................ 400 ................

ALASKA 

CRAIG HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 535 ................ 535 ................ 535 ................KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................................................................... 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................PERRYVILLE HARBOR, AK .................................................................................................................................................................................. 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................SAINT GEORGE HARBOR IMPROVEMENT, AK ..................................................................................................................................................... 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................

ARIZONA 

LITTLE COLORADO RIVER (WINSLOW), AZ ......................................................................................................................................................... 100 ................ 100 ................ 100 ................LOWER SANTA CRUZ RIVER, AZ ........................................................................................................................................................................ 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................

ARKANSAS 

THREE RIVERS, AR ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................

CALIFORNIA 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES, NATOMAS BASIN, CA ..................................................................................................... ................ 3,500 ................ 3,500 ................ 3,500 DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) RESTORATION, CA ............................................................................................................................................. 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................LOWER CACHE CRK, YOLO CNTY, WOODLAND & VIC, CA ................................................................................................................................. 570 ................ 570 ................ 570 ................PORT OF LONG BEACH NAV IMP, CA ................................................................................................................................................................. 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION (PHASE 3) (GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT), CA ........................................................................ 500 ................ 500 ................ 500 ................SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK, CA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 331 ................ 331 ................ 331 ................YUBA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA .................................................................................................................................................... 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................

COLORADO 

ADAMS AND DENVER COUNTIES, CO ................................................................................................................................................................. 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................

COMMONWEALTH NORTHERN MARIANAS 

ROTA HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI .............................................................................................................................................................. 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................TINIAN HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI ............................................................................................................................................................ 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................
12 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee 

recommendation 

FEAS PED FEAS PED FEAS PED 

CONNECTICUT 

FAIRFIELD AND NEW HAVEN COUNTIES (FLOODING), CT .................................................................................................................................. 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................NEW HAVEN HARBOR DEEPENING, CT ............................................................................................................................................................... 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................

FLORIDA 

MANATEE HARBOR, FL ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................

GEORGIA 

PROCTOR CREEK, GA ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................SATILLA RIVER BASIN WATERSHED, GA ............................................................................................................................................................. 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................

IDAHO 

BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID .................................................................................................................................................................................... 275 ................ 275 ................ 275 ................

ILLINOIS 

DU PAGE RIVER, IL ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL ........................................................................................................................................................... 400 ................ 400 ................ 400 ................INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES–MISSISSIPPI RIVER AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES, IL, IN, OH & WI ................................................ 500 ................ 500 ................ 500 ................KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN, IL .............................................................................................................................................................................. 500 ................ 500 ................ 500 ................

IOWA 

DES MOINES LEVEE SYSTEM, DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA ........................................................................................................... 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................

LOUISIANA 

INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA (GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT) ........................................................................................ 1,400 ................ 1,400 ................ 1,400 ................LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA .............................................................................................................................. 50 ................ 50 ................ 50 ................MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, LA ..................................................................................................................... 550 ................ 550 ................ 550 ................

MARYLAND 

CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD, PA & VA ................................................................................................................................ 250 ................ 250 ................ 250 ................
13 

MASSACHUSETTS 

BOSTON HARBOR DEEP DRAFT INVESTIGATION, MA ......................................................................................................................................... ................ 1,835 ................ 1,835 ................ 1,835 

MICHIGAN 

SAGINAW RIVER DEEPENING, SAGINAW, MI (GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT) ............................................................................................. 100 ................ 100 ................ 100 ................

MINNESOTA 

MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MN & SD (MINNESOTA RIVER AUTHORITY) ....................................................................................... 600 ................ 600 ................ 600 ................

MISSOURI 

ST LOUIS RIVERFRONT, MO & IL ....................................................................................................................................................................... 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................

NEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY BACKBAY, NJ ................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 300 ................ ................ ................PASSAIC RIVER MAINSTEM, NJ (GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT) ................................................................................................................ 982 ................ 982 ................ 982 ................RAHWAY RIVR BASIN (UPPER BASIN), NJ ......................................................................................................................................................... 500 ................ 500 ................ 500 ................

NEW YORK 

NEW YORK—NEW JERSEY HARBOR & TRIBUTARIES, NY & NJ ........................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 400 ................ ................ ................UPPER SUSQUEHANNA COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, NY ..................................................................................................... 600 ................ 600 ................ 600 ................WESTCHESTER COUNTY STREAMS, BYRAM RIVER BASIN, NY & CT ................................................................................................................. 703 ................ 703 ................ 703 ................

NORTH DAKOTA 

RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, ND, MN, SD & MANITOBA, CANADA .......................................................................................................... 786 ................ 786 ................ 786 ................

OKLAHOMA 

ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR, OK ...................................................................................................................................................................... 815 ................ 815 ................ 815 ................

PENNSYLVANIA 

DELAWARE RIVER DREDGE MATERIAL UTILIZATION, PA .................................................................................................................................... 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................

PUERTO RICO 

SAN JUAN HARBOR CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT STUDY, PR ................................................................................................................................. 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................

TEXAS 

COASTAL TEXAS PROTECTION AND RESTORATION STUDY, TX .......................................................................................................................... 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................................................................................................ 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX .............................................................................................................................................................. 600 ................ 600 ................ 600 ................SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, TX ............................................................................................................................................ 200 ................ 200 ................ 200 ................SULPHUR RIVER BASIN, TX ............................................................................................................................................................................... 500 ................ 500 ................ 500 ................
14 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee 

recommendation 

FEAS PED FEAS PED FEAS PED 

VIRGINIA 

CITY OF NORFOLK, VA ....................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 300 ................ ................ ................NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (55-FOOT), VA (GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT) ................................................................................. 800 ................ 800 ................ 800 ................

WASHINGTON 

DUNGENESS RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, WA ............................................................................................................................. 700 ................ 700 ................ 700 ................SEATTLE HARBOR, WA ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 500 ................ 500 ................ 500 ................

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ....................................................................................................................................................... 30,847 5,335 31,847 5,335 30,847 5,335 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 6,500 ................ 1,000 1,000 

FLOOD CONTROL .............................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 1,000 SHORE PROTECTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

NAVIGATION ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 4,000 ................ ................ 1,000 

COASTAL AND DEEP-DRAFT ............................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 5,031 INLAND ............................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ 500 500 SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE ................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 1,158 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES ................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 2,000 ................ 1,000 ................ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE ................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 500 ................REMOTE, COASTAL, OR SMALL WATERSHED ............................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

COORDINATION STUDIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES: 

ACCESS TO WATER DATA .......................................................................................................................................................................... 750 ................ 750 ................ 750 ................COMMITTEE ON MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS .............................................................................................................................. 100 ................ 100 ................ 100 ................OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS: 

CALFED ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 100 ................ 100 ................ 100 ................CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................................................... 75 ................ 75 ................ 75 ................COORDINATION WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCE AGENCIES ........................................................................................................... 398 ................ 398 ................ 398 ................GULF OF MEXICO ............................................................................................................................................................................. 100 ................ 100 ................ 100 ................INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 400 ................ 400 ................ 400 ................INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................... 721 ................ 721 ................ 721 ................
15 

INVENTORY OF DAMS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 400 ................ 400 ................ 400 ................LAKE TAHOE ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 ................ 50 ................ 50 ................PACIFIC NW FOREST CASE .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 ................ 10 ................ 10 ................SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,350 ................ 1,350 ................ 1,350 ................FERC LICENSING .............................................................................................................................................................................. 200 ................ 200 ................ 200 ................

PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES .......................................................................................................................................................... 5,500 ................ 6,000 ................ 6,000 ................

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA: 

AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI–CADD ...................................................................................................................... 251 ................ 251 ................ 251 ................COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,000 ................ 1,000 ................ 1,000 ................ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES ............................................................................................................................................................... 75 ................ 75 ................ 75 ................FLOOD DAMAGE DATA ............................................................................................................................................................................... 220 ................ 220 ................ 220 ................FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................... 15,000 ................ 15,000 ................ 15,000 ................HYDROLOGIC STUDIES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,743 ................ 1,743 ................ 1,743 ................INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES .............................................................................................................................................................. 150 ................ 150 ................ 150 ................PRECIPITATION STUDIES ........................................................................................................................................................................... 225 ................ 225 ................ 225 ................REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT .......................................................................................................... 75 ................ 75 ................ 75 ................SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS .............................................................................................................................. 47 ................ 47 ................ 47 ................STREAM GAGING ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 550 ................ 550 ................ 550 ................TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 385 ................ 385 ................ 385 ................

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 18,143 ................ 18,143 ................ 22,000 ................OTHER—MISC: 

DISPOSITION OF COMPLETED PROJECTS .................................................................................................................................................. 800 ................ 800 ................ 800 ................NORTH ATLANTIC COAST COMPREHENSIVE STUDY FOCUS AREA ............................................................................................................ 1,000 ................ ................ ................ 1,800 ................NATIONAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................................... 6,000 ................ 6,000 ................ 6,000 ................NATIONAL SHORELINE ............................................................................................................................................................................... 400 ................ 400 ................ 400 ................PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................................ 3,100 ................ 3,100 ................ 3,100 ................TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,500 ................ 1,500 ................ 1,500 ................

HOUSE FLOOR AMENDMENTS ............................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 3,500 ................ ................ ................

SUBTOTAL ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 60,818 ................ 76,318 ................ 68,975 9,689 

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ¥5,081 ¥765 

TOTAL ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 91,665 5,335 108,165 5,335 94,741 14,259 GRAND TOTAL ....................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 97,000 ................ 113,500 ................ 109,000 
16 

Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan.—The Committee 

understands that during the 2011 flooding on the Mississippi 

River, much of the damage was concentrated on the Upper Mississippi River Basin, where there is no final flood risk management 

plan. An appropriate Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan 

would help work toward flood risk management goals. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to provide, not later than 60 

days after the enactment of this act, a comprehensive survey of the 

authorization and funding requirements necessary for the Corps of 

Engineers to continue work on the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan, including work on alternative scenarios for the 

500 year flood (included in the current plan, Plan H). The report 

shall also outline the perceived challenges to, and recommendations for, working toward the creation of an overall flood risk management plan for the entire main stem of the Mississippi River. 

Mobile Harbor, Alabama Limited Reevaluation Report.—The 

Committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works [Secretary] to budget for this project at the rate indicated 

in Section 110 of the Energy and Water Development and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015. In future budget submissions, 

the Secretary shall adhere to Congressional direction included in 

statute regarding this project. The Committee expects the Secretary to allocate funds provided in this act in a manner that is 

consistent with statutory cost sharing requirements. 

Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System.—The Committee recognizes that the bipartisan support for the Navigation 

and Ecosystem Sustainability Program [NESP], spanning almost a 

decade, has not resulted in NESP’s implementation. The Committee recognizes that NESP is now so delayed that new economic 

and cost-benefit analyses must be performed before it can move forward. The Committee also recognizes that although the Corps of 

Engineers has reprogrammed funding into NESP, this funding has 

not been used to deliver updated analysis. 

Consequently, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers, not 

later than 30 days after the enactment of this act, to provide a report detailing the scope, schedule, and budget for delivering the updated economic analysis and cost recertification so the Corps of Engineers can begin implementing NESP. 

Mud Mountain Dam.—The Committee commends the Corps of 

Engineers and the National Marine Fisheries Service for reaching 

agreement on a biological opinion [BiOp] to mitigate the impact of 

the ongoing operation of Mud Mountain Dam on species listed 

under the Endangered Species Act [ESA] by replacing the barrier 

structure and building a new fish trap facility. The Committee is 

aware that the Corps of Engineers is scheduled to complete the decision document in May 2015, which will inform design and construction work. The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers 

to uphold its ESA and Tribal treaty responsibilities by requesting 

sufficient funding in future budgets to implement the BiOp requirements and complete construction by 2020. 

Puget Sound Nearshore Study.—The Committee is aware that 

the Corps of Engineers completed public review on the draft Puget 

Sound Nearshore Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact 

Statement [Report] in December 2014. If the final Report does not 
17 

identify an implementable Federal project, the Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to identify other existing authorities 

and resources that could assist with timely construction of alternatives included in the Report. The Committee further encourages 

the Corps of Engineers to acknowledge early action restoration efforts by the State of Washington as part of the overall plan, including cost share obligations when a project cost share agreement is 

executed. 

Tribal Communities Located in Remote Areas.—The Committee 

recognizes that Tribal communities located in remote areas that experience severe, weather-related conditions that jeopardize public 

health and safety, face a significant disadvantage in the Corps of 

Engineers’ utilization of benefit-cost ratios in the budgeting process. The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to consider Federal trust and treaty obligations and the need to protect public 

health and safety in severe weather situations in determining future budget priorities. 

National Mall and Federal Triangle Flood Protection.—The Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to provide information and 

cooperate with other Federal agencies, the District of Columbia 

government, and nonprofit interests, including the National Coalition to Save Our Mall and Federal City Council, to address ongoing 

flood risks facing the Federal Triangle/National Mall area. The 

Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to provide unclassified 

information to the aforementioned interests for the purposes of developing a report on a proposed cost-neutral, public-private partnership approach to combine flood protection with underground visitor amenities and parking in order to address flood risks to the 

Federal Triangle/National Mall area, as well as the need to improve visitor access to National Mall museums, monuments, and 

activities. 

Aquatic Nuisance Species.—The Committee is aware that the 

Corps of Engineers is capable of utilizing funding beyond what was 

in the administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget request to further 

ongoing studies, including ongoing projects to address the threat of 

aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes Basin. The Committee 

encourages the Corps of Engineers to consider funding the program 

to address the threat of aquatic nuisance species in the Great 

Lakes Basin to its full capability in the fiscal year 2016 work plan. 

The Committee further understands that under the Great Lakes 

and Mississippi River Interbasin Study, the Corps of Engineers has 

initiated a feasibility study to investigate near-term options and 

technologies to prevent the one-way transfer of aquatic nuisance 

species from the Mississippi River Basin into the Great Lakes 

Basin. Considering the pressing and potentially devastating harm 

aquatic nuisance species pose to the Great Lakes fishery and economy, the Committee is concerned that the Corps issued a waiver 

from the 3x3x3 rule to allow the feasibility study to take more than 

3 years. The Committee believes that the Brandon Road Lock and 

Dam offers great promise as a single point to control the upstream 

transfer of aquatic nuisance species and that delays would be a 

major setback. Therefore, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to consider alternative ways to accelerate the feasibility 

study and to complete it within 3 years. 
18 

Research and Development, Additional Topic—Urban Flood Damage Reduction and Stream Restoration in Arid Regions.—The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers’ research and development [R&D] program to focus on the management of water resources projects that promote public safety; reduce risk; improve 

operational efficiencies; reduce flood damage in arid and semi-arid 

regions; sustain the environment; and position our water resource 

systems to be managed as systems and adaptable due to the implications of a changing climate. The R&D program should also continue its focus on science and technology efforts to address needs 

for resilient water resources infrastructure. 

Export Terminals.—The Committee strongly encourages the 

Corps of Engineers to complete environmental review for export 

terminal projects as expeditiously as possible, in a transparent 

manner, and in a reasonable timeframe. In addition, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to thoroughly consult with 

the Secretary of the Interior, and all affected Tribal nations regarding the environmental and economic impacts as well as treaty 

rights of all Tribes affected by export terminal projects undergoing 

environmental review. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee recommendation includes $12,000,000 in additional funds for Investigations. From these additional funds, the Corps of Engineers is 

authorized to begin up to 10 new feasibility studies. The Corps of 

Engineers is directed to allocate these additional funds in accordance with the direction in the front matter under the heading ‘‘Fiscal Year 2016 Work Plan’’. Additionally, the Corps of Engineers 

shall comply with the following direction in allocating funds made 

available for Investigations: 

—Allocating funds for PED and new feasibility studies shall take 

priority over allocating funds for ongoing feasibility studies. 

—The Corps of Engineers shall not apply new start criteria to 

studies moving from the feasibility phase to the PED phase. 

—The Corps of Engineers shall consider PED phase work as a 

continuation of the investigations and by definition, a study is 

not completed until PED is completed. 

—When evaluating proposals for new feasibility studies, the 

Corps of Engineers should give higher priority to those studies 

that have an identifiable sponsor with the ability to provide 

any necessary cost share for the study phase, and are regional 

in scope, have the potential to provide greater national benefits; address endangered species concerns; or provide protection 

to large numbers of our citizens. 

—When evaluating ongoing studies to propose for funding, the 

Corps of Engineers shall consider completing or accelerating 

ongoing studies which will enhance the Nation’s economic development, job growth, and international competitiveness; 

studies located in areas that have suffered recent natural disasters; or studies for areas where revisions to flood frequency 

flow lines may result in existing infrastructure failing to meet 

the requirements under the National Flood Insurance Program. 
19 

—The Corps of Engineers shall include appropriate requests for 

funding in future budget submissions for PED and new feasibility studies initiated in fiscal year 2016. 

—Funding shall be available for existing studies, including studies in the PED phase, that were either not included in the 

budget request or for which the recommendation in the budget 

request was inadequate. Ongoing studies that are actively progressing and can utilize the funding in a timely manner are eligible for these additional funds. 

—The Corps of Engineers, in future fiscal years, shall prepare 

the budget to reflect study completions, defined as completion 

of PED. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $1,639,489,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,172,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,635,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,641,000,000 

The Committee recommends $1,641,000,000 for Construction, an 

increase of $469,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee’s 

recommendation allows the Corps of Engineers to select up to 6 

new construction starts to begin in fiscal year 2016. 

INTRODUCTION

Funding in this account is used for construction, major rehabilitation, and related activities for water resources development 

projects having navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, 

water supply, hydroelectric, environmental restoration, and other 

attendant benefits to the Nation. 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 Committee is concerned that the budget request is inadequate to meet the needs of projects that depend on funding from 

this account. Consequently, the recommendation includes 

$469,000,000 in additional funding for ongoing work. 

NEW STARTS

The Committee recommends up to 6 new construction starts, including the 4 proposed in the budget request. 

INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND

The Committee recognizes the administration has not had adequate time to react to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund [IWTF] 

revenues that were expanded by the passage of the Able Act and 

expanded authority received in the Water Resources Reform and 

Development Act of 2014 [WRRDA]. Therefore, the Committee recommends an additional $108,600,000 for inland waterway projects 

to continue with construction on the priority projects as designated 

in the Inland Marine Transportation Systems [IMTS] Capital 

Projects Business Model Final Report, dated April 13, 2010. The 

Committee is aware that the Corps of Engineers is developing a 

new report describing a 20-year program for making capital investments on the inland and intracoastal waterways, pursuant to 
20 

WRRDA section 2002(d). This report is due to be submitted to Congress in June 2015. The Committee requires an opportunity to review any new report prior to the Corps of Engineers incorporating 

any part of the report into funding decisions. Therefore, when allocating the fiscal year 2016 additional funding provided in the Remaining Items—Inland Waterways Trust Fund Projects account, 

the Corps of Engineers shall not use the report being developed 

pursuant to WRRDA. The Corps of Engineers shall continue to use, 

as appropriate, the IMTS report as the applicable 20-year plan. 

With the exception of the Olmsted Locks and Dam project on the 

Ohio River between Kentucky and Illinois [Olmsted project], the 

construction and major rehabilitation of designated projects for inland and coastal waterways derives one-half of the funding from 

the IWTF and one-half of the funding from the General Treasury. 

All funds are appropriated in the Construction account. The cost 

sharing for the Olmsted project has been modified from the traditional 50/50 cost share to 85 percent from the General Treasury 

and 15 percent from the IWTF. The net effect of this change allows 

additional investments on other inland waterways projects that are 

cost shared with the IWTF. The Committee expects the administration to address these increased investment opportunities for the inland waterways system in future budget submissions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The table below displays the budget request and Committee’s 

recommendation for Construction: 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

ALASKA 

PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK (DEEPENING AND BREAKWATER) ...................... 7,928 ........................ 7,928 

CALIFORNIA 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), CA ......... 56,024 56,024 56,024 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM RAISE), CA ........................ 18,641 18,641 18,641 

COYOTE & BERRYESSA CREEK, CA ........................................................... 12,739 ........................ 12,739 

HAMILTON CITY, CA .................................................................................... 15,000 15,000 15,000 

ISABELLA LAKE, CA (DAM SAFETY) ............................................................ 49,900 49,900 49,900 

OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA .............................................. 1,200 1,200 1,200 

SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA ............................. 6,000 6,000 6,000 

SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA ............................................................. 21,500 21,500 21,500 

YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA .............................................................................. 7,361 7,361 7,361 

FLORIDA 

HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL) .................................... 64,141 64,141 64,141 

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL ........................................ 123,742 123,742 123,742 

GEORGIA 

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC ....................................... 770 770 770 

SAVANNAH HARBOR DISPOSAL AREAS, DREDGED MATERIAL CONTAINMENT AREA 13A, GA & SC (DMDF) ....................................................... 8,663 8,663 8,663 

SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA ......................................................... 21,050 21,050 21,050 

ILLINOIS 

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN .................................................... 1,100 1,100 1,100 

CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL ................ 28,000 28,000 28,000 

EAST ST LOUIS, IL ...................................................................................... 50 50 50 
21 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL ................................................ 9,000 9,000 9,000 

MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL & MO .................................................. 2,000 2,000 2,000 

OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY .................................... 180,000 180,000 180,000 

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI ............... 19,787 19,787 19,787 

WOOD RIVER LEVEE, DEFICIENCY CORRECTION, IL ................................... 50 50 50 

IOWA 

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, 

ND & SD ................................................................................................ 47,127 47,127 47,127 

KANSAS 

TOPEKA, KS ................................................................................................ 7,000 7,000 7,000 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO RIVER SHORELINE, PADUCAH, KY ..................................................... 5,500 ........................ 5,500 

LOUISIANA 

LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA ....................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 

MARYLAND 

ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD .......................................................................... 600 600 600 

CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD & VA ..................................... 1,970 1,970 1,970 

POPLAR ISLAND, MD .................................................................................. 26,500 26,500 26,500 

MINNESOTA 

MARSH LAKE, MN (MINNESOTA RIVER AUTHORITY) ................................... 2,700 ........................ 2,700 

MISSOURI 

KANSAS CITYS, MO & KS ........................................................................... 1,815 1,815 1,815 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS (REG 

WORKS), MO & IL .................................................................................. 50 50 50 

MONARCH—CHESTERFIELD, MO ................................................................ 1,275 1,275 1,275 

NEW JERSEY 

RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ ............................. 7,500 7,500 7,500 

OHIO 

BOLIVAR DAM, OH (DAM SAFETY) .............................................................. 3,500 3,500 3,500 

OKLAHOMA 

CANTON LAKE, OK ...................................................................................... 3,632 3,632 3,632 

PINE CREEK LAKE, OK ................................................................................ 1,957 1,957 1,957 

OREGON 

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA ............................................. 11,000 11,000 11,000 

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR & WA .............. 13,300 13,300 13,300 

PENNSYLVANIA 

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA .................................................. 59,000 59,000 59,000 

LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ....................... 52,000 52,000 52,000 

WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING) .................................................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 

PUERTO RICO 

RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR ............................................................................ 1,700 1,700 1,700 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ......................................................................... 2,893 2,893 2,893 

TENNESSEE 

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN .............................................................................. 30,000 30,000 30,000 
22 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

TEXAS 

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX .................................................... 36,410 36,410 36,410 

GIWW, CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TX .................................................................. 13,913 13,913 13,913 

GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX .................................................................. 16,287 16,287 16,287 

LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN (WHARTON/ONION), TX .......................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 

WASHINGTON 

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID .................................... 85,300 85,300 85,300 

GRAYS HARBOR (38-FOOT DEEPENING), WA ............................................. 7,000 7,000 7,000 

WEST VIRGINIA 

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ................................................................................ 9,400 9,400 9,400 

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ................................................ 1,124,975 1,096,108 1,124,975 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE 

REDUCTION ............................................................................................ ........................ 136,117 60,000 

FLOOD CONTROL ............................................................................... ........................ 105,000 50,000 

SHORE PROTECTION .......................................................................... ........................ 45,000 ........................

NAVIGATION ....................................................................................... ........................ 49,500 112,305 

INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND PROJECTS ................................... ........................ 108,000 108,600 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES ........................................ ........................ 10,000 25,000 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE ............................ ........................ ........................ 40,000 

ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCURE PROJECTS .................................. ........................ 10,000 60,000 

HYDROPOWER PROJECTS .................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................

AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM ......................................................... ........................ 4,000 4,000 

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROJECTS NOT REQUIRING SPECIFIC 

LEGISLATION: 

EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SECTION 

14) ................................................................................................ ........................ 3,000 1,000 

SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103) ................................................. ........................ 1,250 ........................

NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107) ............................................. ........................ 2,500 5,000 

NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111) ........................... ........................ 750 500 

BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204, 207, 

933) .............................................................................................. 2,000 2,750 500 

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) ..................................... 500 8,000 500 

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206) ........................ 500 2,500 10,000 

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (SECTION 1135) .................................................................. 500 3,000 3,000 

DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM ............... 24,200 24,200 24,200 

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ..................................................................... 19,000 19,000 19,000 

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—BOARD EXPENSE ........................... 50 50 50 

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—CORPS EXPENSE ........................... 275 275 275 

RESTORATION OF ABANDONED MINES ....................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000 

HOUSE FLOOR AMENDMENTS ..................................................................... ........................ 4,000 ........................

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ...................................................... 47,025 538,892 525,930 

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥9,905 

TOTAL ............................................................................................ 1,172,000 1,635,000 1,641,000 

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois.— The issue of hydrologic separation should be fully studied by the 

Corps of Engineers and vetted by the appropriate congressional authorizing committees and specifically enacted into law. No funds 

provided in this act may be used for construction of hydrologic separation measures. 
23 

Aquatic Plant Control Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for this program, which is the only nationwide R&D program to address invasive aquatic plants. The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to continue to support cost 

shared aquatic plant management programs. 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.—The Corps of Engineers has completed the final cabin sale at the Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge. The Committee instructs the Secretary to 

reconcile all remaining funds in accordance with the Charles M. 

Russell National Wildlife Refuge Enhancement Act of 2000. The 

Committee requests final accounting of the proceeds and administrative costs reimbursed to the Corps of Engineers under 808(b) 

within 1 year of enactment of this act. 

Continuing Authorities Program.—The Committee recommends 

$20,500,000 for the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP], an increase of $17,000,000 from the budget request. CAP is a useful tool 

for the Corps of Engineers to undertake small localized projects 

without being encumbered by the lengthy study and authorization 

phases typical of most Corps of Engineers projects. The standing 

CAP authorities are: 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 Committee has 

chosen to fund seven of the nine sections rather than only the four 

sections proposed in the budget request. The Committee has not 

recommended funding for section 208, as these projects can be accommodated under the authority of section 205. The Committee 

has not recommended funding for section 103 because the Corps of 

Engineers is projecting an $8,000,000 carryover of unobligated balances from prior appropriations. 

The Committee urges the administration to execute the CAP program laid out by the Committee and include sufficient funding for 

this program in future budget requests. The Corps of Engineers 

shall continue the ongoing processes for initiating, suspending, and 

terminating projects. Suspended projects shall not be reactivated or 

funded unless the sponsor reaffirms in writing its support for the 

project and establishes its willingness and capability to execute its 

project responsibilities. The Chief of Engineers shall provide an annual report within 60 days of the end of each fiscal year detailing 

the progress made on the backlog of projects. The report shall include the completions and terminations as well as progress of ongoing work. 

Restoration of Abandoned Mines.—The Corps of Engineers is directed to continue working closely with Federal land management 

agencies, western States, and Tribes with abandoned non-coal mine 

sites to cost-effectively address the greatest number of those sites 

presenting threats to public health and safety. 

Public-Private Partnerships.—The Committee notes that the Secretary and the Chief of Engineers expressed strong support for a 

public-private partnerships [Partnership] as a method to reduce the 

Federal cost of future construction projects. The acronyms P3, P4, 
24 

etcetera are interchangeable and represent the number of public 

and/or private entities that comprise the Partnership. The Committee believes the Corps of Engineers should demonstrate the 

value of projects that use a Partnership model and directs that, of 

the six new construction starts, at least one shall be either a navigation or flood risk management project that utilizes such a Partnership. The Committee further directs that the selected Partnership project should have a Chief’s Report showing a benefit-cost 

ratio greater than one for the Federal investment only, but shall 

not be subject to any other restrictions applicable to traditional 

construction new starts to ensure that multiple projects qualify for 

selection as a Partnership project. 

Reimbursements.—The Committee directs the Secretary to 

prioritize the Corps of Engineers’ reimbursement obligations based 

on projects with signed project cooperation agreements. The Secretary shall demonstrate plans for the additional funding provided 

by Congress to meet the project cooperation agreement and Federal 

Government’s fiscal responsibilities. 

Metro East Saint Louis, Illinois.—This levee rehabilitation 

project will help protect communities in the Metro East region from 

rising waters on the Mississippi River. The non-Federal sponsors 

remain very interested in continuing implementation of the project, 

have raised sufficient cost share, and should be given heightened 

cooperation by the Corps of Engineers. The Committee urges the 

Corps of Engineers to enter a cost share agreement with the nonFederal sponsors. 

Melvin Price Lock and Dam, Illinois and Missouri.—The length 

of time it is taking the Corps of Engineers to rectify the seepage 

problems that the impoundment of the navigation pool is causing 

to the Wood River Levee, as well as escalating cost estimates, continues to be troublesome. The Corps of Engineers is encouraged to 

ensure that the Independent External Peer Review and oversight 

of this project continues and is conducted in a manner that will not 

lengthen an already long schedule. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee recommendation includes $469,000,000 in additional funds for Construction. The Corps of Engineers is directed to allocate these additional funds in accordance with the direction in the front matter 

under the heading ‘‘Fiscal Year 2016 Work Plan’’. Additionally, the 

Corps of Engineers shall comply with the following direction in allocating funds made available for Construction: 

—Additional considerations include whether the project is positioned to permit award of significant items of construction, 

achieve necessary milestones, or otherwise realize notable construction progress in fiscal year 2016; and the project sponsor 

expended funds under an existing Project Partnership Agreement for creditable work, including acquisition of rights-ofway. 

—None of these funds shall be used for projects in the Continuing Authorities Program. 

—Funding may be for all categories including periodic beach renourishments and reimbursements. 

—Funding may be made available to projects for which the sponsor is awaiting reimbursement from the Federal Government 
25 

to continue with construction of remaining authorized project 

features. 

In prioritizing projects for environmental infrastructure assistance, the Committee recognizes that these authorities were originally created to assist communities that were unable to compete 

well in the Statewide revolving fund authorities under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency. While the Committee 

believes it is appropriate to prioritize those projects with the greater economic impact, it recognizes that such rigid criteria may exclude rural underserved communities with greater needs and 

projects located in towns, cities, and municipalities experiencing 

compliance difficulties with Federal environmental regulations. 

When allocating these funds, the Committee encourages the Corps 

of Engineers to consider counties or parishes where the average 

family income is below the national poverty level. 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $302,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 225,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 275,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 330,000,000 

The Committee recommends $330,000,000 for Mississippi River and Tributaries, an increase of $105,000,000 over the budget request. Funds recommended in this account are for planning, construction, and operations 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 table below displays the budget request and Committee’s 

recommendation: 
26 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

Budget estimate House allowance 

CONSTRUCTION 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ............................................................................................................... 43,231 43,231 43,231 ........................ ........................MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ........................................................................................................... 15,909 15,909 15,909 ........................ ........................ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,709 2,709 2,709 ........................ ........................ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ............................................................................................................................... 758 758 758 ........................ ........................

SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 62,607 62,607 62,607 ........................ ........................

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ............................................................................................................... 65,124 65,124 65,124 ........................ ........................HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ....................................................................................................................................... 15 15 15 ........................ ........................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ....................................................................................................................................... 250 250 250 ........................ ........................LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR ................................................................................................................................. 294 294 294 ........................ ........................LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR .................................................................................................................................. 198 198 198 ........................ ........................MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ........................................................................................................... 9,175 9,175 9,175 ........................ ........................ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO ........................................................................................................................................................ 5,900 5,900 5,900 ........................ ........................TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA ................................................................................................................. 2,589 2,589 2,589 ........................ ........................WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 ........................ ........................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ......................................................................................................................................... 170 170 170 ........................ ........................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ....................................................................................................................................... 100 100 100 ........................ ........................ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ................................................................................................................................................................ 12,085 12,085 12,085 ........................ ........................ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ............................................................................................................................... 1,889 1,889 1,889 ........................ ........................BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA ................................................................................................................................... 53 53 53 ........................ ........................BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA ...................................................................................................................................... 48 48 48 ........................ ........................BONNET CARRE, LA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2,909 2,909 2,909 ........................ ........................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ........................................................................................................................................ 1,399 1,399 1,399 ........................ ........................LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA ............................................................................................................................... 498 498 498 ........................ ........................MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA ...................................................................................................................................................... 567 567 567 ........................ ........................OLD RIVER, LA ................................................................................................................................................................................ 9,246 9,246 9,246 ........................ ........................TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA ................................................................................................................................. 3,345 3,345 3,345 ........................ ........................GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS .............................................................................................................................................................. 24 24 24 ........................ ........................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ....................................................................................................................................... 130 130 130 ........................ ........................
27 

VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS ............................................................................................................................................................... 42 42 42 ........................ ........................YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ............................................................................................................................................. 5,483 5,483 5,483 ........................ ........................YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS ................................................................................................................................... 185 185 185 ........................ ........................YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS ....................................................................................................................................................... 4,924 4,924 4,924 ........................ ........................YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS .................................................................................................................................................... 807 807 807 ........................ ........................YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS ................................................................................................................................................ 5,487 5,487 5,487 ........................ ........................YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,344 1,344 1,344 ........................ ........................YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS ................................................................................................................................................... 6,640 6,640 6,640 ........................ ........................YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS .................................................................................................................................................... 967 967 967 ........................ ........................YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS .................................................................................................................... 384 384 384 ........................ ........................YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ............................................................................................................................... 544 544 544 ........................ ........................YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS ..................................................................................................................................................... 731 731 731 ........................ ........................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ...................................................................................................................................... 220 220 220 ........................ ........................WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO .................................................................................................................................................................. 4,512 4,512 4,512 ........................ ........................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ....................................................................................................................................... 80 80 80 ........................ ........................MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN ....................................................................................................................................... 2,107 2,107 2,107 ........................ ........................

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................... 151,465 151,465 151,465 ........................ ........................

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

DREDGING .............................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 6,000 10,090 ∂10,090 ∂4,090 FLOOD CONTROL .................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 39,090 60,000 ∂60,000 ∂20,910 WATER SUPPLY AND RELATED AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ....................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ............................................................................................................................................ ........................ 5,000 35,000 ∂35,000 ∂30,000 

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA ...................................................................................................................................... 9,700 9,700 9,700 ........................ ........................MAPPING ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,138 1,138 1,138 ........................ ........................MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION .................................................................................................................................................... 90 ........................ ........................ ¥90 ........................

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ........................................................................................................................................... 10,928 60,928 115,928 ∂105,000 ∂55,000 

REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES .................................................................................................................. 225,000 275,000 330,000 ∂105,000 ∂55,000 
28 

The Committee’s recommendation includes not less than 

$1,000,000 for the competitive procurement of modern land surveying equipment for Corps of Engineers districts. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work—Flood Control.—Within 

the amounts available for flood control, the Committee recommendation provides not less than $25,000,000 for ongoing construction projects outside of the Lower Mississippi River main stem 

that were not included in the administration’s request, and which 

provide benefits and value to the Nation. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work—Other Authorized Purposes.—Within the amounts available for other authorized purposes, the Committee recommendation provides not less than 

$3,000,000 for maintenance projects with recreational or environmental stewardship components. Funding associated with this category should be used to perform routine and non-routine operations 

and maintenance of facilities that are both recreational and educational, or to continue management of mitigation features in order 

to meet requirements set forth under the Corps of Engineers’ plans. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work—Dredging.—In considering dredging projects for funding, the Corps of Engineers shall 

give priority to annual tonnage and the total work capability that 

can be completed in fiscal year 2016. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $2,908,511,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 2,710,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,094,306,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,909,000,000 

The Committee recommends $2,909,000,000 for Operations and Maintenance, an increase of $199,000,000 over the budget request. 

INTRODUCTION

Funding in this account is used to fund operations, maintenance, 

and related activities at water resource projects that the Corps of 

Engineers operates and maintains. These activities include dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other facilities, as authorized in the various river and harbor, flood control, and water 

resources development acts. Related activities include aquatic plant 

control, monitoring of completed projects where appropriate, removal of sunken vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne 

commerce statistics. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The table below displays the budget request and Committee’s 

recommendation for Operations and Maintenance. 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee 

recommendation 

ALABAMA 

ALABAMA—COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL .......................... 158 158 158 

ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL ........................................................................ 21,238 21,238 21,238 
29 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ......................................... 43,295 43,295 43,295 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL ......................................................... 5,869 5,869 5,869 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL ................................................... 65 65 65 

MOBILE HARBOR, AL .................................................................................. 23,230 23,230 23,230 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL ............................................................ 148 148 148 

TENNESSEE—TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL & MS ... 1,700 1,700 1,700 

TENNESSEE—TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL & MS ...................................... 24,725 24,725 24,725 

WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & GA .......................................... 10,644 10,644 10,644 

WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, AL ............................................. 25 25 25 

ALASKA 

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK .......................................................................... 11,904 11,904 11,904 

CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK ........................................................................... 3,615 3,615 3,615 

CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK ................................................................................. 400 400 400 

DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK .......................................................................... 1,231 1,231 1,231 

HOMER HARBOR, AK .................................................................................. 462 462 462 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK ................................................... 180 180 180 

KETCHIKAN, THOMAS BASIN, AK ................................................................ 334 334 334 

LOWELL CREEK TUNNELL (SEWARD) AK .................................................... 2,286 2,286 2,286 

NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK .............................................................................. 345 345 345 

NOME HARBOR, AK .................................................................................... 1,550 1,550 1,550 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK ............................................................ 700 700 700 

ST. PAUL HARBOR, AK ............................................................................... 4,000 4,000 4,000 

ARIZONA 

ALAMO LAKE, AZ ........................................................................................ 1,472 1,472 1,472 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ ................................................... 71 71 71 

PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ ............................................................................ 1,024 1,024 1,024 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ ............................................... 133 133 133 

WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ ......................................................................... 367 367 367 

ARKANSAS 

BEAVER LAKE, AR ...................................................................................... 7,632 7,632 7,632 

BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR .................................................... 7,513 7,513 7,513 

BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ......................................................................... 2,496 2,496 2,496 

BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR ............................................................................. 9,646 9,646 9,646 

DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR ............................................................. 8,183 8,183 8,183 

DEGRAY LAKE, AR ...................................................................................... 6,121 6,121 6,121 

DEQUEEN LAKE, AR .................................................................................... 1,754 1,754 1,754 

DIERKS LAKE, AR ....................................................................................... 1,702 1,702 1,702 

GILLHAM LAKE, AR ..................................................................................... 1,519 1,519 1,519 

GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR .......................................................................... 9,474 9,474 9,474 

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................... 15 15 15 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................... 538 538 538 

MCCLELLAN–KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR ............... 30,554 30,554 30,554 

MILLWOOD LAKE, AR .................................................................................. 2,946 2,946 2,946 

NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR ......................................................... 8,975 8,975 8,975 

NIMROD LAKE, AR ...................................................................................... 2,520 2,520 2,520 

NORFORK LAKE, AR .................................................................................... 5,172 5,172 5,172 

OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR ............................................................................... 15 15 15 

OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA .................................................. 8,076 8,076 8,076 

OZARK—JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR .............................................. 6,611 6,611 6,611 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR ............................................................ 2 2 2 

WHITE RIVER, AR ....................................................................................... 25 25 25 

YELLOW BEND PORT, AR ............................................................................ 3 3 3 

CALIFORNIA 

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA ............................................................................. 2,777 2,777 2,777 

BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA .................................................. 2,001 2,001 2,001 

COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA ........................................... 4,001 4,001 4,001 

DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA ........................... 6,411 6,411 6,411 

FARMINGTON DAM, CA ............................................................................... 431 431 431 
30 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee 

recommendation 

HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA .............................................................. 2,180 2,180 2,180 

HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA ............................................................ 3,106 3,106 3,106 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA ................................................... 4,198 4,198 4,198 

ISABELLA LAKE, CA .................................................................................... 1,550 1,550 1,550 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA ............................................. 7,327 7,327 7,327 

MARINA DEL REY, CA ................................................................................. 3,846 3,846 3,846 

MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA ................................................................ 387 387 387 

MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA ............................................................................ 389 389 389 

MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA .......................................................................... 3,070 3,070 3,070 

NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA ............................................................................... 2,993 2,993 2,993 

NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA .................................. 1,998 1,998 1,998 

NOYO RIVER AND HARBOR, CA .................................................................. 2,365 2,365 2,365 

OAKLAND HARBOR, CA ............................................................................... 15,000 15,000 15,000 

OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA ........................................................................... 2,285 2,285 2,285 

PINE FLAT LAKE, CA ................................................................................... 3,409 3,409 3,409 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA ............................................................ 1,794 1,794 1,794 

REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA ..................................................................... 4,500 4,500 4,500 

RICHMOND HARBOR, CA ............................................................................ 12,243 12,243 12,243 

SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA ........................................... 1,100 1,100 1,100 

SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA .............. 2,042 2,042 2,042 

SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA ................................ 160 160 160 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA ............................... 1,001 1,001 1,001 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, CA ............. 500 500 500 

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL) ...................... 4,240 4,240 4,240 

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA .................................................................... 3,220 3,220 3,220 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA .......................................... 4,442 4,442 4,442 

SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA ....................................... 1,180 1,180 1,180 

SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA .................................................................... 4,521 4,521 4,521 

SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ................................................................... 2,760 2,760 2,760 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA ............................................... 1,310 1,310 1,310 

SUCCESS LAKE, CA .................................................................................... 2,423 2,423 2,423 

SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA ........................................................................ 3,250 3,250 3,250 

TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA (DAM SAFETY) ................................... 2,212 2,212 2,212 

VENTURA HARBOR, CA ............................................................................... 4,830 4,830 4,830 

YUBA RIVER, CA ......................................................................................... 1,450 1,450 1,450 

COLORADO 

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO .............................................................................. 883 883 883 

CHATFIELD LAKE, CO .................................................................................. 1,919 1,919 1,919 

CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO .......................................................................... 1,677 1,677 1,677 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO .................................................. 364 364 364 

JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO ................................................................... 2,865 2,865 2,865 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO ............................................... 529 529 529 

TRINIDAD LAKE, CO .................................................................................... 1,449 1,449 1,449 

CONNECTICUT 

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT ............................................................................... 603 603 603 

COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT ..................................................................... 708 708 708 

HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT ....................................................................... 686 686 686 

HOP BROOK LAKE, CT ................................................................................ 1,113 1,113 1,113 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, CT .................. 10 10 10 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT ................................................... 260 260 260 

MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT ................................................................... 647 647 647 

NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT ................................................................... 743 743 743 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT ............................................................ 850 850 850 

STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT ........................................................ 566 566 566 

THOMASTON DAM, CT ................................................................................. 1,026 1,026 1,026 

WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT ........................................................................ 1,753 1,753 1,753 

DELAWARE 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DE ................................................... 40 40 40 
31 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, DE 

& MD ..................................................................................................... 13,429 13,429 13,429 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE ............................................................ 200 200 200 

WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE ......................................................................... 3,845 3,845 3,845 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC .................................................. 142 142 142 

POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL) ....................... 875 875 875 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC ........................................................... 25 25 25 

WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC ........................................................................ 25 25 25 

FLORIDA 

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ............................................................................ 4,430 4,430 4,430 

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL ..................................................... 14,683 14,683 14,683 

ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL & AL ............................................. 1,123 1,123 1,123 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL ................................................... 1,450 1,450 1,450 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL ......................... 700 700 700 

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ........................................................................ 6,100 6,100 6,100 

JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA ............... 7,269 7,269 7,269 

MANATEE HARBOR, FL ............................................................................... 400 400 400 

MIAMI HARBOR, FL ..................................................................................... 250 250 250 

OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL ..................................................................... 2,750 2,750 2,750 

PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL ......................................................................... 3,200 3,200 3,200 

PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL ............................................................................ 1,840 1,840 1,840 

PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL ................................................................ 300 300 300 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL ............................................................ 1,425 1,425 1,425 

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL .......................................................... 3,200 3,200 3,200 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL ................................................ 33 33 33 

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL ........................................ 7,181 7,181 7,181 

TAMPA HARBOR, FL .................................................................................... 9,500 9,500 9,500 

WATER / ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, FL .......................................... 40 40 40 

GEORGIA 

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA ................................................................................. 7,406 7,406 7,406 

APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL & FL ......... 1,525 1,525 1,525 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA .................................................. 176 176 176 

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA .......................................................................... 5,808 5,808 5,808 

BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA ............................................ 12,141 12,141 12,141 

CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA .................................................................... 7,584 7,584 7,584 

HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC ......................................................................... 11,175 11,175 11,175 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, GA .................. 12 12 12 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA ................................................... 190 190 190 

J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC ........................................................ 9,887 9,887 9,887 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA ............................................................ 125 125 125 

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC ....................................... 8,065 8,065 8,065 

SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA ............................................................................. 17,321 17,321 17,321 

SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA .................................................... 105 105 105 

WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA & AL ...................................................... 7,000 7,000 7,000 

HAWAII 

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI ..................................................................... 317 317 317 

HONOLULU HARBOR, HI ............................................................................. 5,600 5,600 5,600 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI .................................................... 725 725 725 

KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI ............................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000 

PORT ALLEN HARBOR, KAUAI, HI ............................................................... 773 773 773 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI ............................................................. 798 798 798 

IDAHO 

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID ............................................................................... 1,337 1,337 1,337 

DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID ....................................................... 2,983 2,983 2,983 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID .................................................... 377 377 377 

LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID ................................................................................ 2,806 2,806 2,806 
32 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID ................................................ 623 623 623 

ILLINOIS 

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN .................................................... 4,506 4,506 4,506 

CARLYLE LAKE, IL ...................................................................................... 5,837 5,837 5,837 

CHICAGO HARBOR, IL ................................................................................. 3,735 3,735 3,735 

CHICAGO RIVER, IL .................................................................................... 560 560 560 

FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL ................................................................... 296 296 296 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL & IN ........................................... 48,709 48,709 48,709 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL & IN ........................................... 1,826 1,826 1,826 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, IL .................... 50 50 50 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL .................................................... 2,393 2,393 2,393 

KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL ............................................................. 3,648 3,648 3,648 

LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL .................................................................. 784 784 784 

LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL ................................................................................ 6,208 6,208 6,208 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR 

PORTION), IL .......................................................................................... 82,208 82,208 82,208 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS 

PORTION), IL .......................................................................................... 22,226 22,226 22,226 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL ............................................................. 104 104 104 

REND LAKE, IL ............................................................................................ 5,606 5,606 5,606 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL ............................. 741 741 741 

WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL ............................................................................. 1,439 1,439 1,439 

INDIANA 

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN ................................................................................ 1,128 1,128 1,128 

BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN ................................................................ 1,852 1,852 1,852 

CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN ............................................................................... 1,628 1,628 1,628 

CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN ........................................................................ 1,656 1,656 1,656 

INDIANA HARBOR, IN .................................................................................. 11,339 11,339 11,339 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN .................................................... 1,124 1,124 1,124 

J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN ....................................................................... 1,950 1,950 1,950 

MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN ............................................................................. 1,235 1,235 1,235 

MONROE LAKE, IN ...................................................................................... 1,226 1,226 1,226 

PATOKA LAKE, IN ........................................................................................ 1,222 1,222 1,222 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN ............................................................. 185 185 185 

SALAMONIE LAKE, IN .................................................................................. 1,154 1,154 1,154 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN ............................ 141 141 141 

IOWA 

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA ................................................................................. 4,204 4,204 4,204 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA .................................................... 762 762 762 

MISSOURI RIVER—SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH, IA, KS, MO & NE ........... 9,143 9,143 9,143 

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, 

ND & SD ................................................................................................ 5,436 5,436 5,436 

RATHBUN LAKE, IA ..................................................................................... 2,913 2,913 2,913 

RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA ................................................. 4,725 4,725 4,725 

SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA ............................................................................... 5,266 5,266 5,266 

KANSAS 

CLINTON LAKE, KS ...................................................................................... 2,441 2,441 2,441 

COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS ......................................................................... 1,502 1,502 1,502 

EL DORADO LAKE, KS ................................................................................. 2,701 2,701 2,701 

ELK CITY LAKE, KS ..................................................................................... 951 951 951 

FALL RIVER LAKE, KS ................................................................................. 1,136 1,136 1,136 

HILLSDALE LAKE, KS .................................................................................. 976 976 976 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS ................................................... 944 944 944 

JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS ............................................... 1,549 1,549 1,549 

KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS .................................................................................. 2,915 2,915 2,915 

MARION LAKE, KS ....................................................................................... 3,207 3,207 3,207 

MELVERN LAKE, KS .................................................................................... 2,444 2,444 2,444 

MILFORD LAKE, KS ..................................................................................... 2,376 2,376 2,376 
33 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

PEARSON—SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS ................................................... 1,552 1,552 1,552 

PERRY LAKE, KS ......................................................................................... 2,485 2,485 2,485 

POMONA LAKE, KS ...................................................................................... 2,259 2,259 2,259 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS ............................................... 290 290 290 

TORONTO LAKE, KS .................................................................................... 724 724 724 

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS ............................................................................ 3,142 3,142 3,142 

WILSON LAKE, KS ....................................................................................... 1,911 1,911 1,911 

KENTUCKY 

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & TN ........................................... 11,554 11,554 11,554 

BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY ........................................................................... 2,993 2,993 2,993 

BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY ............................................................................ 1,904 1,904 1,904 

BUCKHORN LAKE, KY ................................................................................. 1,725 1,725 1,725 

CARR CREEK LAKE, KY .............................................................................. 1,969 1,969 1,969 

CAVE RUN LAKE, KY ................................................................................... 1,038 1,038 1,038 

DEWEY LAKE, KY ........................................................................................ 1,853 1,853 1,853 

ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY ....................................................... 15 15 15 

FALLS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL WILDLIFE, KY & IN .................................... 19 19 19 

FISHTRAP LAKE, KY .................................................................................... 2,075 2,075 2,075 

GRAYSON LAKE, KY .................................................................................... 1,526 1,526 1,526 

GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY .............................................................. 2,139 2,139 2,139 

GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................. 2,709 2,709 2,709 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................... 975 975 975 

KENTUCKY RIVER, KY ................................................................................. 10 10 10 

LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................ 2,042 2,042 2,042 

MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY ........................................................................... 1,091 1,091 1,091 

MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY ........................................ 264 264 264 

NOLIN LAKE, KY .......................................................................................... 2,743 2,743 2,743 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN & OH ...................................... 31,219 31,219 31,219 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN, OH, PA & WV .................. 5,600 5,600 5,600 

PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY ................................................................................ 1,430 1,430 1,430 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY ............................................................ 2 2 2 

ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................. 2,826 2,826 2,826 

TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY ............................................................................. 1,444 1,444 1,444 

WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY .............................................. 9,189 9,189 9,189 

YATESVILLE LAKE, KY ................................................................................. 1,215 1,215 1,215 

LOUISIANA 

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF & BLACK, LA ............. 7,051 7,051 7,051 

BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA ................................................................ 108 108 108 

BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA ................................................................ 1,221 1,221 1,221 

BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA ..................... 956 956 956 

BAYOU PIERRE, LA ..................................................................................... 23 23 23 

BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA ............................................................. 15 15 15 

BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA ................................................ 5 5 5 

BAYOU TECHE, LA ...................................................................................... 72 72 72 

CADDO LAKE, LA ........................................................................................ 209 209 209 

CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ............................................................... 20,386 20,386 20,386 

FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA ........................................................................... 1,547 1,547 1,547 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA ......................................................... 19,681 19,681 19,681 

HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA ................................................................. 1,276 1,276 1,276 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................... 961 961 961 

J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA ....................................................... 8,782 8,782 8,782 

LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA ................................................................ 14 14 14 

MADISON PARISH PORT, LA ....................................................................... 4 4 4 

MERMENTAU RIVER, LA .............................................................................. 1,374 1,374 1,374 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA ............................................. 1,575 1,575 1,575 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LA ............ 85,866 85,866 85,866 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA ............................................................ 49 49 49 

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA .......................................................... 384 384 384 

WALLACE LAKE, LA ..................................................................................... 226 226 226 

WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA ............................................. 6 6 6 
34 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO BAYOU DULAC, LA ....... 15 15 15 

MAINE 

DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME ............................................................. 1,050 1,050 1,050 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, ME .................. 5 5 5 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME .................................................. 111 111 111 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME ........................................................... 1,100 1,100 1,100 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME ........................... 25 25 25 

MARYLAND 

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD ............................... 18,925 18,925 18,925 

BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL) ............................................. 325 325 325 

CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV ..................................................... 150 150 150 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD .................................................. 162 162 162 

JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV ...................................................... 1,905 1,905 1,905 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD ........................................................... 450 450 450 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD .............................................. 61 61 61 

WICOMICO RIVER, MD ................................................................................ 1,500 1,500 1,500 

MASSACHUSETTS 

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA .............................................................................. 718 718 718 

BIRCH HILL DAM, MA ................................................................................. 933 933 933 

BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................. 609 609 609 

CAPE COD CANAL, MA ............................................................................... 9,665 9,665 9,665 

CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA ............................ 388 388 388 

CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA ......................................................................... 609 609 609 

EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA ........................................................................ 772 772 772 

HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA ........................................................................ 620 620 620 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, MA .................. 20 20 20 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA .................................................. 331 331 331 

KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA ............................................................................... 841 841 841 

LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA ................................................................................ 790 790 790 

NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER, MA ... 806 806 806 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA ........................................................... 900 900 900 

TULLY LAKE, MA ......................................................................................... 721 721 721 

WEST HILL DAM, MA .................................................................................. 831 831 831 

WESTVILLE LAKE, MA ................................................................................. 603 603 603 

WEYMOUTH–FORE RIVER, MA .................................................................... 500 500 500 

MICHIGAN 

CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI .............................................................. 180 180 180 

DETROIT RIVER, MI .................................................................................... 5,475 5,475 5,475 

GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI ....................................................................... 1,015 1,015 1,015 

HOLLAND HARBOR, MI ............................................................................... 750 750 750 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI ................................................... 210 210 210 

KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI ........................................................................ 28 28 28 

LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI ............................................................................ 590 590 590 

MANISTEE HARBOR, MI .............................................................................. 650 650 650 

MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI ............................................................................ 1,400 1,400 1,400 

ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI .......................................................................... 850 850 850 

PRESQUE ISLE HARBOR, MI ....................................................................... 596 596 596 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI ............................................................ 710 710 710 

ROUGE RIVER, MI ....................................................................................... 900 900 900 

SAGINAW RIVER, MI ................................................................................... 2,775 2,775 2,775 

SEBEWAING RIVER, MI ............................................................................... 40 40 40 

ST CLAIR RIVER, MI ................................................................................... 665 665 665 

ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI ............................................................................. 1,590 1,590 1,590 

ST MARYS RIVER, MI ................................................................................. 31,160 31,160 31,160 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI ............................ 2,788 2,788 2,788 

MINNESOTA 

BIGSTONE LAKE—WHETSTONE RIVER, MN & SD ...................................... 257 257 257 
35 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

DULUTH—SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI .................................................. 6,641 6,641 6,641 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN .................................................. 332 332 332 

LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ........................................ 1,805 1,805 1,805 

MINNESOTA RIVER, MN .............................................................................. 262 262 262 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP 

PORTION), MN ........................................................................................ 58,644 58,644 58,644 

ORWELL LAKE, MN ..................................................................................... 468 468 468 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN ........................................................... 88 88 88 

RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN ........................................................................ 184 184 184 

RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN ....................... 4,240 4,240 4,240 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN .......................... 490 490 490 

TWO HARBORS, MN .................................................................................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 

MISSISSIPPI 

CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS .................................................................. 1 1 1 

EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS .......................................................... 285 285 285 

GULFPORT HARBOR, MS ............................................................................. 4,492 4,492 4,492 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS .................................................. 92 92 92 

MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS .................................................................... 34 34 34 

OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS ................................................................................. 1,569 1,569 1,569 

PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ........................................................................ 7,055 7,055 7,055 

PEARL RIVER, MS & LA ............................................................................. 150 150 150 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS ........................................................... 150 150 150 

ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS ............................................................................ 9 9 9 

WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, MS ............................................ 15 15 15 

YAZOO RIVER, MS ...................................................................................... 21 21 21 

MISSOURI 

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO ................................................................. 15 15 15 

CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO ............................ 8,813 8,813 8,813 

CLEARWATER LAKE, MO ............................................................................. 3,353 3,353 3,353 

HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO .......................................... 9,698 9,698 9,698 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO .................................................. 1,401 1,401 1,401 

LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO ................................................................. 950 950 950 

LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO ........................................................................... 882 882 882 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS (REG 

WORKS), MO & IL .................................................................................. 24,487 24,487 24,487 

NEW MADRID COUNTY HARBOR, MO ......................................................... 10 10 10 

NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO (MILE 889) ..................................................... 15 15 15 

POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO ..................................................................... 2,739 2,739 2,739 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO ........................................................... 2 2 2 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO .............................................. 90 90 90 

SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO ................................................................................ 1,620 1,620 1,620 

SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MO .............................. 1 1 1 

STOCKTON LAKE, MO .................................................................................. 4,960 4,960 4,960 

TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO & AR .................................................................... 9,352 9,352 9,352 

MONTANA 

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT ..................................................................... 5,271 5,271 5,271 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT .................................................. 206 206 206 

LIBBY DAM, MT .......................................................................................... 2,088 2,088 2,088 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT ............................................... 125 125 125 

NEBRASKA 

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE & SD ........................... 9,726 9,726 9,726 

HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE ........................................................................ 3,742 3,742 3,742 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE ................................................... 505 505 505 

MISSOURI RIVER—KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA .................... 90 90 90 

PAPILLION CREEK, NE ................................................................................ 989 989 989 

SALT CREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES, NE ......................................................... 1,089 1,089 1,089 
36 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

NEVADA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV ................................................... 75 75 75 

MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV & CA ................................................................. 1,163 1,163 1,163 

PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV ................................................ 353 353 353 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

BLACKWATER DAM, NH .............................................................................. 674 674 674 

EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH ................................................................ 863 863 863 

FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH ......................................................................... 1,007 1,007 1,007 

HOPKINTON—EVERETT LAKES, NH ............................................................ 1,348 1,348 1,348 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH .................................................. 76 76 76 

OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH ............................................................................ 740 740 740 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH ........................................................... 250 250 250 

SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH ...................................................................... 1,139 1,139 1,139 

NEW JERSEY 

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ .................................................................................. 425 425 425 

COLD SPRING INLET, NJ ............................................................................. 375 375 375 

DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ ............................................................. 15 15 15 

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE ................... 23,305 23,305 23,305 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ ................................................... 285 285 285 

MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ .............................................................................. 420 420 420 

NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ ............................................. 260 260 260 

NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ ............................. 300 300 300 

PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ ......................................... 605 605 605 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ ............................................................ 1,893 1,893 1,893 

RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT–OFF, NJ ......................................... 150 150 150 

RARITAN RIVER, NJ .................................................................................... 150 150 150 

SHARK RIVER, NJ ....................................................................................... 460 460 460 

NEW MEXICO 

ABIQUIU DAM, NM ...................................................................................... 3,357 3,357 3,357 

COCHITI LAKE, NM ..................................................................................... 3,172 3,172 3,172 

CONCHAS LAKE, NM ................................................................................... 2,616 2,616 2,616 

GALISTEO DAM, NM .................................................................................... 762 762 762 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, NM ................. 20 20 20 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM .................................................. 650 650 650 

JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM .......................................................................... 1,047 1,047 1,047 

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM, 

NM ......................................................................................................... 2,500 2,500 2,500 

SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM .............................................................. 1,894 1,894 1,894 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM .............................................. 330 330 330 

TWO RIVERS DAM, NM ............................................................................... 1,028 1,028 1,028 

UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY, NM .................. 1,300 1,300 1,300 

NEW YORK 

ALMOND LAKE, NY ...................................................................................... 439 439 439 

ARKPORT DAM, NY ..................................................................................... 307 307 307 

BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY ............................ 1,735 1,735 1,735 

BUFFALO HARBOR, NY ............................................................................... 320 320 320 

BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY ........................................................................ 100 100 100 

EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY ....................................................................... 220 220 220 

EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY .............................................................................. 906 906 906 

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY ................................................... 50 50 50 

FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY ................................................................. 50 50 50 

HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT) ...................................................................... 3,640 3,640 3,640 

HUDSON RIVER, NY (O & C) ...................................................................... 4,250 4,250 4,250 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY ................................................... 1,220 1,220 1,220 

JAMAICA BAY, NY ....................................................................................... 251 251 251 

LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY ........................................... 100 100 100 

MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY .......................................................................... 3,595 3,595 3,595 
37 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY ........................................... 400 400 400 

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ ...................................... 5,480 5,480 5,480 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY ............................................................................ 3,650 3,650 3,650 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL) ...................................... 9,300 9,300 9,300 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) ....... 1,045 1,045 1,045 

OSWEGO HARBOR, NY ................................................................................ 1,285 1,285 1,285 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY ............................................................ 2,193 2,193 2,193 

ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY .......................................................................... 2,320 2,320 2,320 

RONDOUT HARBOR, NY .............................................................................. 250 250 250 

SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY ........................... 587 587 587 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY ........................... 616 616 616 

WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY .......................................................................... 1,120 1,120 1,120 

NORTH CAROLINA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC ................................................. 2,600 2,600 2,600 

B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC ................................................... 2,049 2,049 2,049 

CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC .............................................. 772 772 772 

FALLS LAKE, NC ......................................................................................... 1,776 1,776 1,776 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC .................................................. 270 270 270 

MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC .............................................................. 2,000 2,000 2,000 

MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC ............................. 50 50 50 

MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC ................................................................... 8,796 8,796 8,796 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC ........................................................... 700 700 700 

ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC .......................................................................... 300 300 300 

SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC ......................................................................... 300 300 300 

W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC ................................................ 3,363 3,363 3,363 

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ......................................................................... 15,019 15,019 15,019 

NORTH DAKOTA 

BOWMAN HALEY, ND .................................................................................. 186 186 186 

GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND ..................................................... 13,290 13,290 13,290 

HOMME LAKE, ND ....................................................................................... 284 284 284 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND .................................................. 332 332 332 

LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND ............................................... 1,533 1,533 1,533 

PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ................................................................................... 518 518 518 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND ............................................... 127 127 127 

SOURIS RIVER, ND ..................................................................................... 382 382 382 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND ........................... 32 32 32 

OHIO 

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH .............................................................................. 1,715 1,715 1,715 

BERLIN LAKE, OH ....................................................................................... 2,360 2,360 2,360 

CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH .......................................................................... 2,035 2,035 2,035 

CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH ................................................................... 1,251 1,251 1,251 

CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ........................................................................... 9,540 9,540 9,540 

CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH ............................................................................ 2,665 2,665 2,665 

DEER CREEK LAKE, OH .............................................................................. 1,398 1,398 1,398 

DELAWARE LAKE, OH .................................................................................. 1,773 1,773 1,773 

DILLON LAKE, OH ....................................................................................... 1,333 1,333 1,333 

FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH .............................................................................. 190 190 190 

HURON HARBOR, OH .................................................................................. 3,200 3,200 3,200 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH .................................................. 697 697 697 

MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH .......................................... 66 66 66 

MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH ......................................... 1,201 1,201 1,201 

MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH ...................................................................... 1,429 1,429 1,429 

MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH .................................................................. 10,584 10,584 10,584 

NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH ............................................. 400 400 400 

OHIO–MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH ................................................... 1,792 1,792 1,792 

PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH .............................................................................. 1,396 1,396 1,396 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH ........................................................... 305 305 305 

ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ........................................... 36 36 36 

SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH ............................................................................ 1,700 1,700 1,700 
38 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH ........................... 258 258 258 

TOLEDO HARBOR, OH ................................................................................. 7,165 7,165 7,165 

TOM JENKINS DAM, OH .............................................................................. 780 780 780 

WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH ...................................................... 959 959 959 

WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH .................................................................... 1,595 1,595 1,595 

OKLAHOMA 

ARCADIA LAKE, OK ..................................................................................... 472 472 472 

BIRCH LAKE, OK ......................................................................................... 673 673 673 

BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK ............................................................................. 2,213 2,213 2,213 

CANTON LAKE, OK ...................................................................................... 4,350 4,350 4,350 

COPAN LAKE, OK ........................................................................................ 1,666 1,666 1,666 

EUFAULA LAKE, OK ..................................................................................... 5,748 5,748 5,748 

FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK ............................................................................. 5,593 5,593 5,593 

FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK ............................................................................. 1,173 1,173 1,173 

GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK ................................................................... 432 432 432 

HEYBURN LAKE, OK .................................................................................... 820 820 820 

HUGO LAKE, OK .......................................................................................... 1,996 1,996 1,996 

HULAH LAKE, OK ........................................................................................ 3,792 3,792 3,792 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK ................................................... 141 141 141 

KAW LAKE, OK ............................................................................................ 1,967 1,967 1,967 

KEYSTONE LAKE, OK ................................................................................... 3,891 3,891 3,891 

MCCLELLAN–KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK ............... 5,662 5,662 5,662 

OOLOGAH LAKE, OK .................................................................................... 2,573 2,573 2,573 

OPTIMA LAKE, OK ....................................................................................... 36 36 36 

PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK .......................... 148 148 148 

PINE CREEK LAKE, OK ................................................................................ 1,366 1,366 1,366 

ROBERT S. KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIR, OK ........................... 6,360 6,360 6,360 

SARDIS LAKE, OK ....................................................................................... 991 991 991 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK ............................................... 1,200 1,200 1,200 

SKIATOOK LAKE, OK .................................................................................... 1,676 1,676 1,676 

TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK ...................................................................... 4,697 4,697 4,697 

WAURIKA LAKE, OK ..................................................................................... 1,622 1,622 1,622 

WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK ........................................................ 6,354 6,354 6,354 

WISTER LAKE, OK ....................................................................................... 829 829 829 

OREGON 

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR ................................................................................. 1,018 1,018 1,018 

BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR ............................................................................... 1,128 1,128 1,128 

BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA .................................................... 7,570 7,570 7,570 

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA ............................................. 19,825 19,825 19,825 

COOS BAY, OR ........................................................................................... 6,239 6,239 6,239 

COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR ........................................................................ 1,349 1,349 1,349 

COUGAR LAKE, OR ..................................................................................... 5,466 5,466 5,466 

DETROIT LAKE, OR ..................................................................................... 1,131 1,131 1,131 

DORENA LAKE, OR ...................................................................................... 1,168 1,168 1,168 

ELK CREEK LAKE, OR ................................................................................. 386 386 386 

FALL CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................... 5,224 5,224 5,224 

FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR ............................................................................... 1,727 1,727 1,727 

GREEN PETER—FOSTER LAKES, OR .......................................................... 2,161 2,161 2,161 

HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR .............................................................................. 1,381 1,381 1,381 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR .................. 20 20 20 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR .................................................. 1,040 1,040 1,040 

JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA ........................................................ 4,865 4,865 4,865 

LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR ......................................................................... 2,371 2,371 2,371 

LOST CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................... 4,004 4,004 4,004 

MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA .......................................................... 7,011 7,011 7,011 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR ........................................................... 400 400 400 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR ............................................... 86 86 86 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR ........................... 2,598 2,598 2,598 

WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR ........................................ 128 128 128 

WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR .............................................. 200 200 200 
39 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee 

recommendation 

WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR .......................................................................... 909 909 909 

YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR ................................................................ 3,002 3,002 3,002 

PENNSYLVANIA 

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA ............................................................................... 5,317 5,317 5,317 

ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA ............................................................................. 740 740 740 

AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA .................................................................. 345 345 345 

BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA ................................................................................. 1,290 1,290 1,290 

BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA .............................................................................. 2,774 2,774 2,774 

CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA .................................................................... 1,347 1,347 1,347 

COWANESQUE LAKE, PA ............................................................................. 1,896 1,896 1,896 

CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA ........................................................................ 1,731 1,731 1,731 

CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA ........................................................................... 851 851 851 

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ ............................ 5,460 5,460 5,460 

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA .................................................. 1,205 1,205 1,205 

ERIE HARBOR, PA ...................................................................................... 1,500 1,500 1,500 

FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA ............................................................. 1,178 1,178 1,178 

FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA ..................................................................... 905 905 905 

GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA ................................. 385 385 385 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA ................................................... 1,179 1,179 1,179 

JOHNSTOWN, PA ......................................................................................... 62 62 62 

KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA ......................................... 1,191 1,191 1,191 

LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA ............................................................................... 1,682 1,682 1,682 

MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA ...................................................................... 1,308 1,308 1,308 

MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ......................................................................... 15,986 15,986 15,986 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH & WV .......................................... 47,965 47,965 47,965 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH & WV ................................... 800 800 800 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA ............................................................ 170 170 170 

PROMPTON LAKE, PA .................................................................................. 585 585 585 

PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA ................................................................................... 27 27 27 

RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA .................................................................................. 5,357 5,357 5,357 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA ............................................... 45 45 45 

SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA ....................................................................... 2,031 2,031 2,031 

STILLWATER LAKE, PA ................................................................................ 570 570 570 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA ........................... 106 106 106 

TIOGA—HAMMOND LAKES, PA ................................................................... 2,611 2,611 2,611 

TIONESTA LAKE, PA .................................................................................... 2,032 2,032 2,032 

UNION CITY LAKE, PA ................................................................................. 414 414 414 

WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA ..................................................................... 944 944 944 

YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA ..................................................................... 1,463 1,463 1,463 

YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD ..................................................... 3,274 3,274 3,274 

PUERTO RICO 

SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR .............................................................................. 5,700 5,700 5,700 

RHODE ISLAND 

BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI .................................................... 350 350 350 

FOX POINT BARRIER, NARRANGANSETT BAY, RI ........................................ 2,636 2,636 2,636 

GREAT SALT POND, BLOCK ISLAND, RI ...................................................... 350 350 350 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, RI ................... 25 25 25 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI .................................................... 48 48 48 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI ............................................................. 350 350 350 

WOONSOCKET, RI ....................................................................................... 499 499 499 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC .................................................. 100 100 100 

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ......................................................................... 17,059 17,059 17,059 

COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC .............................................. 6,930 6,930 6,930 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC ................................................... 65 65 65 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC ............................................................ 875 875 875 

TOWN CREEK, SC ....................................................................................... 530 530 530 
40 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD ............................................................ 10,363 10,363 10,363 

COLD BROOK LAKE, SD .............................................................................. 355 355 355 

COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD .............................................................. 313 313 313 

FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD ......................................... 11,253 11,253 11,253 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD ................................................... 169 169 169 

LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN ........................................................................ 594 594 594 

OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND ............................................................. 12,222 12,222 12,222 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD ............................................... 143 143 143 

TENNESSEE 

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN .............................................................................. 5,893 5,893 5,893 

CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN ................................................................. 9,429 9,429 9,429 

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ............................................ 1,630 1,630 1,630 

CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ................................................ 7,210 7,210 7,210 

DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN ............................................................................. 6,824 6,824 6,824 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................... 182 182 182 

J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ............................................... 5,060 5,060 5,060 

NORTHWEST TENNESSEE REGIONAL HARBOR, LAKE COUNTY, TN ............. 10 10 10 

OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN ............................................................ 10,416 10,416 10,416 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN ............................................................ 2 2 2 

TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ............................................................................... 23,759 23,759 23,759 

WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN .......................................................................... 250 250 250 

TEXAS 

AQUILLA LAKE, TX ...................................................................................... 1,727 1,727 1,727 

ARKANSAS—RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL—AREA VIII, TX .... 1,660 1,660 1,660 

BARDWELL LAKE, TX .................................................................................. 2,621 2,621 2,621 

BELTON LAKE, TX ....................................................................................... 4,654 4,654 4,654 

BENBROOK LAKE, TX .................................................................................. 2,612 2,612 2,612 

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX .................................................................... 2,700 2,700 2,700 

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX .................................................... 2,612 2,612 2,612 

CANYON LAKE, TX ...................................................................................... 3,897 3,897 3,897 

CHANNEL TO HARLINGEN, TX ..................................................................... 1,478 1,478 1,478 

CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX ................................................................ 168 168 168 

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ......................................................... 8,750 8,750 8,750 

DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX .............................................................. 9,656 9,656 9,656 

ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX .................................... 33 33 33 

FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX ...................................... 3,408 3,408 3,408 

FREEPORT HARBOR, TX .............................................................................. 5,800 5,800 5,800 

GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX ................................................... 10,900 10,900 10,900 

GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX ............................................................. 2,700 2,700 2,700 

GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX .................................................................... 2,624 2,624 2,624 

GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX .................................................................................. 3,191 3,191 3,191 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX ......................................................... 23,785 23,785 23,785 

HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX ............................................................................ 1,555 1,555 1,555 

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX ..................................................................... 32,633 32,633 32,633 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX ................................................... 1,937 1,937 1,937 

JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX ............................................................................. 1,466 1,466 1,466 

JOE POOL LAKE, TX .................................................................................... 1,130 1,130 1,130 

LAKE KEMP, TX ........................................................................................... 302 302 302 

LAVON LAKE, TX ......................................................................................... 4,267 4,267 4,267 

LEWISVILLE DAM, TX .................................................................................. 4,035 4,035 4,035 

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX ................................................................ 6,100 6,100 6,100 

NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX .......................................................................... 3,839 3,839 3,839 

NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX .......................... 2,226 2,226 2,226 

O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX ................................................................ 860 860 860 

PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX ................................................................................. 1,065 1,065 1,065 

PROCTOR LAKE, TX .................................................................................... 2,644 2,644 2,644 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX ............................................................ 300 300 300 

RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX ............................................................................. 2,217 2,217 2,217 
41 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

SABINE—NECHES WATERWAY, TX ............................................................. 14,100 14,100 14,100 

SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX ................................................. 7,613 7,613 7,613 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX ................................................ 271 271 271 

SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX ................................................................................ 3,075 3,075 3,075 

STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX ................................................................... 2,413 2,413 2,413 

TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX ................................................................. 1,000 1,000 1,000 

TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX ......................................... 3,894 3,894 3,894 

WACO LAKE, TX .......................................................................................... 6,614 6,614 6,614 

WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX ................................................................................ 1,999 1,999 1,999 

WHITNEY LAKE, TX ..................................................................................... 7,007 7,007 7,007 

WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX ........................................................ 4,270 4,270 4,270 

UTAH 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT ................................................... 40 40 40 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT ............................................... 655 655 655 

VERMONT 

BALL MOUNTAIN, VT ................................................................................... 930 930 930 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT ................................................... 46 46 46 

NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT & NY ................................................. 40 40 40 

NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT ....................................................................... 1,067 1,067 1,067 

NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT ................................................................... 1,038 1,038 1,038 

TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT ................................................................................ 1,026 1,026 1,026 

UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT ............................................................................ 811 811 811 

VIRGINIA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA ....................................... 2,525 2,525 2,525 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, VA ....................................... 1,130 1,130 1,130 

CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA .......................................................................... 600 600 600 

GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA ................................................. 2,070 2,070 2,070 

HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HARBOR, VA (DRIFT REMOVAL) .................................................................................................. 1,500 1,500 1,500 

HAMPTON ROADS, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) ............ 114 114 114 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA ................................................... 297 297 297 

JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA ....................................................................... 4,006 4,006 4,006 

JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC ................................................................... 10,976 10,976 10,976 

JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA ........................................ 2,347 2,347 2,347 

LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA ............................................................................... 500 500 500 

NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ............................................................................... 12,543 12,543 12,543 

NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA .................................................. 685 685 685 

PHILPOTT LAKE, VA .................................................................................... 5,023 5,023 5,023 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA ............................................................ 1,298 1,298 1,298 

RUDEE INLET, VA ....................................................................................... 400 400 400 

WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATIONS, VA ................................... 135 135 135 

WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA ............................................. 50 50 50 

WASHINGTON 

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA ............................................................................. 672 672 672 

COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS BELOW VANCOUVER, WA & 

PORTLAND, OR ....................................................................................... 38,132 38,132 38,132 

COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, OR ....... 1,001 1,001 1,001 

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID .................................... 3,498 3,498 3,498 

EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA ........................................ 1,358 1,358 1,358 

GRAYS HARBOR(38–F00T DEEPENING), WA ............................................... 12,018 12,018 12,018 

HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA ....................................................................... 3,347 3,347 3,347 

ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................................. 9,172 9,172 9,172 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA .................. 70 70 70 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA .................................................. 1,087 1,087 1,087 

LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ......................................................... 8,872 8,872 8,872 

LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA ........................................................... 7,267 7,267 7,267 

LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA ....................................................... 3,222 3,222 3,222 

LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................... 6,695 6,695 6,695 
42 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee 

recommendation 

MILL CREEK LAKE, WA ............................................................................... 2,255 2,255 2,255 

MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ...................................... 268 268 268 

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA .......................................................................... 9,548 9,548 9,548 

NEAH BAY, WA ........................................................................................... 275 275 275 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA ........................................................... 580 580 580 

PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA ............................................ 1,200 1,200 1,200 

QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA .............................................................................. 100 100 100 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA ............................................... 423 423 423 

SEATTLE HARBOR, WA ................................................................................ 565 565 565 

STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA ........................................................................ 290 290 290 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA ........................... 64 64 64 

TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA ................................................................. 155 155 155 

THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA & OR .................................................... 10,931 10,931 10,931 

WEST VIRGINIA 

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV .............................................................................. 1,330 1,330 1,330 

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ................................................................................ 2,043 2,043 2,043 

BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV ............................................................................... 2,458 2,458 2,458 

EAST LYNN LAKE, WV ................................................................................. 2,497 2,497 2,497 

ELKINS, WV ................................................................................................. 55 55 55 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV .................................................. 424 424 424 

KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV ................................................... 8,258 8,258 8,258 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY & OH .......................................... 38,310 38,310 38,310 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY & OH ................................... 2,977 2,977 2,977 

R D BAILEY LAKE, WV ................................................................................ 2,266 2,266 2,266 

STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV ................................................................ 1,160 1,160 1,160 

SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV .......................................................................... 2,432 2,432 2,432 

SUTTON LAKE, WV ...................................................................................... 2,412 2,412 2,412 

TYGART LAKE, WV ...................................................................................... 2,397 2,397 2,397 

WISCONSIN 

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI ....................................................................... 808 808 808 

FOX RIVER, WI ............................................................................................ 2,489 2,489 2,489 

GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ........................................................................... 2,885 2,885 2,885 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI ................................................... 52 52 52 

KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI ............................................................................. 15 15 15 

MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI ........................................................................... 845 845 845 

MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI ........................................................................... 1,600 1,600 1,600 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI ............................................................ 304 304 304 

STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI .............. 19 19 19 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI ............................ 567 567 567 

WYOMING 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WY .................. 12 12 12 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY .................................................. 74 74 74 

JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY ....................................................................... 2,104 2,104 2,104 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY ............................................... 234 234 234 

SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER STATES ............................. 2,523,734 2,523,734 2,523,734 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK 

DONOR AND ENERGY PORTS ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ 50,000 

NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE ........................................................................ ........................ ........................ 33,346 

DEEP–DRAFT HARBOR AND CHANNEL .............................................. ........................ 234,000 135,000 

INLAND WATERWAYS ......................................................................... ........................ 42,000 45,000 

SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE HARBORS AND CHANNELS ....... ........................ 42,500 50,000 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ................................................................. ........................ 35,100 20,000

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH ................................................. 675 675 675 

ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT (FEM) .. 3,250 3,250 3,250 

CIVIL WORKS WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CWWMS) ............................ 15,000 5,000 15,000 
43 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M BUSINESS PROGRAMS 

STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM ........................................................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 

PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM .......................... 3,939 3,939 3,939 

RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM ...................................... 1,650 1,650 1,650 

OPTIMIZATION TOOLS FOR NAVIGATION ..................................................... 322 322 322 

COASTAL DATA INFORMATION PROGRAM (CDIP) ........................................ 3,000 5,400 5,400 

COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM ....................................................... 2,700 2,700 2,700 

RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AT CORPS PROJECTS ............................ 6,000 6,000 6,000 

CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION) ............................................ 6,000 6,000 6,000 

DREDGE MCFARLAND READY RESERVE ..................................................... 11,690 11,690 11,690 

DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE ......................................................... 15,000 15,000 15,000 

DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM .......... 1,119 1,119 1,119 

DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER) .......... 6,450 6,450 6,450 

DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM (DOTS) ............. 2,820 2,820 2,820 

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM ......................................... 270 270 270 

FACILITY PROTECTION ................................................................................ 4,000 4,000 4,000 

FISH & WILDLIFE OPERATING FISH HATCHERY REIMBURSEMENT ............. 4,700 4,700 5,400 

GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL .............................................................. 600 600 600 

INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS .................................................. 4,500 4,500 4,500 

INTERAGENCY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TASK FORCE/HURRICANE 

PROTECTION DECISION CHRONOLOGY (IPET/HPDC) LESSONS LEARNED 

IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................... 2,800 2,800 2,800 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS ......... 28,000 28,000 28,000 

MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS ............................... 3,300 3,300 4,000 

NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY ....................................................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 

NATIONAL (MULTIPLE PROJECT) NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 6,000 6,000 6,000 

NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM ................................................... 6,300 6,300 6,300 

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM (PORTFOLIO RISK ASSESSMENT) ......... 10,000 10,000 10,000 

NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP) ...................... 4,500 4,500 4,500 

NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR REALLOCATIONS ........................ 1,071 1,071 1,071 

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT ........................................ 1,481 1,481 1,481 

WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS ...................................................... 4,669 4,669 4,669 

HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION ........................................ 795 795 795 

RECREATIONONESTOP (R1S) NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION 

SERVICE ................................................................................................. 65 65 65 

REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ......................................... 1,800 1,800 1,800 

REVIEW OF NON–FEDERAL ALTERATIONS OF CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS 

(SECTION 408) ....................................................................................... 4,000 4,000 4,000 

RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHAB ................................ 300 300 300 

WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS) ................................... 500 2,500 5,500 

HOUSE FLOOR AMENDMENTS ..................................................................... ........................ 36,306 ........................

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ...................................................... 186,266 570,572 528,412 

REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥143,146 

TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................ 2,710,000 3,094,306 2,909,000 

Lowell Creek Tunnel, Alaska.—The Committee recognizes the 

current problems with the existing Lowell Creek Tunnel and encourages the Corps of Engineers to undertake a study for an alternative method of flood diversion for Lowell Canyon. The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 transferred operations and maintenance to the Corps of Engineers until a new alternative was 

built, or for 15 years, whichever was earlier. This bill includes a 

general provision to extend the Corps of Engineers’ operation and 

maintenance responsibility for this project for another 5 years. The 

Corps of Engineers has not progressed towards developing an alter-
44 

native, and the City of Seward cannot afford the estimated 

$1,500,000 per year in operations and maintenance costs of the 

tunnel. 

Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery.—It has come to the 

Committee’s attention that the Corps of Engineers has listed the 

Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery program under the navigation business line. The Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery program is associated with flood plain mitigation and compliance with endangered species protection requirements. The Committee seeks to understand how these activities relate to the promotion of navigation. The Corps of Engineers has recently classified the program under the navigation business line. The Committee directs that, within 60 days of the date of enactment of this 

act, the Corps of Engineers shall submit to the Committee the reasons for this classification. The Corps of Engineers shall describe 

its plans to ensure that it does not impact anticipated or needed 

work under the Bank Stabilization and Navigation Program. 

WRRDA Section 1039—Invasive Species.—Funding is provided 

for watercraft inspection stations, as authorized by WRRDA section 

1039. The Secretary, in consultation with the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, is required to establish watercraft 

inspection stations in the vicinity of reservoirs operated by the 

Corps of Engineers, including for boat inspection stations in the 

Columbia River Basin States. These inspection stations are the 

principal line of defense against the spread of aquatic species at 

reservoirs operated and maintained by the Secretary, such as entry 

of zebra and quagga mussels into the Flathead Basin in Montana. 

Monitoring of Completed Navigation Projects.—The Committee 

recommends additional funding for the Corps of Engineers to monitor aging navigation infrastructure to ensure that it continues operating as planned. 

Operations and Maintenance—Fisheries.—The Committee is concerned that a reduction in or elimination of navigational lock operations is having a negative impact on the ability of a number of endangered, threatened, and game fish species to migrate through 

waterways, particularly during critical spawning periods. The Committee is aware of preliminary research that indicates reduced lock 

operations on certain Corps of Engineers’ designated low-use waterways is directly impacting migration and that there are effective 

means to mitigate the impacts. The Committee believes maximizing the ability of fish to use these locks to move past the dams 

has the potential to restore natural and historic long-distance river 

migrations that may well be critical to species survival. The Committee provides $2,000,000 to continue external fish behavior research to determine the appropriate time, frequency, and number 

of mitigation lockages; how to increase the numbers of fish entering 

locks during navigational and mitigation operations; and how to 

get fish to stay in locks for the optimal period of time. This research should be conducted in coordination with both the Corps of 

Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Levels of Service.—The Committee is aware of recent decisions to 

reduce service levels at locks across the country. The Committee 

notes that the Corps of Engineers is authorized to open locks independently of the established levels of service [LoS] for specific and 
45 

unique activities where such opening and closing will be advantageous to fostering economic and community development. The 

Committee remains concerned about limited budgetary resources 

for infrastructure improvements on the Nation’s locks and dams, 

and encourages the Corps of Engineers to consider all options within its statutory authority to collect additional funds. Such efforts 

should include acceptance of contributed funds under existing authorities, to maintain robust lock operations. Such efforts should 

also include public-private partnerships, which include State agencies, to ensure locks are safe and operational for economic growth 

and community development. Local economies benefit from using 

locks and dams for commercial and recreational uses that are unrelated to commercial barge traffic. The Committee acknowledges 

that the Corps of Engineers has given local communities assurances that, within its current statutory authority, the Corps of Engineers will be sensitive to economic impacts on local economies. 

Dam Optimization.—The Corps of Engineers is urged not to 

carry out any reservoir reoperation or reallocation for authorized 

purposes at Corps of Engineers’ facilities with funds from any nonFederal entity other than the non-Federal sponsor until the Corps 

of Engineers has completed all public outreach and coordination, 

and submitted to the relevant authorizing and appropriations Committees, and the Congressional delegation representing such facility, a detailed analysis of the change in operations of the reservoir, 

and specific information on whether the activities would alter 

availability of water for existing authorized purposes at such facility, as well as compensation for lost water that would be necessary 

to make users whole if such activities were carried out. 

Western Drought Contingency Plans.—The Committee notes that 

the Corps of Engineers carries out water control management activities for Corps of Engineers and non-Corps of Engineers projects 

as required by Federal laws and directives, and that these activities are governed by the establishment of water control plans. The 

Committee understands that many of these plans and manuals 

were developed decades ago and are required to be revised as necessary to conform to changing requirements. Continuous examination should be made of regulation schedules and possible need for 

storage reallocation within existing authority and constraints. Emphasis should be placed on evaluating current or anticipated conditions that could require deviation from normal release schedules as 

part of drought contingency plans. 

Not later than 90 days after enactment of this act, the Secretary 

shall provide to the Committee a report including the following information for any western State under a gubernatorial drought declaration during water year 2015: (1) a list of Corps of Engineers 

and non-Corps of Engineers (section 7 of the 1944 Flood Control 

Act) projects that have a Corps of Engineers developed water control plan; (2) the year the original water control manual was approved; (3) the year for any subsequent revisions to the project’s 

water control plan and manual; (4) a list of projects where operational deviations for drought contingency have been requested and 

the status of the request; (5) how water conservation and water 

quality improvements were addressed; (6) a list of projects where 
46 

permanent changes to storage allocations have been requested and 

the status of the request. 

Disposal of Dredged Sediment.—No funds recommended in this 

act may be used for open lake disposal of dredged sediment unless 

such disposal meets water and environmental standards agreed to 

by the administrator of a State’s water permitting agency and is 

consistent with a State’s Coastal Zone Management Plan. If this 

standard is not met, the Corps of Engineers will maintain its longstanding funding obligations for dredged material management. 

Bayport Flare—Houston Ship Channel, Texas.—The Committee 

encourages the Corps of Engineers to utilize previously appropriated funds to expeditiously complete necessary studies to address safety and efficiency issues in a timely manner to avoid property damage, injury, loss of life and economic impacts on nationally 

significant deep draft, high commercial use channels. 

WRRDA Section 6002.—The Committee supports the Corps of 

Engineers performing a review of its inventory, in accordance with 

WRRDA section 6002. 

WRRDA Section 4001.—The Committee urges the Secretary to 

follow through on the direction provided by Congress in WRRDA 

section 4001 to find and implement the means necessary to financially support the Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River 

Basin Commissions. Congress has made clear its intent that the 3 

River Basin Commissions be supported and expects the Corps of 

Engineers to act appropriately. 

Donor Ports and Energy Transfer Ports.—The Committee provides $50,000,000 for eligible donor ports and energy transfer ports 

in accordance with WRRDA section 2106. The Committee directs 

the Corps of Engineers to issue implementation guidance for section 2106 within 30 days of enactment of this act. With respect to 

eligible donor ports, the Committee directs 50 percent of such funds 

be equally divided between the eligible donor ports; and the remaining 50 percent of such funds be divided between the eligible 

donor ports based on each eligible donor port’s percentage of the 

total Harbor Maintenance Tax revenues generated at such ports, in 

accordance with WRRDA section 2101. Funds recommended for 

section 2106 shall be used at the discretion of each eligible donor 

port and energy transfer port in accordance with section 2106. 

Monitoring Requirement.—The Committee directs the Corps of 

Engineers to monitor the withdrawals for its existing water contracts in the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa [ACT] river basin. Upon 

determination of an exceedance of the contracted amounts, the 

Corps of Engineers shall make notifications as required in the contract and notify the Committee within 30 days of such determination. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The fiscal year 2016 

budget request does not fund operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of our Nation’s aging infrastructure sufficiently to ensure 

continued competitiveness in a global marketplace. Federal navigation channels maintained at only a fraction of authorized dimensions, and navigation locks and hydropower facilities, well beyond 

their design life, result in economic inefficiencies. The Committee 

believes that investing in operations, maintenance, and rehabilita-
47 

tion of infrastructure today will save taxpayers money in the future. 

The Committee recommendation includes additional funds to 

continue ongoing projects and activities, including periodic dredging of ports and harbors. 

The Committee directs that priority in allocating these funds be 

given to completing ongoing work to maintain authorized depths 

and widths of harbors and shipping channels, including where contaminated sediments are present, and for addressing critical maintenance backlog. 

Particular emphasis should be placed on projects where there is 

a Coast Guard or other water safety or police force presence; that 

will enhance national, regional, or local economic development; or 

that will promote job growth or international competitiveness. 

The Committee is concerned that the administration’s criteria for 

navigation maintenance does not allow small, remote, or subsistence harbors and waterways to properly compete for scarce navigation maintenance funds. The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to revise the criteria used for determining which navigation 

maintenance projects are funded in order to develop a reasonable 

and equitable allocation under this account. The criteria should include the economic impact that these projects provide to local and 

regional economies, in particular, those with national defense or 

public health and safety importance. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $200,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 205,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 199,576,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 200,000,000 

The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Regulatory 

Program of the Corps of Engineers, a decrease of $5,000,000 from 

the budget request. The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers 

to continue to coordinate with the Department of the Interior to 

analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed marina development project in Coral Bay, St. John and provide input into the permitting process. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $101,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 104,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 104,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 101,500,000 

The Committee recommends $101,500,000 for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, a decrease of $2,500,000 from 

the budget request. 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $28,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 34,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 34,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,000,000 
48 

The Committee recommends $28,000,000 for Flood Control and 

Coastal Emergencies, a decrease of $6,000,000 from the budget request. 

EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $178,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 180,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 179,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 178,000,000 

The Committee recommends $178,000,000 for Expenses, a de- crease of $2,000,000 from the budget request. This appropriation finances the expenses for the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the 

Division Offices, and certain research and statistical functions of 

the Corps of Engineers. No funding is recommended for creation of 

an Office of Congressional Affairs. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $3,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,750,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,000,000 

The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), a decrease of 

$2,000,000 from the budget request. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

Section 101. The bill includes language concerning reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 102. The bill includes language rescinding prior year unobligated funding. 

Section 103. The bill includes language concerning funding transfers requested by the administration related to fish hatcheries. 

Section 104. The bill includes language concerning the definitions 

of ‘‘fill material’’ or ‘‘discharge of fill material’’ for purposes of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

Section 105. The bill contains language deauthorizing a project. 

Section 106. The bill includes language regarding the Lowell 

Creek Tunnel project. 

Section 107. The bill includes language regarding water allocations. 
(49) 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $9,874,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 7,300,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 9,874,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,874,000 

The Committee recommends $9,874,000 for the Central Utah 

Project Completion account which includes $6,024,000 for Central 

Utah Project construction, $1,000,000 for transfer to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for use by the Utah 

Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, $1,350,000 

for necessary expenses of the Secretary of the Interior, and up to 

$1,500,000 for the Commission’s administrative expenses. This allows Reclamation to develop water supply facilities that will continue to sustain economic growth and an enhanced quality of life 

in the western States, the fastest growing region in the United 

States. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,133,159,000 for the Bureau of 

Reclamation [Reclamation], an increase of $34,491,000 from the 

budget request. The Committee recommendation sets priorities by 

supporting our Nation’s infrastructure. 

INTRODUCTION

In addition to the traditional missions of bringing water and 

power to the West, Reclamation continues to develop programs, initiatives, and activities that will help meet new water needs and 

balance the multitude of competing uses of water in the West. Reclamation is the largest wholesaler of water in the country, operating 348 reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 245 million 

acre-feet. Reclamation projects deliver 10 trillion gallons of water 

to more than 31 million people each year, and provide 1 out of 5 

western farmers with irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland that produce 60 percent of the Nation’s vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts. Reclamation manages, with partners, 

289 recreation sites that have 90 million visits annually. 

PROGRAM COORDINATION AND EXECUTION

The Committee expects Reclamation to execute its program in accordance with congressional direction included in this report and 

the accompanying act. This includes moving individual projects for-
50 

ward in accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the Committee realizes that many factors outside Reclamation’s control may dictate the progress of any given project or 

study. The Committee directs Reclamation to notify the Committee 

of any major deviations as soon as practicable, including a detailed 

justification and updates of cost, schedule, or scope for the project 

or study. A major deviation is defined as any reprogramming action 

that requires Committee notification as identified in the Energy 

and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

2015, or, a schedule change that causes completions, as identified 

in the fiscal year 2015 or fiscal year 2016 budget requests, to be 

delayed beyond the fiscal year stated. 

The Committee has divided underfinancing between the Resources Management subaccount and the Facilities Operation and 

Maintenance subaccount. Upon applying the underfinanced 

amounts, normal reprogramming procedures should be undertaken 

to account for schedule slippages, accelerations, or other unforeseen 

conditions. 

FISCAL YEAR 2016 WORK PLAN

The Committee has recommended funding above the budget request for Water and Related Resources. Reclamation is directed to 

submit a work plan, not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this act, to the Committee proposing its allocation of these 

additional funds. Reclamation is directed not to obligate any funding above the budget request for studies or projects until the Committee has approved the work plan for fiscal year 2016. The work 

plan shall be consistent with the following general guidance. 

—None of the funds may be used for any item for which the 

Committee has specifically denied funding. 

—The additional funds are provided for ongoing studies or 

projects that were either not included in the budget request or 

for which the budget request was inadequate. 

—Funding associated with a category may be allocated to eligible 

studies or projects within that category. 

—Reclamation may not withhold funding from a study or project 

because it is inconsistent with administration policy. The Committee notes that these funds are in excess of the administration’s budget request, and that administration budget metrics 

should not disqualify a study or project from being funded. 

REPROGRAMMING

The Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation provided in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2015. 

DROUGHT

The Committee is particularly concerned about the continued 

drought in the West. The U.S. Drought Monitor for May 12, 2015, 

shows that all Reclamation States are currently suffering from 

drought conditions. Ten of the Reclamation States are suffering 

from severe to exceptional drought over large portions of the individual States. Nearly all of California, one-half of Nevada, one-half 
51 

of Oregon, and some areas of the southern Great Plains are suffering from extreme to exceptional drought. 

The Committee recognizes that drought is a difficult condition to 

address while it is occurring. However, there are many things that 

can be done to stretch available water supplies. Reclamation and 

the Department of the Interior are encouraged to use all of the 

flexibility and tools at their disposal to mitigate the impacts of this 

drought. The Committee is pleased to see that Reclamation has increased the funding for WaterSmart grants that increase efficiencies in current water uses. The Committee also appreciates 

Reclamation including a line in the budget request under 

WaterSmart to provide Drought Response and Comprehensive 

Drought Plans. 

However, these efforts are insufficient to address the current 

scope of this drought and do nothing to address future droughts. 

The Committee believes that the only answer to these chronic 

droughts is a combination of additional storage, improved conveyance, and increased efficiencies in the uses of water both for agriculture and potable purposes. As the West has consistently been 

the fastest growing part of the country, it is incumbent on Reclamation to lead the way in increasing the water that is available 

from year to year and to incentivize more efficient use of the water 

that is available. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

The Committee did not accept or include Congressionally Directed Spending, as defined in section 5(a) of rule XLIV of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate. However, the Committee has recommended additional programmatic funds for the Water and Related Resources account. In some cases, these additional funds 

have been included within defined categories, as in prior years, and 

are described in more detail in their respective sections, below. 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $978,131,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 805,157,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 950,640,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 988,131,000 

The Committee recommends $988,131,000 for Water and Related 

Resources, an increase of $182,974,000 from the budget request. 

Within this amount, the Committee recommendation includes funding for Indian Water Rights Settlements and the San Joaquin 

River Restoration Fund as in prior years. 

INTRODUCTION

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. 
52 

The Committee has increased funding in the Water and Related 

Resources account on a number of line items to better allow Reclamation to address the immediate impacts of the drought. These 

funds may be used for environmental restoration and compliance 

activities; water conservation and delivery; increased operations 

and maintenance funding; drought emergency assistance planning; 

WaterSmart grants; and drought response and comprehensive 

drought assistance. The Committee notes that Reclamation included more funds in its fiscal year 2016 budget to address the continuing impacts from this drought. The Committee encourages Reclamation to maintain or increase these levels in the development 

of its fiscal year 2017 budget request. 
53 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R 

ARIZONA 

AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ........................................................................... ........................ 15,341 ........................ 15,341 ........................ 15,341 COLORADO RIVER BASIN—CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT .................................................................................. 6,620 458 6,620 458 6,620 458 COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM ...................................................................................... 2,303 ........................ 2,303 ........................ 2,303 ........................SALT RIVER PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................... 649 250 649 250 649 250 SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ..................................................................... 150 ........................ 150 ........................ 150 ........................SIERRA VISTA SUBWATERSHED FEASIBILITY STUDY .......................................................................................... 2 ........................ 2 ........................ 2 ........................YUMA AREA PROJECTS ...................................................................................................................................... 1,324 24,640 1,324 24,640 1,324 24,640 

CALIFORNIA 

CACHUMA PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................... 647 674 647 674 647 674 CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: 

AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, FOLSOM DAM UNIT/MORMON ISLAND .......................................................... 1,577 9,138 1,577 9,138 1,577 9,138 AUBURN–FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT ................................................................................................................ 35 2,184 35 2,184 35 2,184 DELTA DIVISION ........................................................................................................................................ 5,718 5,511 5,718 5,511 5,718 5,511 EAST SIDE DIVISION .................................................................................................................................. 1,290 2,772 1,290 2,772 1,290 2,772 FRIANT DIVISION ....................................................................................................................................... 2,192 3,401 2,192 3,401 2,192 3,401 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT ............................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 35,000 ........................

MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................... 7,596 454 7,596 454 7,596 454 REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINT. PROGRAM ................................................... ........................ 20,262 ........................ 20,262 ........................ 20,262 SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION .................................................................................................................. 1,307 944 1,307 944 1,307 944 SAN FELIPE DIVISION ................................................................................................................................ 372 75 372 75 372 75 SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION ............................................................................................................................. 52 ........................ 52 ........................ 52 ........................SHASTA DIVISION ...................................................................................................................................... 720 8,658 720 8,658 720 8,658 TRINITY RIVER DIVISION ........................................................................................................................... 12,309 5,177 12,309 5,177 12,309 5,177 WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................. 4,389 10,393 4,389 10,393 4,389 10,393 WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT ......................................................................................... 10,457 6,043 10,457 6,043 10,457 6,043 

ORLAND PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................. ........................ 930 ........................ 930 ........................ 930 SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT ..................................................................................................................... 300 ........................ 300 ........................ 300 ........................SOLANO PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................... 1,329 2,367 1,329 2,367 1,329 2,367 VENTURA RIVER PROJECT .................................................................................................................................. 313 33 313 33 313 33 
54 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R 

COLORADO 

ANIMAS–LA PLATA PROJECT .............................................................................................................................. 949 1,943 949 1,943 949 1,943 ARMEL UNIT, P–SMBP ....................................................................................................................................... 5 377 5 377 5 377 COLLBRAN PROJECT .......................................................................................................................................... 237 1,684 237 1,684 237 1,684 COLORADO–BIG THOMPSON PROJECT ............................................................................................................... 707 13,230 707 13,230 707 13,230 FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT .......................................................................................................................... 103 136 103 136 103 136 FRYINGPAN–ARKANSAS PROJECT ....................................................................................................................... 295 11,729 295 11,729 295 11,729 FRYINGPAN–ARKANSAS PROJECT—ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT ..................................................................... 500 ........................ 500 ........................ 500 ........................GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ............................................................................................................ 603 2,606 603 2,606 603 2,606 LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT ........................................................................................... ........................ 1,958 ........................ 1,958 ........................ 1,958 MANCOS PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................. 95 188 95 188 95 188 NARROWS UNIT, P–SMBP .................................................................................................................................. ........................ 36 ........................ 36 ........................ 36 PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ........................................................................................................ 1,293 2,679 1,293 2,679 1,293 2,679 PINE RIVER PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................... 194 299 194 299 194 299 SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CLOSED BASIN ..................................................................................................... 307 3,637 307 3,637 307 3,637 SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CONEJOS DIVISION ............................................................................................... 16 40 16 40 16 40 UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT ................................................................................................................................... 849 193 849 193 849 193 UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 270 ........................ 270 ........................ 270 ........................

IDAHO 

BOISE AREA PROJECTS ...................................................................................................................................... 2,880 2,029 2,880 2,029 2,880 2,029 COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT ........................................................................... 18,000 ........................ 18,000 ........................ 18,000 ........................LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS ...................................................................................................................... 617 25 617 25 617 25 MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS ................................................................................................................................ 2,435 2,183 2,435 2,183 2,435 2,183 PRESTON BENCH PROJECT ................................................................................................................................ 4 8 4 8 4 8 

KANSAS 

ALMENA UNIT, P–SMBP ..................................................................................................................................... 40 496 40 496 40 496 BOSTWICK UNIT, P–SMBP .................................................................................................................................. 372 882 372 882 372 882 CEDAR BLUFF UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................................................................................................ 35 547 35 547 35 547 GLEN ELDER UNIT, P–SMBP .............................................................................................................................. 66 1,158 66 1,158 66 1,158 
55 

KANSAS RIVER UNIT, P–SMBP ........................................................................................................................... ........................ 100 ........................ 100 ........................ 100 KIRWIN UNIT, P–SMBP ....................................................................................................................................... 36 408 36 408 36 408 WEBSTER UNIT, P–SMBP ................................................................................................................................... 12 1,629 12 1,629 12 1,629 WICHITA PROJECT—CHENEY DIVISION .............................................................................................................. 88 426 88 426 88 426 

MONTANA 

CANYON FERRY UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................................................................................................... 246 6,268 246 6,268 246 6,268 EAST BENCH UNIT, P–SMBP .............................................................................................................................. 202 661 202 661 202 661 FORT PECK RESERVATION / DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM .................................................................. 3,700 ........................ 3,700 ........................ 3,700 ........................HELENA VALLEY UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................................................................................................... 19 164 19 164 19 164 HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT .................................................................................................................................. ........................ 422 ........................ 422 ........................ 422 HUNTLEY PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................. 12 45 12 45 12 45 LOWER MARIAS UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................................................................................................... 102 1,613 102 1,613 102 1,613 LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT ........................................................................................................................ 364 16 364 16 364 16 MILK RIVER PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................... 548 1,487 548 1,487 548 1,487 MISSOURI BASIN O&M, P–SMBP ....................................................................................................................... 1,028 269 1,028 269 1,028 269 ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MT RURAL WATER SYSTEM .............................................................................. 4,625 ........................ 4,625 ........................ 4,625 ........................SUN RIVER PROJECT .......................................................................................................................................... 153 253 153 253 153 253 YELLOWTAIL UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................................................................................................... 22 7,067 22 7,067 22 7,067 

NEBRASKA 

AINSWORTH UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................................................................................................... 64 115 64 115 64 115 FRENCHMAN–CAMBRIDGE UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................................................................................... 335 2,065 335 2,065 335 2,065 MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT .................................................................................................................................... 13 110 13 110 13 110 NORTH LOUP UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................................................................................................. 89 142 89 142 89 142 

NEVADA 

LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT ................................................................................................................................ 6,325 3,476 6,325 3,476 6,325 3,476 LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 115 ........................ 115 ........................ 115 ........................LAKE MEAD /LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 700 ........................ 700 ........................ 700 ........................

NEW MEXICO 

CARLSBAD PROJECT .......................................................................................................................................... 2,812 1,327 2,812 1,327 2,812 1,327 EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY ................................................................................................ 47 ........................ 47 ........................ 47 ........................MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT .......................................................................................................................... 12,878 11,113 12,878 11,113 12,878 11,113 RIO GRANDE PROJECT ....................................................................................................................................... 1,374 6,032 1,374 6,032 1,374 6,032 RIO GRANDE PEUBLOS PROJECT ....................................................................................................................... 300 ........................ 300 ........................ 300 ........................TUCUMCARI PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................ 17 9 17 9 17 9 
56 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R 

NORTH DAKOTA 

DICKINSON UNIT, P–SMBP ................................................................................................................................. 212 393 212 393 212 393 GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................................................................................... 16,406 6,743 16,406 6,743 16,406 6,743 HEART BUTTE UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................................................................................................ 82 1,196 82 1,196 82 1,196 

OKLAHOMA 

ARBUCKLE PROJECT .......................................................................................................................................... 67 207 67 207 67 207 MCGEE CREEK PROJECT .................................................................................................................................... 91 851 91 851 91 851 MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT ................................................................................................................................. 25 587 25 587 25 587 NORMAN PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................. 48 303 48 303 48 303 WASHITA BASIN PROJECT .................................................................................................................................. 160 1,083 160 1,083 160 1,083 W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT ....................................................................................................................................... 59 629 59 629 59 629 

OREGON 

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT ................................................................................................................................. 286 506 286 506 286 506 DESCHUTES PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................ 372 211 372 211 372 211 EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................ 511 220 511 220 511 220 KLAMATH PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................. 13,379 4,621 13,379 4,621 13,379 4,621 ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION ............................................................................................. 2,645 426 2,645 426 2,645 426 TUALATIN PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................ 172 252 172 252 172 252 UMATILLA PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................ 528 2,462 528 2,462 528 2,462 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

ANGOSTURA UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................................................................................................... 249 750 249 750 249 750 BELLEFOURCHE UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................................................................................................... 270 1,006 270 1,006 270 1,006 KEYHOLE UNIT, P–SMBP .................................................................................................................................... 198 569 198 569 198 569 LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM ....................................................................................................... 2,774 ........................ 2,774 ........................ 2,774 ........................MID–DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT .............................................................................................................. ........................ 15 ........................ 15 ........................ 15 MNI WICONI PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................ ........................ 12,000 ........................ 12,000 ........................ 12,000 OAHE UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................................................................................................................... 36 58 36 58 36 58 RAPID VALLEY PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................... ........................ 69 ........................ 69 ........................ 69 
57 

RAPID VALLEY UNIT, P–SMBP ........................................................................................................................... ........................ 195 ........................ 195 ........................ 195 SHADEHILL UNIT, P–SMBP ................................................................................................................................. 75 469 75 469 75 469 

TEXAS 

BALMORHEA PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................ 26 14 26 14 26 14 CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT ................................................................................................................................ 84 87 84 87 84 87 LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAM .............................................................. 50 ........................ 50 ........................ 50 ........................NUECES RIVER PROJECT ................................................................................................................................... 88 824 88 824 88 824 SAN ANGELO PROJECT ....................................................................................................................................... 38 552 38 552 38 552 

UTAH 

HYRUM PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................ 178 177 178 177 178 177 MOON LAKE PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................ 9 86 9 86 9 86 NEWTON PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................. 50 75 50 75 50 75 OGDEN RIVER PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................... 218 266 218 266 218 266 PROVO RIVER PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................... 1,285 453 1,285 453 1,285 453 SANPETE PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................. 60 10 60 10 60 10 SCOFIELD PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................ 609 84 609 84 609 84 STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT ......................................................................................................................... 830 100 830 100 830 100 WEBER BASIN PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................... 972 1,150 972 1,150 972 1,150 WEBER RIVER PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................... 60 88 60 88 60 88 

WASHINGTON 

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT ................................................................................................................................ 4,200 10,610 4,200 10,610 4,200 10,610 WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS ........................................................................................................................... 415 60 415 60 415 60 YAKIMA PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................... 787 6,784 787 6,784 787 6,784 YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT .................................................................................... 12,811 ........................ 12,811 ........................ 12,811 ........................

WYOMING 

BOYSEN UNIT, P–SMBP ..................................................................................................................................... 231 1,828 231 1,828 231 1,828 BUFFALO BILL DAM, DAM MODIFICATION, P–SMBP .......................................................................................... 32 2,669 32 2,669 32 2,669 KENDRICK PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................... 107 4,547 107 4,547 107 4,547 NORTH PLATTE PROJECT .................................................................................................................................... 205 1,190 205 1,190 205 1,190 NORTH PLATTE AREA, P–SMBP ......................................................................................................................... 111 5,012 111 5,012 111 5,012 OWL CREEK UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................................................................................................... 6 96 6 96 6 96 RIVERTON UNIT, P–SMBP .................................................................................................................................. 12 651 12 651 12 651 SHOSHONE PROJECT .......................................................................................................................................... 72 729 72 729 72 729 

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ....................................................................................................... 190,940 286,948 190,940 286,948 225,940 286,948 
58 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

RURAL WATER ........................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 28,750 ........................ 29,705 ........................FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SCREENS .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 4,000 ........................WATER CONSERVATION AND DELIVERY .................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,250 ........................ 8,000 ........................ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND COMPLIANCE .................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 1,000 ........................FACILITIES OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REHABILITATION ................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I ....................................................................... ........................ 14,170 ........................ 14,170 ........................ 14,170 COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE II ...................................................................... 8,423 ........................ 8,423 ........................ 8,423 ........................COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP), SECTION 5 ............................................................................... 3,936 5,735 3,936 5,735 3,936 5,735 COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP), SECTION 8 ............................................................................... 2,250 ........................ 2,250 ........................ 2,250 ........................COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ............................................................................ 620 ........................ 620 ........................ 620 ........................DAM SAFETY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DAM SAFETY PROGRAM .......................................... ........................ 1,300 ........................ 1,300 ........................ 1,300 

INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION ..................................................................................... ........................ 66,500 ........................ 66,500 ........................ 66,500 SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS ................................................................................................. ........................ 20,284 ........................ 20,284 ........................ 20,284 

DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 50,000 ........................EMERGENCY PLANNING & DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM ............................................................................. ........................ 1,250 ........................ 1,250 ........................ 1,250 ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM ..................................................................... 24,351 ........................ 24,351 ........................ 24,351 ........................ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................................... 1,720 ........................ 1,720 ........................ 1,720 ........................EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES .......................................................................................................... ........................ 8,809 ........................ 8,809 ........................ 8,809 GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................ 2,000 ........................ 2,000 ........................ 2,000 ........................INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS AAMODT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ACT ................................................. ........................ ........................ 6,000 ........................ 3,000 ........................

CROW TRIBE WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 2010 ........................................................................ ........................ ........................ 12,772 ........................ 2,000 ........................NAVAJO–GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 89,663 ........................ 81,000 ........................TAOS PUEBLO INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT ......................................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,048 ........................ 4,048 ........................

LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 9,188 ........................ 9,188 ........................ 9,188 ........................LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................................................... 28,345 ........................ 28,345 ........................ 28,345 ........................MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS ............................................................................................... ........................ 817 ........................ 817 ........................ 817 NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM .............................................................................................................. 10,925 ........................ 10,925 ........................ 10,925 ........................NEGOTIATION & ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING ................................................................................ 1,728 ........................ 1,728 ........................ 1,728 ........................OPERATION & PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 962 1,547 962 1,547 962 1,547 POWER PROGRAM SERVICES ............................................................................................................................. 2,391 307 2,391 307 2,391 307 
59 

PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 596 206 596 206 596 206 RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................................................ 2,323 ........................ 2,323 ........................ 2,323 ........................RECREATION & FISH & WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ......................................................................... 2,202 ........................ 2,202 ........................ 2,202 ........................RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: 

DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM .............................................................................. 2,305 1,150 2,305 1,150 2,305 1,150 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM .................................................................................................... 16,565 ........................ 16,565 ........................ 16,565 ........................

SITE SECURITY ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ ........................ 26,220 ........................ 26,220 ........................ 26,220 UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES—TECHNICAL SUPPORT ................................................................... 90 ........................ 90 ........................ 90 ........................WATERSMART PROGRAM WATERSMART GRANTS ............................................................................................... 23,365 ........................ 20,000 ........................ 23,365 ........................

WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM ................................................................................ 4,239 ........................ 4,239 ........................ 4,239 ........................COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 250 ........................ 250 ........................ 250 ........................BASIN STUDIES ......................................................................................................................................... 5,200 ........................ 5,200 ........................ 5,200 ........................DROUGHT RESPONSE & COMPREHENSIVE DROUGHT PLANS ................................................................... 2,500 ........................ 2,500 ........................ 2,500 ........................RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS ............................................................................................. ........................ 2,500 ........................ 2,500 ........................ 2,500 TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION & REUSE PROGRAM ............................................................................. 20,000 ........................ 23,365 ........................ 20,000 ........................

HOUSE FLOOR AMENDMENTS ............................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 2,000 ........................ ........................ ........................

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS .............................................................................................................. 176,474 150,795 321,957 150,795 359,227 150,795 

UNDERFINANCING .............................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ¥19,896 ¥14,883 

TOTAL ................................................................................................................................................... 367,414 437,743 512,897 437,743 565,271 422,860 GRAND TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES ............................................................................. ........................ 805,157 ........................ 950,640 ........................ 988,131 
60 

CALFED Water Storage Feasibility Studies.—The Committee 

notes that with the passage of California Proposition 1 in 2014, the 

California Water Commission is expected to begin allocating 

$2,700,000,000 for the public benefits of water storage projects in 

early 2017. To ensure that the CALFED water supply projects are 

able to compete for the available State funding, the Committee directs Reclamation to take such steps as are necessary to ensure 

that each of the authorized CALFED water storage feasibility studies, and associated environmental impact statements, are completed as soon as practicable, and that, at a minimum, publicly 

available drafts of such studies and environmental reviews are 

completed no later than November 30, 2016. 

Safety of Dams Act of 1978, as amended.—The Committee reiterates that Sisk Dam in California and its related facilities are 

owned by the United States. If determined that corrective actions 

are needed to reduce risk from seismic activity, then, under the 

Safety of Dams Act of 1978, as amended, 85 percent of all costs of 

those corrective actions should be a nonreimbursable cost of the 

United States. The other 15 percent of costs should be allocated to 

authorized State and Federal purposes of the project pursuant to 

43 U.S.C. §508(c). 

Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Oregon.—As part of its Dam 

Safety Program, Reclamation is working on a Corrective Action Alternatives Study [CAS] for Scoggins Dam, the main feature of the 

Tualatin Project. Working with local stakeholders, Reclamation is 

evaluating how water supply objectives, such as increased storage, 

may be coordinated with CAS implementation. Phase 2 of the CAS, 

which is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2016, should evaluate alternatives including replacement structures near the current 

dam to address Safety of Dams Act of 1978 modifications and additional storage benefits. These alternatives may reduce the obligation for both the Federal Government and stakeholders. As requested in fiscal year 2015, the Committee has included authorizing language to increase the cost ceiling for the Safety of Dams 

program and allow for concurrent safety modifications and additional storage capacity if determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be feasible and in the national interest. 

Water Hyacinth.—The Committee notes that the aquatic invasive 

water hyacinth has had harmful effects on navigation, trade and 

commerce, the environment, wildlife, and water supplies in the 

western United States. The Committee directs Reclamation to coordinate with the United States Department of Agriculture, United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, the Corps of Engineers, State and local authorities, water districts, water contractors, and not-for-profit organizations to establish best practices and cooperative arrangements that could be implemented annually to help mitigate and eliminate the spread of 

water hyacinth in waterways in Reclamation States. 

Non-native Predators.—The Committee is encouraged by the 

steps that Reclamation has taken, in consultation with the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, States, and other stakeholders, to evaluate and implement 

projects that could improve protection and recovery of endangered 

salmon and smelt. The Committee directs Reclamation to continue 
61 

consultations with Federal, State, and local agencies to develop additional activities that could aid in mitigating or removing non-native predators that prey on endangered salmon and smelt. 

Mni Wiconi Project, South Dakota.—Within the funds provided 

for the operations and maintenance of the project, Reclamation 

may use funds for upgrading existing community systems that 

have always been intended to be part of the project. Additionally, 

within 60 days of enactment of this act, Reclamation shall provide 

a report on a plan to identify existing resources and complete the 

needed community system upgrades. This plan shall be coordinated 

with the United States Departments of Agriculture, Health and 

Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Environmental Protection Agency. 

Rural Water Projects.—When allocating resources for rural water 

projects, the Committee prohibits Reclamation from using the ability of a non-Federal sponsor to contribute funds in excess of the authorized non-Federal cost share as a criterion for prioritizing these 

funds. 

The Committee also directs Reclamation to work with the United 

States Department of the Interior, the Senate Energy and Natural 

Resources Committee, and House Natural Resources Committee on 

legislative solutions to funding authorized Reclamation Rural 

Water Projects. 

WaterSMART Program.—The Committee recommends that 

grants funded under the WaterSMART Program have a near-term 

impact on water and energy conservation and improved water management. Reclamation is urged to prioritize funding for projects in 

regions most stricken by drought. 

Additional Funding for Water and Related Resources Work.—The 

Committee recommendation includes an additional $182,974,000 

above the budget request for Water and Related Resources studies, 

projects, and activities. Priority in allocating these funds should be 

given to advance and complete ongoing work; improve water supply 

reliability; improve water deliveries; enhance national, regional, or 

local economic development; promote job growth; advance Tribal 

and non-Tribal water settlement studies and activities; or address 

critical backlog maintenance and rehabilitation activities. Funding 

provided under the heading Additional Funding for Ongoing Work 

may be utilized for ongoing work, including pre-construction activities, on projects which provide new or existing water supplies 

through additional infrastructure; provided, however, that priority 

should be given in allocating funds to ongoing work on authorized 

projects for which environmental compliance has been completed. 

Funding provided under the heading Drought Emergency Assistance Program may be allocated to any authorized purposes, but 

shall be allocated to those activities that will have the most direct, 

most immediate, and largest impact on extending limited water 

supplies during current drought conditions. Reclamation is encouraged to use all available authorities to provide for additional water 

supplies through conservation, minor changes to the operations of 

existing projects, drilling emergency wells, or other means authorized under current law. This additional funding may be used alone 

or in combination with any other funding provided in a program, 

project, or activity. 
62 

Buried Metallic Water Pipe.—Last year, the Committee directed 

Reclamation to, among other things, conduct an objective, independently peer-reviewed analysis of pipeline reliability standards. 

Reclamation has yet to complete this study, which is of particular 

concern to the Committee because Reclamation’s use of Technical 

Memorandum 8140–CC–2004–1 (‘‘Corrosion Considerations for 

Buried Metallic Water Pipe’’) continues to hold different materials 

to different standards of reliability and increases project costs. The 

Committee directs that until this study is completed, Reclamation 

shall not use the memorandum as the sole basis to deny funding 

or approval of a project or to disqualify any material from use in 

highly corrosive soils. The pipeline reliability study must provide 

an objective, independently peer-reviewed analysis of pipeline reliability standards and be completed as quickly as possible. Reclamation is reminded that this study, including all data assembly and 

analysis must be conducted by an appropriate, independent thirdparty. Reclamation and its contractors involved in these efforts are 

expected to protect business-sensitive data that is collected during 

this process. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $56,995,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 49,528,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 49,528,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 49,528,000 

The Committee recommends $49,528,000 for the Central Valley 

Project Restoration Fund, the same as the budget request. This appropriation is fully offset by a scorekeeping adjustment from revenues. 

The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in 

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of Public Law 

102–575. This fund uses revenues from payments by project beneficiaries and donations for habitat restoration, improvement and 

acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the 

Central Valley project area of California. Payments from project 

beneficiaries include several required by the act (Friant Division 

surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to non-Central 

Valley Project 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, 2015 ............................................................................. $37,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 37,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 37,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 37,000,000 

The Committee recommends $37,000,000 for California BayDelta Restoration, the same as the budget request. 

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 
63 

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. 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $58,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 59,500,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 59,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 58,500,000 

The Committee recommends $58,500,000 for Policy and Administration, a decrease of $1,000,000 from the budget request. 

This account funds the executive direction and management of 

all Reclamation activities, as performed by the Commissioner’s offices in Washington, DC; Denver, Colorado; 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. 

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... $112,483,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee recommends no funds for Indian Water Rights 

Settlements in this account. 

This account was proposed as a part of the administration request to cover expenses associated with four Indian water rights 

settlements contained in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public 

Law 111–291), title X of the Omnibus Public Lands Management 

Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–11), and the White Mountain Apache 

Tribe Rural Water System Loan Authorization Act (Public Law 

110–390). Rather than create a new account as proposed, the Committee has recommended funding under the Water and Related Resources account as similar work and funding has been previously 

provided in that account. 

SAN JOAQUIN RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... $35,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee recommends no funds for the San Joaquin Restoration Fund in this account. 

The Committee has provided this funding request under the Central Valley Project, Friant Division of the Water and Related Resources account as similar work and funding has been provided in 

that account in prior years. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Section 201. The bill includes a provision regarding reprogramming and transfer of funds. 
64 

Section 202. The bill includes a provision regarding the San Luis 

Unit. 

Section 203. The bill includes a provision regarding the Secure 

Water Act. 

Section 204. The bill includes a provision regarding Calfed Bay 

Delta. 

Section 205. The bill includes a provision regarding the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978. 

Section 206. The bill includes a provision regarding the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978. 

Section 207. The bill includes a provision regarding feasibility 

studies. 

Section 208. The bill includes a provision regarding California 

Bay-Delta. 

Section 209. The bill includes a provision regarding the Central 

Valley Project Restoration Fund. 
(65) 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $29,429,115,000 for the Department of Energy, a decrease of $1,098,021,000 from the budget request. 

Within the funding recommendation, $18,956,437,000 is classified 

as defense and $10,472,678,000 is classified as non-defense. 

The Committee recommendation sets priorities by supporting 

basic energy research; reducing spending of mature technologies; 

leading the world in scientific computing; addressing the Federal 

Government’s responsibility for environmental cleanup and disposal of used nuclear fuel; keeping large construction projects on 

time and on budget; effectively maintaining our nuclear weapons 

stockpile; and supporting our nuclear Navy. 

INTRODUCTION

The mission of the Department of Energy [Department] is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, 

environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative 

science and technology solutions. To accomplish this mission, the 

Secretary of Energy [Secretary] relies on a world-class network of 

national laboratories, private industry, universities, States, and 

Federal agencies, which allows our brightest minds to solve our 

Nation’s most important challenges. 

The Committee’s recommendation for the Department includes 

funding in both defense and non-defense budget categories. Defense 

funding is recommended for atomic energy defense activities, including the National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages our Nation’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, and prevents proliferation of dangerous nuclear materials, and supports the Navy’s 

nuclear fleet; defense environmental cleanup to remediate the 

former nuclear weapons complex; and safeguards and security for 

Idaho National Laboratory. Non-defense funding is recommended 

for the Department’s energy research and development programs 

(including nuclear, fossil, and renewable energy, energy efficiency, 

grid modernization and resiliency, and the Office of Science), power 

marketing administrations, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and administrative expenses. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee’s recommendation includes control points to ensure that the Secretary spends taxpayer funds in accordance with 

congressional direction. The Committee’s recommendation also includes reprogramming guidelines to allow the Secretary to request 

permission from the Committee for certain expenditures, as defined 
66 

below, which would not otherwise be permissible. The Secretary’s 

execution of appropriated funds should be fully consistent with the 

direction provided under this heading and in section 301 of the bill, 

unless the Committee includes separate guidelines for specific actions in this report. 

Prior to obligating any funds for an action defined below as a reprogramming, the Secretary shall notify and obtain approval of the 

Committee. The Secretary should submit a detailed reprogramming 

request in accordance with section 301 of the bill, which should, at 

a minimum, justify the deviation from prior congressional direction 

and describe the proposed funding adjustments with specificity. 

The Secretary shall not, pending approval from the Committee, obligate any funds for the action described in the reprogramming proposal. 

The Secretary is also directed to inform the Committee promptly 

and fully when a change in program execution and funding is required during the fiscal year. 

Definition.—A reprogramming includes: 

—the reallocation of funds from one activity to another within an 

appropriation; 

—any significant departure from a program, project, activity, or 

organization described in the agency’s budget justification as 

presented to and approved by Congress; 

—for construction projects, the reallocation of funds from one 

construction project identified in the agency’s budget justification to another project or a significant change in the scope of 

an approved project; 

—adoption of any reorganization proposal which includes moving 

prior appropriations between appropriations accounts; and 

—any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority, or prior 

year deobligations. 

CROSSCUTTING INITIATIVES

The budget request proposes several crosscutting initiatives that 

span several program offices. The Committee supports the Secretary’s efforts to reach outside of individual program offices to 

draw on the diverse disciplines within the agency as a whole. 

These initiatives, which address grid modernization, supercritical 

CO2, subsurface engineering, energy-water nexus, and 

cybersecurity would allow a more comprehensive review of complex 

issues. Budgetary constraints do not allow the Committee to recommend full funding for these initiatives at this time, but the Committee directs the Secretary to prioritize funds that are provided 

within this recommendation to support these crosscutting initiatives to the maximum extent possible. The Secretary is further directed to provide the Committee, not later than 180 days after the 

enactment of this act, a comprehensive program plan for crosscutting initiatives covering the next five fiscal years, including proposed funding requirements and goals of each new initiative. 

Grid Modernization.—The Committee supports the Secretary’s 

decision to further coordinate what has been fragmented research 

and development efforts on grid modernization into a crosscutting 

initiative, as well as the effort to establish a laboratory consortium 

to assist in this coordination. University research teams and small- 
67 

to-medium sized companies, which are at the core of future power 

delivery systems innovation, generally lack the research and development budgets and advanced test capabilities for developing new 

high-power prototypes and devices needed to integrate increasingly 

large loads of renewable-sourced energy onto the grid. The Committee encourages the Secretary to leverage existing national assets for technical assistance and testing centers for grid and power 

technologies. 

The Committee is encouraged by the Secretary’s efforts toward 

grid modernization research and development planning that will 

ensure a path toward an integrated, secure, clean, and reliable 

electricity infrastructure while remaining affordable to consumers. 

The Committee recognizes the valuable role the national laboratories can play for advancements in electric infrastructure to meet 

our Nation’s energy needs and is supportive of the grid modernization crosscut and the work of the National Laboratory Grid Modernization Consortium. The Committee also encourages the Department’s continued coordination to ensure grid-related research 

across the Department complex is not duplicative. In addition, the 

Committee directs the Secretary to provide within 180 days of enactment of this act, a detailed implementation plan on the grid 

crosscut, detailing funding requirements, specific objectives, and 

delineation of responsibilities among the program offices within the 

Department. 

Energy-Water Nexus.—The Committee recognizes there is a clear 

need to obtain reliable, current, and comprehensive data on energyfor-water and water-for-energy use. Examples include data on 

water use by power plants, water for fuel extraction and liquid fuel 

production, energy use by water utilities, and water reuse and replacement. More accurate data and analysis can improve informed 

decision making; help prioritize investments in energy-water infrastructure; contribute to the research and development of related 

technologies; and lead to more efficient and sustainable water and 

energy practices. Transitioning to a more efficient water and energy infrastructure will strengthen the manufacturing and production sectors. In order to better understand water use for power generation and fuel processing, the Committee recommends that the 

Energy Information Administration [EIA] account for water use in 

the energy policy analysis it undertakes. 

QUADRENNIAL ENERGY REVIEW

The first installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review [QER], 

as directed by the president in January 2014, was released in April 

2015. The QER makes recommendations to modernize and improve 

our energy architecture and infrastructure, specifically in the areas 

of transmission, storage, and distribution [TS&D]. Modernizing our 

nation’s aging, extensive, vulnerable, and high-demand infrastructure is made even more challenging due to our increasingly diverse 

energy supply and competing uses of ports and railways for energy 

transportation. Successfully addressing these critical issues will require coordination among many levels of government and private 

industry, and the Committee believes the Secretary must solicit 

and rely on well-informed input from a variety of stakeholders to 

support recommendations that will lead to a more resilient, reliable 
68 

and robust TS&D infrastructure to meet the demands of our 21st 

century economy. The Committee urges the Secretary to continue 

engagement with State, local, tribal, and international jurisdictions 

to inform future action on this modernization roadmap. The Committee encourages and strongly supports the well-designed, purpose-driven, public-private partnerships that have coordinated to 

create this report. 

The Committee directs the Secretary, within 180 days after the 

enactment of this act, to provide the Committee with a status of 

implementing the recommendations in the QER, including what 

has been achieved through the shared interest of involved parties, 

Federal Government actions cited in the report, and an analysis of 

recommendations that have not been adopted. The Edison Electric 

Institute estimated in 2008 that by 2030, the U.S. electric utility 

industry would need to make a total infrastructure investment of 

between $1,500,000,000,000 and $2,000,000,000,000, of which 

transmission and distribution are expected to account for about 

$900,000,000,000. The Committee looks forward to working with 

the Secretary to use the QER as a roadmap to support Federal 

funding of potential solutions, but recognizes that the vast majority 

of our Nation’s infrastructure is privately owned and sustained by 

the private sector. Supporting the advancement of our energy architecture and infrastructure will not be addressed solely by Federal funding and private investment, but also through changes in 

the regulatory environment, such as the Federal process for permitting and siting of electrical transmission facilities, to enable and 

support these critical investments. 

COMMONLY RECYCLED PAPER

The Secretary shall not expend funds for projects that knowingly 

use as a feedstock commonly recycled paper that is segregated from 

municipal solid waste or collected as part of a collection system 

that commingles commonly recycled paper with other solid waste 

at any point from the time of collection through materials recovery. 

SOCIAL COST OF CARBON

The Secretary should not promulgate any regulations in fiscal 

year 2016 using the May 2013 estimates for the social cost of carbon until a new working group is convened. The working group 

should include the relevant agencies and affected stakeholders, reexamine the social cost of carbon using the best available science, 

and revise the estimate using an accurate discount rate and domestic estimate in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and OMB 

Circular A–4. To increase transparency, the working group should 

solicit public comments prior to finalizing any updates. 

5 YEAR PLAN

The Secretary is required by section 7279–a of title 42 U.S.C., enacted by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, to include in 

the Department’s annual budget request proposed funding levels 

for the request year and 4 subsequent years, at a level of detail 

commensurate with the current budget justification documents. 

This requirement is to ensure that the Secretary is proposing a 
69 

current budget that takes into account realistic budget constraints 

in future years, and that Congress has full visibility into the future 

implications of current budget decisions across the Department’s 

energy programs. 

Unfortunately, the Secretary has chosen not to comply by omitting any meaningful 5-year budgeting from its four budget requests 

since enactment of this legal requirement. The Committee directs 

the Secretary to submit a report, not later than September 30, 

2015, to the Committees on Appropriations of both the House of 

Representatives and Senate, on the plan to comply with section 

7279a of title 42 in its fiscal year 2017 budget request. Failure to 

provide this report may result in more directive measures to ensure 

the Secretary complies with the law and engages in practices that 

safeguard taxpayer dollars. 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $1,923,935,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 2,722,987,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,668,774,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,950,000,000 

The Committee recommends $1,950,000,000 for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy [EERE], a decrease of $772,987,000 from 

the budget request. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $160,000,000 for program direction. 

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $292,000,000 for Vehicle Technologies. 

The Committee recommends not less than $20,000,000 for applied research to overcome the barriers to widespread adoption of 

lightweight material designs that include magnesium alloys, aluminum alloys, high-strength steels, and fiber-reinforced polymer 

composites. Further applied research is needed to develop coatings, 

adhesives, high-strength fiberglass, and other advanced materials 

to effectively join mixed materials, prevent corrosion, reduce costs, 

and address consumer requirements such as noise mitigation and 

appearance. 

The Committee urges the Secretary to work with the natural gas 

vehicle industry to identify needs and develop solutions for additional engines and emissions control technologies in order to obtain 

the emission advantages when using natural gas in high efficiency 

engines. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to work with heavy-duty vehicle and engine manufacturers to develop an emissions profile for 

heavy-duty, dual-fueled natural gas and diesel automobiles to help 

determine what, if any, emissions control technologies need to be 

installed on such vehicles to meet environmental regulations. The 

Committee expects the Secretary to seek the most cost-competitive 

options as it evaluates the control technology options available to 

these equipment manufacturers. 

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for Fuel and Lubricant 

Technologies. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 
70 

up to $5,000,000 for research, development, and demonstration 

supporting direct injection engines using propane or liquefied petroleum gas. 

The Committee acknowledges the success of the SuperTruck I 

program in improving freight efficiency and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the 

SuperTruck II program to further improve the efficiency of heavyduty class 8 long- and regional-haul vehicles. The Secretary is directed to make up to 4 awards using the multi-year allocation process that was used successfully by the SuperTruck I program. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 

for continued funding of section 131 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act for transportation electrification. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than 

$5,000,000 to support competitive demonstrations of energy storage 

using electric vehicle batteries to evaluate residual value. The 

Committee further encourages the Secretary to develop opportunities to partner with nonprofit organizations in deploying workplace 

electric vehicle charging infrastructure. 

The Committee recognizes local initiatives to deploy alternative 

fuel vehicles and infrastructure are critical to wider adoption of 

these technologies to diversify our fuel supply and save consumers 

money. The Committee recommends $49,000,000 for deployment of 

vehicles through the Clean Cities Program. The Committee further 

recommends, within available funds, not less than $20,000,000 to 

support the ‘‘Alternative Fuel Vehicle Community Partner Projects’’ 

for competitive demonstration of electric and advanced fuel deployment programs, with a focus on larger scale deployment proposals. 

The Committee supports the EcoCAR 3 competition, which provides hands-on, real-world experience to demonstrate a variety of 

advanced technologies and designs, and supports development of a 

workforce trained in advanced vehicles. The Committee recommends $2,500,000 for Advanced Vehicle Competitions to develop 

and execute the second of the 4-year collegiate engineering competition, EcoCAR 3. 

BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $225,000,000 for Bioenergy Technologies. 

Within available funds, the Committee directs the Secretary to 

provide a total of $30,000,000 for algae biofuels. Within available 

funds, the Committee recommends $45,000,000 for the Department’s final contribution to the Defense Production Act collaboration with the Navy and Department of Agriculture. 

The Committee recognizes research and development focused on 

higher value co-products is an effective strategy for lowering the 

cost of converting biomass to advanced biofuels. However, the Committee also believes there is an opportunity for the Secretary to invest in the development of broader platforms and capabilities that 

may drive down conversion costs more generally, and thereby provide additional returns on Federal investment. The Committee encourages the Secretary to explore these opportunities. 

The Committee remains concerned the Secretary is interpreting 

bioenergy too narrowly and failing to consider biopower as a viable 
71 

output of energy technology projects. When issuing funding opportunities, the Secretary is directed to include biopower projects as 

eligible recipients for technology development support. 

The Committee supports the Secretary’s participation in the 

Farm to Fly 2 Initiative with the Federal Aviation Administration’s 

Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and the Environment. The initiative is intended to be a cost-sharing partnership 

between academia, industry, and the Federal Government, and the 

Committee urges the Secretary, within 90 days after the enactment 

of this act, to provide to the Committee the initiative’s cost sharing 

plans, including projected outyear budgetary requirements. 

The Committee supports the Bioenergy Technologies mission to 

develop and deploy commercially viable biofuels and bioproducts 

from renewable biomass resources, and encourages the Secretary to 

further the mission by testing and scaling up new bio-based technologies by conducting a competitive solicitation to establish demonstration-scale multi-user facilities for the production of bio-based 

products and chemicals. 

HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $97,000,000 for Hydrogen and Fuel 

Cell Technologies. The Committee continues to support fuel cell 

and hydrogen energy systems for stationary, vehicle, motive, and 

portable power applications. Within available funds, the Committee 

recommends not less than $35,200,000 for hydrogen research and 

development, including research both into direct solar water splitting and near-term cost improvements for hydrogen dispensed at 

refueling stations. 

SOLAR ENERGY

The Committee recommends $241,600,000 for solar energy. 

The Committee supports the Secretary’s emphasis on advancing 

integration of distributed solar generation with the existing power 

grid and on lowering the soft costs of solar installations for residential and small-scale commercial customers. The financing, contracting, permitting, inspection, and installation costs can add significantly to the overall cost of solar system acquisition. The Secretary’s efforts to develop the workforce, regulatory and legal expertise, and information technology tools are needed to drive down 

costs for solar technology for every day consumers. 

The Committee recognizes that solar energy is one of the fastest 

growing industries in the United States, and employs 174,000 

workers today. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 

$1,000,000 for the Secretary’s contribution to the joint Solar Ready 

Vets program with the Department of Defense as a way to train 

America’s veterans to fill this growing skill need. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $48,400,000 

for concentrating solar power projects that lower the cost of the 

technology, address electric grid reliability integration of variable 

renewable power into the electric grid, and support the Supercritical Transformational Electric Power Generation Initiative. Areas 

of research and development should include improved design of 

solar collection, higher cooperating receivers, and the integration of 

higher temperature power cycles. 
72 

WIND ENERGY

The Committee recommends $46,000,000 for Wind Energy. Within these funds, the Committee recommends $40,000,000 for offshore wind demonstration projects, and $6,000,000 to further substantiate the design and economic value proposition of alternative 

project designs for offshore wind power. No additional funding is 

recommended for Wind Energy. 

WATER POWER

The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for Water Power. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $23,000,000 for conventional hydropower, including up to $3,900,000 for the purposes 

of section 242 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and not less than 

$5,000,000 shall support competitive demonstrations of pumped hydroelectric storage projects. 

Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology Research, Development, and 

Deployment.—Within available funds, the Committee recommends 

$42,000,000 for marine and hydrokinetic [MHK] technology research, development, and deployment. Within this amount, the 

Committee recommends $20,000,000 for a balanced portfolio of 

competitive private sector-led research, development and demonstrations of MHK technologies, including wave and current 

(tidal, river, ocean) energy conversion technologies. No funding is 

recommended for advanced design tools, the incubator program, or 

for the clean energy manufacturing initiative. Within available 

funds, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 to continue its development and construction for an open water, fully energetic, gridconnected wave energy test facility. The Committee also directs the 

Secretary to share with Congress the outcome of the ongoing consultation with the MHK energy industry on the program’s research, 

development and deployment priorities, and to ensure related activities by the national laboratories support industry-driven technology advancement projects, with a priority on the development of 

domestic technologies. The Secretary is also encouraged to review 

and share the findings with Congress on how the Small Business 

Innovation Research program may be more effectively utilized to 

support the goals of the Water Power Program. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to support activities to 

develop advanced MHK systems and component technologies to increase energy capture, reliability, and survivability for lower costs 

and to assess and monitor environmental effects. 

GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $71,000,000 for Geothermal Technologies. Funds made available by this section shall be disbursed 

to the full spectrum of geothermal technologies, as authorized by 

the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 

110–140). The Secretary is encouraged to continue to support comprehensive programs that foster academic and professional development initiatives. 

To facilitate necessary technology development and expand understanding of subsurface dynamics, the Committee recommends 

$35,000,000 for the Frontier Observatory for Research in Geo-
73 

thermal Energy [FORGE], which will use a competitive process to 

site and construct a facility for the design, development, and testing of innovative methods of generating electricity for geothermal 

resources. 

ADVANCED MANUFACTURING

The Committee recommends $214,000,000 for Advanced Manufacturing. The Committee recognizes the importance of the manufacturing sector to the U.S. economy, which directly generates 12 

percent of the gross domestic product and employs nearly 12 million people. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $84,000,000 

to support the existing 3 Clean Energy Manufacturing Institutes 

[CEMI], including $14,000,000 each for the wide bandgap semiconductor institute, the advanced composites institute, and the smart 

manufacturing institute, a fourth institute to be awarded in fiscal 

year 2015. The Committee recommendation includes funding to establish an additional CEMI. The Committee is pleased that several 

diverse consortia were formed to respond to these innovation opportunities, but is concerned there are limited resources available to 

support both the focus areas and additional teams that were not 

selected for prior awards. The Committee urges the Secretary to 

find mechanisms to support the ideas that were not funded in previous awards, but have technical merit for advanced manufacturing 

developments. For the fourth and each subsequent institute, the 

Secretary shall conduct an open solicitation and competitive, meritbased review process. Should future requests propose funding for 

new institutes, the Secretary shall continue to include in each 

budget justification the potential specific research topics associated 

with the proposed institutes. This will provide the Committee with 

the necessary transparency to evaluate and prioritize funding to 

ensure that only highly effective centers closely aligned with the 

Advanced Manufacturing program missions are funded. 

The Committee recognizes that stranded, flared, and vented natural gas is the result of low natural gas prices that make transporting it uneconomic. As topics for additional Clean Energy Manufacturing Institutes are evaluated, the Secretary is encouraged to 

consider modular chemical processing as a way to address the issue 

of natural gas flaring and enable advanced manufacturing applications in the oil and gas industry. The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Critical Materials Hub aimed at improving critical material supply chains that 

are prone to disruption. The Committee notes that the Hub has focused on high-priority problems and has developed strong milestones. The Committee supports the Hub’s goal of developing at 

least one technology adopted by U.S. companies within each of its 

three focus areas: diversifying and expanding production; reducing 

wastes; and developing substitutes. 

Related to critical materials and advanced fabrication techniques, 

the Committee further recognizes the promise of new nanostructured metals that can be used in structural applications, extreme 

environments, and chemical synthesis with direct relevance to advanced energy technologies. Within available funds, the Committee 

recommends $3,000,000 for university and industry support to help 
74 

bridge the gap between laboratory research and marketplace deployment of these new materials. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for development of additive manufacturing processes, low-cost carbon fiber, and other 

manufacturing technologies at the existing Manufacturing Demonstration Facility [MDF]. The Committee notes the ongoing emphasis on assisting small- and medium-sized businesses overcome 

the risks and challenges of investing in specialized, high-technology 

equipment at the MDF. The Secretary is encouraged to continue 

this emphasis in the coming year. 

The Committee supports continued research and development of 

technologies to produce low-cost carbon fiber. The Committee encourages the Secretary to create a pilot program to make a competitive award to produce at least 2 million pounds of carbon fiber 

per year at a target price of less than $5 per pound. The pilot program should require recipients to directly synthesize carbon filament, eliminating dependence of filament precursors and the requisite carbonization process, while minimizing all post-processing 

while demonstrating significantly less total energy consumption. The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the joint additive 

manufacturing pilot institute with the Department of Defense. 

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $178,000,000 for Building Technologies. The Committee supports the focus on advanced technologies for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, recognizing that such technologies have the potential to reduce the national cost of energy by 20 to 50 percent. The Committee recognizes 

that most building standard codes are developed and implemented 

by State and local governments. Therefore, the Committee also 

supports ongoing efforts to work with State and local agencies to 

incorporate the latest technical knowledge and best practices into 

construction requirements. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $26,000,000 

for the Residential Building Integration Program. Within this 

amount, funding should be concentrated on industry teams to facilitate research; demonstrate and test new systems; and encourage 

widespread deployment. These activities should be coordinated 

through direct engagement with builders, the construction trades, 

equipment manufacturers, smart grid technology and systems suppliers, integrators, and State and local governments. 

The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for the Emerging Technologies subprogram. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $14,000,000 for transactive controls research and development. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 

$24,000,000 for solid-state lighting technology development to focus 

on reducing the cost of organic light-emitting diodes and other 

technologies. If the Secretary finds solid-state lighting technology 

eligible for the Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize, specified under 

section 655 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 

$5,000,000 is included in addition to funds for solid-state lighting 

research and development. 

The Committee is concerned the Department’s final rule setting 

energy efficiency standards for commercial refrigerators [Energy 
75 

Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment; 

79 FR 17725 (March 28, 2014)] established its required energy efficiency targets based on the performance of equipment using 

hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs], refrigerants that have been in the marketplace for over 20 years. HFCs will be phased out of production 

by Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] regulatory action before 

the Department’s standard takes effect. The Committee encourages 

the Department to reassess its standards in light of the EPA action 

and take necessary action to resolve any conflicts between the two 

agencies’ standards. 

WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $197,000,000 for the Weatherization 

Assistance Program, $3,000,000 for Training and Technical Assistance, $400,000 for NREL Sitewide Facility Support, and 

$50,000,000 for State Energy Program Grants. No funding is recommended for the Local Technical Assistance Program proposed in 

the budget request. 

CORPORATE SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $243,000,000 for Corporate Support, 

including $2,000,000 for the United States-Israel energy cooperative agreement within Strategic Programs. The Committee understands that the EERE has previously executed the United StatesIsrael Binational Industrial R&D [BIRD] program to include authorized energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. The 

Committee directs the Secretary, within 180 days of enactment of 

this act, to report on implementation and coordination plans between EERE and the Office of Fossil Energy to support research 

and development of natural gas energy technologies, as section 12 

in Public Law 113–296, the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, expanded the scope of collaborative research and 

development to include water technologies and natural gas energy, 

including conventional, unconventional, and other associated natural gas technologies. 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $147,306,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 270,100,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 187,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 152,306,000 

The Committee recommends $152,306,000 for Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability, a decrease of $117,794,000 from the budget 

request. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 

$27,000,000 for program direction. The Committee directs the Secretary to provide regular updates of reported data on the status of 

energy infrastructure and concerns impacting the energy sector as 

they become available. 

The modernization of the electrical grid is critical to ensuring national security, sustaining our Nation’s economic growth, and maintaining our way of life. The electrical grid is a complex system, 

owned and operated by numerous regulated and non-regulated private and public entities. Implementation and execution of these 
76 

new technologies must be driven by private market acceptance, and 

not forced on industry. Many organizations throughout the United 

States, including national laboratories, academia, and industry are 

leading the grid modernization effort. To maximize the value of 

taxpayer investment in the grid modernization strategy, the Committee suggests that the Secretary’s initiatives be fairly and equitably competed to ensure the best ideas, technologies, and teams 

are brought together to develop the best solutions for the electric 

grid of the future. 

To ensure our energy systems are safe, secure, reliable, sustainable, and cost-effective, the Committee supports a strategy that involves extensive partnerships between government, academia, and 

industry to undertake the transition and modernization of the electrical grid to address our major energy issues. The Committee directs the Secretary to complete an independent, third-party assessment of the United States’ capabilities to perform multi-megawatt 

testing that meets the goals supporting the Grid Modernization 

Multi-Year Program Plan. Following the completion of the assessment and if the Secretary deems appropriate, the Committee urges 

the Secretary to establish through a competitive bid process, a national user center capable of operating in the multi-megawatt 

range, above 2 MW, to support the Nation’s grid modernization efforts to advance utility scale technologies like energy storage. 

World-class testing facilities that can replicate real world conditions, without risks to the existing grid, are needed at the residential, commercial, and distribution level to test and validate these 

innovations. The Committee is aware the Secretary has invested in 

testing facilities of 2 MW and below, and facilities are needed at 

the multi-megawatt level above 2 MW for technologies at the distribution level. 

The Committee continues to support the Secretary’s research activities to ensure transmission reliability. Recent weather-related 

events, however, have reinforced the need for integration of local, 

regional, and national weather into transmission reliability and resiliency modeling and simulation activities to support the utility industry and emergency response. The Committee encourages the 

Secretary to partner with universities, national laboratories, and 

industry when issuing competitively awarded research and development activities to ensure regional weather and related environmental variables are accounted for in advanced grid modeling research. 

CLEAN ENERGY TRANSMISSION AND RELIABILITY

The Committee recommends $31,000,000 for Clean Energy 

Transmission and Reliability. The Committee believes that the integration of distributed and intermittent renewable sources of generation into existing infrastructure and transmission and distribution networks is critical to the effective deployment of clean energy 

sources. Developing the analytical and modeling tools in collaboration with utilities, grid operators, and universities will lay the 

foundation for risk assessment. 

The Committee supports the Secretary’s proposed research on advanced modeling capabilities to improve electric planning and operations. Advances in big data analytic capabilities and modeling and 
77 

visualization technologies offer potential for improving efficient operations of the electric grid particularly when incorporating power 

from variable renewable energy sources. Within Energy Systems 

Risk and Predictive Capability and Advanced Modeling Grid Research, the Secretary is directed to consider an expanded scope of 

projects, in addition to response to energy supply disruption, and 

to include university and industry teams for research and workforce development. The Committee notes that workforce education 

will be critical to the successful and rapid transition of advanced 

modeling and simulation solutions developed under this program. 

The Committee recognizes that further investment is needed to 

maintain and expand power and energy education programs, and 

secure industry partnerships to facilitate the development of a 

highly skilled next-generation technical and engineering workforce 

for the electric power sector. Therefore, the Committee encourages 

the Secretary to prioritize research and development investments 

to engage and further develop the capabilities of university undergraduate and graduate programs in power and energy. 

The Committee also encourages the Secretary to consider expanding research and development partnerships, including those 

related to the development and deployment of microgrids. Partnerships should engage stakeholders in diverse geographic regions 

with unique market dynamics and policy challenges. These partnerships should inform nationwide efforts to improve grid resiliency, reliability, security, and integration of a broad range of generation sources, and consumer empowerment. 

SMART GRID RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $15,307,000 for Smart Grid Research and Development. Within available funding, $5,000,000 is 

for development of advanced, secure, low-cost sensors that measure, analyze, predict, and control the future grid during steady 

state and under extreme conditions. 

The Committee recognizes the opportunities presented by the application, integration, and investment in grid technologies across 

all sectors of the economy. The Secretary should ensure that efforts 

in these areas are coordinated and focused on the evolution to the 

grid of the future. 

CYBER SECURITY FOR ENERGY DELIVERY SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $45,999,000 for Cyber Security for 

Energy Delivery Systems. Within available funds, the Committee 

recommends not less than $5,000,000 to develop cyber and cyberphysical solutions for advanced control concepts for distribution 

and municipal utility companies. The potential threat posed by 

cyber security attacks on our critical energy infrastructure cannot 

be underemphasized and must be appropriately guarded against. 

ENERGY STORAGE

The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for Energy Storage. 

Within available funds, the Committee supports a utility-sponsored 

and operated energy storage test facility capable of performancedriven data in a utility environment. 
78 

TRANSFORMER RESILIENCE AND ADVANCED COMPONENTS

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for Transformer Resilience and Advanced Components. The Committee directs the Secretary to support research and development on low-cost, power flow 

control devices, including both solid state and hybrid concepts that 

use power electronics to control electromagnetic devices and enable 

improved controllability, flexibility, and resiliency. 

NATIONAL ELECTRICITY DELIVERY

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for National Electricity 

Delivery. The Committee encourages the Secretary to allocate a 

portion of this funding for a competitive grant program to help 

States, regional, and tribal entities to develop, refine, and improve 

their programs, policies, and laws related to electricity in order to 

facilitate the development and deployment of reliable and affordable energy infrastructure, whether generation, transmission, distribution, or demand side electricity resources. 

INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AND ENERGY RESTORATION

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration. 

Energy Resilience and Operations Center.—No funding is provided for the Energy Resilience and Operations Center [Operations 

Center]. The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2015, provided up to $8,000,000 to support construction of the Operations Center within the Department’s headquarters in Washington, DC. The Committee understands that this 

office is now engaged in a joint effort with the National Nuclear Security Administration, and that construction of the Operations Center has been delayed. 

Although Congress included clear direction and funding in fiscal 

year 2015 for this project, the Secretary chose to take a different 

course without notifying the Committee. The Committee understands that the Secretary may propose to use less than the 

$8,000,000 made available for fiscal year 2015, while asking for additional funds for fiscal year 2016. If, by the date of enactment of 

this act, the Secretary has used, or has proposed to use, less than 

the $8,000,000 that Congress made available in fiscal year 2015 for 

the Operations Center, the Secretary, within 30 days after the date 

of enactment of this act, shall submit a report to the Committee describing the amount of fiscal year 2015 funds proposed to be used 

to construct the Operations Center; an explanation of why the Secretary did not use or propose to use all funding that was made 

available for the Operations Center; and which programs, projects, 

or activities were a higher priority for funding. 

The Committee further directs the Secretary to execute this 

project in accordance with congressional direction, and to provide 

the Committee with a monthly status report, until construction has 

been completed, on changes to schedule, cost, and scope. Because 

construction may not begin in fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommends no new funding for the Operations Center for fiscal year 

2016. If the Secretary completes construction in fiscal year 2016, 

the Secretary may reprogram up to $3,000,000 for the facility from 
79 

funds made available for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, subject to the Committee’s approval. If the Operations Center becomes operational in fiscal year 2016, the Committee directs 

the Secretary to notify the Committee each time the Operations 

Center is activated. 

STATE ENERGY RELIABILITY AND ASSURANCE

The Committee recommends no funds for State Energy Reliability and Assurance. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $833,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 907,574,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 936,161,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 950,161,000 

The Committee recommends $950,161,000 for Nuclear Energy, 

an increase of $42,587,000 from the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation for nuclear power prioritizes funding for programs, projects and activities that will ensure a strong future for 

nuclear power in the United States. 

Nuclear power provides more than 20 percent of our Nation’s 

electricity and more than 60 percent of our emissions-free electricity. Electricity generation from our Nation’s 99 operating nuclear power plants is critical to our national security, economy, and 

way of life. Programs, projects, and activities that are funded within the Nuclear Energy account. 

The Committee supports the Secretary reconvening the working 

group among the national laboratories with nuclear capabilities, 

and directs the Secretary to continue those efforts. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

SMALL MODULAR REACTOR LICENSING TECHNICAL SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $62,500,000 for Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support, the same as the request. The 

Committee notes that Small Modular Reactors may provide a costeffective method of generating electricity. 

SUPERCRITICAL TRANSFORMATION ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION

INITIATIVE

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Supercritical 

Transformational Electric Power Generation Initiative for an industry cost-shared demonstration project. 

REACTOR CONCEPTS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION

The Committee recommends $117,874,000 for Reactor Concepts 

Research, Development, and Demonstration. The Committee directs the Nuclear Energy Program to focus funding for Reactor 

Concepts Research, Development and Demonstration, which includes funding for Advanced SMRs and Advanced Reactor Concepts, on technologies that show clear potential to be safer, less 

waste producing, more cost competitive, and more proliferation-resistant than existing nuclear power technologies. Within available 
80 

amounts, the Committee recommends up to $12,000,000 for industry-only competition to further the development of deployable advanced reactor components. 

Light Water Reactor Sustainability.—Within available funds, the 

Committee recommends $43,275,000. The most cost effective way 

for the United States to maintain low-cost, carbon-free electricity 

is to safely extend the lives of our Nation’s existing nuclear reactors from 60 to 80 years. Therefore, the Committee recommends additional funding for this activity as a priority. The Committee directs the Secretary to use funding in this activity to continue research and development work on the technical basis for subsequent 

license renewal. The Secretary should focus funding in this program on materials aging and degradation, advanced instrumentation and control technologies, and component aging modeling and 

simulation. The Secretary shall also coordinate with industry to determine other areas of high-priority research and development in 

this area. 

FUEL CYCLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $217,000,000 for Fuel Cycle Re- search and Development within which, $97,000,000 is for the Used 

Nuclear Fuel Disposition program. 

The Committee continues to strongly support the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future 

and believes that near-term action is needed to address this important national issue. Therefore, the Committee again includes a general provision in section 306 of this bill authorizing the Department 

of Energy to develop a pilot program for a consolidated storage facility, pending enactment of more comprehensive legislation. Furthermore, the Committee provides a technical correction in section 

311 that broadens the contractual arrangements by which the government can acquire spent fuel storage capabilities. The Committee 

recommends $30,000,000 for used nuclear fuel disposition to implement sections 306 and 311. Within this amount, funds are provided 

for financial and technical assistance associated with a consentbased siting process, including education, technical analyses, and 

other support to entities considering hosting an interim storage facility; and for incentive payments to entities with signed agreements with eligible jurisdictions. 

Transportation of spent nuclear fuel will require detailed planning within the Department, coordination with state and local governments, and the acquisition of specialized equipment and capabilities. The Secretary should engage in these activities so that it 

ready to transport spent nuclear fuel when storage capabilities, 

however acquired, become available. Within the funds provided, the 

Committee again recommends $3,000,000 to design, procure, and 

test industry-standard compliant rail rolling stock in a timeframe 

that supports the transportation of spent fuel to the interim storage facility. 

Within the amount recommended for used nuclear fuel activities, 

$3,000,000 is provided for the Secretary to continue to develop disposal pathways for defense high-level radioactive waste. 

Research and development activities on behavior of spent fuel in 

long-term storage, under transportation conditions, and in various 
81 

geologic media will continue to be important to developing a new 

solution to the waste problem. Within the amounts recommended 

for used nuclear fuel disposition, $64,000,000 shall be for continuance of these activities. Priority should be placed on the ongoing 

study of the performance of high-burnup fuel in dry storage and on 

the potential for direct disposal of existing spent fuel dry storage 

canister technologies. The Committee recommends $60,100,000 for the Advanced Fuels 

program. The Department is directed to continue implementation 

of the accident tolerant fuels development program, the new goal 

of which is development of accident tolerant nuclear fuels leading 

to commercial reactor fuel assembly testing by 2022. The Committee directs the Secretary to consult with industry, universities 

and other interested organizations on a commercialization roadmap 

for these technologies, including new Silicon carbide based ceramic 

material. The Secretary is directed to share the outcome of this 

consultation with the Committee. While the benefit of incremental 

improvements to existing commercially available fuels is acknowledged, there is concern that the Department’s ongoing activities on 

accident tolerant fuels will not ultimately lead to meaningful reductions in the consequences of unexpected severe accidents in nuclear 

power plants. Therefore, $12,000,000 is provided for the continued 

industry led cost-shared program on Accident Tolerant Fuels, and 

$3,000,000 is provided for continuation of the previously competitively awarded Small Business projects to develop ceramic cladding 

for Accident Tolerant Fuels. Further, the Committee continues to 

be concerned that the Secretary has not yet provided to the Committee the plan for development of accident tolerant fuels leading 

to in-reactor testing and utilization as required by the Fiscal Year 

2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Report 112–75). The Committee directs the Department to provide this report to the Committee no later than 30 days after enactment of this act. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $101,000,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies. The Committee recommends $24,300,000 

for the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation. 

INFRASTRUCTURE

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $20,800,000 for Radiological Facili- ties Management, including $14,000,000 for continued safe operation of Oak Ridge National Laboratory hot cells. The Committee 

commends that Secretary for including additional funding for this 

activity in the Office of Science. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $571,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 560,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 605,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 610,000,000 

The Committee recommends $610,000,000 for Fossil Energy Research and Development, an increase of $50,000,000 from the budg-
82 

et request. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 

$115,000,000 for program direction. The Committee recognizes that 

this program supports vital research on clean coal technologies, 

and has accordingly provided significant funds above the budget request to accelerate these activities. The Committee notes that clean 

coal technology affords our Nation the ability to respond to environmental challenges by improving the performance of our coal-based 

electricity fleet, while also allowing for continued utilization of 

abundant and affordable U.S. coal. 

According to the Energy Information Administration, fossil energy resources meet approximately 82 percent of the United States 

demand. Fossil fuels support the activities of a modern economy, 

and will continue to supply our Nation’s energy needs for the foreseeable future. Approximately 67 percent of the electricity generated in the United States is from coal, natural gas, and petroleum, and fossil fuel generation is and will continue expanding 

across the world. The Committee notes that the Department should 

allocate sufficient resources to support fossil energy research, development, and demonstrations to improve both existing technologies and develop the next generation of clean, affordable, and 

safe systems. 

The Committee notes the improved coordination among the Office of Fossil Energy and other program office on work examining 

the feasibility of recovering rare earth materials from coal and coalbyproduct streams. 

COAL, CCS AND POWER SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $402,000,000 for CCS and Power 

Systems. The Committee encourages the Secretary to establish university partnerships to support ongoing fossil energy programs, to 

promote broader research into CCS technologies, and to expand its 

technology transfer efforts. The Secretary has previously funded 

several university-based CCS projects, and should build on an established research base to support ongoing research, as well as address the wider implementation of CCS technologies. 

The Committee supports the Secretary’s cooperative agreements 

to develop cost sharing partnerships to conduct basic, fundamental, 

and applied research that assist industry in developing, deploying, 

and commercializing efficient, low-carbon, non-polluting energy 

technologies that could compete effectively in meeting requirements 

for clean fuels, chemical feedstocks, electricity, and water resources. 

The Secretary is further directed to report to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate not 

later than June 30, 2015, on the reallocation of base funding to 

other ongoing large-scale Clean Coal Power Initiative demonstration projects. 

Carbon Capture.—Within the recommendation, $88,000,000 is for 

Carbon Capture to support the R&D and scale-up of 2nd generation and transformational technologies for capturing CO2 from new 

and existing industrial and power-producing plants. The Committee recommendation includes $30,000,000 for the Department’s 

National Carbon Capture Center. The Committee recommends 

$250,000 for an assessment of research and development needs to 
83 

aid in the development and commercialization of direct air capture 

technologies that capture carbon dioxide from dilute sources, such 

as the atmosphere, on a significant scale. 

Carbon Storage.—Within the recommendation, $99,000,000 is for 

Carbon Storage. Within funds available for Carbon Storage, the 

Committee recommends $63,084,000 for Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, the same as the request, and $10,000,000 for 

Carbon Use and Reuse for research and development activities to 

support valuable and innovative uses for carbon. The Committee 

recognizes that finding new commercial uses for captured carbon 

could significantly offset the costs of capturing and sequestering 

carbon from our Nation’s coal-fired power plants. The Committee 

encourages the Secretary to use its existing authorities to fund activities that promote the reuse of captured carbon from coal and 

other sources in the production of fuels and other products. The 

Committee also urges the Secretary to support other carbon dioxide 

utilization technologies in addition to Enhanced Oil Recovery 

[EOR], including using carbon dioxide to produce algae. The Committee encourages the Office of Fossil Energy to collaborate with 

the Bioenergy Technologies program within the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy to support projects that utilize 

carbon dioxide in the production of algae. 

Advanced Energy Systems.—Within the recommendation, 

$103,000,000 is for Advanced Energy Systems, which supports improving the efficiency of coal-based power systems, enabling affordable CO2 capture, increasing plant availability, and maintaining 

the highest environmental standards. The Committee supports and 

encourages the Secretary to fund research and development of Gasification Systems, which focuses on technology developments to reduce the cost of coal gasification and facilitates co-feeding of coal 

with biomass or waste; Advanced Combustion Systems, which focuses on the development of oxy-combustion and chemical looping 

processes that are applicable to new and existing power plants; 

Coal and Coal-Biomass to Liquids, which the Secretary did not include in its budget request, and Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, which focuses on research and development to enable efficient, cost-effective 

electricity generation from coal and natural gas with near-zero atmospheric emissions of CO2 and pollutants, as well as minimal 

water use in central power generation applications that can be integrated with carbon capture and storage. Within available funding, the Committee urges the Secretary to fund research and development activities to improve the efficiency of gas turbines used in 

power generation systems, working cooperatively with industry, 

small businesses, universities, and other appropriate parties. 

NETL Coal Research and Development.—Within the recommendation, the Committee provides $53,000,000 for NETL Coal 

Research and Development. The Committee is supportive of the 

mission of conducting in-house research activities, such as activities in Carbon Capture, Carbon Storage, Advanced Energy Systems, and Cross-cutting research for the Coal R&D programs. 

NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $43,000,000 for Natural Gas Technologies. The recommendation does not include additional funding 
84 

for the joint research effort with the Environmental Protection 

Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey into hydraulic fracturing 

technologies. The Committee notes that it has provided funding for 

this joint research effort over the prior 4 years, and that the Secretary is scheduled to submit a final report to Congress during the 

summer of 2015. If the Department chooses to pursue additional 

joint research after submission of the final report, the Secretary 

may propose specified topics, along with the total cost and expected 

duration of the research, in the fiscal year 2017 budget request. 

Risk-Based Data Management System.—Within available funds, 

the Committee recommends $5,200,000 to continue the Risk-Based 

Data Management System [RBDMS], and support the addition of 

including water tracking in pre- and post-drilling applications 

where States require them. Funds are also recommended to integrate FracFocus and RBDMS for improved public access to State 

oil and gas related data, as well as for State regulatory agencies 

to support electronic permitting for operators, eForms for improved 

processing time for new permits, operator training for the improved 

FracFocus 3.0, and additional reports. The Committee supports 

this initiative’s continued efforts to provide public transparency, 

while protecting proprietary information. 

Methane Hydrate Activities.—The Committee notes that the request does not include funding for methane hydrate activities. The 

Committee understands that instead of requesting additional funds 

in fiscal year 2016 to continue methane hydrates research, the Secretary instead elected to spend the $15,000,000 provided in fiscal 

year 2015 more slowly, contrary to the intent of Congress, and potentially delaying important research activities for a year. The 

Committee recommendation rejects the Secretary’s approach, and 

provides, within available funds, $19,800,000 for methane hydrates. The Committee also encourages the Secretary to perform a 

long-term methane hydrate production test in the Arctic, as proposed in the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee’s May 21, 2014, 

recommendations to the Secretary. 

Environmentally Prudent Development.—The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for Environmentally Prudent Development 

subprogram. 

Emissions Mitigations from Midstream Infrastructure.—The 

Committee recommends $7,000,000 for Emissions Mitigation from 

Midstream Infrastructure subprogram. 

Emissions Quantification from Natural Gas Infrastructure.—The 

Committee recommends $5,000,000 for Emissions Quantification 

from Natural Gas Infrastructure research subprogram. 

UNCONVENTIONAL FOSSIL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $25,321,000 for Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies. The Secretary did not include any funding 

in the fiscal year 2016 budget request, and the Committee notes 

the importance of providing research support that will assure sustainable, reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound supplies 

of domestic unconventional fossil energy resources. 

In September 2011, the Secretary submitted its ‘‘Domestic Unconventional Fossil Energy Resource Opportunities and Technology 

Applications’’ report to Congress, as directed in the fiscal year 2010 
85 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. The report 

outlines the domestic unconventional resource opportunities and 

technology applications of a comprehensive research, development, 

and deployment [RD&D] strategy for unconventional oil, gas, and 

coal resources. The Secretary is encouraged to fund high-priority 

RD&D activities identified in the report, including oil shale. 

The Committee supports the Secretary’s efforts to conduct research on crude by rail safety. The Secretary is uniquely suited to 

understand the characteristics of crude, including volatility and 

other properties, which bear on safe methods of transportation. 

Given the public safety concerns, the Committee supports the joint 

effort with the Department of Transportation to conduct and conclude the second phase of this study at the soonest available time. 

Within funds available under this heading, the Committee recommends up to $1,000,000 to provide for the study. The Committee 

also encourages the Secretary to examine the impacts of State and 

Federal regulations on transportation and delivery of oil, including 

potential safety and health risks. 

Within available funds, the Committee encourages the Secretary 

to support efforts to increase production of unconventional fossil 

fuels through advanced technology and modeling, including optimizing high resolution and time-lapse geophysical methods for improved resource detection and better rock characterization at the 

micro- and nano-scale. The Committee also encourages the Secretary to examine the feasibility of utilizing geothermal energy 

from produced fluids for in-field energy requirements. 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $19,950,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 17,500,000 

House Allowance .................................................................................... 17,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 17,500,000 

The Committee recommends $17,500,000 for Naval Petroleum 

and Oil Shale Reserves, the same as the budget request. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $200,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 257,000,000 

House Allowance .................................................................................... 212,030,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 200,000,000 

The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a decrease of $57,000,000 from the budget request. 

The Committee recognizes the work the Secretary is undertaking 

to conduct a long-term strategic review of the Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve. The Committee looks forward to the results of the review, 

and the Secretary’s recommendations on future investments in infrastructure and associated maintenance. 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $1,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 7,600,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 7,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,600,000 
86 

The Committee recommends $7,600,000 for the Northeast Home 

Heating Oil Reserve, the same as the request. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $117,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 131,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 117,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 122,000,000 

The Committee recommends $122,000,000 for the Energy Information Administration, a decrease of $9,000,000 from the budget 

request. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $246,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 220,185,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 229,193,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 244,000,000 

The Committee recommends $244,000,000 for Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, an increase of $23,815,000 from the budget request. 

Small Sites.—The Committee recommends $77,822,000 for Small 

Sites. Within the available funds, the Committee recommends 

$6,000,000 to complete the design and initiate construction of facilities pursuant to the agreement reached in 2012 between the Department of Energy, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

and State and local governments to complete the demolition of K– 

25 in exchange for preserving the historic contributions made by 

the K–25 site to the Manhattan Project. The Secretary should consider this regulatory requirement as no different than any other 

regulatory requirement, and is directed to request appropriate 

funding to satisfy the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act in future budget requests. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $17,000,000 

to continue to deactivate, decommission, and demolish facilities at 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Further, the Committee 

commends the Secretary for work to preserve cultural and sacred 

sites at the Energy Technology Engineering Center, and encourages the Secretary to continue working with Native American 

tribes, the community, and other Federal, State, and local agencies 

to ensure that this portion of the property is preserved for future 

generations. 

The Committee remains concerned that the Secretary is not requesting adequate funding within the Non-Defense Environmental 

Cleanup account. Further, the budget request stated that the Department has no liability for the decommissioning and decontamination of the Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor, despite that facility being constructed for, and used by, the Atomic 

Energy Commission. Funding has been provided by Congress to 

complete the planning work for cleanup. The Committee encourages the Secretary to request sufficient funding to execute the work 

in future budget requests, and execute the work via an innovative 

firm-fixed price remediation contract. 
87 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $625,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 542,289,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 625,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 614,000,000 

The Committee recommends $614,000,000 for Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning [UED&D] activities, 

an increase of $71,711,000 from the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes $194,673,000 for East 

Tennessee Technology Park [ETTP], $199,925,000 for Paducah, and 

$165,417,000 for Portsmouth. Within available funds for ETTP, the 

Committee recommendation includes up to $3,000,000 for demolition of the Building K–1200 Complex if the Secretary makes a determination under 42 U.S.C. 2296a–3(1)(b). 

The Committee recommends $32,959,000 for the Title X Uranium 

and Thorium Reimbursement Program. Title X of the Energy Policy 

Act of 1992 authorizes the Secretary to reimburse eligible licensees 

for the Federal Government’s share of the cost associated with 

cleaning up former uranium and thorium processing sites across 

the country. The Committee continues to be concerned about the 

accumulating balances and liabilities owed to private licensees for 

the Department’s failure to address the Federal Government’s cost 

share. The Committee notes the administration requested funding 

for title X for the first time since fiscal year 2008. Fulfilling the obligation to fully reimburse licensees is important to the health and 

safety of the impacted communities. Moving forward, the Committee expects the Secretary to request sufficient resources within 

its annual budget request to reimburse licensees for approved claim 

balances. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to provide a report consistent with section 1805 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, that requires the Secretary to submit a report every 3 years to Congress on the progress 

and success of the UED&D program. The report should include an 

assessment of remaining facilities that require UED&D cleanup 

along with any recommended changes to facilities designated for 

cleanup funding. The last report was submitted to Congress in December 2010. 

Transparency on Uranium Transfers.—Congress included permanent notification authority for the Secretary regarding uranium 

transfers in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 

Act, 2015. The Committee supports increased transparency in these 

transfers, and accordingly directs the Secretary to make available 

to the public all secretarial determinations under section 

3112(d)(2)(B) of the USEC Privatization Act, including all related 

reports, analyses, data, and methodologies within 30 days after the 

notification has been submitted or the determination has been 

made. The Secretary is encouraged to develop and report recommendations to the Committee, within 90 days after the enactment of this act, to minimize the impact of uranium transfers on 

the domestic uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment industries, including any actions that would require new authority for 

the Secretary to implement. The Secretary should also consider 
88 

measures that would allow the Department to contract directly 

with domestic uranium industries to introduce uranium into the 

market. 

SCIENCE

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $5,071,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 5,339,794,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,100,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,143,877,000 

The Committee recommends $5,143,877,000 for Science, a decrease of $195,917,000 from the budget request. 

Distinguished Scientist Program.—The Committee recommends 

directing up to $2,000,000 to support the Department’s Distinguished Scientist Program, as authorized in section 5011 of 42 

U.S.C. 16537 to promote scientific and academic excellence through 

collaborations between institutions of higher education and National laboratories. 

Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies 

[BRAIN] Initiative.—The Committee supports the involvement of 

the Office of Science and both the Interagency Working Group on 

Neuroscience and the National Brain Observation Group, and encourages the Department to collaborate with other agencies on the 

BRAIN Initiative. The national laboratory system possesses skills, 

tools, and methodologies to support the initiative, specifically 

through the user facilities in high performance computing and 

nanoscience supported by the Office of Science. Computational resources at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory are already being 

used to model and assess data to better understand brain processes. Additionally, extensive biomedical imaging resources and 

sensor technologies could be used to support this important effort. 

This complementary, multi-agency initiative is encouraged to take 

advantage of existing investments and infrastructure while engaging closely with the neuroscience community to accelerate our understanding of the brain. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $620,994,000 for Advanced Scientific Computing Research. The Committee believes its recommendation would allow the Department to develop and maintain 

world-class computing and network facilities for science and deliver 

the necessary research in applied mathematics, computer science, 

and advanced networking to support the Department’s missions. 

The Committee strongly supports the exascale initiative, which is 

critical to maintaining our Nation’s global competitiveness and supporting our national security. Exascale computers will be capable 

of a thousand-fold increase in sustained performance over today’s 

petascale computers, which have been in operation since 2008. The 

Committee understands the goal of the Department’s Exascale 

Computing Initiative is to integrate efforts across industry, academia, and government to address the technical challenges of 

exascale computing, and to deploy by 2023, capable exascale computing systems. Additional research is needed to achieve practical 

exascale computing goals, and the Committee recommends including $157,894,000 for exascale activities within the Office of Science. 
89 

The Committee directs, within funds available, the Secretary to 

broaden the Research Evaluation Prototype program to support the 

design and development of node, system and application prototypes. These efforts will support the development of four exascale 

nodes, three system architecture teams, and teams to develop initial plans for programming exascale applications. Multiple teams 

are necessary to adequately explore design options and to mitigate 

overall project risk. Overall industry investment in this area is significant, with billions of dollars in development costs for next generation high performance computing systems. To influence the trajectory of technology, the Department must partner early with domestic vendors, and support a significant share of these early design and development efforts. 

The Committee also recommends $104,317,000 for the Oak Ridge 

Leadership Computing Facility and $86,000,000 for the National 

Energy Research Scientific Computing Center [NERSC] facility at 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Funding is recommended 

to upgrade the NERSC infrastructure with power and cooling within the new Computational Research and Theory [CRT] building. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $38,000,000 

for ESnet, the same as the budget request. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $1,844,300,000 for Basic Energy 

Sciences [BES]. Of these funds, $1,644,000,000 is for research. 

Within available funds for operations and maintenance of scientific 

user facilities, the Committee recommends $254,990,000 for highflux neutron sources, which will allow for both Spallation Neutron 

Source [SNS] and High Flux Isotope Reactor [HFIR] to proceed 

with the most critical deferred repairs, replace outdated instruments, and make essential machine improvements. Within available funds, $477,079,000 is provided to support near-optimal operations for the five BES light sources, including $125,500,000 the 

first full year of operations for the newly constructed NSLS–II. The 

Committee recognizes the critical role that light sources play in the 

Nation’s innovation ecosystem, and the growing reliance on them 

by U.S. researchers and industry. In light of increased international investment in these unique scientific resources and the 

consequences for U.S. innovation leadership, the Committee supports the Secretary’s efforts to upgrade and renew these facilities 

across the full spectrum of x-ray capabilities. In addition to the operating budget request, which is fully funded, an additional 

$10,000,000 is provided to accelerate completion of the Conceptual 

Design Report for the Second Target Station at the Spallation Neutron Source. Further, $5,000,000 is provided for research and development for the Advanced Light Source Upgrade. The Committee 

strongly supports the continued upgrades to Generation IV facilities, such as the Advanced Photon Source Upgrade project at Argonne National Laboratory. Therefore, within available funds, 

$20,000,000 is provided for the Advanced Photon Source Upgrade 

project, the same as the budget request. To better plan for costs of 

these upgrades and major construction projects, the Committee requests the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee to provide a 
90 

list prioritizing the order of the next five projects not later than 90 

days after enactment of this act. The Committee also recommends $12,000,000 for exascale systems, the same as the crosscut request for fiscal year 2016. In future budget requests, the Committee directs the Office of Science 

to work with the Office of Nuclear Energy to demonstrate a commitment to operations and maintenance of nuclear facilities at Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory that supports multiple critical missions. 

As the Office of Science considers what user facilities are needed 

for future scientific research, the Secretary should have a balanced 

portfolio of user facilities that gives researchers a breadth of ability 

to make scientific discoveries. 

Innovative new materials are needed that catalyze the synthesis 

of ammonia without requiring an input of natural gas, in order to 

reduce the overall energy budget of fertilizer manufacturing, as 

well as ameliorate environmental concerns. Given the production 

cost and century-old processes, the Committee recommends within 

the funds provided $3,000,000 for a competitive solicitation for universities to perform fundamental research toward the development 

of a new generation of nanostructured catalysts that can be used 

to synthesize fertilizer and ammonia without any secondary greenhouse gases. The Committee recommends $24,137,000 for the Batteries and 

Energy Storage Hub, the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research 

[JCESR]. The Committee is encouraged by the work of JCESR 

which was initiated in fiscal year 2013 and focuses on understanding the fundamental performance limitations for electrochemical energy storage to launch the next generation, beyond lithium-ion energy storage technologies relevant to both the electrical 

grid and transportation. The Committee supports the continued research and development for JCESR, to ensure the outcome of basic 

research leads to practical solutions that are competitive in the 

marketplace. The Committee commends JCESR for expanding it 

partnership of national laboratories, academia, and industry to additional members outside their region. 

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Fuels from Sunlight Hub, the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis [JCAP] 

which was established in fiscal year 2010, and extended for a second 5-year term at a reduced scope. During the renewal award period, JCAP will develop the knowledge, materials, and components 

needed for generation of transportation fuel from sunlight and carbon dioxide, with major emphasis on fundamental discovery science 

of carbon dioxide reduction. The Committee is aware of the positive 

changes evident in JCAP and the milestone-driven research plan, 

and looks forward to the capitalization on its scientific achievements, technology development, and leveraging of public investment to advance research efforts addressing critical needs in solar 

fuels development. 

The Committee also recommends $20,000,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR]. The 

Committee recognizes the importance of supporting basic research, 

spanning the broad range of the Department’s science and technology programs in States that have historically received disproportionate Federal research funding grants. The Committee encour-
91 

ages the Secretary to undertake additional efforts to include 

EPSCoR States in energy research activities related to the energy 

production and output contribution of their State. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue funding to 

support research and development needs of graduate and postgraduate science programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $610,000,000 for Biological and Environmental Research. Within these funds, the Committee recommends $294,271,000 for biological systems science and 

$315,729,000 for climate and environmental sciences. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $18,730,000 for exascale 

computing, the same as the request for fiscal year 2016 crosscut. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $75,000,000 

for three Bioenegy Research Centers. The Committee recognizes 

the unique and beneficial role that the Department plays for the 

Nation in the advancement of biosciences to address core departmental missions in energy and the environment. Therefore, the 

Committee strongly supports the requested increases in funding for 

biosystems design to develop new and transformative metabolic engineering capabilities for bioenergy production and environmental 

solutions, and urges the Secretary to consider opportunities to further support use-inspired research in these areas with the increased funding. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to increase funding for 

academia to perform climate model studies that include the collection and evaluation of atmospheric data sets from satellite observations obtained in cooperation with NASA. Satellite observations of 

the atmosphere, within the context of the Earth as a global system, 

provide information that is critical in the interpretation of Earthbased observations. In addition, the Committee encourages the Secretary to allocate 5 percent of the Department’s funds spent on climate change models, studies, or evaluations to create a Red Team, 

so as to ensure science-based findings. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $270,168,000 for Fusion Energy 

Sciences. 

U.S. Contribution to ITER.—The Committee recommends no 

funding for the U.S. contribution to ITER. 

The Committee has previously expressed and continues to remain concerned about the rising cost of the United States’ participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 

[ITER] under construction in Cadarache, France, as well as management problems and continued delays. The United States is to 

pay 9.09 percent of the projects’ construction costs. In 2008, the 

total cost share for the United States was estimated to be between 

$1,450,000,000 and $2,200,000,000, and is now estimated to be 

somewhere between $4,000,000,000 and $6,500,000,000. With declining budgets, the Committee believes funding for the contribution to ITER is crowding out other Federal science investments, including domestic fusion research, as well as high performance com-
92 

puting and materials science, where the United States has maintained leadership. In addition, there is no approved cost or schedule baseline for the project, and the Committee recommends not 

supporting a project with no specified price tag or date of completion. 

For these reasons, the Committee directs the Secretary to work 

with the Department of State to withdraw from the ITER project. 

Within the funds for Fusion Energy Sciences, the Committee recommends $2,750,000 to continue heavy ion fusion science research 

at the Neutralized Drift Compression Experiment-II at Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $788,100,000, for High Energy 

Physics. 

The Committee strongly supports the Secretary’s efforts to advance the recommendations of the Particle Physics Project 

Prioritization Panel [P5] Report, which established clear priorities 

for the domestic particle physics program over the next 10 years 

under realistic budget scenarios. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $19,000,000 for the Long Baseline Neutrino 

Facility. The Committee supports ongoing activities to advance 

project engineering and design, and site preparation work at the 

Homestake Mine in South Dakota. The Committee urges the Secretary to maintain a careful balance among the competing priorities and among small, medium, and large-scale projects. Therefore, 

to assist in implementation of the P5 recommendations, the Committee recommendation provides Cosmic Frontier Experimental 

Physics an additional $6,500,000 to fund the Dark Energy 

Spectroscopic Instrument [DESI] at $10,300,000 and the G2 Dark 

Matter Experiment LUX ZEPLIN at $10,500,000, an increase of 

$6,500,000 above the request. The Committee recommends 

$40,800,000 for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope Camera 

[LSSTcam], the same as the request. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $591,500,000 for Nuclear Physics. 

Within these funds, the Committee recommends $95,000,000 for 

the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams and operations and research 

for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider [RHIC] for $174,935,000. 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS

The Committee recommends $19,500,000, for Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists. The Committee recommends 

$1,000,000 to continue the Computational Sciences Graduate Fellowship program. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $113,600,000 for Science Laboratories Infrastructure. Within these funds, the Committee recommends $12,000,000 for nuclear operations at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and commends the Secretary for the cross-cutting 
93 

infrastructure initiative, which deals with long-standing needs that 

underpin mission execution. 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $280,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 325,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 280,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 291,000,000 

The Committee recommends $291,000,000 for the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy [ARPA–E], a decrease of 

$34,000,000 from the request. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $28,000,000 for program direction. Since receiving its first funding in fiscal year 2009, ARPA–E continues to 

catalyze and support the development of transformational, high-impact energy technologies to ensure the Nation’s economic and energy security and technological lead. Project sponsors continue to 

form strategic partnerships and new companies, as well as securing 

private sector funding to help move ARPA–E technologies closer to 

the market. ARPA–E has, in total, invested in more than 400 

projects in 25 focused program areas. The Committee supports the 

program’s focus for fiscal year 2016 on transportation fuels and 

feedstocks; energy materials and processes; dispatchable energy; 

and sensors, information and integration. 

OFFICE OF INDIAN ENERGY POLICY AND PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... $20,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee does not recommend funding for the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs. The Committee recommendation 

for the Department of Energy, however, includes funding for activities proposed under this new account within the Departmental Administration program, consistent with fiscal year 2015. 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $42,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 42,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 42,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 42,000,000 

OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ¥$25,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... ¥25,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥25,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥25,000,000 
94 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $17,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 17,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 17,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 17,000,000 

The Committee recommends $42,000,000 in funding for the Loan 

Guarantee Program, the same as the request. This funding is offset 

by $25,000,000 in receipts from loan guarantee applicants, for a net 

appropriation of $17,000,000. An additional $68,000,000 in prior receipts from loan guarantee applicants is credited to the bill as a 

scorekeeping adjustment. 

TRIBAL INDIAN ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... $11,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee recommends no funding for the Tribal Indian Energy Loan Guarantee Program. 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN

PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $4,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 6,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 6,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,000,000 

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, the same as the request. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $245,142,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 270,682,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 191,200,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 248,142,000 

(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ¥$119,171,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... ¥117,171,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥117,171,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥117,171,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $125,971,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 153,511,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 74,029,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 130,971,000 

The Committee recommends $248,142,000 in funding for Departmental Administration, a decrease of $22,540,000 from the request. 

This funding is offset by $117,171,000 in revenue for a net appropriation of $130,971,000. 
95 

Nonprofit Cost Share.—The Committee notes that the Secretary 

may reduce or eliminate the research and development match requirement established in section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, where necessary and appropriate. The Committee encourages 

the Secretary to consider the use of this discretion if the research 

goals of the Department of Energy would be advanced by reducing 

or eliminating the match requirement for nonprofit organizations 

and institutions. 

Small Refinery Exemption.—Under section 211(o)(9)(B) of the 

Clean Air Act, a small refinery may petition the EPA Administrator for an exemption from the Renewable Fuel Standard [RFS] 

on the basis that the refinery experiences a disproportionate economic hardship under the RFS. When evaluating a petition, the 

Administrator consults with the Secretary of Energy to determine 

whether disproportionate economic hardship exists. According to 

the Department’s March 2011 Small Refinery Exemption Study, 

disproportionate economic hardship must encompass two broad 

components: a high cost of compliance relative to the industry average disproportionate impacts, and an effect sufficient to cause a 

significant impairment of the refinery operations viability. 

If the Secretary finds that either of these two components exists, 

the Committee directs the Secretary to recommend to the EPA Administrator a 50 percent waiver of RFS requirements for the petitioner. The Committee also directs the Secretary to seek small refinery comment before making changes to its scoring metrics for 

small refinery petitions for RFS waivers, and to notify the Committee prior to making any final changes to scoring metrics. 

The Committee notes that the conference report accompanying 

the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, addressed similar issues and directed the Secretary to redo an earlier study done to evaluate whether the RFS 

program imposes a disproportionate economic hardship on small refineries. In calling for the Secretary to redo the study, the conference report cited the lack of small refinery input into the earlier 

study, concerns about regional RFS compliance cost disparities, 

small refinery dependence on the purchase of renewable fuel credits [RINs], and increasing RIN costs. Since then, the dramatic rise 

in RIN prices has amplified RFS compliance and competitive disparities, especially where unique regional factors exist, including 

high diesel demand, no export access, and limited biodiesel infrastructure and production. In response to recent petitions, the Secretary determined that the RFS program would impose a disproportionate economic and structural impact on several small refineries. Despite this determination, the Secretary did not recommend, and EPA did not provide, any RFS relief because it determined the refineries were profitable enough to afford the cost of 

RFS compliance without substantially impacting their viability. 

The Committee reminds the Secretary that the RFS program may 

impose a disproportionate economic hardship on a small refinery 

even if the refinery makes enough profit to cover the cost of complying with the program. Small refinery profitability does not justify a disproportionate regulatory burden where Congress has explicitly given EPA authority, in consultation with the Secretary, to 

reduce or eliminate this burden. 
96 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $40,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 46,424,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 46,424,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 46,424,000 

The Committee recommends $46,424,000 for the Office of the Inspector General, the same as the request. 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommends $12,263,276,000 for the National 

Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA]. The Committee continues funding for recapitalization of our nuclear weapons infrastructure, while modernizing and maintaining a safe, secure, and 

credible nuclear deterrent without testing. This is among our most 

important national security priorities. 

At the same time, the Committee supports continuing important 

efforts to secure and permanently eliminate remaining stockpiles of 

nuclear and radiological materials overseas and in the United 

States that can be used for nuclear or radiological weapons. In addition, the Committee supports Naval Reactors and the important 

role they play in enabling the Navy’s nuclear fleet. 

The Committee remains concerned about NNSA’s ability to concurrently execute multiple, highly complex life extension programs 

and construction projects, but is encouraged by the improved level 

of cooperation between NNSA and its primary customer, the Department of Defense. 

Use of Low-Enriched Uranium in Naval Reactors.—The Committee notes that a window of opportunity exists to explore and 

pursue the use of low-enriched uranium reactor fuel in the Nation’s 

submarine fleet as another round of replacements approaches after 

the Ohio-class replacement. In addition to the direction provided in 

the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account, the NNSA Administrator is directed to develop a cost estimate, budget profile, and 

schedule for undertaking this effort; and determine the lead and 

participating organizations in which such an effort should be executed. This assessment shall be delivered to the Committee no 

later than 120 days after enactment of this act. 

Joint Effort on Energy Resilience and Operations Center.—No 

NNSA fund in this act, or any other act, is available to fund any 

effort in support of the Energy Resilience and Operations Center, 

regardless of amount, unless it is submitted to Congress as a reprogramming request in accordance with the reprogramming requirements in this act. 

INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM

The Committee directs the Secretary to carry out the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 16274a in support of university research and 

development in areas relevant to the NNSA’s mission. Within 

available funds, the Committee recommends not less than 

$15,000,000 for the Integrated University Program to cultivate the 

next generation of leaders in nonproliferation, nuclear security, and 
97 

international security. Together with funds from the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, this program ensures highly qualified nuclear specialists will be available 

to meet national needs. The Committee directs the Secretary to request funding for this program in future budget years, and specifically highlight the source of funds within the budget request. Further, funding for this program shall not come from prior year 

funds. 

COST ESTIMATING

The Committee is concerned with the continued poor cost estimating by the Department, particularly within the NNSA. Despite 

this problem having been the subject of many reviews and studies 

over the past decade, the lack of progress shows that the Department does not understand the root causes, and has not implemented appropriate corrective actions. In November 2014, the Government Accountability Office [GAO] reported that the Department’s cost estimating requirements and guidance for projects and 

programs generally do not reflect best practices for developing cost 

estimates. GAO made a series of recommendations to incorporate 

best practices into the Department’s requirements and guidance. 

While the Department generally agreed with these recommendations, they have not shown any urgency in implementing them. 

Similarly, in December 2014, GAO reported that several major construction projects had incurred significant cost increases and schedule delays, and that the Department was reassessing the originally 

selected project alternative for these projects. When GAO assessed 

the Department’s process for selecting project alternatives, it again 

found an overall lack of best practices. The Department again 

agreed with the GAO recommendations, but was noncommittal in 

providing dates for incorporating changes. The Secretary is directed 

to provide a report to this Committee no later than 90 days after 

enactment of this act, that outlines the Department’s plan for improving cost estimating for major projects and programs, including 

a line-by-line plan of action for each open recommendation from the 

two GAO reports discussed above. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $8,186,657,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 8,846,948,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 8,713,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,882,364,000 

The Committee recommends $8,882,364,000 for Weapons Activi- ties, an increase of $35,416,000 from the budget request to ensure 

the safety, security, reliability, and effectiveness of the Nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile without the need for nuclear testing. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

The Committee recommends $3,039,474,000 for Directed Stockpile Work. 

Life Extension Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$1,302,532,000 for Life Extension Programs and Major Alterations, 

which fully funds all life extension programs and major alterations 
98 

in the budget request, consistent with the plan of record approved 

by the Nuclear Weapons Council. NNSA needs to ensure that Life 

Extension Programs are completed on time and on budget to prevent impact on other high priorities, such as modernizing aging infrastructure, critical nonproliferation activities to combat nuclear 

terrorism, and naval nuclear propulsion. As such, NNSA should 

consider implementing a process for Life Extension Programs that 

is similar to the process specified in DOE Order 413.3B for capital 

projects. 

W76 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$244,019,000 for the W76 Life Extension Program. Completing the 

W76 Life Extension Program, which makes up the largest share of 

the country’s nuclear weapon deterrent on the most survivable leg 

of the Triad, is this Committee’s highest priority for life extension 

programs. 

B61 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$643,300,000 as requested for the B61 Life Extension Program. 

The Committee supports the Nuclear Weapons Council plan to retire the B83, the last megaton class weapon in the stockpile, by 

2025. 

W88 Alt 370.—The Committee recommends $220,176,000 for the 

W88 Alt 370. The Committee recognizes different categories of nuclear weapon modernization programs. Life Extension Programs include a comprehensive analysis of the weapon’s components and 

systems, followed by reuse, refurbishment or replacement of those 

components and systems, to purposefully extend the life of the 

weapon. Alterations are component changes, much less intensive, 

and do not change the weapon’s operational capability. The distinction between a life extension program and an alteration is important, and should be maintained. 

Stockpile Services.—The Committee recommends $858,000,000 

for stockpile services. Subcritical experiments at the Nevada National Security Site provide the validation data for weapons simulation codes and enhance the ability to predict the behavior of aging 

weapons. NNSA is currently conducting one of these experiments 

every 18 months, which limits participation to one national laboratory. However, stockpile life extension efforts may require greater 

participation by the national labs and therefore, likely increased 

frequency of experiments. Within funds provided in this account, 

NNSA is directed to plan for two subcritical experiments per year 

to ensure that the laboratories actively participating in life extension efforts are involved in critical peer review and to realize shorter cycle times in providing nuclear weapon designers needed experimental data. This increased frequency could address key certification issues associated with weapon systems scheduled for Life 

Extension Program modernization. 

Nuclear Material Commodities.—The Committee recommends 

$344,516,000 for Nuclear Material Commodities. 

Domestic Uranium Enrichment.—The Committee recommends 

$50,000,000 for a domestic uranium enrichment capability. The bill 

contains a provision that provides special reprogramming authority 

of an additional $50,000,000 subject to the Committee’s normal notification guidelines. The Committee directs that the Department of 

Energy shall use these funds only to maintain existing centrifuges 
99 

and facilities associated with domestic enrichment capabilities and 

safeguard intellectual property rights. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING

The Committee recommends $1,766,295,000 for Research, Development, Technology, and Engineering. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield Campaign.—The Committee recommends $511,050,000 for the inertial 

confinement fusion ignition and high-yield campaign. Within these 

funds, $329,000,000 shall be used for inertial confinement fusion 

activities at the National Ignition Facility [NIF], $44,500,000 shall 

be used for Sandia National Laboratory’s Z facility, and not less 

than $68,000,000 shall be used for the University of Rochester’s 

Omega facility. The Committee supports ongoing efforts at NIF to 

operate more efficiently and expand the base of academic users in 

order to help attract top talent to stockpile stewardship. The Committee supports NNSA efforts to better coordinate diagnostic development efforts across national labs and universities for use at the 

major inertial confinement fusion facilities to make sure that critical diagnostics are available when needed. 

Advanced Simulation and Computing.—The Committee recommends $623,006,000 for advanced simulation and computing. 

Within these funds, the Committee recommends no less than 

$64,000,000 for activities associated with the exascale initiative, 

such as advanced system architecture design contracts with vendors and advanced weapons code development to effectively use 

new high performance computing platforms. 

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

The Committee recommends $1,021,110,000 for Readiness in 

Technical Base and Facilities. 

Operations.—The Committee recommends $360,920,000 for Operations. NNSA procedures require that the contracting officer review 

each M&O contract at appropriate intervals, and at least once 

every 5 years, and he or she should determine whether meaningful 

improvement in performance or cost might reasonably be achieved 

when making a final decision to compete the existing contract. 

Within 120 days of enactment, NNSA should provide a report to 

the House and Senate Appropriations Committees that details the 

results of these reviews over the last 5 years, and the schedule for 

reviews in the coming year. 

Bannister Road Complex.—The Committee is concerned that 

NNSA will not follow through on completion of all activities needed 

to effectively turn over the Bannister Road Complex to a private 

entity, consistent with section 3143 of the National Defense Authorization Act, 2014. The Committee supports the budget request 

for the Bannister Road Complex, and recommends, within available 

funds, $7,800,000 for Site Surveillance, $3,000,000 for long-term 

stewardship activities, and $28,000,000 for Bannister Road Disposition. Further, the Committee is concerned that while the budget request states $200,000,000 will be required in fiscal year 2017 to 

complete the transfer, funding has not been included in the current 

outyear funding profile provided to the Committee with the budget 

request. The Secretary is directed to provide a report to the Com-
100 

mittee no later than December 31, 2015 describing the proposed 

schedule and funding plan for completing the transfer. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $660,190,000 for 

major capital construction projects. 

Project 06–D–141, Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee.—The Committee recommends $430,000,000 to continue 

design and engineering work as well as site readiness and site 

preparation projects for the Uranium Processing Facility. 

The Committee supports efforts to replace existing enriched uranium capabilities currently residing in Building 9212 by 2025 for 

not more than $6,500,000,000. The Committee believes the recommendations from the Red Team are practical and lower cost 

compared to the previous big box, single structure uranium building design. The Committee believes NNSA should continue to ensure full implementation of the Red Team recommendations to 

maximize the use of existing facilities at Y–12 and build smaller, 

more affordable facilities at the appropriate hazard and security 

category, where needed. To accomplish this, NNSA is breaking the 

project into more manageable sub-projects. This practice is specifically permitted by DOE Order 413.3B, and is a practical approach 

for this project. The Committee expects the Secretary to ensure full 

compliance with the Department’s requirement to have a design 

that is at least 90 percent complete before approving the start of 

construction for the nuclear facilities. As such, the Committee specifically authorizes site preparation and other construction activities prior to completion of any required independent cost estimate 

for the project. 

Project 04–D–125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building 

Replacement Project, Los Alamos, New Mexico.—The Committee 

recommends $155,610,000 to maximize the use of the newly constructed Radiological Laboratory Utility Office Building [RLUOB] 

and reuse laboratory space in PF–4 to transition plutonium capabilities out of the aging Chemistry and Metallurgy Research [CMR] 

building by 2019. Within these funds, the Committee recommends 

organizing this work as sub-projects under the existing CMRR line 

item project. The Committee recommends $117,000,000 for the 

RLUOB Equipment Installation Phase 2 sub-project, which transfers most analytical chemistry capabilities from CMR to RLUOB, 

and $38,610,000 for the PF–4 Equipment Installation sub-project 

which transfers material characterization and remaining analytical 

chemistry capabilities out of CMR to PF–4. 

Secure Transportation Asset.—The Committee recommends 

$219,000,000 for Secure Transportation Asset [STA]. The budget 

request proposes a nearly 15 percent increase in funding for STA, 

but does not provide adequate justification for the increase. In addition, the recapitalization of STA equipment is projected to cost 

more than originally thought. The Secretary should ensure cost estimating and analysis of alternatives best practices are incorporated into STA program planning before the procurement plan is 

finalized. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY

The Committee recommends $657,891,000 for Defense Nuclear 

Security. 
101 

The recommendation provides additional funding above the budget request to meet shortfalls anticipated for the protective forces at 

Y–12 and other NNSA sites, and the need to replace vital security 

infrastructure. The Committee is concerned that NNSA has been 

overly aggressive in forecasting savings from the new contract 

structure at Y–12 and Pantex, and has not budgeted for a sufficient 

protective force to support production work required in the life extension programs. The Committee directs the Secretary to submit 

a report on the processes NNSA follows to coordinate across the 

various NNSA departments to ensure assumptions used in budget 

estimating for support functions, such as security, are synchronized 

with the primary missions of the site. 

The Committee is concerned that the NNSA terminated the Y– 

12 Security Improvements Project without completing the full scope 

of work planned. The budget request also defers improvements that 

are needed at the Pantex Plant. The Secretary is encouraged to ensure that these investments are prioritized and appropriately funded in future budget requests. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $1,616,638,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,940,302,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,907,606,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,705,912,000 

The Committee recommends $1,705,912,000 for Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation, a decrease of $234,390,000 from the budget request. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Global Material Security.—The Committee recommends 

$426,751,000 for Global Material Security to increase the security 

of vulnerable stockpiles of nuclear weapons, weapons-usable nuclear materials, and radiological materials and to improve partner 

countries’ abilities to deter, detect, and interdict illicit trafficking. 

To ensure vital core capabilities in this area are maintained, it is 

imperative that the U.S. Government retain requisite expertise in 

uranium science and engineering, with appropriate infrastructure 

(laboratories, small-scale processing capability, and equipment), 

and resources to support nonproliferation and counter-proliferation 

efforts. 

Of the amount provided, not less than $30,000,000 is for a Uranium Science Institute for capacity building to both preserve and 

advance uranium science and engineering expertise and technology 

for national security and nonproliferation initiatives. These efforts 

will include research and development activities that improve and 

enhance knowledge of uranium enrichment and processing, while 

establishing and maintaining a core of personnel, laboratories, and 

equipment that can address current and future U.S. Government 

needs. 

Material Management and Minimization.—The Committee recommends $311,584,000 for Material Management and Minimization. Within these funds, the Committee recommends $109,000,000 

for Nuclear Material Removal. The removal of U.S. and Russian origin HEU and LEU is an important mission, but budget request 
102 

proposes a greater than 65 percent increase without sufficient justification. Also within these funds, the Committee recommends 

$120,000,000 for HEU Reactor Conversion. The Committee believes 

permanently eliminating supplies of HEU around the world significantly reduces the threat of nuclear terrorism. The Navy is the 

largest consumer of HEU for power generation. Within the funds 

provided for HEU Reactor Conversion, not less than $5,000,000 

shall be used to start a technical program managed by Naval Reactors to develop and qualify an LEU fuel system for naval cores. 

Moly–99.—The Committee remains concerned about the development of domestic supplies of the medical isotope Moly–99 on a 

schedule necessary to assure the public health and meet the expectations set forth in the Committee’s fiscal year 2015 report. Further, NNSA’s efforts to develop a domestic source of Moly–99 from 

other than high-enriched uranium should include, but not be limited to, low-enriched uranium and natural molybdenum. The Committee directs NNSA to submit a report to the Appropriations Committees by January 31, 2016 on ways it plans to assure the deployment of two or more domestic sources of Moly–99 into commercial 

distribution by January 1, 2019 or sooner. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development.— 

The Committee recommends $419,333,000 for Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation Research and Development, an increase of 

$25,932,000 from the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The Committee 

supports a robust research and development capability to support 

nonproliferation initiatives. 

Nonproliferation Construction.—The Committee recommends 

$345,000,000 and adopts the budget request for the Mixed Oxide 

Fuel Fabrication Facility [MFFF]. The Committee directs the Secretary to form a Red Team, similar to the UPF Red Team, to review the project and make recommendations. The Red Team review 

should be completed in sufficient time to inform the fiscal year 

2017 budget request. 

Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response.—The Committee funds Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response 

within the Weapons Activities account, and accordingly recommends no appropriation under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. 

Legacy Contractor Pensions.—The Committee recommends 

$94,617,000 for legacy contractor defined benefit pension plans. 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $1,234,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,375,496,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,322,820,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,300,000,000 

The Committee recommends $1,300,000,000 for Naval Reactors, 

a decrease of $75,496,000 from the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation fully funds important national priorities, including the Ohio-class replacement submarine design and the prototype refueling. The Committee also recommends full funding for 

Naval Reactors Operations and Infrastructure, recognizing the importance of safe operations of the prototype reactors in New York 
103 

and the spent fuel facility in Idaho, while properly maintaining 

overall infrastructure and facilities at four sites. 

OHIO-CLASS REPLACEMENT REACTOR SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $186,800,000 for Ohio-Class Replacement Reactor Systems Development. 

NAVAL REACTORS DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $430,400,000 for Naval Reactors Development. 

Advanced Test Reactor.—The Committee encourages Naval Reactors and the Office of Nuclear Energy to continue working with the 

Idaho National Laboratory to establish and request adequate funding in future budget requests to ensure the continued reliable, safe 

operation of the Advanced Test Reactor, a vital and unique research facility. The Committee recommends $67,200,000 for ATR 

operation. 

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee recommends $62,100,000 for Construction. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $48,000,000 for the 

Spent Fuel Handling Facility in Idaho and $3,100,000 for the Engine Room Team Trainer. The requirements set forth in 50 U.S.C. 

2406 make the Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors, within 

the Department of Energy, responsible for training conducted at 

the prototype reactors, including training and qualification of personnel who supervise, operate, or maintain naval nuclear propulsion plants. For this reason, and because this is a capital project 

required for that mission at a NNSA site, this project should continue to be funded through the Naval Reactors account within the 

NNSA. 

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends $42,504,000 for Program Direction. 

The Committee recommendation does not approve the requested increase in FTEs, and restricts manning to 238 FTEs. 

FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $370,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 402,654,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 388,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 375,000,000 

The Committee recommends $375,000,000, a decrease of 

$27,654,000 from the budget request. Within these funds, the Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Office of Cost Estimating 

and Program Evaluation and $972,000 for improved financial systems integration within the Department in accordance with the 

2014 National Defense Authorization Act, section 3112. The Committee supports efforts to gain consistency in accounting across the 

Nuclear Security Enterprise so meaningful comparisons and analysis can be conducted, and management can focus its effort on the 

appropriate areas. The Committee urges the Secretary to complete 
104 

the report required in section 3112, which was due in December 

2014. 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $5,000,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 5,055,550,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,055,550,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,180,000,000 

The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental 

Cleanup is $5,180,000,000, an increase of $124,450,000 from the 

budget request. Within available funds, the Department is directed 

to fund the Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program. 

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

The Committee is concerned that the Department is not addressing the backlog of deferred maintenance across the complex. Despite the stated goal of improving the facility maintenance activities and reinvestment projects to arrest growth in deferred maintenance, it is unclear how the Department intends to accomplish this 

goal, or measure its progress. The Secretary is directed to submit, 

as part of its annual budget request starting with the fiscal year 

2017 request, a prioritized list of the deferred maintenance it intends to accomplish in each of the next 5 years, including the rationale for the prioritization and the planned cost for each item. 

Further, the Committee expects the Secretary to request adequate 

funding to complete the maintenance consistent with its plan. 

Closure Sites.—The Committee recommends $4,889,000 for Closure Sites activities. 

Richland.—As a signatory to the Tri-Party Agreement, the Department of Energy is required to meet specific compliance milestones toward the cleanup of the Hanford site. Among other things, 

the Department committed to provide the funding necessary to enable full compliance with its cleanup milestones. Unfortunately, if 

the Department’s fiscal year 2016 budget request were enacted, 

several future fiscal year Tri-Party Agreement milestones could be 

at risk, threatening high risk cleanup projects near the city of Richland, Washington and the economically and environmentally important Columbia River. The Committee recognizes that significant 

progress has been made at the Hanford Site. However, because the 

Department’s budget request could slow or halt critical cleanup 

work and threaten the Department’s compliance with its legal obligations under the Tri-Party Agreement, the Committee recommends $922,590,000 for Richland Operations. Additional funding is provided for cleanup of the 300–296 waste site, continued remediation of the 618–10 burial ground, and community and regulatory support. Within available funds in the River Corridor control 

point, the Department is directed to carry out maintenance and 

public safety efforts at the B Reactor, the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, and the Hazardous Materials Management 

and Emergency Response facilities. 

NNSA Sites.—The Committee recommends $254,876,000 for 

NNSA sites. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommends 

$223,050,000 for Oak Ridge Reservation. Within the funds avail-
105 

able for Nuclear Facility D&D, the Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 to support compliance and design life extension 

of Waste Treatment Facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

and $7,000,000 to support planning and preparation for a new 

landfill for the Oak Ridge Reservation. The existing on-site disposal 

facility is expected to reach capacity before all cleanup activities 

are completed. Planning for a new landfill is necessary to ensure 

that there is no interruption of cleanup activities. 

U–233 Disposition Program.—The Committee recommends 

$35,895,000 for the cleanup of Building 3019. Removal of legacy 

material from this building, an aging facility in the heart of the 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory central campus, must remain a 

high priority for the Department. Timely completion of this effort 

will enable the overall security posture at the laboratory to be relaxed, which will reduce costs and eliminate nuclear safety issues, 

and make campus more conducive to collaborative science. 

Mercury Treatment Facility.—The Committee recommends 

$9,400,000 for the Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility, an increase of $2,600,000 from the budget request. Remediation of mercury contamination at the Oak Ridge Reservation is an important 

precursor to full site remediation. Reducing the mercury being released into the East Fork of Poplar Creek is a high priority for the 

Environmental Management program. Given the significant risk to 

public health, the Committee urges the Department to continue to 

pursue efforts to prevent mercury from escaping into the environment. 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommends 

$1,414,000,000 for the Office of River Protection. 

The Committee is supportive of the Department’s efforts at technology development efforts to reduce the overall volume of radioactive wastes needing treatment and disposal. Preliminary work on 

technologies capable of removing the salts from the low-activity 

tank waste streams has been undertaken. Within available funds, 

the Department is directed to complete this effort by conducting 

system conceptual design and cost estimate activities in order to 

gain a deeper understanding of its potential within recent waste 

treatment system changes. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommends 

$1,208,421,000 for the Savannah River site. Within the funds provided, $3,000,000 is provided for disposition of spent fuel from the 

High Flux Isotope Reactor. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.—The Committee recommends 

$243,318,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to take all appropriate 

actions to reopen the facility on schedule and demonstrate the ability operate in a safe manner. Worker safety must continue to be 

a priority for the Department and its contractors. The Committee 

is disappointed with the lack of a detailed budget to adequately explain and justify the recovery work and ensure that the recovery 

is not delayed by funding issues. The Committee requests that the 

Department develop and maintain a detailed budget of the WIPP 

recovery plan and provide it to the Committee on a semi-annual 

basis to account for work and needed projects. 
106 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $463,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 471,797,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 471,797,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 614,000,000 

The Committee recommends $614,000,000 to fully offset the fiscal year 2016 appropriation for the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning account. The Committee recommendation does not include authorization of a legislative proposal to reinstate a tax on nuclear utilities. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $754,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 774,425,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 767,570,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 764,000,000 

The Committee recommends $764,000,000 for Other Defense Activities, a decrease of $10,425,000 from the budget request. Within 

the funds provided, the Committee recommends $215,000,000 for 

Specialized Security Activities. 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION FUND

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The bill approves expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund for the Shoshone Paiute Trout Hatchery, the 

Spokane Tribal Hatchery, the Snake River Sockeye Weirs. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $0 for the 

Southeastern Power Administration. Appropriations of $6,900,000 

are fully offset by collections. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $11,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 11,400,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 11,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,400,000 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $11,400,000 

for the Southwestern Power Administration. 
107 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $93,372,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 93,372,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 93,372,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 93,372,000 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $93,372,000 

for the Western Area Power Administration. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $228,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 228,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 228,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 228,000 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $228,000 for 

the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $304,389,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 319,800,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 319,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 319,800,000 

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ¥$304,389,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... ¥319,800,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥319,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥319,800,000 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $0 for the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 
108 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

Sustainable Transportation: 

Vehicle technologies ...................................................................................... 280,000 444,000 255,400 292,000 ∂12,000 ¥152,000 ∂36,600 Bioenergy technologies .................................................................................. 225,000 246,000 165,300 225,000 .......................... ¥21,000 ∂59,700 Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies ............................................................ 97,000 103,000 94,083 97,000 .......................... ¥6,000 ∂2,917 

Subtotal, Sustainable Transportation ....................................................... 602,000 793,000 514,783 614,000 ∂12,000 ¥179,000 ∂99,217 

Renewable Energy: 

Solar energy .................................................................................................. 233,000 336,700 151,600 241,600 ∂8,600 ¥95,100 ∂90,000 Wind energy ................................................................................................... 107,000 145,500 90,450 46,000 ¥61,000 ¥99,500 ¥44,450 Water power .................................................................................................. 61,000 67,000 38,700 65,000 ∂4,000 ¥2,000 ∂26,300 Geothermal technologies ............................................................................... 55,000 96,000 46,000 71,000 ∂16,000 ¥25,000 ∂25,000 

Subtotal, Renewable Energy ..................................................................... 456,000 645,200 326,750 423,600 ¥32,400 ¥221,600 ∂96,850 

Energy Efficiency: 

Advanced manufacturing .............................................................................. 200,000 404,000 205,000 214,000 ∂14,000 ¥190,000 ∂9,000 Building technologies .................................................................................... 172,000 264,000 150,362 178,000 ∂6,000 ¥86,000 ∂27,638 Federal energy management program .......................................................... 27,000 43,088 18,800 27,000 .......................... ¥16,088 ∂8,200 Weatherization and intergovernmental: 

Weatherization: 

Weatherization assistance program ............................................ 190,000 223,999 190,000 197,000 ∂7,000 ¥26,999 ∂7,000 Training and technical assistance ............................................. 3,000 4,000 3,000 3,000 .......................... ¥1,000 ..........................NREL Site-Wide Facility Support ................................................. .......................... 400 400 400 ∂400 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Weatherization ......................................................... 193,000 228,399 193,400 200,400 ∂7,400 ¥27,999 ∂7,000 

State energy program grants ........................................................................ 50,000 70,100 50,000 50,000 .......................... ¥20,100 ..........................Local technical assistance program ............................................................. .......................... 20,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥20,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Weatherization and intergovernmental program ...................... 243,000 318,499 243,400 250,400 ∂7,400 ¥68,099 ∂7,000 
109 

Subtotal, Energy Efficiency ....................................................................... 642,000 1,029,587 617,562 669,400 ∂27,400 ¥360,187 ∂51,838 

Corporate Support: 

Facilities and infrastructure: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] ................................... 56,000 62,000 56,000 62,000 ∂6,000 .......................... ∂6,000 

Program direction .......................................................................................... 160,000 165,330 150,000 160,000 .......................... ¥5,330 ∂10,000 Strategic programs ....................................................................................... 21,000 27,870 12,000 21,000 .......................... ¥6,870 ∂9,000 

Subtotal, Corporate Support ..................................................................... 237,000 255,200 218,000 243,000 ∂6,000 ¥12,200 ∂25,000 Subtotal, Energy efficiency and renewable energy .................................. 1,937,000 2,722,987 1,677,095 1,950,000 ∂13,000 ¥772,987 ∂272,905 

Use of Prior Year Balances .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥19,321 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂19,321 Rescissions ............................................................................................................. ¥13,065 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂13,065 .......................... ..........................Floor amendments .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 11,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥11,000 

TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ........................... 1,923,935 2,722,987 1,668,774 1,950,000 ∂26,065 ¥772,987 ∂281,226 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY 

Research and development: 

Clean energy transmission and reliability .................................................... 34,262 40,000 31,000 31,000 ¥3,262 ¥9,000 ..........................Smart grid research and development ......................................................... 15,439 30,000 30,000 15,307 ¥132 ¥14,693 ¥14,693 Cyber security for energy delivery systems .................................................. 45,999 52,000 54,500 45,999 .......................... ¥6,001 ¥8,501 Energy storage .............................................................................................. 12,000 21,000 15,000 16,000 ∂4,000 ¥5,000 ∂1,000 Transformer resilience and advanced components ...................................... .......................... 10,000 10,000 5,000 ∂5,000 ¥5,000 ¥5,000 

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 107,700 153,000 140,500 113,306 ∂5,606 ¥39,694 ¥27,194 

National electricity delivery .................................................................................... 6,000 7,500 6,000 6,000 .......................... ¥1,500 ..........................Infrastructure security and energy restoration ...................................................... 6,000 14,000 14,000 6,000 .......................... ¥8,000 ¥8,000 State energy reliability and assurance .................................................................. .......................... 63,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥63,000 ..........................Program direction ................................................................................................... 27,606 32,600 27,000 27,000 ¥606 ¥5,600 ..........................

Subtotal, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ................................ 147,306 270,100 187,500 152,306 ∂5,000 ¥117,794 ¥35,194 TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY ...................... 147,306 270,100 187,500 152,306 ∂5,000 ¥117,794 ¥35,194 

NUCLEAR ENERGY 

Research and development: 

Integrated university program ...................................................................... 5,000 .......................... 5,000 5,000 .......................... ∂5,000 ..........................STEP R&D ...................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................
110 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Small modular reactor licensing technical support ..................................... 54,500 62,500 62,500 62,500 ∂8,000 .......................... ..........................Nuclear energy enabling technologies .......................................................... 101,000 86,387 111,600 101,000 .......................... ∂14,613 ¥10,600 Reactor concepts RD&D ................................................................................ 133,000 108,140 141,718 117,874 ¥15,126 ∂9,734 ¥23,844 Fuel cycle research and development .......................................................... 197,000 217,760 175,800 217,000 ∂20,000 ¥760 ∂41,200 International nuclear energy cooperation ..................................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 498,500 482,787 504,618 511,374 ∂12,874 ∂28,587 ∂6,756 

Infrastructure: 

Radiological facilities management: 

Space and defense infrastructure ....................................................... 20,000 .......................... .......................... 14,000 ¥6,000 ∂14,000 ∂14,000 Research reactor infrastructure ........................................................... 5,000 6,800 6,800 6,800 ∂1,800 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 25,000 6,800 6,800 20,800 ¥4,200 ∂14,000 ∂14,000 

INL facilities management: 

INL operations and infrastructure ....................................................... 200,631 209,826 216,582 209,826 ∂9,195 .......................... ¥6,756 Construction: 

16–E–200 Sample preparation laboratory ................................. .......................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 ∂2,000 .......................... ..........................13–D–905 Remote-handled low level waste disposal project, 

INL ........................................................................................... 5,369 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,369 .......................... ..........................Subtotal, Construction ............................................................ 5,369 2,000 2,000 2,000 ¥3,369 .......................... ..........................Subtotal, INL facilities management ..................................... 206,000 211,826 218,582 211,826 ∂5,826 .......................... ¥6,756 Subtotal, Infrastructure .......................................................... 231,000 218,626 225,382 232,626 ∂1,626 ∂14,000 ∂7,244 

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ............................................................... 104,000 126,161 126,161 126,161 ∂22,161 .......................... ..........................Program direction ................................................................................................... 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Nuclear Energy .......................................................................... 913,500 907,574 936,161 950,161 ∂36,661 ∂42,587 ∂14,000 

Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥80,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂80,000 .......................... ..........................
111 

TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY ......................................................................... 833,500 907,574 936,161 950,161 ∂116,661 ∂42,587 ∂14,000 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

Coal CCS and power systems: 

Carbon capture ............................................................................................. 88,000 116,631 97,800 88,000 .......................... ¥28,631 ¥9,800 Carbon storage .............................................................................................. 100,000 108,768 104,000 99,000 ¥1,000 ¥9,768 ¥5,000 Advanced energy systems ............................................................................. 103,000 39,385 105,000 103,000 .......................... ∂63,615 ¥2,000 Cross cutting research .................................................................................. 49,000 51,242 52,100 49,000 .......................... ¥2,242 ¥3,100 NETL coal research and development .......................................................... 50,000 34,031 50,000 53,000 ∂3,000 ∂18,969 ∂3,000 STEP (Supercritical CO2) .............................................................................. 10,000 19,300 15,000 10,000 .......................... ¥9,300 ¥5,000 

Subtotal, CCS and power systems ........................................................... 400,000 369,357 423,900 402,000 ∂2,000 ∂32,643 ¥21,900 

Natural Gas Technologies: 

CCS demonstrations: 

Natural gas carbon capture and storage ............................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Research ............................................................................................... 25,121 44,000 21,200 43,000 ∂17,879 ¥1,000 ∂21,800 

Subtotal, Natural Gas Technologies ................................................ 25,121 44,000 21,200 43,000 ∂17,879 ¥1,000 ∂21,800 

Unconventional fossil energy technologies from petroleum—oil technologies .... 4,500 .......................... 13,000 25,321 ∂20,821 ∂25,321 ∂12,321 Program direction ................................................................................................... 119,000 114,202 120,000 115,000 ¥4,000 ∂798 ¥5,000 Plant and capital equipment ................................................................................. 15,782 18,044 18,003 15,782 .......................... ¥2,262 ¥2,221 Fossil energy environmental restoration ................................................................ 5,897 8,197 8,197 8,197 ∂2,300 .......................... ..........................Super computer ...................................................................................................... .......................... 5,500 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,500 ..........................Special recruitment programs ............................................................................... 700 700 700 700 .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT .......................... 571,000 560,000 605,000 610,000 ∂39,000 ∂50,000 ∂5,000 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES ..................................................... 19,950 17,500 17,500 17,500 ¥2,450 .......................... ..........................ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND ........................................................................... 15,580 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥15,580 .......................... ..........................STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE ......................................................................... 200,000 257,000 212,030 200,000 .......................... ¥57,000 ¥12,030 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE ............................................................ 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 .......................... .......................... ..........................Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥6,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂6,000 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE ................................... 1,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 ∂6,000 .......................... ..........................

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION ............................................................... 117,000 131,000 117,000 122,000 ∂5,000 ¥9,000 ∂5,000 
112 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA) ...................................................................... 2,562 2,562 2,562 2,562 .......................... .......................... ..........................Gaseous Diffusion Plants ....................................................................................... 104,403 104,403 104,403 104,403 .......................... .......................... ..........................Small sites ............................................................................................................. 80,049 54,007 61,715 77,822 ¥2,227 ∂23,815 ∂16,107 West Valley Demonstration Project ........................................................................ 58,986 59,213 59,213 59,213 ∂227 .......................... ..........................Construction: 

Mercury storage facility ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,300 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,300 

TOTAL, NON–DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP .................................. 246,000 220,185 229,193 244,000 ¥2,000 ∂23,815 ∂14,807 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION 

AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND 

Oak Ridge ............................................................................................................... 167,898 154,235 163,946 194,673 ∂26,775 ∂40,438 ∂30,727 Paducah: 

Nuclear facility D&D, Paducah ..................................................................... 198,729 167,456 192,456 198,729 .......................... ∂31,273 ∂6,273 Construction: 

15–U–407 On-site waste disposal facility, Paducah ......................... 8,486 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥8,486 .......................... ..........................16–U–401 Solid waste management units 5&6 ................................. .......................... 1,196 1,196 1,196 ∂1,196 .......................... ..........................

Total, Paducah ................................................................................. 207,215 168,652 193,652 199,925 ¥7,290 ∂31,273 ∂6,273 

Portsmouth: 

Nuclear facility D&D, Portsmouth ................................................................. 209,524 131,117 156,117 131,117 ¥78,407 .......................... ¥25,000 Construction: 

15–U–408 On-site waste disposal facility, Portsmouth ..................... 4,500 34,300 57,300 34,300 ∂29,800 .......................... ¥23,000 

Total, Portsmouth ............................................................................ 214,024 165,417 213,417 165,417 ¥48,607 .......................... ¥48,000 

Pension and community and regulatory support .................................................. 25,863 21,026 21,026 21,026 ¥4,837 .......................... ..........................Title X uranium/thorium reimbursement program ................................................. 10,000 32,959 32,959 32,959 ∂22,959 .......................... ..........................
113 

TOTAL, UED&D FUND ................................................................................ 625,000 542,289 625,000 614,000 ¥11,000 ∂71,711 ¥11,000 

SCIENCE 

Advanced scientific computing research ............................................................... 541,000 620,994 537,539 620,994 ∂79,994 .......................... ∂83,455 Basic energy sciences: 

Research ........................................................................................................ 1,594,500 1,649,000 1,578,440 1,644,000 ∂49,500 ¥5,000 ∂65,560 Construction: 

13–SC–10 LINAC coherent light source II, SLAC ................................ 138,700 200,300 191,866 200,300 ∂61,600 .......................... ∂8,434 

Subtotal, Construction ..................................................................... 138,700 200,300 191,866 200,300 ∂61,600 .......................... ∂8,434 Subtotal, Basic energy sciences ..................................................... 1,733,200 1,849,300 1,770,306 1,844,300 ∂111,100 ¥5,000 ∂73,994 

Biological and environmental research ................................................................. 592,000 612,400 538,000 610,000 ∂18,000 ¥2,400 ∂72,000 Fusion energy sciences: 

Research ........................................................................................................ 317,500 270,000 317,600 270,168 ¥47,332 ∂168 ¥47,432 Construction: 

14–SC–60 ITER .................................................................................... 150,000 150,000 150,000 .......................... ¥150,000 ¥150,000 ¥150,000 

Subtotal, Fusion energy sciences .................................................... 467,500 420,000 467,600 270,168 ¥197,332 ¥149,832 ¥197,432 

High energy physics: 

Research ........................................................................................................ 729,000 731,900 717,900 722,000 ¥7,000 ¥9,900 ∂4,100 Construction: 

11–SC–40 Project engineering and design [PED] long baseline neutrino experiment, FNAL .................................................................... 12,000 16,000 18,000 26,000 ∂14,000 ∂10,000 ∂8,000 11–SC–41 Muon to electron conversion experiment, FNAL ................. 25,000 40,100 40,100 40,100 ∂15,100 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ..................................................................... 37,000 56,100 58,100 66,100 ∂29,100 ∂10,000 ∂8,000 Subtotal, High energy physics ......................................................... 766,000 788,000 776,000 788,100 ∂22,100 ∂100 ∂12,100 

Nuclear physics: 

Operations and maintenance ........................................................................ 489,000 517,100 510,665 489,000 .......................... ¥28,100 ¥21,665 Construction: 

14–SC–50 Facility for rare isotope beams, Michigan State University ................................................................................................... 90,000 100,000 98,000 95,000 ∂5,000 ¥5,000 ¥3,000 06–SC–01 12 GeV continuous electron beam facility upgrade, TJNAF 16,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 ¥9,000 .......................... ..........................
114 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Subtotal, Construction ..................................................................... 106,500 107,500 105,500 102,500 ¥4,000 ¥5,000 ¥3,000 Subtotal, Nuclear physics ................................................................ 595,500 624,600 616,165 591,500 ¥4,000 ¥33,100 ¥24,665 

Workforce development for teachers and scientists ............................................. 19,500 20,500 20,500 19,500 .......................... ¥1,000 ¥1,000 Science laboratories infrastructure: 

Infrastructure support: 

Payment in lieu of taxes ...................................................................... 1,713 1,713 1,713 1,713 .......................... .......................... ..........................Oak Ridge landlord .............................................................................. 5,777 .......................... 6,177 6,177 ∂400 ∂6,177 ..........................Facilities and infrastructure ................................................................ 6,100 30,977 10,000 24,800 ∂18,700 ¥6,177 ∂14,800 Oak Ridge nuclear operations ............................................................. .......................... 12,000 12,000 12,000 ∂12,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 13,590 44,690 29,890 44,690 ∂31,100 .......................... ∂14,800 

Construction: 

15–SC–78 Integrative genomics building, LBNL ................................ 12,090 20,000 16,000 20,000 ∂7,910 .......................... ∂4,000 15–SC–77 Photon science laboratory building, SLAC ......................... 10,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 ∂15,000 .......................... ..........................15–SC–76 Materials design laboratory, ANL ...................................... 7,000 23,910 19,000 23,910 ∂16,910 .......................... ∂4,910 15–SC–75 Infrastructure and operational improvements, PPPL ........ 25,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥25,000 .......................... ..........................12–SC–70 Science and user support building, SLAC ......................... 11,920 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥11,920 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 66,010 68,910 60,000 68,910 ∂2,900 .......................... ∂8,910 Subtotal, Science laboratories infrastructure ................................. 79,600 113,600 89,890 113,600 ∂34,000 .......................... ∂23,710 

Safeguards and security ........................................................................................ 93,000 103,000 103,000 100,715 ∂7,715 ¥2,285 ¥2,285 Science program direction ..................................................................................... 183,700 187,400 181,000 185,000 ∂1,300 ¥2,400 ∂4,000 

Subtotal, Science ...................................................................................... 5,071,000 5,339,794 5,100,000 5,143,877 ∂72,877 ¥195,917 ∂43,877 TOTAL, SCIENCE ........................................................................................ 5,071,000 5,339,794 5,100,000 5,143,877 ∂72,877 ¥195,917 ∂43,877 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 150,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥150,000 
115 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY 

ARPA–E projects ..................................................................................................... 252,000 295,750 252,000 263,000 ∂11,000 ¥32,750 ∂11,000 Program direction ................................................................................................... 28,000 29,250 28,000 28,000 .......................... ¥1,250 ..........................

TOTAL, ARPA–E ......................................................................................... 280,000 325,000 280,000 291,000 ∂11,000 ¥34,000 ∂11,000 

INDIAN ENERGY PROGRAMS 

Program direction .......................................................................................... .......................... 3,510 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,510 ..........................Tribal energy program ................................................................................... .......................... 16,490 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥16,490 ..........................

TOTAL, INDIAN ENERGY PROGRAMS ......................................................... .......................... 20,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥20,000 ..........................

TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PGM 

Administrative expenses ........................................................................................ 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................Offsetting collection ............................................................................................... ¥25,000 ¥25,000 ¥25,000 ¥25,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM .................................................................................................... 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

TRIBAL INDIAN ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM 

Loan guarantee credit subsidy costs ........................................................... .......................... 9,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥9,000 ..........................Administrative operations ............................................................................. .......................... 2,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,000 ..........................

TOTAL, TRIBAL INDIAN ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ................. .......................... 11,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥11,000 ..........................

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PGM 

Administrative expenses ........................................................................................ 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 ∂2,000 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLESMANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM .................................................................................................... 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 ∂2,000 .......................... ..........................

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY (RESCISSION) .............................................................. ¥6,600 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂6,600 .......................... ..........................

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION 

Administrative operations: 

Salaries and expenses: 

Office of the Secretary: 

Program direction ........................................................................ 5,008 5,300 5,008 5,008 .......................... ¥292 ..........................
116 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Chief Financial Officer ................................................................ 47,000 50,182 47,000 47,000 .......................... ¥3,182 ..........................Management ................................................................................ 62,946 76,227 64,598 62,946 .......................... ¥13,281 ¥1,652 Chief human capital officer ....................................................... 24,500 25,400 24,500 24,500 .......................... ¥900 ..........................Chief Information Officer ............................................................ 33,188 30,988 30,988 30,988 ¥2,200 .......................... ..........................Office of Indian energy policy and programs ............................. 16,000 .......................... 16,000 16,000 .......................... ∂16,000 ..........................Congressional and intergovernmental affairs ............................ 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 .......................... .......................... ..........................Office Of Small and disadvantaged business utilization .......... 2,253 3,000 3,000 3,000 ∂747 .......................... ..........................Economic impact and diversity .................................................. 6,200 10,000 10,000 10,000 ∂3,800 .......................... ..........................General Counsel .......................................................................... 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................Energy policy and systems analysis ........................................... 31,181 35,000 31,297 31,297 ∂116 ¥3,703 ..........................International Affairs .................................................................... 13,000 23,600 13,000 18,000 ∂5,000 ¥5,600 ∂5,000 Public affairs .............................................................................. 3,431 3,431 3,431 3,431 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ..................................................... 284,007 302,428 288,122 291,470 ∂7,463 ¥10,958 ∂3,348 

Program support: 

Economic impact and diversity ........................................................... 2,800 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,800 .......................... ..........................Policy analysis and system studies ..................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Environmental policy studies ............................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Climate change technology program (prog. supp) .............................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Cybersecurity and secure communications ......................................... 21,364 21,006 21,006 21,006 ¥358 .......................... ..........................Corporate IT program support (CIO) .................................................... 19,612 27,806 20,850 20,224 ∂612 ¥7,582 ¥626 

Subtotal, Program support .............................................................. 43,776 48,812 41,856 41,230 ¥2,546 ¥7,582 ¥626 Subtotal, Administrative operations ................................................ 327,783 351,240 329,978 332,700 ∂4,917 ¥18,540 ∂2,722 

Strategic partnership projects (SPP) ............................................................ 42,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 ¥2,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Departmental administration .................................................... 369,783 391,240 369,978 372,700 ∂2,917 ¥18,540 ∂2,722 

Use of prior-year balances .................................................................................... ¥5,805 ¥2,000 .......................... ¥2,000 ∂3,805 .......................... ¥2,000 Digital service team—CIO ..................................................................................... .......................... 4,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥4,000 ..........................Funding from other defense activities .................................................................. ¥118,836 ¥122,558 ¥122,558 ¥122,558 ¥3,722 .......................... ..........................
117 

Total, Departmental administration (gross) ............................................. 245,142 270,682 247,420 248,142 ∂3,000 ¥22,540 ∂722 

Miscellaneous revenues ......................................................................................... ¥119,171 ¥117,171 ¥117,171 ¥117,171 ∂2,000 .......................... ..........................Floor amendments .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥56,220 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂56,220 

TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net) ........................................ 125,971 153,511 74,029 130,971 ∂5,000 ¥22,540 ∂56,942 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Office of the inspector general .............................................................................. 40,500 46,424 46,000 46,424 ∂5,924 .......................... ∂424 Floor amendments .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 424 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥424 

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .......................................... 40,500 46,424 46,424 46,424 ∂5,924 .......................... ..........................TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS ...................................................................... 10,232,742 11,554,964 10,279,211 10,502,839 ∂270,097 ¥1,052,125 ∂223,628 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES 

Directed stockpile work: 

B61 Life extension program .......................................................................... 643,000 643,300 643,300 643,300 ∂300 .......................... ..........................W76 Life extension program ......................................................................... 259,168 244,019 244,019 244,019 ¥15,149 .......................... ..........................W88 Life extension program ......................................................................... 165,400 220,176 220,176 220,176 ∂54,776 .......................... ..........................Cruise missile warhead life extension study ................................................ 9,418 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥9,418 .......................... ..........................W80–4 Life extension program ..................................................................... .......................... 195,037 195,037 195,037 ∂195,037 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 1,076,986 1,302,532 1,302,532 1,302,532 ∂225,546 .......................... ..........................

Stockpile systems: 

B61 Stockpile systems ......................................................................... 109,615 52,247 52,247 52,247 ¥57,368 .......................... ..........................W76 Stockpile systems ........................................................................ 45,728 50,921 50,921 50,921 ∂5,193 .......................... ..........................W78 Stockpile systems ........................................................................ 62,703 64,092 64,092 64,092 ∂1,389 .......................... ..........................W80 Stockpile systems ........................................................................ 70,610 68,005 68,005 68,005 ¥2,605 .......................... ..........................B83 Stockpile systems ......................................................................... 63,136 42,177 42,177 42,177 ¥20,959 .......................... ..........................W87 Stockpile systems ........................................................................ 91,255 89,299 89,299 89,299 ¥1,956 .......................... ..........................W88 Stockpile systems ........................................................................ 88,060 115,685 115,685 115,685 ∂27,625 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 531,107 482,426 482,426 482,426 ¥48,681 .......................... ..........................

Weapons dismantlement and disposition ..................................................... 50,000 48,049 48,049 52,000 ∂2,000 ∂3,951 ∂3,951 
118 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Stockpile services: 

Production support ............................................................................... 350,942 447,527 447,527 430,000 ∂79,058 ¥17,527 ¥17,527 Research and Development support .................................................... 25,500 34,159 41,059 32,000 ∂6,500 ¥2,159 ¥9,059 R and D certification and safety ......................................................... 160,000 192,613 185,000 170,000 ∂10,000 ¥22,613 ¥15,000 Management, technology, and production ........................................... 226,000 264,994 258,527 226,000 .......................... ¥38,994 ¥32,527 Plutonium sustainment ........................................................................ 132,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥132,000 .......................... ..........................Tritium readiness ................................................................................. 140,053 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥140,053 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 1,034,495 939,293 932,113 858,000 ¥176,495 ¥81,293 ¥74,113 

Strategic materials: 

Uranium sustainment .......................................................................... .......................... 32,916 32,916 32,916 ∂32,916 .......................... ..........................Plutonium sustainment ........................................................................ .......................... 174,698 174,698 157,000 ∂157,000 ¥17,698 ¥17,698 Tritium sustainment ............................................................................. .......................... 107,345 107,345 104,600 ∂104,600 ¥2,745 ¥2,745 Domestic uranium enrichment ............................................................. .......................... 100,000 50,000 50,000 ∂50,000 ¥50,000 ..........................Strategic materials sustainment ......................................................... .......................... .......................... 224,217 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥224,217 

Subtotal ........................................................................................... .......................... 414,959 589,176 344,516 ∂344,516 ¥70,443 ¥244,660 Subtotal, Directed stockpile work .................................................... 2,692,588 3,187,259 3,354,296 3,039,474 ∂346,886 ¥147,785 ¥314,822 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E): 

Science: 

Advanced certification ......................................................................... 58,747 50,714 58,747 50,714 ¥8,033 .......................... ¥8,033 Primary assessment technologies ........................................................ 109,000 98,500 104,100 98,500 ¥10,500 .......................... ¥5,600 Dynamic materials properties .............................................................. 109,000 109,000 100,400 109,000 .......................... .......................... ∂8,600 Advanced radiography .......................................................................... 47,000 47,000 27,000 47,000 .......................... .......................... ∂20,000 Secondary assessment technologies .................................................... 88,344 84,400 72,900 84,400 ¥3,944 .......................... ∂11,500 Academic alliances and partnerships ................................................. .......................... .......................... 49,800 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥49,800 

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 412,091 389,614 412,947 389,614 ¥22,477 .......................... ¥23,333 

Engineering: 

Enhanced surety ................................................................................... 52,003 50,821 50,821 50,821 ¥1,182 .......................... ..........................Weapons system engineering assessment technology ........................ 20,832 17,371 17,371 17,371 ¥3,461 .......................... ..........................
119 

Nuclear survivability ............................................................................ 25,371 24,461 24,461 24,461 ¥910 .......................... ..........................Enhanced surveillance ......................................................................... 37,799 38,724 38,724 38,724 ∂925 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 136,005 131,377 131,377 131,377 ¥4,628 .......................... ..........................

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield: 

Ignition ................................................................................................. 77,994 73,334 76,334 76,334 ¥1,660 ∂3,000 ..........................Support of other stockpile programs ................................................... 23,598 22,843 22,843 22,843 ¥755 .......................... ..........................Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support ............................. 61,297 58,587 58,587 58,587 ¥2,710 .......................... ..........................Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion ........................................... 5,024 4,963 4,963 4,963 ¥61 .......................... ..........................Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas ................. 9,100 8,900 8,900 8,900 ¥200 .......................... ..........................Facility operations and target production ........................................... 335,882 333,823 339,423 339,423 ∂3,541 ∂5,600 ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 512,895 502,450 511,050 511,050 ¥1,845 ∂8,600 ..........................

Advanced simulation and computing ........................................................... 598,000 623,006 605,000 623,006 ∂25,006 .......................... ∂18,006 

Advanced manufacturing development: 

Additive manfacturing .................................................................................. 12,600 .......................... 16,000 .......................... ¥12,600 .......................... ¥16,000 Component manufacturing development ...................................................... 75,000 112,256 80,000 93,448 ∂18,448 ¥18,808 ∂13,448 Process technology development .................................................................. 19,600 17,800 17,800 17,800 ¥1,800 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 107,200 130,056 113,800 111,248 ∂4,048 ¥18,808 ¥2,552 Subtotal, RDT&E ....................................................................................... 1,766,191 1,776,503 1,774,174 1,766,295 ∂104 ¥10,208 ¥7,879 

Infrastructure and Operations (formerly RTBF): 

Operations of facilities: 

Kansas City Plant ................................................................................ 125,000 .......................... 100,250 .......................... ¥125,000 .......................... ¥100,250 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ............................................. 71,000 .......................... 70,671 .......................... ¥71,000 .......................... ¥70,671 Los Alamos National Laboratory .......................................................... 198,000 .......................... 196,460 .......................... ¥198,000 .......................... ¥196,460 Nevada Test Site .................................................................................. 89,000 .......................... 89,000 .......................... ¥89,000 .......................... ¥89,000 Pantex ................................................................................................... 75,000 .......................... 58,021 .......................... ¥75,000 .......................... ¥58,021 Sandia National Laboratory ................................................................. 106,000 .......................... 115,300 .......................... ¥106,000 .......................... ¥115,300 Savannah River Site ............................................................................ 81,000 .......................... 80,463 .......................... ¥81,000 .......................... ¥80,463 Y–12 National Security Complex ......................................................... 151,000 .......................... 120,625 .......................... ¥151,000 .......................... ¥120,625 

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 896,000 .......................... 830,790 .......................... ¥896,000 .......................... ¥830,790 

Program readiness ........................................................................................ 68,000 75,185 .......................... 60,000 ¥8,000 ¥15,185 ∂60,000 Material recycle and recovery ....................................................................... 126,000 173,859 .......................... 160,000 ∂34,000 ¥13,859 ∂160,000 Containers ..................................................................................................... 26,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥26,000 .......................... ..........................Storage .......................................................................................................... 40,800 40,920 .......................... 40,920 ∂120 .......................... ∂40,920 
120 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Safety and environmental operations ........................................................... .......................... .......................... 107,701 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥107,701 

Maintenance and repair of facilities: 

Maintenance and repair of facilities ............................................................ 227,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥227,000 .......................... ..........................Site maintenance .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 252,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥252,000 High-risk excess facilities ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 25,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥25,000 

Subtotal, Maintenance and repair of facilities ........................................ 227,000 .......................... 277,000 .......................... ¥227,000 .......................... ¥277,000 

Recapitalization: 

Recapitalization ............................................................................................. 224,600 104,327 .......................... 100,000 ¥124,600 ¥4,327 ∂100,000 Infrastructure and safety .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 253,724 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥253,724 Capability based investments ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 98,800 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥98,800 

Subtotal, Recapitalization ........................................................................ 224,600 104,327 352,524 100,000 ¥124,600 ¥4,327 ¥252,524 

Construction: 

16–D–140 Project engineering and design, various locations ........... .......................... .......................... 34,103 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥34,103 16–D–621 TA–3 Substation replacement, LANL ................................. .......................... .......................... 25,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥25,000 15–D–613 Emergency Operations Center, Y–12 ................................. 2,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,000 .......................... ..........................15–D–301 HE Science & Engineering Facility, PX .............................. 11,800 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥11,800 .......................... ..........................15–D–302 TA–55 Reinvestment project III, LANL ............................... 16,062 18,195 .......................... 18,195 ∂2,133 .......................... ∂18,195 12–D–301 TRU waste facility project, LANL ....................................... 6,938 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥6,938 .......................... ..........................11–D–801 TA–55 Reinvestment project II, LANL ................................ 10,000 3,903 3,903 3,903 ¥6,097 .......................... ..........................07–D–220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility, LANL ............ .......................... 11,533 11,533 11,533 ∂11,533 .......................... ..........................07–O–220–04 Transuranic liquid waste facility, LANL ...................... 7,500 40,949 .......................... 40,949 ∂33,449 .......................... ∂40,949 

Uranium processing facility (UPF): 

06–D–141 Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12 ................................... 335,000 430,000 .......................... 430,000 ∂95,000 .......................... ∂430,000 Project engineering and design, UPF .................................................. .......................... .......................... 289,128 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥289,128 06–D–141–02 Site preparation, UPF .................................................. .......................... .......................... 140,872 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥140,872 

Subtotal, UPF ................................................................................... 335,000 430,000 430,000 430,000 ∂95,000 .......................... ..........................

Chemistry and metallurgy replacement (CMRR): 

04–D–125 Chemistry and metallurgy replacement project, LANL ...... 35,700 155,610 .......................... 155,610 ∂119,910 .......................... ∂155,610 
121 

04–D–125–04 RLUOB equipment installation, phase 2 ..................... .......................... .......................... 117,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥117,000 04–D–125–05 PF–4 equipment installation ....................................... .......................... .......................... 38,610 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥38,610 

Subtotal, CMRR ............................................................................... 35,700 155,610 155,610 155,610 ∂119,910 .......................... ..........................Subtotal, Construction ..................................................................... 425,000 660,190 660,149 660,190 ∂235,190 .......................... ∂41 Subtotal, Infrastructure and Operations ......................................... 2,033,400 1,054,481 2,228,164 1,021,110 ¥1,012,290 ¥33,371 ¥1,207,054 

Secure transportation asset: 

Operations and equipment ........................................................................... 121,882 146,272 140,000 121,882 .......................... ¥24,390 ¥18,118 Program direction .......................................................................................... 97,118 105,338 92,000 97,118 .......................... ¥8,220 ∂5,118 

Subtotal, Secure transportation asset ..................................................... 219,000 251,610 232,000 219,000 .......................... ¥32,610 ¥13,000 

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response .......................................................... 177,940 .......................... .......................... 234,390 ∂56,450 ∂234,390 ∂234,390 Counterterrorism and counterproliferation programs ............................................ 46,093 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥46,093 .......................... ..........................

Infrastructure and safety 

Operations of facilities Kansas City Plant ................................................... .......................... 100,250 .......................... 100,250 ∂100,250 .......................... ∂100,250 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ...................................................... .......................... 70,671 .......................... 70,671 ∂70,671 .......................... ∂70,671 Los Alamos National Laboratory ................................................................... .......................... 196,460 .......................... 196,460 ∂196,460 .......................... ∂196,460 Nevada National Security Site ...................................................................... .......................... 89,000 .......................... 89,000 ∂89,000 .......................... ∂89,000 Pantex ............................................................................................................ .......................... 58,021 .......................... 58,021 ∂58,021 .......................... ∂58,021 Sandia National Laboratory .......................................................................... .......................... 115,300 .......................... 115,300 ∂115,300 .......................... ∂115,300 Savannah River Site ..................................................................................... .......................... 80,463 .......................... 80,463 ∂80,463 .......................... ∂80,463 Y–12 National security complex ................................................................... .......................... 120,625 .......................... 120,625 ∂120,625 .......................... ∂120,625 

Total, Operations of facilities ................................................................... .......................... 830,790 .......................... 830,790 ∂830,790 .......................... ∂830,790 

Safety operations .......................................................................................... .......................... 107,701 .......................... 107,701 ∂107,701 .......................... ∂107,701 Maintenance .................................................................................................. .......................... 227,000 .......................... 227,000 ∂227,000 .......................... ∂227,000 Recapitalization ............................................................................................. .......................... 257,724 .......................... 257,724 ∂257,724 .......................... ∂257,724 Construction: 

16–D–621 Substation replacement at TA–3, LANL ............................ .......................... 25,000 .......................... 25,000 ∂25,000 .......................... ∂25,000 15–D–613 Emergency Operations Center, Y–12 ................................. .......................... 17,919 .......................... 17,919 ∂17,919 .......................... ∂17,919 

Total, Construction .......................................................................... .......................... 42,919 .......................... 42,919 ∂42,919 .......................... ∂42,919 Total, Infrastructure and safety ...................................................... .......................... 1,466,134 .......................... 1,466,134 ∂1,466,134 .......................... ∂1,466,134 

Site stewardship .................................................................................................... 76,531 36,595 .......................... 36,595 ¥39,936 .......................... ∂36,595 
122 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Defense nuclear security: 

Defense nuclear security ............................................................................... 636,123 619,891 634,891 644,891 ∂8,768 ∂25,000 ∂10,000 Security improvements program ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 35,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥35,000 Construction: 

14–D–710 Device assembly facility argus installation project, NV ... .......................... 13,000 13,000 13,000 ∂13,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Defense nuclear security ................................................. 636,123 632,891 682,891 657,891 ∂21,768 ∂25,000 ¥25,000 

Information technology and cyber security ............................................................ 179,646 157,588 157,588 157,588 ¥22,058 .......................... ..........................Legacy contractor pensions ................................................................................... 307,058 283,887 283,887 283,887 ¥23,171 .......................... ..........................Domestic uranium enrichment ............................................................................... 97,200 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥97,200 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Weapons Activities .................................................................... 8,231,770 8,846,948 8,713,000 8,882,364 ∂650,594 ∂35,416 ∂169,364 

Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥45,113 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂45,113 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES .................................................................... 8,186,657 8,846,948 8,713,000 8,882,364 ∂695,707 ∂35,416 ∂169,364 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs: Global material security: 

International nuclear security ....................................................................... .......................... 130,527 130,527 130,527 ∂130,527 .......................... ..........................Radiological security ..................................................................................... .......................... 153,749 153,749 153,749 ∂153,749 .......................... ..........................Nuclear smuggling detection ........................................................................ .......................... 142,475 138,673 142,475 ∂142,475 .......................... ∂3,802 

Subtotal, Global material security ........................................................... .......................... 426,751 422,949 426,751 ∂426,751 .......................... ∂3,802 

Material management and minimization: 

HEU reactor conversion ................................................................................. .......................... 115,000 115,000 120,000 ∂120,000 ∂5,000 ∂5,000 Nuclear material removal ............................................................................. .......................... 114,000 114,000 109,000 ∂109,000 ¥5,000 ¥5,000 Material disposition ...................................................................................... .......................... 82,584 81,584 82,584 ∂82,584 .......................... ∂1,000 

Subtotal, Material management and minimization ................................. .......................... 311,584 310,584 311,584 ∂311,584 .......................... ∂1,000 
123 

Nonproliferation and arms control ......................................................................... .......................... 126,703 130,203 126,703 ∂126,703 .......................... ¥3,500 Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D .................................................................. 393,401 419,333 419,333 419,333 ∂25,932 .......................... ..........................Nonproliferation construction: 

99–D–143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility, SRS ..................... .......................... 345,000 345,000 345,000 ∂345,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Nonproliferation construction .................................................... .......................... 345,000 345,000 345,000 ∂345,000 .......................... ..........................

Global threat reduction initiative: 

HEU reactor conversion ................................................................................. 119,383 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥119,383 .......................... ..........................International nuclear and radiological material removal and protection .... 117,737 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥117,737 .......................... ..........................Domestic radiological material removal and protection .............................. 88,632 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥88,632 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Global threat reduction initiative ............................................. 325,752 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥325,752 .......................... ..........................

Nonproliferation and international security ........................................................... 141,359 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥141,359 .......................... ..........................International materials protection and cooperation .............................................. 270,911 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥270,911 .......................... ..........................Fissile materials disposition: 

U.S. plutonium disposition ............................................................................ 60,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥60,000 .......................... ..........................U.S. uranium disposition .............................................................................. 25,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥25,000 .......................... ..........................Construction: 99–D–143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah River, SC ........ 345,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥345,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction .............................................................................. 345,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥345,000 .......................... ..........................Total, Fissile materials disposition .......................................................... 430,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥430,000 .......................... ..........................

Legacy contractor pensions ................................................................................... 102,909 94,617 94,617 94,617 ¥8,292 .......................... ..........................Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program .................................... .......................... 234,390 234,390 .......................... .......................... ¥234,390 ¥234,390 Use of prior-year balances .................................................................................... ¥22,963 ¥18,076 ¥39,076 ¥18,076 ∂4,887 .......................... ∂21,000 

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................. 1,641,369 1,940,302 1,918,000 1,705,912 ∂64,543 ¥234,390 ¥212,088 

Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥24,731 .......................... ¥10,394 .......................... ∂24,731 .......................... ∂10,394 

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ...................................... 1,616,638 1,940,302 1,907,606 1,705,912 ∂89,274 ¥234,390 ¥201,694 

NAVAL REACTORS 

Naval reactors development .................................................................................. 411,180 444,400 414,642 430,400 ∂19,220 ¥14,000 ∂15,758 OHIO replacement reactor systems development .................................................. 156,100 186,800 186,800 186,800 ∂30,700 .......................... ..........................S8G Prototype refueling ......................................................................................... 126,400 133,000 133,000 133,000 ∂6,600 .......................... ..........................Naval reactors operations and infrastructure ....................................................... 390,000 445,196 424,452 445,196 ∂55,196 .......................... ∂20,744 
124 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Construction: 

15–D–904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3 ........................................... 400 900 900 900 ∂500 .......................... ..........................15–D–903 KL Fire System Upgrade ............................................................. 600 600 600 600 .......................... .......................... ..........................15–D–902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility .......................................... .......................... 3,100 .......................... 3,100 ∂3,100 .......................... ∂3,100 14–D–902 KL Materials characterization laboratory expansion, KAPL ........ .......................... 30,000 30,000 9,000 ∂9,000 ¥21,000 ¥21,000 14–D–901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, NRF ..................... 70,000 86,000 86,000 48,000 ¥22,000 ¥38,000 ¥38,000 13–D–905 Remote-handled low-level waste disposal project, INL ............. 14,420 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥14,420 .......................... ..........................13–D–904 KS Radiological work and storage building, KSO ...................... 20,100 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥20,100 .......................... ..........................10–D–903, Security upgrades, KAPL ............................................................ 7,400 500 500 500 ¥6,900 .......................... ..........................08–D–190 Expended Core Facility M–290 recovering discharge station, 

NRF, ID ...................................................................................................... 400 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥400 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction .............................................................................. 113,320 121,100 118,000 62,100 ¥51,220 ¥59,000 ¥55,900 

Program direction ................................................................................................... 41,500 45,000 43,500 42,504 ∂1,004 ¥2,496 ¥996 

Subtotal, Naval Reactors .......................................................................... 1,238,500 1,375,496 1,320,394 1,300,000 ∂61,500 ¥75,496 ¥20,394 

Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥4,500 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂4,500 .......................... ..........................Floor amendments .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 2,500 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,500 

TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS ......................................................................... 1,234,000 1,375,496 1,322,894 1,300,000 ∂66,000 ¥75,496 ¥22,894 

FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES ....................................................................... 370,000 402,654 388,000 375,000 ∂5,000 ¥27,654 ¥13,000 Floor amendments .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥2,426 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂2,426 

TOTAL, FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES ............................................. 370,000 402,654 385,574 375,000 ∂5,000 ¥27,654 ¥10,574 TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ......................... 11,407,295 12,565,400 12,329,074 12,263,276 ∂855,981 ¥302,124 ¥65,798 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

Closure sites .......................................................................................................... 4,889 4,889 4,889 4,889 .......................... .......................... ..........................
125 

Richland: 

River corridor and other cleanup operations ................................................ 377,788 196,957 275,831 270,710 ¥107,078 ∂73,753 ¥5,121 Central plateau remediation ......................................................................... 497,456 555,163 555,163 555,163 ∂57,707 .......................... ..........................RL community and regulatory support ......................................................... 19,701 14,701 14,701 19,701 .......................... ∂5,000 ∂5,000 Construction: 

15–D–401 Containerized sludge removal annex, RL .......................... 46,055 77,016 77,016 77,016 ∂30,961 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Richland ........................................................................... 941,000 843,837 922,711 922,590 ¥18,410 ∂78,753 ¥121 

Idaho National Laboratory: 

Idaho cleanup and waste disposition .......................................................... 377,293 357,783 387,783 357,783 ¥19,510 .......................... ¥30,000 Idaho community and regulatory support .................................................... 2,910 3,000 3,000 3,000 ∂90 .......................... ..........................

Total, Idaho National Laboratory .............................................................. 380,203 360,783 390,783 360,783 ¥19,420 .......................... ¥30,000 

NNSA sites and Nevada offsites: 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ...................................................... 1,366 1,366 1,366 1,366 .......................... .......................... ..........................Nevada .......................................................................................................... 64,851 62,385 62,385 62,385 ¥2,466 .......................... ..........................Sandia National Laboratory .......................................................................... 2,801 2,500 2,500 2,500 ¥301 .......................... ..........................Los Alamos National Laboratory ................................................................... 185,000 188,625 180,000 188,625 ∂3,625 .......................... ∂8,625 Construction: 

15–D–406 Hexavalent chromium Pump and Treatment facility, LANL 4,600 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥4,600 .......................... ..........................

Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites ......................................... 258,618 254,876 246,251 254,876 ¥3,742 .......................... ∂8,625 

Oak Ridge Reservation: 

OR Nuclear facility D&D ............................................................................... 73,155 75,958 84,958 95,958 ∂22,803 ∂20,000 ∂11,000 U233 disposition program ............................................................................ .......................... 26,895 35,895 35,895 ∂35,895 ∂9,000 ..........................OR cleanup and waste disposition ............................................................... 131,930 60,500 60,500 68,597 ¥63,333 ∂8,097 ∂8,097 Construction: 

15–D–405 Sludge processing facility buildouts ................................. 4,200 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥4,200 .......................... ..........................14–D–403 Outfall 200 mercury treatment facility ............................. 9,400 6,800 9,400 9,400 .......................... ∂2,600 ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ..................................................................... 13,600 6,800 9,400 9,400 ¥4,200 ∂2,600 ..........................

OR community & regulatory support ............................................................ 4,365 4,400 4,400 10,400 ∂6,035 ∂6,000 ∂6,000 OR Technology development and deployment .............................................. .......................... 2,800 2,800 2,800 ∂2,800 .......................... ..........................

Total, Oak Ridge Reservation ................................................................... 223,050 177,353 197,953 223,050 .......................... ∂45,697 ∂25,097 

Office of River Protection: 

Construction: 

15–D–409 Low activity waste pretreatment sysem, ORP ................... 23,000 75,000 75,000 56,000 ∂33,000 ¥19,000 ¥19,000 
126 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

01–D–16 A–D, Waste treatment and immobilization plant, ORP ...... 563,000 595,000 545,000 595,000 ∂32,000 .......................... ∂50,000 01–D–16 E, Waste treatment and immobilization plant, 

Pretreatment facility, ORP ............................................................... 104,000 95,000 70,000 95,000 ¥9,000 .......................... ∂25,000 Total, Construction .......................................................................... 690,000 765,000 690,000 746,000 ∂56,000 ¥19,000 ∂56,000 

Tank farm activities: 

Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition .......................... 522,000 649,000 578,000 668,000 ∂146,000 ∂19,000 ∂90,000 

Subtotal, Office of river protection ................................................. 1,212,000 1,414,000 1,268,000 1,414,000 ∂202,000 .......................... ∂146,000 

Savannah River Site: 

SR site risk management operations ........................................................... 397,976 386,652 389,652 386,652 ¥11,324 .......................... ¥3,000 SR community and regulatory support ......................................................... 11,013 11,249 11,249 11,249 ∂236 .......................... ..........................SR radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition .................. 547,318 581,878 562,000 581,878 ∂34,560 .......................... ∂19,878 Construction: 

15–D–402 Saltstone disposal Unit #6, SRS ....................................... 30,000 34,642 34,642 34,642 ∂4,642 .......................... ..........................05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, SRS .................................. 135,000 194,000 194,000 194,000 ∂59,000 .......................... ..........................

Total, Savannah River Site .............................................................. 1,121,307 1,208,421 1,191,543 1,208,421 ∂87,114 .......................... ∂16,878 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ........................................................................... 304,000 212,600 .......................... 212,600 ¥91,400 .......................... ∂212,600 Operations and maintenance ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 116,800 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥116,800 Recovery activities ........................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 87,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥87,000 Central characterization project ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 35,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥35,000 Transportation ............................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 16,339 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥16,339 Construction: 

15–D–411 Safety significant confinement ventilation system, WIPP 12,000 23,218 23,218 23,218 ∂11,218 .......................... ..........................15–D–412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP .......................................................... 4,000 7,500 7,500 7,500 ∂3,500 .......................... ..........................

Total, Waste isolation pilot plant .................................................... 320,000 243,318 285,857 243,318 ¥76,682 .......................... ¥42,539 

Program direction ................................................................................................... 280,784 281,951 281,951 281,951 ∂1,167 .......................... ..........................Program support .................................................................................................... 14,979 14,979 14,979 14,979 .......................... .......................... ..........................
127 

Safeguards and Security ........................................................................................ 240,000 236,633 236,633 236,633 ¥3,367 .......................... ..........................Technology development ........................................................................................ 14,000 14,510 14,000 14,510 ∂510 .......................... ∂510 

Subtotal, Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................... 5,010,830 5,055,550 5,055,550 5,180,000 ∂169,170 ∂124,450 ∂124,450 

Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥10,830 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂10,830 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP .......................................... 5,000,000 5,055,550 5,055,550 5,180,000 ∂180,000 ∂124,450 ∂124,450 

Defense Environmental Cleanup (Legislative proposal) ........................................ .......................... 471,797 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥471,797 ..........................DEFENSE URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING ... 463,000 .......................... 471,797 614,000 ∂151,000 ∂614,000 ∂142,203 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

Environment, health, safety and security: 

Environment, health, safety and security ..................................................... 118,763 120,693 120,693 118,763 .......................... ¥1,930 ¥1,930 Program direction .......................................................................................... 62,235 63,105 63,105 62,235 .......................... ¥870 ¥870 

Subtotal, Environment, Health, safety and security ................................ 180,998 183,798 183,798 180,998 .......................... ¥2,800 ¥2,800 

Independent enterprise assessments: 

Independent enterprise assessments ........................................................... 24,068 24,068 24,068 24,068 .......................... .......................... ..........................Program direction .......................................................................................... 49,466 49,466 49,466 49,466 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Independent enterprise assessments ....................................... 73,534 73,534 73,534 73,534 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Specialized security activities ................................................................................ 203,152 221,855 215,000 217,952 ∂14,800 ¥3,903 ∂2,952 Office of Legacy Management: 

Legacy management ..................................................................................... 158,639 154,080 154,080 154,080 ¥4,559 .......................... ..........................Program direction .......................................................................................... 13,341 13,100 13,100 13,100 ¥241 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Office of Legacy Management .................................................. 171,980 167,180 167,180 167,180 ¥4,800 .......................... ..........................

Defense related administrative support ................................................................ 118,836 122,558 122,558 118,836 .......................... ¥3,722 ¥3,722 Office of hearings and appeals ............................................................................. 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ......................................................... 754,000 774,425 767,570 764,000 ∂10,000 ¥10,425 ¥3,570 TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ......................................... 17,624,295 18,867,172 18,623,991 18,821,276 ∂1,196,981 ¥45,896 ∂197,285 
128 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS (1) 

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Purchase power and wheeling ............................................................. 89,710 83,600 83,600 83,600 ¥6,110 .......................... ..........................Program direction ................................................................................. 7,220 6,900 6,900 6,900 ¥320 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ............................................ 96,930 90,500 90,500 90,500 ¥6,430 .......................... ..........................

Less alternative financing [PPW] ................................................................. ¥16,131 ¥17,100 ¥17,100 ¥17,100 ¥969 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections (for PPW) .................................................................... ¥73,579 ¥66,500 ¥66,500 ¥66,500 ∂7,079 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections (PD) ............................................................................ ¥2,220 ¥6,900 ¥6,900 ¥6,900 ¥4,680 .......................... ..........................Use of prior-year balances ........................................................................... ¥5,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂5,000 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Operating expenses .............................................................................. 15,174 19,279 19,279 19,279 ∂4,105 .......................... ..........................Purchase power and wheeling ............................................................. 63,000 73,000 73,000 73,000 ∂10,000 .......................... ..........................Program direction ................................................................................. 31,089 31,932 31,932 31,932 ∂843 .......................... ..........................Construction ......................................................................................... 13,403 12,012 12,012 12,012 ¥1,391 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ............................................ 122,666 136,223 136,223 136,223 ∂13,557 .......................... ..........................

Less alternative financing (for O&M) ........................................................... ¥5,934 ¥8,288 ¥8,288 ¥8,288 ¥2,354 .......................... ..........................Less alternative financing (for PPW) ............................................................ ¥10,000 ¥10,000 ¥10,000 ¥10,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................Less alternative financing (Const) ............................................................... ¥7,492 ¥7,574 ¥7,574 ¥7,574 ¥82 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections (PD) ............................................................................ ¥29,402 ¥29,938 ¥29,938 ¥29,938 ¥536 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections (for O&M) ................................................................... ¥5,438 ¥6,023 ¥6,023 ¥6,023 ¥585 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections (for PPW) .................................................................... ¥53,000 ¥63,000 ¥63,000 ¥63,000 ¥10,000 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION ................................... 11,400 11,400 11,400 11,400 .......................... .......................... ..........................
129 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Construction and rehabilitation ........................................................... 86,645 58,374 58,374 58,374 ¥28,271 .......................... ..........................Operation and maintenance ................................................................ 81,958 80,901 80,901 80,901 ¥1,057 .......................... ..........................Purchase power and wheeling ............................................................. 441,223 565,927 565,927 565,927 ∂124,704 .......................... ..........................Program direction ................................................................................. 227,905 236,398 236,398 236,398 ∂8,493 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ............................................ 837,731 941,600 941,600 941,600 ∂103,869 .......................... ..........................

Less alternative financing (for O&M) ........................................................... ¥5,197 ¥1,757 ¥1,757 ¥1,757 ∂3,440 .......................... ..........................Less alternative financing (for Construction) .............................................. ¥74,448 ¥53,585 ¥53,585 ¥53,585 ∂20,863 .......................... ..........................Less alternative financing (for Program Dir.) .............................................. ¥5,300 ¥5,273 ¥5,273 ¥5,273 ∂27 .......................... ..........................Less alternative financing (for PPW) ............................................................ ¥180,713 ¥213,114 ¥213,114 ¥213,114 ¥32,401 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections (for program direction) .............................................. ¥174,285 ¥177,697 ¥177,697 ¥177,697 ¥3,412 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections (for O&M) ................................................................... ¥36,745 ¥36,645 ¥36,645 ¥36,645 ∂100 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections (Public Law 108–477, Public Law 109–103) ........... ¥260,510 ¥352,813 ¥352,813 ¥352,813 ¥92,303 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections (Public Law 98–381) ................................................. ¥7,161 ¥7,344 ¥7,344 ¥7,344 ¥183 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................... 93,372 93,372 93,372 93,372 .......................... .......................... ..........................

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND 

Operation and maintenance ......................................................................... 5,529 4,950 4,950 4,950 ¥579 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections .................................................................................... ¥4,499 ¥4,262 ¥4,262 ¥4,262 ∂237 .......................... ..........................Less alternative financing ............................................................................ ¥802 ¥460 ¥460 ¥460 ∂342 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD O&M FUND ............................................... 228 228 228 228 .......................... .......................... ..........................TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS ......................................... 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................................ 304,389 319,800 319,800 319,800 ∂15,411 .......................... ..........................FERC revenues .............................................................................................. ¥304,389 ¥319,800 ¥319,800 ¥319,800 ¥15,411 .......................... ..........................

General Provisions 

Title III Rescissions: 

Department of Energy: 

Energy Efficiency and Energy Reliability ............................................. ¥9,740 .......................... ¥16,677 ¥16,677 ¥6,937 ¥16,677 ..........................Science ................................................................................................. ¥3,262 .......................... ¥4,717 ¥4,717 ¥1,455 ¥4,717 ..........................Nuclear Energy ..................................................................................... ¥121 .......................... ¥1,665 ¥1,665 ¥1,544 ¥1,665 ..........................
130 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................... ¥10,413 .......................... ¥12,064 ¥12,064 ¥1,651 ¥12,064 ..........................Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ............................ ¥331 .......................... ¥900 ¥900 ¥569 ¥900 ..........................Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy .................................... ¥18 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂18 .......................... ..........................Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western 

Area Power Administration .............................................................. ¥1,632 .......................... ¥4,832 ¥4,832 ¥3,200 ¥4,832 ..........................

Weapons activities (050) (rescission) ................................................. ¥6,298 .......................... .......................... ¥65,135 ¥58,837 ¥65,135 ¥65,135 Office of the Administrator (050) (rescission) .................................... ¥413 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂413 .......................... ..........................Departmental Administration ............................................................... ¥928 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂928 .......................... ..........................Defense Environmental Cleanup (050) ................................................ ¥9,983 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂9,983 .......................... ..........................Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (050) .............................................. ¥1,390 .......................... .......................... ¥19,324 ¥17,934 ¥19,324 ¥19,324 Naval Reactors (050) ........................................................................... ¥160 .......................... .......................... ¥628 ¥468 ¥628 ¥628 Other Defense Activities (050) ............................................................. ¥551 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂551 .......................... ..........................

Total, General Provisions ................................................................. ¥45,240 .......................... ¥40,855 ¥125,942 ¥80,702 ¥125,942 ¥85,087 GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ....................................... 27,916,797 30,527,136 28,967,347 29,303,173 ∂1,386,376 ¥1,223,963 ∂335,826 

(Total amount appropriated) .................................................................... (28,152,876 ) (30,527,136 ) (29,018,596 ) (29,429,115 ) (∂1,276,239 ) (¥1,098,021 ) (∂410,519 ) 

(Rescissions) .................................................................................... (¥236,079 ) .......................... (¥51,249 ) (¥125,942 ) (∂110,137 ) (¥125,942 ) (¥74,693 ) 

SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTS 

Energy efficiency and renewable energy ............................................................... 1,923,935 2,722,987 1,668,774 1,950,000 ∂26,065 ¥772,987 ∂281,226 Electricity delivery and energy reliability ............................................................... 147,306 270,100 187,500 152,306 ∂5,000 ¥117,794 ¥35,194 Nuclear energy ....................................................................................................... 833,500 907,574 936,161 950,161 ∂116,661 ∂42,587 ∂14,000 Fossil Energy Research and Development ............................................................. 571,000 560,000 605,000 610,000 ∂39,000 ∂50,000 ∂5,000 Naval Petroleum & Oil Shale Reserves ................................................................. 19,950 17,500 17,500 17,500 ¥2,450 .......................... ..........................Elk Hills School Lands Fund .................................................................................. 15,580 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥15,580 .......................... ..........................Strategic petroleum reserves ................................................................................. 200,000 257,000 212,030 200,000 .......................... ¥57,000 ¥12,030 Northeast home heating oil reserve ...................................................................... 1,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 ∂6,000 .......................... ..........................Energy Information Administration ........................................................................ 117,000 131,000 117,000 122,000 ∂5,000 ¥9,000 ∂5,000 Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup .................................................................... 246,000 220,185 229,193 244,000 ¥2,000 ∂23,815 ∂14,807 Uranium enrichment D&D fund ............................................................................. 625,000 542,289 625,000 614,000 ¥11,000 ∂71,711 ¥11,000 Nuclear Waste Disposal ......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 150,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥150,000 Science ................................................................................................................... 5,071,000 5,339,794 5,100,000 5,143,877 ∂72,877 ¥195,917 ∂43,877 
131 

Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ......................................................... 280,000 325,000 280,000 291,000 ∂11,000 ¥34,000 ∂11,000 Departmental administration ................................................................................. 125,971 153,511 74,029 130,971 ∂5,000 ¥22,540 ∂56,942 Indian energy program ........................................................................................... .......................... 20,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥20,000 ..........................Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................. 40,500 46,424 46,424 46,424 ∂5,924 .......................... ..........................Tribal Indian Energy Loan Guarantee Program ..................................................... .......................... 11,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥11,000 ..........................Title 17 Innovative technology loan guarantee program ...................................... 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................Advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan pgm ...................................... 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 ∂2,000 .......................... ..........................Clean coal technology ............................................................................................ ¥6,600 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂6,600 .......................... ..........................Atomic energy defense activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons activities ........................................................................... 8,186,657 8,846,948 8,713,000 8,882,364 ∂695,707 ∂35,416 ∂169,364 Defense nuclear nonproliferation .................................................... 1,616,638 1,940,302 1,907,606 1,705,912 ∂89,274 ¥234,390 ¥201,694 Naval reactors ................................................................................. 1,234,000 1,375,496 1,322,894 1,300,000 ∂66,000 ¥75,496 ¥22,894 Federal Salaries and Expenses ....................................................... 370,000 402,654 385,574 375,000 ∂5,000 ¥27,654 ¥10,574 

Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Admin ................................ 11,407,295 12,565,400 12,329,074 12,263,276 ∂855,981 ¥302,124 ¥65,798 

Defense environmental cleanup .................................................................... 5,000,000 5,055,550 5,055,550 5,180,000 ∂180,000 ∂124,450 ∂124,450 Defense environmental cleanup (legislative proposal) ................................ .......................... 471,797 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥471,797 ..........................Defense uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning ....... 463,000 .......................... 471,797 614,000 ∂151,000 ∂614,000 ∂142,203 Other defense activities ................................................................................ 754,000 774,425 767,570 764,000 ∂10,000 ¥10,425 ¥3,570 

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................... 17,624,295 18,867,172 18,623,991 18,821,276 ∂1,196,981 ¥45,896 ∂197,285 

Power marketing administrations (1): 

Southeastern Power Administration .............................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Southwestern Power Administration ............................................................. 11,400 11,400 11,400 11,400 .......................... .......................... ..........................Western Area Power Administration .............................................................. 93,372 93,372 93,372 93,372 .......................... .......................... ..........................Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ............................... 228 228 228 228 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Total, Power Marketing Administrations .................................................. 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: 

Salaries and expenses .................................................................................. 304,389 319,800 319,800 319,800 ∂15,411 .......................... ..........................Revenues ....................................................................................................... ¥304,389 ¥319,800 ¥319,800 ¥319,800 ¥15,411 .......................... ..........................

General Provisions .................................................................................................. ¥45,240 .......................... ¥40,855 ¥125,942 ¥80,702 ¥125,942 ¥85,087 

Total Summary of Accounts, Department of Energy ................................ 27,916,797 30,527,136 28,967,347 29,303,173 ∂1,386,376 ¥1,223,963 ∂335,826 

1 Totals include alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting collection totals reflect funds collected for annual expenses, including power purchase and wheeling. 
132 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

The following list of general provisions is recommended by the 

Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions which 

have been included in previous Energy and Water Appropriations 

Acts and new provisions as follows: 

Section 301. Language is included on the execution of appropriations, including reprogramming, and Congressional notification. 

Section 302. Language is included on merging the unexpended 

balances of prior appropriations. 

Section 303. Language is included specifically authorizing intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 2016 Intelligence Authorization Act. 

Section 304. The Committee has included a provision related to 

nuclear safety requirements. 

Section 305. The Committee has included language related to 

independent cost estimates. 

Section 306. The Committee has included a provision on a pilot 

program related to consolidated storage of spent nuclear fuel. 

Section 307. Language is included regarding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

Section 308. Language is included rescinding unobligated balances. 

Section 309. Language is included rescinding unobligated balances. 

Section 310. Language is included regarding domestic uranium 

enrichment. 

Section 311. Language is included as a technical correction to the 

Secretary of Energy’s authority. 

Section 312. Language is included regarding the application of 

funds for the Department of Energy. 
(133) 

TITLE IV 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $90,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 95,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 95,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 105,000,000 

The Committee recommends $105,000,000 for the Appalachian 

Regional Commission [ARC], an increase of $10,000,000 from the 

budget request. Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional 

Commission is an economic development agency composed of 13 

Appalachian States and a Federal co-chair appointed by the President. Within available funding, $10,000,000 is recommended to foster and continue the workforce training program in Southern Appalachia, primarily focused on the automotive supplier industry and 

the aviation sector in South Central Appalachia. The program will 

benefit economically distressed counties in Southern and South 

Central Appalachia. This funding shall be in addition to any funds 

otherwise directed to distressed counties. The funds shall be distributed according to ARC’s Distressed Counties Formula, which 

includes land area, population estimates, and the number of distressed counties. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $25,000,000, 

the same as the budget request, for the POWER Plus Plan. This 

new activity is designed to support communities, primarily in Appalachia, that have been adversely impacted by the closure of coalpowered generating plants and a declining coal industry by providing resources for economic diversification, job creation, job training, and other employment services. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $28,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 29,150,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 29,900,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 29,150,000 

The Committee recommends $29,150,000 for the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board, the same as the budget request. The Committee notes that Congress permanently authorized the Inspector 

General for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to serve as the Inspector General for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. 

The Committee recommendation includes $958,000 in funding 

within the Office of Inspector General of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission to perform these services. 
134 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $12,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 14,936,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 12,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,000,000 

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Delta Regional 

Authority, an increase of $10,064,000 from the request. The Delta 

Regional Authority is a Federal-State partnership that is designed 

to assist the eight-State Mississippi Delta Region in developing 

basic infrastructure, transportation, skills training, and opportunities for economic development for distressed counties and parishes. 

Within available funds, not less than $10,000,000 shall be used for 

flood control, basic infrastructure development and transportation 

improvements, which shall be in addition to the State formula 

funding allocations. The Federal co-chairman, in consultation with 

State Governors, shall distribute funding to States and public and 

nonprofit entities for projects that will benefit rural communities 

with the greatest infrastructure needs. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 10,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,000,000 

The Committee recommends $11,000,000 for the Denali Commission, an increase of $1,000,000 from the budget request. The Denali 

Commission is a Federal-State partnership responsible for promoting infrastructure development, job training, and other economic support services in rural areas throughout Alaska. 

NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,500,000 

The Committee recommends $7,500,000 for the Northern Border 

Regional Commission, an increase of $2,500,000 from the budget 

request. The Northern Border Regional Commission is a FederalState partnership intended to promote transportation, basic public 

infrastructure, job skills training and business development in 

areas of persistent economic distress in the northern border region, 

which covers portions of Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and 

Vermont. The Committee notes that section 404 of the Energy and 

Water Appropriations Act, 2015, required each independent agency 

funded in title IV of the bill to submit a budget justification and 

a detailed annual report. The Committee directs the Northern Border Regional Commission to comply with this direction. 

SOUTHEAST CRESCENT REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $250,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... 250,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 
135 

The Committee recommends no funds for the Southeast Crescent 

Regional Commission. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $1,003,233,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,020,119,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,003,233,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 990,000,000 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ¥$885,375,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... ¥899,971,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥862,274,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥872,864,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $117,858,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 120,148,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 140,959,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 117,136,000 

The Committee recommends $990,000,000 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [Commission], a decrease of $30,119,000 from 

the budget request. This amount is offset by estimated revenues of 

$872,864,000, resulting in a net appropriation of $117,136,000. In 

developing this recommendation, the Committee has consulted with 

the Commission to ensure it maintains its gold-standard health 

and safety mission while reducing low-priority work. 

The recommendation includes three new control points to provide 

additional transparency to the Commission’s budget execution process: Nuclear Reactor Safety; Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety; 

and Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste, as described below. 

Section 401 provides new reprogramming authority to the Commission between the accounts, subject to prior congressional approval, 

with a provision made for emergency circumstances. This reprogramming authority supersedes the Commission’s existing guidance on internal reprogrammings. 

Nuclear Reactor Safety.—The Committee recommends 

$771,852,000 for Nuclear Reactor Safety, including $270,150,000 

for corporate support activities. This new control point includes the 

Commission’s Operating Reactors and New Reactors business lines. 

The recommendation includes funding to continue licensing activities associated with awards made under the Department of Energy’s Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support program. 

The Commission is directed to report any transfer of more than 

$500,000 across business lines, as identified in the budget request, 

to the Committee as soon as practicable. 

Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety.—The Committee recommends $174,691,000 for Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety, including $61,033,000 for corporate support activities. This new control point includes the Commission’s Fuel Facilities, Nuclear Material Users, and Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation business 

lines. The Committee notes that section 3 of title III includes a 

general provision for a pilot program for the consolidated storage 
136 

of used nuclear fuel. The Committee urges the Commission to be 

prepared to act promptly if this provision is enacted into law. 

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste.—The Committee recommends $43,628,000 for Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste, 

including $15,224,000 for corporate support. 

Excess Unobligated Carryover.—The Committee recommendation 

authorizes the Commission to reallocate up to $20,000,00 in unobligated carryover balances to supplement its fiscal year 2016 appropriation. The Committee notes that between fiscal year 2015 and 

fiscal year 2016 projections, the Commission will have carried over 

more than $50,000,000 in unobligated balances. The Committee directs the Commission to discontinue its practice of carrying over 

such significant sums from prior fiscal years, which is largely derived from revenues. The Commission is directed to carry over only 

the minimum amount necessary for efficient execution of its mission, and to ensure that any rule or other requirement for collection of revenue or fees is calculated accordingly. 

Integrated University Program.—Within available funds, the 

Committee recommends not less than $15,000,000 for the Integrated University Program [IUP] to maintain specialists in radiation safety needed in healthcare, energy, defense, homeland security, environmental protection, agriculture, science, space exploration, construction, and industrial applications. Together with IUP 

funds from the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy 

and the National Nuclear Security Administration, this program 

ensures a highly qualified next generation of nuclear specialists. 

Funding for this program shall not be from prior year balances. 

Agency Efficiency.—The Committee recognizes that the Commission is taking important steps to make the agency run more effectively. In February 2015, the Commission publicly released its report on the Project Aim 2020 initiative which forecasts the agency’s 

workload over the next 5 years and recommends 12 adjustments to 

staffing, planning, and processes to make the Commission more effective in carrying out its mission. Specifically, this report envisions 

a reduction of 10 percent to both staffing and budget authority by 

2020 from fiscal year 2015 levels due to a projected reduction in 

workload. The Commission, however, has not yet formally adopted 

the recommendations in the report, and consequently, the budget 

request for fiscal year 2016 was not fully informed by these recommendations. If the Committee were simply to adopt the Commission’s fiscal year 2016 budget as proposed, significant time would 

be lost in implementing the recommendations, resulting in a need 

for a steep decline in resources over the next 3 fiscal years. Further, fully funding the Commission’s budget request with the understanding that such funds would exceed the Commission’s actual 

requirements would not be consistent with the Committee’s responsibility to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. 

The Committee recommendation, therefore, includes a reduction 

of $30,119,000 from the Commission’s request, with the majority 

directed at low-priority work and corporate support activities. This 

recommendation provides the Commission with the opportunity to 

find savings and begin to implement the Project Aim recommendations in earnest prior to fiscal year 2017. In choosing where to 

apply these reductions, the Commission should consider elimi-
137 

nating low-value activities and expenses, and consolidating programs or offices for efficiency. The Commission is directed to not 

make reductions that would impact safety. Further, the Commission should not make reductions that would negatively impact the 

critical skill sets and highly technical staff that are needed to fulfil 

the agency’s mission. Allowing the Commission to begin making reductions this fiscal year will result in less drastic reductions over 

the next three fiscal years. The Commission is directed to report 

to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 

within 30 days after the date of enactment of this act on how it 

has applied the reductions to individual business lines. 

Rulemaking Process.—The Committee is concerned that the staffdirected rulemaking process is inefficient and permits expenditure 

of significant agency resources in developing the technical basis 

and regulatory analysis for potential rules without prior Commission approval. The Committee believes that, in keeping with NRC’s 

Principles of Good Regulation, the Commission should return to the 

Commission-directed process outlined in the United States Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission Regulations Handbook (NUREG/BR–0053, 

Revision 6) [Handbook]. The Committee therefore directs the Commission to make conforming changes to NRC Management Directive 6.3, ‘‘The Rulemaking Process’’ to be consistent with the Handbook’s Commission-directed process. The Commission is directed to 

provide the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress with an updated directive not later than 90 days after the enactment of this act. The Commission is further directed to provide 

to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, 

not later than 30 days after the enactment of this act, a report that 

includes a general description and status of each proposed rule that 

is currently pending before the Commission, including the date on 

which the proposed rule was docketed. 

Subsequent License Renewal.—The Committee continues to encourage the Commission to act expeditiously to ensure that a fair, 

effective, predictable, and efficient process for subsequent licensing 

is available for licensees actively planning to pursue second license 

renewal, including timely issuance of updated regulatory guidance 

to support receipt of the lead application in the 2018 timeframe. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $12,071,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 12,136,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 12,136,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,136,000 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ¥$10,099,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... ¥10,060,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥10,060,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥10,060,000 
138 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $1,972,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 2,076,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 2,076,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,076,000 

The Committee recommends $12,136,000 for the Office of Inspector General, the same as the budget request, which is offset by revenues estimated at $10,060,000, for a net appropriation of 

$2,076,000. The Office of Inspector General serves both the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board, and the recommendation includes $958,000 for that purpose 

that is not available from fee revenues. 

The Committee encourages the Office of Inspector General to examine, through its audit program, additional savings and efficiencies at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that could be realized through consolidations or other streamlining. 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. $3,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... 3,600,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,600,000 

The Committee recommends $3,600,000 for the Nuclear Waste 

Technical Review Board, the same as the budget request. 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATION FOR ALASKA NATURAL GAS

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Appropriations, 2015 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2016 ........................................................................... $1,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee does not recommend funding for the Office of the 

Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 

Projects. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Section 401. The Committee includes reprogramming language 

for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Section 402. The Committee includes language on providing information to Congress. 

Section 403. The Committee includes a technical correction. 

TITLE V 

The Committee is concerned about the millions of taxpayer dollars spent on wasteful printing practices each year and the lack of 

clear printing policies within each of the agencies. While progress 

has been made to better utilize the cloud and digitalize records, little progress has been made to reform in-house printing practices. 

The Committee directs each agency to work with Office of Management and Budget to reduce printing and reproduction by 34 percent and report to the Committee within 60 days after enactment 

of this Act on what steps have been taken to reduce printing vol-
139 

ume and costs. The report should specifically identify how much 

money each agency will be saving. 

The Committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to study the effects of forward capacity auctions and other 

capacity mechanisms that have been established by Independent 

System Operators or Regional Transmission Organizations on (1) 

consumer prices for electricity; (2) the installation of new electrical 

generation systems; (3) the preservation of existing electrical generation systems; and (4) competition in energy markets, including 

the potential for the use of undue market power or manipulation 

in the auctions. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The following list of general provisions are recommended by the 

Committee: 

Section 501. The provision prohibits the use of any funds provided in this bill from being used to influence congressional action. 

Section 502. The provision addresses transfer authority under 

this act. 

Section 503. The provision relates to Executive Order No. 13690. 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

In fiscal year 2016, for purposes of the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), as 

amended, the following information provides the definition of the 

term ‘‘program, project or activity’’ for departments and agencies 

under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Development Appropriation bill. The term ‘‘program, project or activity’’ shall include the most specific level of budget items identified in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2016 and the report accompanying the bill. 

If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any percentage 

reduction required for fiscal year 2016 pursuant to the provisions 

of Public Law 99–177 to all items specified in the report accompanying the bill by the Senate Committee on Appropriations in 

support of the fiscal year 2016 budget estimates as modified by 

congressional action. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to 

the House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is 

not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty 

stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate 

during that session.’’ 

The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not covered 

under this rule, but reports this information in the spirit of full disclosure. 

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2016: 
140 

Corps of Engineers.—Individual studies and projects proposed for 

appropriations within this bill are specifically authorized by law. 

The appropriation accounts where the funding for the studies and 

projects are recommended are not considered to be authorized as 

there is no originating act providing for these appropriation accounts. 

Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply Activities: 

Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal, Naval 

Petroleum and Oil Shale Research; 

Health, Safety and Security; 

Non-Defense Environmental Management; 

Office of Science; 

Department of Administration; 

National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons Activities; 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors; Office of the Administrator; 

Defense Environmental Management, Defense Site Acceleration 

Completion; 

Other Defense Activities; 

Defense Nuclear Waste Fund; 

Office of Security and Performance Assurance; 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; 

Power Marketing Administrations: Southeastern, Southwestern, 

Western Area; and 

Energy Information Administration. 

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

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on May 21, 2015, the 

Committee ordered favorably reported a bill (H.R. 2028) making 

appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 

purposes, provided, that the bill be subject to further amendment 

and that the bill be consistent with its budget allocation, by a recorded vote of 26–4, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Cochran Mrs. Murray 

Mr. McConnell Mr. Reed 

Mr. Shelby Mr. Tester 

Mr. Alexander Mr. Murphy 

Ms. Collins 

Ms. Murkowski 

Mr. Graham 

Mr. Kirk 

Mr. Blunt 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Hoeven 

Mr. Boozman 

Mrs. Capito 

Mr. Cassidy 

Mr. Lankford 
141 

Mr. Daines 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mr. Leahy 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Udall 

Mrs. Shaheen 

Mr. Merkley 

Mr. Coons 

Mr. Schatz 

Ms. Baldwin 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the Committee.’’ 

In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law proposed to 

be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing law to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman. 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

CHAPTER 109B—SECURE WATER 

§ 10364. Water management improvement 

(a) Authorization of grants and cooperative agreements 

* * * * * * * 

(e) Authorization of appropriations 

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

ø$300,000,000¿ $500,000,000, to remain available until expended. 

RECLAMATION SAFETY OF DAMS ACT OF 1978, PUBLIC 

LAW 95–578 

SEC. 2 * * * 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3 øConstruction¿ Except as provided in section 5B, construction authorized by this subchapter shall be for the purposes of 

dam safety and not for the specific purposes of providing additional 

conservation storage capacity or of developing benefits over and 

above those provided by the original dams and reservoirs. Nothing 

in this subchapter shall be construed to reduce the amount of 
142 

project costs allocated to reimbursable purposes heretofore authorized. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 5 There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1979 and ensuing fiscal years such sums as may be necessary, but not to exceed $100,000,000 and, effective October 1, 

1983, not to exceed an additional $650,000,000 (October 1, 1983, 

price levels), and, effective October 1, 2000, not to exceed an additional $95,000,000 (October 1, 2000, price levels), and, effective October 1, 2001, not to exceed an additional $32,000,000 (October 1, 

2001, price levels), and, effective October 1, 2003, not to exceed an 

additional $540,000,000 (October 1, 2003, price levels), and effective October 1, 2015, not to exceed an additional $1,100,000,000 (October 1, 2003, price levels), plus or minus such amounts, if any, as 

may be justified by reason of ordinary fluctuations in construction 

costs as indicated by engineering cost indexes applicable to the 

types of construction involved herein, to carry out the provisions of 

this Act to remain available until expended if so provided by the 

appropriations Act: Provided, That no funds exceeding 

ø$1,250,000¿ $20,000,000 (October 1, 2003, price levels), as adjusted to reflect any ordinary fluctuations in construction costs indicated by applicable engineering cost indexes, shall be obligated 

for carrying out actual construction to modify an existing dam 

under authority of this Act prior to 30 calendar days from that date 

that the Secretary has transmitted a report on such existing dam 

to the øCongress¿ Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate. The report required to be submitted by this 

section will consist of a finding by the Secretary of the Interior to 

the effect that modifications are required to be made to insure the 

safety of an existing dam. Such finding shall be accompanied by a 

technical report containing information on the need for structural 

modification, the corrective action deemed to be required, alternative solutions to structural modification that were considered, 

the estimated cost of needed modifications, and environmental impacts if any resulting from the implementation of the recommended 

plan of modification. For modification expenditures between $1,800,000 and $20,000,000 (October 1, 2013, price levels), the Secretary of the Interior shall, at least 30 days before the date on which 

the funds are expended, submit written notice of the expenditures to 

the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives 

and Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate that 

provides a summary of the project, the cost of the project, and any 

alternatives that were considered. 

SEC. 5A. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) The Secretary may waive 1 or more of the requirements of 

subsections (a), (b), and (c), if the Secretary determines that implementation of the requirement could have an adverse impact on 

dam safety or security. 

SEC. 5B. Notwithstanding section 3, if the Secretary, in her 

judgment, determines that additional project benefits, including but 

not limited to additional conservation storage capacity, are nec-
143 

essary and in the interests of the United States and the project and 

are feasible and not inconsistent with the purposes of this Act, the 

Secretary is authorized to develop additional project benefits 

through the construction of new or supplementary works on a 

project in conjunction with the Secretary’s activities under section 2 

of this Act and subject to the conditions described in the feasibility 

study, provided the costs associated with developing the additional 

project benefits are allocated to the authorized purposes of the structure and repaid consistent with all provisions of Federal Reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 1902, 43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.) and acts 

supplemental to and amendatory of that Act. 

OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED AND EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999, PUBLIC LAW 

105–277 

DIVISION A—OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

BULK FUEL STORAGE TANK

SEC. 329. (a) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—* * * 

(b) USE OF INTEREST ONLY.—The interest produced from the 

investment of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund balance 

that is transferred and deposited into the Oil Spill Liability Trust 

Fund under section 8102(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

(43 U.S.C. 1653 note) after June 16, 1998 shall be transferred annually by the National Pollution Funds Center to the Denali Commission for a program, to be developed in consultation with the 

Coast Guard, to repair or replace bulk fuel storage tanks in Alaska 

which are not in compliance with federal law, including the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or State law or for the construction and repair 

of barge mooring points and barge landing sites to facilitate pumping fuel from fuel transport barges into bulk fuel storage tanks. 

WATER SUPPLY, RELIABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPROVEMENT ACT, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 108–361 

TITLE I—CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT 

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE. 

* * * * * * * 
144 

SEC. 103. BAY DELTA PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

* * * * * * * 

(e) NEW AND EXPANDED AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FEDERAL AGEN- CIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The heads of the Federal agencies described in this subsection are authorized to carry out the activities described in subsection (f) during each of fiscal years 

2005 through ø2016¿ 2020, in coordination with the Governor. 

* * * * * * * 

(f) DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES UNDER NEW AND EXPANDED AUTHORIZATIONS.— 

(1) CONVEYANCE.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) LEVEE STABILITY.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.— * * * 

(B) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives a 

report that describes the levee stability reconstruction 

projects and priorities that will be carried out under this 

title during each of fiscal years 2005 through ø2016¿ 2020. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 107. FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta Program for fiscal years 2005 

through ø2016¿ 2020 in the aggregate, as set forth in the Record 

of Decision, shall not exceed 33.3 percent. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION. 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary and 

the heads of the Federal agencies to pay the Federal share of the 

cost of carrying out the new and expanded authorities described in 

subsections (e) and (f) of section 103 $389,000,000 for the period of 

fiscal years 2005 through ø2016¿ 2020, to remain available until 

expended. 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007, 

PUBLIC LAW 110–114 

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS 

SEC. 5032. LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, SEWARD, ALASKA. 

(a) LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR.— 

(1) MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR.—* * * 

(2) DURATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES.—The responsibility of 

the Secretary for long-term maintenance and repair of the tun-
145 

nel shall continue until an alternative method of flood diversion is constructed and operational under this section, or ø15¿ 

20 years after the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is 

earlier. 

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 

allocation Amount in bill Committee allocation Amount in bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with the 

subcommittee allocation for 2016: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development: 

Mandatory ............................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Discretionary ........................................ 35,368 35,368 36,326 1 36,316 

Security ....................................... 19,002 19,002 NA NA 

Nonsecurity ................................. 16,366 16,366 NA NA 

Projections of outlays associated with the 

recommendation: 

2016 ..................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 2 20,739 

2017 ..................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 10,070 

2018 ..................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 3,452 

2019 ..................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 759 

2020 and future years ........................ ............................ ............................ ............................ 429 

Financial assistance to State and local 

governments for 2016 .............................. NA 131 NA 24 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
146 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared 

with (∂ or ¥) 

2015 

appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Corps of Engineers—Civil 

Investigations ......................................................................................................... 122,000 97,000 113,500 109,000 ¥13,000 ∂12,000 ¥4,500 Construction ........................................................................................................... 1,639,489 1,172,000 1,635,000 1,641,000 ∂1,511 ∂469,000 ∂6,000 Mississippi River and Tributaries .......................................................................... 302,000 225,000 275,000 330,000 ∂28,000 ∂105,000 ∂55,000 Operations and Maintenance ................................................................................. 2,908,511 2,710,000 3,094,306 2,909,000 ∂489 ∂199,000 ¥185,306 Regulatory Program ................................................................................................ 200,000 205,000 199,576 200,000 .......................... ¥5,000 ∂424 Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) ................................. 101,500 104,000 104,000 101,500 .......................... ¥2,500 ¥2,500 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies ................................................................ 28,000 34,000 34,000 28,000 .......................... ¥6,000 ¥6,000 Expenses ................................................................................................................. 178,000 180,000 179,000 178,000 .......................... ¥2,000 ¥1,000 Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ....................................... 3,000 5,000 4,750 3,000 .......................... ¥2,000 ¥1,750 

General Provisions 

Title I (rescission) .................................................................................................. ¥28,000 .......................... .......................... ¥128,000 ¥100,000 ¥128,000 ¥128,000 

Total, title I, Department of Defense—Civil ............................................ 5,454,500 4,732,000 5,639,132 5,371,500 ¥83,000 ∂639,500 ¥267,632 

Appropriations .................................................................................. (5,482,500 ) (4,732,000 ) (5,639,132 ) (5,499,500 ) (∂17,000 ) (∂767,500 ) (¥139,632 ) Rescissions ...................................................................................... (¥28,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥128,000 ) (¥100,000 ) (¥128,000 ) (¥128,000 ) 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Central Utah Project Completion Account 

Central Utah Project Completion Account ............................................................. 9,874 7,300 9,874 9,874 .......................... ∂2,574 ..........................

Bureau of Reclamation 

Water and Related Resources ................................................................................ 978,131 805,157 950,640 988,131 ∂10,000 ∂182,974 ∂37,491 Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ................................................................ 56,995 49,528 49,528 49,528 ¥7,467 .......................... ..........................California Bay-Delta Restoration ........................................................................... 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................
147 

Policy and Administration ...................................................................................... 58,500 59,500 59,500 58,500 .......................... ¥1,000 ¥1,000 Indian Water Rights Settlements ........................................................................... .......................... 112,483 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥112,483 ..........................San Joaquin River Restoration Fund ..................................................................... .......................... 35,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥35,000 ..........................Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account (Rescission) ................................ ¥500 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂500 .......................... ..........................

Total, Bureau of Reclamation .................................................................. 1,130,126 1,098,668 1,096,668 1,133,159 ∂3,033 ∂34,491 ∂36,491 Total, title II, Department of the Interior ................................................. 1,140,000 1,105,968 1,106,542 1,143,033 ∂3,033 ∂37,065 ∂36,491 

Appropriations .................................................................................. (1,140,500 ) (1,105,968 ) (1,106,542 ) (1,143,033 ) (∂2,533 ) (∂37,065 ) (∂36,491 ) Rescissions ...................................................................................... (¥500 ) .......................... .......................... .......................... (∂500 ) .......................... ..........................

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Energy Programs 

Energy efficiency and renewable energy ............................................................... 1,937,000 2,722,987 1,668,774 1,950,000 ∂13,000 ¥772,987 ∂281,226 

Rescissions .................................................................................................... ¥13,065 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂13,065 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Energy efficiency ....................................................................... 1,923,935 2,722,987 1,668,774 1,950,000 ∂26,065 ¥772,987 ∂281,226 

Electricity delivery and energy reliability ............................................................... 147,306 270,100 187,500 152,306 ∂5,000 ¥117,794 ¥35,194 Nuclear energy ....................................................................................................... 805,000 772,413 810,000 815,000 ∂10,000 ∂42,587 ∂5,000 

Defense function ........................................................................................... 108,500 135,161 126,161 135,161 ∂26,661 .......................... ∂9,000 Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥80,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂80,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 833,500 907,574 936,161 950,161 ∂116,661 ∂42,587 ∂14,000 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ............................................................. 571,000 560,000 605,000 610,000 ∂39,000 ∂50,000 ∂5,000 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves .............................................................. 19,950 17,500 17,500 17,500 ¥2,450 .......................... ..........................Elk Hills School Lands Fund .................................................................................. 15,580 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥15,580 .......................... ..........................Strategic Petroleum Reserve .................................................................................. 200,000 257,000 212,030 200,000 .......................... ¥57,000 ¥12,030 Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve .................................................................... 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥6,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂6,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 1,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 ∂6,000 .......................... ..........................

Energy Information Administration ........................................................................ 117,000 131,000 117,000 122,000 ∂5,000 ¥9,000 ∂5,000 Non-defense environmental cleanup ..................................................................... 246,000 220,185 229,193 244,000 ¥2,000 ∂23,815 ∂14,807 Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund .................... 625,000 542,289 625,000 614,000 ¥11,000 ∂71,711 ¥11,000 Science ................................................................................................................... 5,071,000 5,339,794 5,100,000 5,143,877 ∂72,877 ¥195,917 ∂43,877 Nuclear waste disposal .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 150,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥150,000 Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ......................................................... 280,000 325,000 280,000 291,000 ∂11,000 ¥34,000 ∂11,000 Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs ....................................................... .......................... 20,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥20,000 ..........................
148 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared 

with (∂ or ¥) 

2015 

appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ..................................... 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Offsetting collection ...................................................................................... ¥25,000 ¥25,000 ¥25,000 ¥25,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Tribal Indian Energy Loan Guarantee Program ..................................................... .......................... 11,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥11,000 ..........................Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans program ............................ 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 ∂2,000 .......................... ..........................Clean coal technology (rescission) ........................................................................ ¥6,600 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂6,600 .......................... ..........................Departmental administration ................................................................................. 245,142 270,682 191,200 248,142 ∂3,000 ¥22,540 ∂56,942 

Miscellaneous revenues ................................................................................ ¥119,171 ¥117,171 ¥117,171 ¥117,171 ∂2,000 .......................... ..........................

Net appropriation ................................................................................. 125,971 153,511 74,029 130,971 ∂5,000 ¥22,540 ∂56,942 

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................. 40,500 46,424 46,424 46,424 ∂5,924 .......................... ..........................

Total, Energy programs ............................................................................ 10,232,742 11,554,964 10,279,211 10,502,839 ∂270,097 ¥1,052,125 ∂223,628 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

Weapons activities ................................................................................................. 8,231,770 8,846,948 8,713,000 8,882,364 ∂650,594 ∂35,416 ∂169,364 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥45,113 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂45,113 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 8,186,657 8,846,948 8,713,000 8,882,364 ∂695,707 ∂35,416 ∂169,364 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ........................................................................... 1,641,369 1,940,302 1,918,000 1,705,912 ∂64,543 ¥234,390 ¥212,088 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥24,731 .......................... ¥10,394 .......................... ∂24,731 .......................... ∂10,394 

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 1,616,638 1,940,302 1,907,606 1,705,912 ∂89,274 ¥234,390 ¥201,694 

Naval reactors ........................................................................................................ 1,238,500 1,375,496 1,322,820 1,300,000 ∂61,500 ¥75,496 ¥22,820 
149 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥4,500 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂4,500 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 1,234,000 1,375,496 1,322,820 1,300,000 ∂66,000 ¥75,496 ¥22,820 

Federal salaries and expenses .............................................................................. 370,000 402,654 385,500 375,000 ∂5,000 ¥27,654 ¥10,500 

Total, National Nuclear Security Administration ...................................... 11,407,295 12,565,400 12,328,926 12,263,276 ∂855,981 ¥302,124 ¥65,650 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities 

Defense environmental cleanup ............................................................................. 5,010,830 5,055,550 5,055,550 5,180,000 ∂169,170 ∂124,450 ∂124,450 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥10,830 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂10,830 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 5,000,000 5,055,550 5,055,550 5,180,000 ∂180,000 ∂124,450 ∂124,450 

Defense environmental cleanup (legislative proposal) ......................................... .......................... 471,797 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥471,797 ..........................Defense Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning ............... 463,000 .......................... 471,797 614,000 ∂151,000 ∂614,000 ∂142,203 Other Defense activities ......................................................................................... 754,000 774,425 767,570 764,000 ∂10,000 ¥10,425 ¥3,570 

Total, Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................................. 6,217,000 6,301,772 6,294,917 6,558,000 ∂341,000 ∂256,228 ∂263,083 Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................... 17,624,295 18,867,172 18,623,843 18,821,276 ∂1,196,981 ¥45,896 ∂197,433 

Power Marketing Administrations 1

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ........................ 7,220 6,900 6,900 6,900 ¥320 .......................... ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................... ¥7,220 ¥6,900 ¥6,900 ¥6,900 ∂320 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ....................... 46,240 47,361 47,361 47,361 ∂1,121 .......................... ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................... ¥34,840 ¥35,961 ¥35,961 ¥35,961 ¥1,121 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 11,400 11,400 11,400 11,400 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western Area Power 

Administration ................................................................................................... 304,402 307,714 307,714 307,714 ∂3,312 .......................... ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................... ¥211,030 ¥214,342 ¥214,342 ¥214,342 ¥3,312 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 93,372 93,372 93,372 93,372 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund ....................................... 4,727 4,490 4,490 4,490 ¥237 .......................... ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................... ¥4,499 ¥4,262 ¥4,262 ¥4,262 ∂237 .......................... ..........................
150 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2015 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared 

with (∂ or ¥) 

2015 

appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 228 228 228 228 .......................... .......................... ..........................Total, Power Marketing Administrations .................................................. 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................... 304,389 319,800 319,800 319,800 ∂15,411 .......................... ..........................Revenues applied ................................................................................................... ¥304,389 ¥319,800 ¥319,800 ¥319,800 ¥15,411 .......................... ..........................

General Provisions 

Title III Rescissions: 

Department of Energy: Energy efficiency and energy reliability ........................................................ ¥9,740 .......................... ¥16,677 ¥16,677 ¥6,937 ¥16,677 ..........................Science .......................................................................................................... ¥3,262 .......................... ¥4,717 ¥4,717 ¥1,455 ¥4,717 ..........................Nuclear energy .............................................................................................. ¥121 .......................... ¥1,665 ¥1,665 ¥1,544 ¥1,665 ..........................Fossil Energy Research and Development .................................................... ¥10,413 .......................... ¥12,064 ¥12,064 ¥1,651 ¥12,064 ..........................Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ..................................... ¥331 .......................... ¥900 ¥900 ¥569 ¥900 ..........................Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ............................................. ¥18 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂18 .......................... ..........................Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western Area 

Power Administration ................................................................................ ¥1,632 .......................... ¥4,832 ¥4,832 ¥3,200 ¥4,832 ..........................

Weapons activities ........................................................................................ ¥6,298 .......................... .......................... ¥65,135 ¥58,837 ¥65,135 ¥65,135 Office of the Administrator ........................................................................... ¥413 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂413 .......................... ..........................Departmental administration ........................................................................ ¥928 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂928 .......................... ..........................Defense environmental cleanup .................................................................... ¥9,983 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂9,983 .......................... ..........................Defense nuclear nonproliferation .................................................................. ¥1,390 .......................... .......................... ¥19,324 ¥17,934 ¥19,324 ¥19,324 Naval reactors ............................................................................................... ¥160 .......................... .......................... ¥628 ¥468 ¥628 ¥628 Other Defense activities ................................................................................ ¥551 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂551 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... ¥45,240 .......................... ¥40,855 ¥125,942 ¥80,702 ¥125,942 ¥85,087 Total, title III, Department of Energy ....................................................... 27,916,797 30,527,136 28,967,199 29,303,173 ∂1,386,376 ¥1,223,963 ∂335,974 
151 

Appropriations .................................................................................. (28,152,876 ) (30,527,136 ) (29,018,448 ) (29,429,115 ) (∂1,276,239 ) (¥1,098,021 ) (∂410,667 ) Rescissions ...................................................................................... (¥236,079 ) .......................... (¥51,249 ) (¥125,942 ) (∂110,137 ) (¥125,942 ) (¥74,693 ) 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Appalachian Regional Commission ....................................................................... 90,000 95,000 95,000 105,000 ∂15,000 ∂10,000 ∂10,000 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ............................................................... 28,500 29,150 29,900 29,150 ∂650 .......................... ¥750 Delta Regional Authority ........................................................................................ 12,000 14,936 12,000 25,000 ∂13,000 ∂10,064 ∂13,000 Denali Commission ................................................................................................ 10,000 10,000 10,000 11,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 Northern Border Regional Commission .................................................................. 5,000 5,000 3,000 7,500 ∂2,500 ∂2,500 ∂4,500 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission ............................................................ 250 .......................... 250 .......................... ¥250 .......................... ¥250 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

Salaries and expenses .................................................................................. 1,003,233 1,020,119 1,003,233 990,000 ¥13,233 ¥30,119 ¥13,233 Revenues ....................................................................................................... ¥885,375 ¥899,971 ¥862,274 ¥872,864 ∂12,511 ∂27,107 ¥10,590 

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 117,858 120,148 140,959 117,136 ¥722 ¥3,012 ¥23,823 

Office of Inspector General ........................................................................... 12,071 12,136 12,136 12,136 ∂65 .......................... ..........................Revenues ....................................................................................................... ¥10,099 ¥10,060 ¥10,060 ¥10,060 ∂39 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 1,972 2,076 2,076 2,076 ∂104 .......................... ..........................Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................... 119,830 122,224 143,035 119,212 ¥618 ¥3,012 ¥23,823 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ................................................................ 3,400 3,600 3,600 3,600 ∂200 .......................... ..........................Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 

Projects .............................................................................................................. .......................... 1,000 1,000 .......................... .......................... ¥1,000 ¥1,000 

Total, title IV, Independent agencies ....................................................... 268,980 280,910 297,785 300,462 ∂31,482 ∂19,552 ∂2,677 Grand total ............................................................................................... 34,780,277 36,646,014 36,010,658 36,118,168 ∂1,337,891 ¥527,846 ∂107,510 

Appropriations .................................................................................. (35,044,856 ) (36,646,014 ) (36,061,907 ) (36,372,110 ) (∂1,327,254 ) (¥273,904 ) (∂310,203 ) Rescissions ...................................................................................... (¥264,579 ) .......................... (¥51,249 ) (¥253,942 ) (∂10,637 ) (¥253,942 ) (¥202,693 ) 

1 Totals adjusted to net out alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting collection totals only reflect funds collected for annual expenses, excluding power purchase 

wheeling. 

Æ