88–359 PDF

Calendar No. 213

108TH CONGRESS REPORT

1st Session " ! SENATE 108–105

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATION

BILL, 2004

JULY 17, 2003.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1424]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1424) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, favorably

thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2004

Budget estimates considered by Senate ................. $26,946,164,000

Amount of bill as reported to the Senate ............... 27,313,000,000

The bill as reported to the Senate—

Above the budget estimate, 2004 ..................... 1,236,805,000

Over enacted bill, 2003 ..................................... 366,836,000
(2)

CONTENTS

TITLE I

Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army:

Corps of Engineers—Civil: Page

General investigations .............................................................................. 8

Construction, general ................................................................................ 23

Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries ..................................... 40

Operation and maintenance, general ....................................................... 43

Regulatory program .................................................................................. 65

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ................................ 66

General expenses ....................................................................................... 67

Flood control and coastal emergencies .................................................... 69

General provisions ..................................................................................... 70

TITLE II

Department of the Interior:

Central Utah project completion account ....................................................... 72

Bureau of Reclamation: Water and related resources ................................... 72

Central Valley project restoration fund .......................................................... 82

California bay-delta restoration ...................................................................... 83

Policy and administration ................................................................................ 84

General provisions ............................................................................................ 85

TITLE III

Department of Energy:

Energy Supply .................................................................................................. 86

Renewable energy resources ..................................................................... 87

Electricity Energy Assurance ................................................................... 90

Nuclear energy programs ......................................................................... 91

Environment, safety, and health .............................................................. 94

Energy supply infrastructure ................................................................... 94

Non-defense site acceleration completion ....................................................... 95

Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund ............. 96

Non-defense environmental service ................................................................ 97

Science ............................................................................................................... 98

High energy physics .................................................................................. 99

Nuclear physics ......................................................................................... 99

Biological and environmental research ................................................... 100

Basic energy sciences ................................................................................ 101

Fusion energy sciences .............................................................................. 102

Nuclear waste disposal fund ............................................................................ 103

Departmental administration .......................................................................... 104

Miscellaneous revenues ............................................................................ 104

Inspector General ............................................................................................. 105

Atomic energy defense activities:

National Nuclear Security Administration:

Weapons activities ............................................................................. 106

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ...................................................... 114

Naval reactors .................................................................................... 118

Office of the Administrator ............................................................... 119

Environmental and other defense activities:

Defense site acceleration completion ....................................................... 121

Defense environmental services ............................................................... 125
Page

3

Department of Energy—Continued

Environmental and other defense activities—Continued

Other defense activities ............................................................................ 126

Defense nuclear waste disposal ................................................................ 129

Power marketing administrations:

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ...... 130

Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ...... 130

Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western

Area Power Administration .................................................................. 131

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................................ 131

Salaries and expenses—revenues applied ............................................... 132

General provisions ............................................................................................ 146

TITLE IV

Independent Agencies:

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................................. 148

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................................ 148

Delta Regional Authority ................................................................................. 149

Denali Commission ........................................................................................... 149

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ..................................................................... 150

Office of Inspector General ....................................................................... 151

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ......................................................... 151

TITLE V

General provisions ................................................................................................... 152

Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the

Senate ................................................................................................................... 152

Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the

Senate ................................................................................................................... 152

Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the

Senate ................................................................................................................... 153

Budgetary impact statement .................................................................................. 154
(4)

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for the fiscal

year 2004 beginning October 1, 2003, and ending September 30,

2004, for energy and water development, and for other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources development programs

and related activities of the Department of the Army, Civil Functions—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Program in title

I; for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation in

title II; for the Department of Energy’s energy research activities

(except for fossil fuel programs and certain conservation and regulatory functions), including environmental restoration and waste

management, and atomic energy defense activities of the National

Nuclear Security Administration in title III; and for related independent agencies and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional Commission, Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission,

and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in title IV.

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The fiscal year 2004 budget estimates for the bill total

$26,946,164,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The recommendation of the Committee totals $27,313,000,000. This is

$366,836,000 above the budget estimates and $1,236,805,000 over

the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.

The bill, as recommended, is in compliance with the subcommittee allocation agreed to by the Committee and entered into

the Congressional Record on June 20, 2003.

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the

Committee on Appropriations held four sessions in connection with

the fiscal year 2004 appropriation bill. Witnesses included officials

and representatives of the Federal agencies under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction.

The subcommittee received numerous statements and letters

from Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives,

Governors, State and local officials and representatives, and hundreds of private citizens of all walks of life throughout the United

States. Information, both for and against many items, was presented to the subcommittee. The recommendations for fiscal year

2004 therefore, have been developed after careful consideration of

available data.

VOTES IN THE COMMITTEE

By a vote of 29 to 0 the Committee on July 17, 2003, recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the Senate.
(5)

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The Committee remains concerned about the level of the budget

requests for the water resources programs of the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers. The budget request for fiscal year 2004 is about

$450,000,000 less than the amount appropriated to the Corps in

fiscal year 2003. The budget request is extraordinarily unbalanced.

Eight projects account for 29 percent of the proposed Construction,

General budget with the remainder of the projects severely underfunded. The proposed General Investigations budget, which provides funding for studies of water resources needs, is decimated.

Only studies in their final year were adequately funded, the remainder were severely underfunded. The proposed Operations and

Maintenance budget appears to show an increase, however, when

accounting for inflation and proposed funding transfers that are

unlikely to be enacted, the final total is less than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003. The budget proposed for the Mississippi River and Tributaries project, is equally inadequate.

If the proposed budget request were enacted, the Corps would be

forced to terminate on-going construction contracts costing the government some $200,000,000 in termination fees, demobilization

costs, and delays in project schedules.

As has been the practice for the last several years, the budget

proposal contained no new construction ‘‘starts’’. The budget proposal stated that this was done in order to only fund the backlog

of on-going work (estimated at $23,000,000,000 in the budget proposal) and that within 10 years, this backlog would be reduced to

zero. Followed to conclusion, that would mean that within 10 years

the Corps would only be an operation and maintenance agency to

oversee past constructed work. Since there are no other nationwide

agencies that address water resource problems and needs, one can

only assume that all water resource problems will be solved in the

next 10 years or that the Federal Government intends to no longer

fund water resource development.

The Committee does not share the views in the budget proposal

and remains concerned about the huge and increasing backlog of

infrastructure development, maintenance, and repair over which

the Corps has jurisdiction. The proposed budget causes the backlog

of unconstructed projects to increase from $44,000,000,000 to

$52,000,000,000 and ignores an accelerating critical maintenance

backlog which increases from $960,000,000 to $1,100,000,000. This

maintenance backlog will soon become entirely unmanageable

under the weight of an aging and crumbling inventory. Proposing
6

no new discretionary construction starts, underfunding on-going

projects, and providing minimal O&M funding for completed

projects leads the Committee to believe that the budget preparation

may have been influenced by very narrow interest groups as opposed to providing for a robust national water resources development program. The situation that the proposed budget poses to the

Nation’s economy and quality of life leave the Committee no option

but to step forward in support of these vital projects.

The Committee recommendation for the Corps of Engineers totals $4,426,700. This is $232,700,000 above the budget request for

fiscal year 2003, and is $212,127,000 below the appropriation for

the current year.

BUILDING AND SITE SECURITY

The Committee is aware of the heightened threat of terrorist activity since the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent

financial burden this places on the Corps of Engineers in managing

the security of the many public assets and critical infrastructure

within its control. In order to offset some of the financial burden

of the Corps of Engineers, the Committee provided $139,000,000 in

the fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations bill to defray

some of these costs. The Committee encourages the administration

to include funding for specific security related costs in future budget submissions for the Corps of Engineers, as many of these costs

are recurring.

CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

The Committee is concerned that Corps of Engineers technical

and planning capabilities have diminished over the past decade.

This diminished capability has been evident in recent controversial

studies such as the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway

System Navigation Study and the Delaware River Deepening

Study. The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to review ways

in which it can improve its capability, to include concentrating its

technical and planning expertise in regional centers. The Committee believes that there is much the Corps can do to leverage its

highly skilled workforce in an effort to better utilize their expertise

on a national level. With constrained budgets and ever-changing

technology, the current work environment lends itself well to the

movement of knowledge and information across great distances in

a matter of minutes. Therefore, the Committee remains committed

to the concept of the regional centers because they will enable the

Corps to maximize its expertise across the country over a wide variety of projects and problems just by tapping its own resources.

Though many problems are regionalized many of their solutions

are not. With the implementation of regional centers the Corps will

be able to manage the Agency’s workload across the Nation rather

than just in a district or division.

BUDGET CONSTRAINTS

The budget allocation for non-Defense discretionary programs

contained in the Energy and Water Development bill for fiscal year

2004 are constrained below what is necessary for a robust, bal-
7

anced national water resources program. Faced with these budget

realities, the Committee has had to make tough decisions and

choices in the development of the Corps of Engineers’ budget request for fiscal year 2004. However, while the budget resources for

non-Defense discretionary programs have remained flat or have declined in real terms, the number of requests of the Committee continue to increase. This year the Committee received more than

1,200 requests for funding for water projects within the Corps’ Civil

Works program. Many supported the funding level in the budget

request, but a majority of the requests made of the Committee

sought increases over the budgeted amounts or items not contained

in the President’s budget for both fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year

2004.

EXPENDITURE RATES

The Committee is aware that the Corps of Engineers has exercised its existing authorities to take advantage of a good construction season and as a result, has been executing its construction

program at an increased rate using funds available from under-performing projects. This occurrence has compounded over the last 2

years and has resulted in the Corps executing construction projects

at a rate which far outpaces their respective appropriated amount.

The Committee is very concerned that this practice has led to a situation where the Corps, despite Congressional intent expressed in

the appropriations Act, makes the decision on where to put its

scarce resources to the best use. Though the Committee understands that the Federal government yields project benefits and cost

savings when a project is completed ahead of schedule or on time,

opposed to later, the Committee is not in favor of projects proceeding at a faster rate than Congress intended without its concurrence. The intent of Congress, with respect to water projects, is

very clear, specifically outlined in the detail tables on a project by

project basis.

Therefore, instead of retracting the Corps’ reprogramming authority, a privilege granted to the Corps, the Committee expects

the Corps, within 3 months of enactment of this Act, to submit a

report to the Senate Appropriations Committee on its management

plan for its appropriations and how it intends to rectify the situation. Should the Corps not reign in its expenditures to reflect the

Congressional intent; the Committee will seek to retract the Corps

reprogramming authority.

TRUST FUND ACCOUNT USAGE

For fiscal year 2004, the administration proposes to expand the

use of both the Inland Waterways and the Harbor Maintenance

trust funds. In the case of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, a

fuel-tax fund which offsets construction costs of certain inland waterways projects, the administration proposes to use revenues to

pay for one-quarter of the operations and maintenance costs for all

‘‘high use’’ Federal inland waterways, in addition to one-half the

operating and maintenance costs for all other Federal inland waterways. During fiscal year 2004, this proposal would translate to

$110,000,000 in additional revenue tapped by the Corps. If the

Congress were to enact this proposal, it would effectively raise the
8

inland waterways users’ diesel fuel tax from 20 cents to 34 cents

per gallon.

As for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, revenue is derived

from receipts from an ad valorem tax imposed on commercial users

of specified U.S. ports. The administration proposes to use the fund

to finance not only 100 percent of the Federal share of the operation and maintenance costs for ports and harbors, but also all

Federal costs associated with coastal port and channel construction.

If the Committee were to enact these two proposals, the burden

placed upon both trust funds would be so great that the funds

would likely be bankrupt within a few years’ time. The Committee

believes that the changes contemplated by the administration will

dilute the funds’ target for resources: specific construction projects

in the inland waterways system and the maintenance of certain

ports and harbors. Therefore, the Committee dismisses the trust

fund proposals and encourages the administration, if it is indeed as

concerned with the funding needs of the Corps in these two areas,

to increase the budget request for direct appropriations for the

Corps.

BASIS OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

In development of the fiscal year 2004 funding recommendation

for the Corps of Engineers, the Committee is not able to include

any new construction starts, and has recommended only a limited

number of new study starts in an effort to restore balance to the

water resource program of the Corps, and to address high priority

requests made to the Committee. The limited resources available

have been focused on on-going projects where the Corps has contractual commitments. While the Committee has not been able to

fund all projects at the optimum level, it has endeavored to provide

sufficient funding on each project to mitigate delays and increased

costs, to the greatest extent possible, across the entire Corps’ Civil

Works program. One issue of great concern to the Committee is

that the fiscal year 2004 budget request only funded 18 of the

projects in the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase. The

Committee believes that this was done by the administration as a

means to constrict the future pressure on construction. However,

the administration did not responsibly take into account the fact

that for fiscal year 2003, the Congress included funding for 84 of

these projects, the majority of which have Design Agreements

signed, which are legally binding contracts. As a result of the administration not funding these projects, the Committee used its

constrained resources to avoid the Government breeching these

contracts.

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $134,141,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 100,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 131,700,000

This appropriation funds studies to determine the need, engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the environmental

and social suitability of solutions to water and related land resource problems; and for preconstruction engineering and design
9

work, data collection, and interagency coordination and research

activities.

The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance

are shown on the following table:

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

ALABAMA

BREWTON AND EAST BREWTON, AL ...................................................... 300 .................. 300 ..................

CAHABA RIVER WATERSHED, AL ........................................................... 50 .................. 50 ..................

VILLAGE CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM WATERSHED) ..... 200 .................. 200 ..................

ALASKA

ADAK, AK ............................................................................................... .................. .................. 100 ..................

AKUTAN HARBOR, AK ............................................................................ 100 .................. 100 200

ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK ................................................. 50 .................. 200 ..................

BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, AK ........................... 200 .................. 1,000 ..................

COFFMAN COVE, AK .............................................................................. .................. .................. 200 ..................

CRAIG HARBOR, AK ............................................................................... 50 .................. 200 ..................

DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR, AK .......................................................... 200 .................. 566 ..................

EKLUTNA RIVER WATERSHED, AK ......................................................... 100 .................. 300 ..................

HAINES HARBOR, AK ............................................................................. 100 .................. 100 200

HOMER HARBOR, AK ............................................................................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

KAKTOVIK BEACH EROSION STUDY, AK ................................................. .................. .................. 200 ..................

KETCHIKAN HARBOR, AK ....................................................................... 50 .................. 200 ..................

KLAWOCK HARBOR, AK ......................................................................... .................. .................. 100 ..................

KNIK BRIDGE CROSSING, AK ................................................................. .................. .................. 200 ..................

KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, AK .................................................. 50 .................. 250 ..................

LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK .............................................................. 50 .................. 200 ..................

MATANUSKA, AK .................................................................................... .................. .................. 100 ..................

MCGRATH BANK STABILIZATION, AK ..................................................... .................. .................. 300 ..................

MEKORYUK HARBOR, AK ....................................................................... 50 .................. 100 ..................

PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK ..................................................................... 100 .................. 100 100

REGIONAL PORT STUDY, AK .................................................................. .................. .................. 300 ..................

SAINT GEORGE NAVIGATION IMPROVEMETS, AK ................................... 50 .................. 400 ..................

SKAGWAY, AK ........................................................................................ .................. .................. 100 ..................

UNALAKLEET HARBOR, AK ..................................................................... 50 .................. 200 ..................

UNALASKA HARBOR, AK ........................................................................ 150 .................. 500 ..................

VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK ......................................................... 50 .................. 50 ..................

WHITTIER BREAKWATER, AK .................................................................. 50 .................. 50 ..................

AMERICAN SOMOA

TUTUILA HARBOR, AS ............................................................................ 46 .................. 46 ..................

ARIZONA

AGUA FRIA RIVER, AZ ........................................................................... 150 .................. 150 ..................

CANADA DEL ORO WASH, AZ ................................................................ 100 .................. 100 ..................

NAVAJO NATION, AZ, NM AND UT ......................................................... 130 .................. 130 ..................

PIMA COUNTY, AZ ................................................................................. 300 .................. 300 ..................

RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ ........................................................ 300 .................. 300 ..................

RIO SALADO OESTE, SALT RIVER, AZ ................................................... 250 .................. 250 ..................

SANTA CRUZ RIVER, GRANT RD TO FT LOWELL RD, AZ ....................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, AZ ............................... 152 .................. 152 ..................

VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT, AZ ............. 370 .................. 370 ..................

ARKANSAS

ARKANSAS RIVER LEVEES, AR .............................................................. .................. .................. .................. 300

ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, AR AND OK .............................. 1,070 .................. 1,270 ..................

HOT SPRINGS CREEK, AR ..................................................................... .................. .................. 32 ..................

MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR ............................................................ .................. .................. .................. 200
10

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

NORTH LITTLE ROCK, DARK HOLLOW, AR ............................................. .................. .................. .................. 200

PINE MOUNTAIN DAM, AR ..................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 300

RED RIVER NAVIGATION, SWAR, AR AND LA ........................................ .................. .................. .................. 150

WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR AND MO ............................ 300 .................. 500 ..................

WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS, AR ...................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100

WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION, AR .............................................................. .................. .................. .................. 100

CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MINI-RAISE), CA .......... .................. .................. 4,000 ..................

ALISO CREEK MAINSTEM, CA ................................................................ 150 .................. 150 ..................

ARANA GULCH WATERSHED, CA ........................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

ARROYO SECO WATERSHED RESTORATION, CA .................................... 150 .................. 150 ..................

BALLONA CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA ................................. 150 .................. 150 ..................

BOLINAS LAGOON, CA ........................................................................... .................. .................. 200 ..................

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA ................................................................ 141 .................. 141 ..................

COAST OF CALIFORNIA, (STORM AND TIDAL), CA ................................. .................. .................. 700 ..................

COYOTE DAM, CA .................................................................................. 100 .................. 100 ..................

DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA .................................................................... .................. .................. 200 ..................

GRAYSON AND MURDERER’S CREEKS, CA ........................................... 400 .................. 400 ..................

HUMBOLDT BAY LONG TERM SHOAL MANAGEMENT, CA ...................... .................. .................. 100 ..................

CITY OF INGLEWOOD, CA ...................................................................... .................. .................. 300 ..................

LA RIVER WATERCOURSE, HEADWORKS AREA, CA ............................... 250 .................. 250 ..................

LA RIVER WATERCOURSE, SAN JOSE CREEK, CA ................................. 100 .................. 100 ..................

LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA ............................................................... 150 .................. 150 ..................

LAKE ELSINORE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA ........................... 50 .................. 50 ..................

LLAGAS CREEK, CA ............................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 200

LOWER CACHE CREEK, YOLO COUNTY, CA ........................................... .................. .................. .................. 200

LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA ................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 200

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA ................................................................... 150 .................. 150 ..................

MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA .......................................................... 270 .................. 270 ..................

MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA CREEK, CA ........................................ 150 .................. 150 ..................

MATILIJA DAM, CA ................................................................................. 300 .................. 731 ..................

MIDDLE CREEK, CA ............................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100

MORRO BAY ESTUARY, CA .................................................................... 250 .................. 250 ..................

MUGU LAGOON, CA ............................................................................... 150 .................. 150 ..................

N CA STREAMS, LOWER SACRAMENTO RVR RIPARIAN REVEGETATI .... 200 .................. 200 ..................

NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA ...................................... 200 .................. 200 ..................

NAPA VALLEY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA ..................................... 150 .................. 150 ..................

NEWPORT BAY/SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED, CA ............................ 186 .................. 186 ..................

OCEAN BEACH, CA ................................................................................ 100 .................. 100 ..................

ORANGE COUNTY SHORELINE, LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSH ... 100 .................. 100 ..................

ORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA ................................. 150 .................. 150 ..................

PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE, CA .................................................... .................. .................. .................. 200

PAJARO RIVER BASIN STUDY, CA ......................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

PINE FLAT DAM, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, CA ............................... .................. .................. .................. 50

POSO CREEK, CA .................................................................................. 300 .................. 300 ..................

PRADO BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA .............................. 100 .................. 100 ..................

RUSSIAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA .................................. 150 .................. 150 ..................

SACRAMENTO—SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CA ............................................. 1,100 .................. 1,100 ..................

SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN STUDY, ..... 1,020 .................. .................. 1,020

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA ............................................................ 100 .................. 100 ..................

SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CA ........................................................... 100 .................. 215 ..................

SAN DIEGO SHORELINE, CA .................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 200

SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CA ..................................................................... 420 .................. 420 ..................

SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK, CA ............................................................ 100 .................. 100 ..................

SAN JACINTO RIVER, CA ....................................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

SAN JOAQUIN RB, W STANISLAUS, DEL PUERTO AND SALADO CREE ... 50 .................. 50 ..................

SAN JOAQUIN RB, WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, ORESTIMBA CREE ...... 300 .................. 300 ..................

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, CONSUMNES AND MOKELUMNE

RIVERS, ............................................................................................. 200 .................. 200 ..................
11

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, FRAZIER CREEK, CA ................................ 100 .................. 100 ..................

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, TUOLUMNE RIVER, CA ............................. 350 .................. 350 ..................

SAN JUAN CREEK, SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY, CA .................................. 100 .................. 100 ..................

SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA ........................................................ 200 .................. 200 ..................

SANTA ANA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BIG BEAR LAKE, CA ................. 200 .................. 200 ..................

SANTA CLARA RIVER, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA ............................. 150 .................. 150 ..................

SANTA ROSA CREEK WATERSHED, CA .................................................. 120 .................. 120 ..................

SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE FEASIBILITY STUDY, CA ...................... .................. .................. 400 ..................

SONOMA CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CA ............................................... 150 .................. 150 ..................

STRONG AND CHICKEN RANCH SLOUGHS, CA ...................................... 50 .................. 50 ..................

SUTTER COUNTY, CA ............................................................................. 200 .................. 200 ..................

TAHOE BASIN, CA AND NV .................................................................... 1,000 .................. 1,000 50

TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY, CA .................................................................. 100 .................. 100 ..................

UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER,CA ............................................................... .................. .................. .................. 200

UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA ............................................................ 460 .................. 460 ..................

UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSHED, CA ......................................... 150 .................. 150 ..................

VENTURA AND SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHORELINE, CA ................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

VENTURA HARBOR SAND BYPASS, CA .................................................. 121 .................. 121 ..................

WESTMINSTER, COYOTE AND CARBON CANYON CREEK WATERSHEDS ............................................................................................... 150 .................. 150 ..................

WESTMINSTER, EAST GARDEN GROVE, CA ........................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

WHITE RIVER AND DEER CREEK, CA .................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CA ............................................................ .................. .................. .................. 200

WILDCAT AND SAN PABLO CREEKS, CA ................................................ 100 .................. 100 ..................

COLORADO

CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS, CO ....... 260 .................. 260 ..................

FOUNTAIN CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CO ............................................. 350 .................. 350 ..................

ZUNI AND SUN VALLEY REACHES, SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, CO ............. .................. 186 .................. 186

COMMONWEALTH OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

ROTA HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI .................................................. 102 .................. 102 ..................

TINIAN HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI ................................................ 102 .................. 102 ..................

DELAWARE

DELAWARE COAST, CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, DE ........... .................. 214 .................. ..................

CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, DE ........................................... .................. .................. 100 ..................

FLORIDA

HILLSBOROUGH RIVER, FL .................................................................... 340 .................. 340 ..................

LAKE WORTH INLET, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL ................................... 370 .................. 370 ..................

LIDO BAY, SARASOTA COUNTY, FL ........................................................ .................. .................. .................. 200

LITTLE TALBOT ISLAND, FL .................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100

PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL ........................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100

ST. JOHNS COUNTY. FL ......................................................................... .................. .................. 100 ..................

ST. PETERSBURG HARBOR, FL .............................................................. .................. .................. .................. 200

WALTON COUNTY BEACH AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORE, FL ............ .................. .................. 300 ..................

WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER, FL .................................................................. 340 .................. 340 ..................

GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA ............................................................................ 150 .................. 150 ..................

ARABIA MOUNTAIN, GA ......................................................................... 150 .................. 150 ..................

AUGUSTA, GA ........................................................................................ 300 .................. 300 ..................

INDIAN, SUGAR, ENTRENCHMENT AND FEDERAL PRISON CREEKS, ...... 175 .................. 175 ..................

LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA .................................. 150 .................. 150 ..................

SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION,GA ...................................................... .................. .................. .................. 615

SAVANNAH HARBOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, GA ............................ 150 .................. 150 ..................

SAVANNAH HARBOR SEDIMENT CONTROL WORKS, GA AND SC ........... 100 .................. 100 ..................

SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, GA AND SC ...................... 200 .................. 200 ..................

UTOY, SANDY AND PROCTOR CREEKS, GA ........................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................
12

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

HAWAII

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI .................................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI ............................ 100 .................. 100 ..................

KAHUKU, HI ........................................................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, HAWAII, HI ............ 100 .................. 150 ..................

KIHEI AREA EROSION, HI ...................................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

NAWILIWILI HARBOR MODIFICATION, KAUAI, HI .................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

WAIKIKI EROSION CONTROL, HI ............................................................ .................. .................. .................. 250

WAILUPE STREAM FLOOD CONTROL STUDY, HI .................................... .................. .................. .................. 300

GUAM

HAGATNA RIVER, GUAM ........................................................................ .................. .................. 100 ..................

IDAHO

BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID ....................................................................... 110 .................. 110 ..................

LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, ID ....................................................... 100 .................. 100 100

ILLINOIS

ALEXANDER AND PULASKI COUNTIES, IL .............................................. 103 .................. 103 ..................

DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II) ....................................................... 278 .................. 500 ..................

ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL .............................................. 504 .................. 700 ..................

ILLINOIS RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, IL ..................................... 148 .................. 200 ..................

PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL ............................................... .................. 600 .................. 600

ROCK RIVER, IL AND WI ....................................................................... 48 .................. 48 ..................

UPPER MISS AND ILLINOIS NAV STUDY, IL, IA, MN, MO AND WI ......... 3,216 .................. 4,216 ..................

UPPER MISS RVR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IL, IA, MO, MN AND WI ..... 494 .................. 2,600 ..................

WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL ........................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 100

WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL ......................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 150

INDIANA

INDIANA HARBOR, IN ............................................................................ 150 .................. 150 ..................

JOHN T. MYERS LOCK AND DAM, IN AND KY ....................................... .................. .................. .................. 2,000

IOWA

DAVENPORT, IA ..................................................................................... .................. 159 .................. 159

DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA .............................................. 565 .................. 565 ..................

FORT DODGE, IA .................................................................................... 23 .................. 217 ..................

LOWER DES MOINES RIVER, IA AND MO .............................................. 50 .................. 50 ..................

KANSAS

BRUSH CREEK BASIN STUDY, KS AND MO ........................................... .................. .................. 100 ..................

TOPEKA, KS ........................................................................................... 125 .................. 125 50

TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO ..................................................... .................. 205 .................. 205

UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS ................................................................... 229 .................. 229 ..................

WALNUT AND WHITEWATER RIVER WATERSHEDS, KS ........................... 160 .................. 160 ..................

KENTUCKY

GREENUP LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND OH ......................... .................. 2,895 .................. 2,895

METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY .......................... 200 .................. 200 ..................

METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, MILL CREEK BASIN, KY ........................... 176 .................. 176 ..................

METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, SOUTHWEST, KY ...................................... 225 .................. 225 ..................

OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM SYSTEMS STUDY, KY, IL, IN, PA, WV ............ 1,350 .................. 1,350 ..................

DEWEY LAKE WATER REALLOCATION, KY .............................................. .................. .................. 125 ..................

LOUISIANA

AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA ......... 50 .................. 50 ..................

AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BAYOU MANCHAC, LA ...................... 100 .................. 300 ..................

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L ..... 150 .................. 1,150 ..................

BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA ..................................................................... .................. 707 .................. 707
13

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

BOSSIER PARISH LEVEE AND FLOOD CONTROL, LA ............................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

CALCASIEU LOCK, LA ............................................................................ 100 .................. 100 ..................

CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA ................................................................ 50 .................. 50 ..................

CALCASIEU RIVER PASS SHIP CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT, LA ................ .................. .................. 200 ..................

GIWW ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA ................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA ................................................................ 100 .................. 100 ..................

JEFFORSON PARISH, LA ......................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 25

LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA ......................................................................... .................. 645 .................. 645

LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA .................. 848 .................. 1,900 ..................

ORLEANS PARISH, LA ............................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 25

PLAQUEMINES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA ............................ 100 .................. 100 ..................

PORT OF IBERIA, LA .............................................................................. 150 .................. 1,150 ..................

ST. BERNARD PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA ............................ 100 .................. 100 ..................

ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA ............................. 100 .................. 100 ..................

ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA ...................................................... 100 .................. 300 ..................

WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA ......................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100

WEST SHORE-LAKE PONTCHARTAIN, LA ................................................ .................. .................. .................. 400

MAINE

SEARSPORT HARBOR, ME ..................................................................... .................. .................. 100 ..................

MARYLAND

ANACOSTIA RIVER, PG COUNTY LEVEE, MD AND DC ........................... 194 .................. 194 ..................

BALTIMORE METRO, GWYNN FALLS, MD ............................................... .................. .................. .................. 500

CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE EROSION, MD, VA AND DE ................... 200 .................. 500 ..................

EASTERN SHORE, MID CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD ......................... 351 .................. 500 ..................

LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, ST MARY’S, MD .................. 200 .................. 200 ..................

MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN, MD ................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

MASSACHUSETTS

BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, MA AND RI .............. 50 .................. 50 ..................

BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA ......................................... 500 .................. 500 ..................

COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MA ................ 170 .................. 170 ..................

SOMERSET AND SEARSBURG DAMS, MA AND VT ................................. .................. .................. .................. 100

MICHIGAN

GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA .............. 740 .................. 1,000 ..................

DETRIOT RIVER MASTERPLAN, MI ......................................................... .................. .................. 100 ..................

DETRIOT RIVER SEAWALLS, MI ............................................................. .................. .................. .................. 200

LANSING, MI .......................................................................................... .................. .................. 100 ..................

ROUGE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, MI ................................... .................. .................. 25 ..................

ROUGE RIVER SUPP PLAN, MI .............................................................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

MINNESOTA

MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED, UMR LAKE ITASCA TO L&D 2, M .... 250 .................. 250 ..................

RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN, ND, SD AND MANITOBA, C .... 1,200 .................. 1,200 ..................

SOUTH WASHINGTON CTY WATERSHED, UMR LAKE ITASCA TO L&D .... 250 .................. 250 ..................

MISSISSIPPI

GULFPORT AND HARRISON COUNTY WATERSHED STUDY, MS .............. 100 .................. 100 ..................

HANCOCK COUNTY SEAWALL RESTORATION, MS .................................. 150 .................. 150 ..................

PEARL RIVER WATERSHED, MS ............................................................. 400 .................. 660 ..................

MISSOURI

CHESTERFIELD, MO ............................................................................... .................. 439 .................. 439

JORDAN CREEK, MO .............................................................................. .................. .................. 300 ..................

KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS .................................................................. 316 .................. 650 ..................

MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 AND R460-471, MO .... 150 .................. 150 ..................

RIVER DES PERES,MO ........................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100

SPRINGFIELD, MO .................................................................................. 230 .................. 330 ..................
14

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO ...................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100

ST. LOUIS HARBOR, MO ........................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 100

SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO ............................ .................. .................. .................. 500

ST. LOUIS MISSISSIPPI RIVERFRONT, MO AND IL ................................. 151 .................. 151 ..................

WEARS CREEK, JEFFERSON CITY, MO ................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

MONTANA

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT ................................................... 209 .................. 209 ..................

NEBRASKA

LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE ...................................... 191 .................. 191 ..................

SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NE ................................................ .................. 546 .................. 546

WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NE ............................................ .................. 318 .................. 318

NEVADA

LAS VEGAS WASH, NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV ........................................... 50 .................. 50 ..................

LOWER LAS VEGAS WASH WETLANDS, NV ............................................ 50 .................. 50 ..................

TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV ....................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 2,115

WALKER RIVER BASIN, NV .................................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

NEW HAMPSHIRE

CONNECTICUT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, NH AND VT ............ 115 .................. 115 ..................

MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN, NH ............................................................. 400 .................. 400 ..................

PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA TURNING BASIN, NH ........... .................. .................. 100 ..................

NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT BAY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, NJ ................................... .................. .................. .................. 200

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, NJ, NY, DE AND PA ......... 50 .................. 50 ..................

GOFFLE BROOK, BOROUGH OF HAWTHORNE, NJ .................................. 25 .................. 100 ..................

GREAT EGG INLET TO TOWNSEND INLET, NJ ........................................ .................. 539 .................. 539

HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ ....... 100 .................. 100 ..................

HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ ................. 25 .................. 25 ..................

MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLE, NJ ......................................... .................. .................. .................. 100

MID-DELAWARE BASIN COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, NJ ............................ .................. .................. 100 ..................

NJIWW ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, NJ .................................................. .................. .................. .................. 200

NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLE ..... 100 .................. 100 ..................

NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE LONG-TERM NOURISHMENT ... 100 .................. 100 ..................

LOWER PASSAIC RIVER NJ ENVIRO REST, NJ ....................................... 25 .................. 100 ..................

PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ ............................................................. .................. .................. .................. 200

PECKMAN RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ ............................................... 200 .................. 200 ..................

RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ .................................................................... 150 .................. 150 ..................

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ ........................ 200 .................. 200 ..................

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, KEYPORT, NJ ............................ 200 .................. 200 ..................

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ ......................... 150 .................. 150 ..................

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK, PORT MONMOUTH, NJ ..................... .................. .................. .................. 200

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK UNION BEACH, NJ ............................ .................. .................. .................. 100

SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ ......................................... 150 .................. 150 ..................

SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ ............................................ .................. .................. .................. 100

STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ ....................................... 200 .................. 200 ..................

UPPER PASSAIC RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ ..................................... .................. .................. .................. 200

UPPER ROCKAWAY RIVER, NJ ............................................................... 441 .................. 441 ..................

WOODBRIDGE RIVER BASIN, NJ ............................................................ 150 .................. 200 ..................

NEW MEXICO

EAST MESA, LAS CRUCES, NM ............................................................. .................. .................. 130 ..................

ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE AND TRIBUTARIES, NM .................... 50 .................. 510 20

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BOSQUE, NM ...................................................... 225 .................. 300 ..................

RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO AND TX ................................................... 125 .................. 125 ..................

SANTA FE, NM ....................................................................................... 225 .................. 300 ..................

SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTIONS STUDY, NM ........................ .................. .................. .................. 250
15

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

NEW YORK

BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY ...................................................................... 50 .................. 50 ..................

BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, NY ................................ 52 .................. 52 ..................

FLUSHING BAY CREEK, NY .................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 25

FREEPORT CREEK, VILLAGE OF FREEPORT, NY .................................... 25 .................. 25 ..................

HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS CANAL, NY AND NJ ............. 255 .................. 255 ..................

HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ ........................................... 685 .................. 785 ..................

HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NY ......................................... 25 .................. 25 25

JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY ......................... 147 .................. 147 ..................

LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY ................................................................ 85 .................. 85 ..................

NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE AREAS, NY ...................................... .................. .................. .................. 50

NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, NY .............................. 134 .................. 134 ..................

NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY .................................. 170 .................. 170 ..................

ONONDAGA LAKE, NY ............................................................................ 307 .................. 307 ..................

SAW MILL RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NY .............................................. 50 .................. 50 ..................

SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY ................................................. 250 .................. 250 ..................

UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NY .......................................... 50 .................. 50 ..................

UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN ENVIRON RESTORATION, NY ....... 200 .................. 200 ..................

NORTH CAROLINA

BOGUE BANKS, NC ................................................................................ 400 .................. 400 ..................

CURRITUCK SOUND, NC ........................................................................ 150 .................. 150 ..................

DARE COUNTY BEACHES, HATTERAS AND OCRACOKE ISLANDS, NC .... 150 .................. 200 ..................

MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC ......................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100

NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC ...................................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC ....................................... 200 .................. 200 ..................

TAR RIVER BASIN, NC ........................................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

OHIO

ASHTABULA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH ........................... .................. 250 .................. 640

COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN AREA, OH .................................................. 365 .................. 365 ..................

DUCK CREEK WATERSHED, OH ............................................................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, MONDAY CREEK, OH ....... 40 .................. 40 200

MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH AND PA ............... 450 .................. 642 300

MUSKINGUM BASIN SYSTEM STUDY, OH .............................................. 357 .................. 357 ..................

WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH, IN AND MI ........................................ 130 .................. 130 ..................

WHEELING CREEK, OH .......................................................................... .................. .................. 131 ..................

OKLAHOMA

MIAMI AND VICINITY, OK ....................................................................... 231 .................. 231 ..................

GRAND LAKE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, OK .......................................... .................. .................. 100 ..................

MOUNTAIN FORK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, OK ................................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

OOLOGAH LAKE WATERSHED, OK AND KS ............................................ 259 .................. 259 ..................

SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE STUDY, OK ....................... 50 .................. 50 ..................

SPAVINAW CREEK, OK ........................................................................... .................. .................. 100 ..................

WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK ................................................................... .................. .................. 100 ..................

WISTER LAKE WATERSHED, OK ............................................................. .................. .................. 200 ..................

OREGON

AMAZON CREEK, OR ............................................................................. 250 .................. 250 ..................

EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD WATERWAYS AND FERN RIDGE DAM, OR ......... .................. .................. 200 ..................

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA ..... 250 .................. 250 ..................

TILLAMOOK BAY AND ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR .......... 43 .................. 43 475

WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR AND WA ................................... 439 .................. 500 ..................

WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR ................................................ 94 .................. 94 ..................

WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR .......................... 313 .................. 313 ..................

WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR ............................ 210 .................. 210 ..................

PENNSYLVANIA

CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, PA, DE AND MD ................................. 50 .................. 50 ..................
16

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

EMS, DASH AND MONT & DAMS UPPER OH RIVER NAV, PA ................ .................. .................. 800 ..................

SCHUYKILL ESTUARINE RIVER BASIN, PA ............................................. .................. .................. 250 ..................

SCHUYLKILL RIVER, WISSAHICKON, PA ................................................. 50 .................. 50 ..................

UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PA (PHASE II) ............................ 180 .................. 180 ..................

RHODE ISLAND

RHODE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, RI .................................... 20 .................. 20 ..................

SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC ............................................ 430 .................. 430 ..................

BROAD RIVER BASIN, SC ...................................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

EDISTO ISLAND, SC ............................................................................... .................. .................. 100 ..................

PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC ............................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 125

REEDY RIVER, SC ................................................................................. 170 .................. 170 ..................

SANTEE DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, SC ............................ 75 .................. 75 ..................

WACCAMAW RIVER, SC ......................................................................... 50 .................. 50 ..................

SOUTH DAKOTA

JAMES RIVER, SD AND ND .................................................................... 150 .................. 500 ..................

WATERTOWN AND VICINITY, SD ............................................................ .................. .................. .................. 473

TENNESSEE

DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN ......................................................................... 243 .................. 300 ..................

TEXAS

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES (MAINSTEM), TX ........................... .................. .................. .................. 500

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, WHITE OAK BAYOU, TX ............... 100 .................. 100 ..................

CEDAR BAYOU, TX ................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 374

COLONIAS-LWR RIO ALONG TX AND MEXICO BORDER, TX ................... .................. .................. .................. 325

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ................................................... .................. .................. .................. 800

FREEPORT HARBOR, TX ........................................................................ 250 .................. 250 ..................

FREEPORT HURRICANE PROTECTION LEVEE, TX ................................... 200 .................. 200 ..................

GIWW MODIFICATIONS, TX ..................................................................... 350 .................. 350 ..................

GIWW, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT O’CONNOR, TX ................................... 361 .................. 361 ..................

GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER REALIGNMENTS, TX ............... 200 .................. 200 ..................

GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX ......................................... .................. 315 .................. 315

GIWW, MATAGORDA BAY, TX ................................................................. .................. 100 .................. 100

GIWW, PORT O’CONNOR TO CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TX ........................ 400 .................. 400 ..................

GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX ............................................................. .................. 774 .................. 774

GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX .............................. 150 .................. 150 ..................

LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX .................................................... 600 .................. 1,600 ..................

MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX .................................................................. 50 .................. 250 ..................

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL (PORT LAVACA), TX ................................. .................. .................. 500 ..................

NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX ..................................................................... 300 .................. 300 ..................

NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX .................................................. 100 .................. 100 ..................

RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX .................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 800

RESACAS AT BROWNSVILLE, TX ............................................................ 300 .................. 300 ..................

RIVERSIDE OXBOW, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, FT WORTH, TX ................. .................. 350 .................. 350

SABINE—NECHES WATERWAY, TX ........................................................ 300 .................. 350 ..................

SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX ................................................. 450 .................. 450 ..................

SOUTH MAIN CHANNEL, TX ................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 300

SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, TX ............................... 235 .................. 235 ..................

SULPHUR RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, TX .......................... 50 .................. 50 ..................

TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TX ..................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 1,500

TRI-COUNTY FLOOD STUDY, SAN ANTONIO RIVER, TX .......................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX ......................................................... 400 .................. 600 ..................

UTAH

PARK CITY WATER SUPPLY, UT ............................................................. .................. .................. 500 ..................

PROVO AND VICINITY, UT ...................................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................
17

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

VIRGINIA

AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA ................................................... .................. 694 .................. 1,184

ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENV RESTORATION, VA (PHASE II) .............. 200 .................. 200 ..................

ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA ............................................. .................. 75 .................. 75

FOURMILE RUN, VA ............................................................................... 150 .................. 150 ..................

JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA .................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 200

JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (SECTION 216) ...... 250 .................. 250 ..................

LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA .............................................................. 300 .................. 300 ..................

NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA .................... 56 .................. 56 ..................

POWELL RIVER WATERSHED, VA ........................................................... 197 .................. 197 ..................

WASHINGTON

CENTRALIA, WA ..................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100

CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA ................................................................. 310 .................. 310 ..................

DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA ........................................... .................. .................. .................. 500

ELLIOT BAY SEAWALL, WA .................................................................... .................. .................. 500 ..................

LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA .................................................... 446 .................. 446 ..................

PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA ....... 350 .................. 350 ..................

SKAGIT RIVER, WA ................................................................................ 350 .................. 500 ..................

STILLAGUAMISH RIVER BASIN, WA ........................................................ .................. .................. .................. 200

WHITE RIVER FLOOD CONTROL AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, W .... 250 .................. 250 ..................

WEST VIRGINIA

LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV ................................................................. 65 .................. 65 ..................

NEW RIVER BASIN, WV, NC AND VA ..................................................... 130 .................. 130 ..................

WISCONSIN

BARABOO RIVER, WI ............................................................................. 500 .................. 500 ..................

FOX RIVER, WI ...................................................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

MISCELLANEOUS

COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION ....................................................... 2,500 .................. 2,500 ..................

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES ........................................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

EX POST FACTO NATIONAL STUDY ........................................................ 2,000 .................. 2,000 ..................

FLOOD DAMAGE DATA ........................................................................... 300 .................. 300 ..................

FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES ................................................ 7,500 .................. 7,500 ..................

HYDROLOGIC STUDIES .......................................................................... 400 .................. 400 ..................

INDEPENDENT REVIEW NATIONAL STUDY .............................................. 3,000 .................. 3,000 ..................

INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES .......................................................... 400 .................. 400 ..................

NATIONAL SHORELINE ........................................................................... 500 .................. 500 ..................

OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS ....................................................... 4,850 .................. 4,850 ..................

PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES ....................................................... 6,000 .................. 6,340 ..................

PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE) ..................... 300 .................. 300 ..................

REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT ....... 200 .................. 200 ..................

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................ 22,000 .................. 22,500 ..................

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS .......................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY) ...................................... 500 .................. 500 ..................

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS .................................................................. 500 .................. 500 ..................

TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS TECHNOLOGY CENTER .................................... 450 .................. 450 ..................

REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ...................... ¥20,400 .................. ¥40,428 ..................

TOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS ........................................... 89,989 10,011 99,181 32,519

Akutan Harbor, AK.—The Committee recommendation includes

an additional $200,000 for planning, engineering, and design.

Barrow Coastal Storm Damage Reduction, AK.—The Committee

recommendation provides optimum funding to continue the critical

Barrow Storm Damage Reduction project in Alaska.
18

Haines Harbor, AK.—The Committee recommendation includes

an additional $200,000 for planning, engineering, and design.

Port Lions Harbor, AK.—The Committee recommendation includes necessary funding for preconstruction, engineering, and design work for the Port Lions Harbor, Alaska project.

Arkansas River Navigation Study, AR & OK.—The Committee

has provided funding for the completion of the Phase I Report and

for the continuation of Phase II of the feasibility study. In addition,

the funds provided advance the completion of this needed study.

May Branch, Ft. Smith, AR.—The Committee has provided funding for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase of the

project.

North Little Rock, Dark Hollow, AR.—The Committee has included follow-on funding of this ongoing study for the

preconstruction, engineering, and design phase.

Pine Mountain Dam, AR.—The Committee recommendation includes funding for the continuation of the General Reevaluation Report, the Environmental Impact Statement, and plans and specifications for the Pine Mountain Dam, AR project.

American River Watershed, CA.—The Committee has provided

$4,000,000 for continuing analyses on the American River Watershed Long-Term Study. The Congress has methodically authorized

and funded improvements in the Sacramento region to reduce

flooding and these efforts should continue without further delay.

The Committee believes it is time to provide Sacramento with

much needed and deserved flood protection. Further the Committee

believes that it is inexcusable to allow tens of thousands of citizens

in the Sacramento, California region to remain in jeopardy from

catastrophic flooding while narrow interest groups continue to debate competing flood control proposals. The Committee strongly

urges these competing groups to resolve their differences before another flood event strikes the area, potentially resulting in catastrophic losses.

Bolinas Lagoon, CA.—The Committee has included funding for

the Corps to complete the reformulated feasibility phase of the

project.

Coast of California Storm and Tidal, CA.—The Committee has

included funding for field data collection, beach transect, wage gage

deployment and analysis of coastal processes.

Humboldt Bay Long Term Shoal Management, CA.—The Committee has included a $100,000 for the initiation of a reconnaissance study to evaluate long-term solutions to shoaling in this Federal channel.

City of Inglewood, CA.—The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 for the Corps to continue to provide the City of

Inglewood technical assistance.

Solana-Encinitas Shore Projection, CA.—The Committee recommendation includes $400,000 for this study which was not included in the President’s budget request.

Tahoe Basin, CA & NV.—The Committee has included additional

funds to initiate the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase

of the project.
19

Zuni and Sun Valley Reaches, South Platte River, CO.—The

Committee has fully funded the administration’s request for this

project.

St. Johns County Shore Protection, FL.—The Committee has pro- vided $100,000 for the continuing study of this project.

Walton County Shore Protection, FL.—The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 for the continued study of the Walton County Shore Protection project.

Savannah Harbor Deepening, GA.—The Committee has provided $615,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase of

this project.

Waikiki Shore Projection, HI.—The Committee has provided $250,000 in the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase of

this project.

Wailupe Stream Flood Control Study, HI.—The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 for the planning, engineering, and

design phase of the Wailupe study.

Des Plaines River, IL (Phase II).—The Committee has included

$500,000 to advance the hydraulic and economic damage modeling,

development of environmental modeling, and formulation of alternative solutions.

Illinois River Ecosystem Restoration, IL.—The Committee recommendation includes $200,000 for the preparation and review of

the draft Comprehensive Plan.

Upper Mississippi and Illinois Navigation Study, IL, IA, MN,

MO, & WI.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000

above the administration’s request for this critical study.

Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan, IL, IA, MO, MN, &

WI.—The Committee has included $2,600,000 for this study, for development of an integrated strategy and plan for systematic flood

protection and flood damage reduction in the Upper Mississippi

River Watershed.

John T. Myers Locks Improvements, IN.—The Committee has included $2,000,000 to continue the preconstruction, engineering, and

design phase of this necessary lock replacement.

Davenport, IA.—The Committee has included the administration’s request for the Davenport, Iowa flood control study. The

Committee is pleased that the City of Davenport has decided to

embrace a flood damage reduction project, particularly after three

significant flood events in the last 10 years.

Fort Dodge, IA.—The Committee recommendation includes

$217,000 for the Fort Dodge study.

Brush Creek Basin Study, KS & MO.—The Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate a reconnaissance study to examine the

full range of structural and nonstructural measures to reduce recurring flooding in the basin.

Turkey Creek Basin, KS & MO.—The Committee has provided

$205,000, the administration’s request, for this project.

Greenup Locks and Dam, Ohio River, KY & OH.—The Committee has provided $2,895,000, the administration’s full request

for this project.

Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, LA.—The

Committee recommendation includes an additional $1,000,000 to

advance this study.
20

Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, LA.—The Committee has included $1,900,000 for this study which allows for the

initiation of project implementation reports. The Committee remains very concerned about the progress of this study and that the

Corps may not be maintaining the rigor required for such a study,

as is its tradition. Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps to

provide a report no later than 60 days after the enactment of this

Act, on the study’s progress and how it plans to refocus this critical

effort.

Port of Iberia, LA.—The Committee recommendation includes an

additional $1,000,000 for this project.

West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain, LA.—The Committee has included $400,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and design

phase of this project, an on-going study which the administration

did not include in its budget request.

Baltimore Metro, Gwynn Falls, MD.—The Committee has included $500,000 for preconstruction, engineering, and design work

related to this project.

Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion, MD, VA & DE.—The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for this study, which is

$300,000 above the budget request.

Eastern Shore, Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island, MD.—The Committee has included an additional $149,000 for this study.

Great Lakes Navigation System Study, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH,

PA & WI.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 to

continue the work on the supplement to the reconnaissance report

for determination of the Federal interest.

Detroit River Masterplan, MI.—The Committee recommendation

includes $100,000 to initiate feasibility.

Detroit River Seawalls, MI.—The Committee has included

$200,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase of

this project.

Pearl River Watershed, MS.—The Committee has included

$660,000 for the continuation of the feasibility study. The Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to investigate all potentially

feasible alternatives, including plans similar to the plan currently

referred to as LeFleur Lakes Flood Control Project.

Kansas Citys, MO & KS.—The Committee has included $650,000

for the continuation of this feasibility study.

Missouri River Levee System, Units L455 & R460–471, MO &

KS.—The Committee recommendation includes $150,000 for continuation of the feasibility study.

Springfield, MO.—The Committee has included an additional

$100,000 for the Springfield feasibility study.

St. Louis Harbor, MO.—The Committee has included $100,000

for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase of this ongoing project which was not included in the budget request.

Swope Industrial Park, MO.—The Committee recommendation

includes $500,000 to complete the design phase of this project

which was not included in the budget request.

Missouri River Sedimentation, ND.—The Committee has provided $50,000 for this project. The Committee’s understands that

the Corps will use the funds provided along with previously appropriated funds to continue the required assessment study.
21

Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, NE.—The Committee has included $546,000 for the Sand Creek Watershed study, as requested

by the administration.

Western Sarpy and Clear Creek, NE.—The Committee has included $318,000 for the Western Sarpy and Clear Creek project, as

requested by the administration.

Truckee Meadows, NV.—The Committee has included $2,115,000

for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase of this

project which was not included in the budget request.

Portsmouth Harbor & Piscataqua River, Upper Turning Basin,

NH & ME.—The Committee has included $100,000 for the initiation of a reconnaissance study to examine the viability of increasing the size of the current turning basin.

Goffle Brook, Borough of Hawthorne, NJ.—The Committee has

included $75,000 above the budget request for this study.

Lower Passaic River, NJ.—The Committee recommendation includes an additional $75,000 above the budget request for this

study.

Passaic River, New Jersey Environmental Restoration, NJ.—The

Committee understands that there exists some confusion regarding

this study and the Hudson Raritan Estuary-Lower Passaic River,

NJ study. The Passaic River, New Jersey Environmental Restoration, in the past, has been referred to as the Lower Passaic, NJ

study and should be referred to by its name, Passaic River, New

Jersey Environmental Restoration. This study should not be confused with the Hudson Raritan Estuary-Lower Passaic River, NJ

study.

Upper Passaic River and Tributaries, NJ.—The Committee has

included $200,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and design

phase of this project, which was not included in the budget request.

East Mesa, Las Cruces, NM.—The Committee recommendation

includes funds for the completion of the reconnaissance phase of

the study and the initiation of the feasibility phase.

Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, NM.—The

Committee has provided $250,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase of this project which was not included

in the budget request.

Dare County Beaches, Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands, NC.—The

Committee has included $200,000 for this study. Additional funds

are to be used for geotechnical and economic investigations related

to this project.

Ashtabula River Environmental Dredging, OH.—The Committee

has included $640,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase of this project.

Duck Creek Watershed, OH.—The Committee has included

$100,000 for the Duck Creek Watershed project which was not included in the budget request.

Hocking River Basin Environmental Restoration, Monday Creek,

OH.—The Committee has included not only the $40,000 for the

completion of the feasibility phase of this study but also $200,000

for the initiation of the preconstruction, engineering, and design

phase of this project.

Mahoning River Environmental Dredging, OH & PA.—The Committee has included an additional $492,000 for the completion of
22

the feasibility study and the initiation of preconstruction, engineering, and design phase.

Mountain Fork River Watershed, OK.—The Committee recommendation includes $100,000 for the continued feasibility study

for water storage options in the watershed that was not included

in the budget request.

Spavinaw Creek, OK.—The Committee has included $100,000 for

the continuation of this feasibility study which was not included in

the budget request.

Wister Lake Watershed, OK.—The Committee has included

$200,000 for the continuation of this feasibility study which was

not included in the budget request.

Tillamook Bay and Estuary Ecosystem Restoration, OR.—The

Committee has included funds for the completion of feasibility and

the initiation of the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase.

Walla Walla River Watershed, OR & WA.—The Committee has

included an additional $61,000 for this study.

Schuylkill River Estuarine Study, PA.—The Committee has included $250,000 for the continuation of the feasibility study which

was not included in the budget request.

Upper Ohio River Navigation System Study, PA.—The Committee has included $800,000 for the continuation of this critical

study, which was not included in the budget request.

Edisto Island, SC.—The Committee has included $100,000 for

the initiation of a reconnaissance study to examine erosion problems of portions of Edisto Island.

Pawley’s Island, SC.—The Committee has included $125,000 for

the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase for this ongoing

project, which was not included in the budget request.

James River, SD & ND.—The Committee included $500,000 for

the continuation of the feasibility study for the James River

project.

Davidson County, TN.—The Committee has included $300,000

for the continuation of this feasibility study.

Lower Colorado River Basin, TX.—The Committee has included

an additional $1,000,000 for the initiation of two additional interim

studies.

Matagorda Ship Channel, TX.—The Committee has funded

$500,000 of the preconstruction, engineering, and design portion of

the study, which was not included in the administration’s request.

Middle Brazos River, TX.—The Committee recommendation includes an additional $250,000 for the acceleration of the schedule

for the System Assessment Interim Feasibility Study.

Sabine-Neches Waterway, TX.—The Committee has included additional funding to continue work on the Environmental Impact

Statement for the Sabine-Neches Waterway study.

Texas City Channel, TX.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and design

phase of this study, which was not included in the budget request.

Upper Trinity River Basin, TX.—The Committee has included an

additional $200,000 for this regional flood control study.

Park City Water Supply Infrastructure, UT.—The Committee has

included $500,000 for the continuation of this feasibility study

which was not included in the budget request.
23

Elliot Bay Seawall, WA.—The Committee has included $500,000

for the Elliot Bay Seawall project.

Coastal Field Data.—Within the funds provided, $500,000 is pro- vided for the Southern California Beach Process Study, $500,000 is

provided for the Hurricane Evaluation Studies in the State of Hawaii and U.S. Territories.

Flood Plain Management Services.—Within the funds provided, $200,000 is for the continuation of the foundational GIS system in

East Baton Rouge, LA and $200,000 is provided for the Corps to

assist the Pacific Islands in their response measures regarding hurricanes and typhoons.

Planning Assistance to States.—Within the funds provided, $40,000 is for the Urban Streambank Erosion Control, City of Lincoln, NE planning effort, $100,000 is for the Salt Marsh Habitat Inventory, RI effort to develop an inventory of degraded coastal habitat sites, and $200,000 is provided for planning assistance to the

Riverfront Development Corporation, for the Memphis Riverfront

Development, TN project.

Salcha, AK.—The Committee is concerned about continued flooding in the Salcha area that has forced repeated evacuation of

homes and businesses. The Corps is directed to provide assistance

to Salcha in developing a plan to address the flooding, in consultation with the Natural Resource Conservation Service and report

back to the Committee on Appropriations no later than Februrary

15, 2004.

Research and Development.—Within the funds provided for the

Corps of Engineers Research and Development Program,

$1,000,000 is provided for innovative technology demonstrations for

urban flooding and channel restoration. These demonstrations shall

be conducted in close coordination and cooperation with the Urban

Water Research Program of the Desert Research Institute of Nevada. The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to continue its work in the area of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation or

‘‘seagrasses’’ and restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay, MD.

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,744,598,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,350,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,538,000,000

This appropriation includes funds for construction, major rehabilitation and related activities for water resources development

projects having navigation, flood control, water supply, hydroelectric, environmental restoration, and other attendant benefits to

the Nation. The construction and major rehabilitation projects for

inland and costal waterways will derive one-half of the funding

from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. Funds to be derived from

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will be applied to cover the

Federal share of the Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program.

The appropriation provides funds for the Continuing Authorities

Program (projects which do not require specific authorizing legislation), which includes projects for flood control (Section 205), emergency streambank and shoreline protection (Section 14), beach erosion control (Section 103), mitigation of shore damages (Section

111), navigation projects (Section 107), snagging and clearing (Sec-
24

tion 208), aquatic ecosystem restoration (Section 206), beneficial

uses of dredged material (Section 204), and project modifications

for improvement of the environment (Section 1135).

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

ALABAMA

MOBILE HARBOR, AL ............................................................................................................... 2,003 2,003

WALTER F GEORGE POWERHOUSE AND DAM, AL AND GA (MAJOR REH ................................ 12,035 13,479

WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA (MAJOR REHAB) ............................................ 3,000 3,000

ALASKA

DILLINGHAM EMERGENCY BANK, AK ....................................................................................... ........................ 4,000

DILLINGHAM SMALL BOAK, AK ................................................................................................ ........................ 3,000

KAKE DAM, AK ......................................................................................................................... ........................ 4,000

NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK ....................................................................................... 6,000 6,000

SAND POINT,AK ........................................................................................................................ ........................ 1,000

SEWARD, AK ............................................................................................................................ ........................ 1,000

SITKA, AK ................................................................................................................................. ........................ 1,000

ST PAUL HARBOR, AK .............................................................................................................. 3,826 3,826

WRANGELL, AK ......................................................................................................................... ........................ 10,000

ARIZONA

RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ .................................................................................................. ........................ 3,500

RIO SALADO, PHOENIX AND TEMPE REACHES, AZ .................................................................. 11,600 11,600

TRES RIOS, AZ ......................................................................................................................... ........................ 7,000

TUSCON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ .................................................................................................. ........................ 5,000

ARKANSAS

MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR ............................................. 3,300 3,300

MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR .............................................................................. 20,000 27,000

OZARK-JETA TAYLOR (POWERHOUSE, MAJOR REHAB), AR ..................................................... ........................ 3,000

RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, AR, LA AND TX ................................................................ ........................ 750

RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK, AR AND LA ........................................................................... ........................ 1,250

CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), C ........................................ 4,000 4,000

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA ......................................................................................... 4,000 4,000

GUADALUPE RIVER, CA ............................................................................................................ 13,000 13,000

HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA ................................................................ 2,000 3,000

HARBOR/SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING, CA ......................................................................... ........................ 4,000

IMPERIAL BEACH,(IMPERIAL BEACH-SILVER STRAND BEACH) ................................................ ........................ 200

KAWEAH RIVER, CA ................................................................................................................. 8,400 8,400

MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA .......................................................... 500 500

MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA ................................................................... 500 500

NAPA RIVER, CA ...................................................................................................................... 7,500 10,000

OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA ........................................................................... 7,000 20,000

PETALUMA RIVER, CA .............................................................................................................. 2,000 ........................

PORT OF LOS ANGELES, MAIN DEEPENING, CA ...................................................................... ........................ 15,000

SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA .......................................................... 2,000 2,000

SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA ........................................................................................... 15,700 15,700

SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA ......................................................................... 2,100 2,100

STOCKTON METROPOLITIAN FLOOD CONTROL REIMBURSEMENT, CA ..................................... 500 ........................

SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY) ..................................................................... 1,000 1,000

TULE RIVER, CA ....................................................................................................................... 1,600 1,600

UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA .................................................... 1,000 1,000

DELAWARE

DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISL, DE ........................................... ........................ 214

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, PORT MAHON, DE ...................................................................... ........................ 500
25

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TO LEWES BEACH ........................................ 2,008 2,008

DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE ....................................................................................... 285 285

DELAWARE COAST, REHOBOTH BEACH TO DEWEY BEACH, DE .............................................. 5,768 5,768

FLORIDA

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ......................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL .................................................................................. 112,498 90,000

EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL ....................................... 14,835 14,835

FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS, FL .............................................................. ........................ 1,000

HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (MAJOR REHAB) ......................................................................... 1,000 1,000

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ..................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000

JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, FL AND GA (MAJOR R ................................. 873 873

KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL .............................................................................................................. 17,706 17,706

MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL .................................................................................................. 2,700 2,700

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

GEORGIA

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA ....................................................................................................... 4,500 6,000

BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB) .......................................................................... 3,000 3,000

OATES CREEK, RICHMOND COUNTY, GA (DEF CORR) ............................................................. 500 500

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC ................................................................ 4,328 8,178

THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB) .............................................. 5,500 5,500

HAWAII

HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT, HI ............................................................................................ ........................ 1,000

LAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, HI .......................................................................................... ........................ 175

KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI ............................................................................ 3,633 3,633

KAUMALAPAU HARBOR, LANAI, HI ........................................................................................... ........................ 2,500

MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI ................................................................................................... 191 191

ILLINOIS

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR) ............................................... 2,300 2,300

CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL ............................................. 500 500

CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL ......................................................................................................... 24,000 25,000

EAST ST LOUIS, IL ................................................................................................................... 815 815

LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH ........................................ 13,000 17,000

LOVES PARK, IL ....................................................................................................................... 5,785 5,785

MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL ............................................................................. 18,000 18,000

MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL AND MO ........................................................................... 600 600

NUTWOOD LEVEE, IL ................................................................................................................ ........................ 100

OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY ............................................................. 73,000 53,000

UPPER MISS RVR SYSTEM ENV MGMT PROGRAM, IL, IA, MN, MO ........................................ 33,320 20,000

INDIANA

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, (ENVIRO INFRA.), IN .......................................................................... ........................ 500

INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY), IN ........................................................... 5,700 5,700

INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN .............................................................................. 2,600 2,600

LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN ..................................................................................................... 3,800 3,800

MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB) ............................................................................... 21,000 21,000

OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ACCESS, IN ......................................................................... 1,000 1,000

IOWA

DES MOINES RECREATIONAL RIVER AND GREENBELT, IA ...................................................... ........................ 500

LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB) ................................................. 1,313 1,313

LOCK AND DAM 19, IA ............................................................................................................ ........................ 750

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION, IA, NE, K ................................................. 22,000 22,000

MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS AND MO ........................................................... 7,000 13,600

PERRY CREEK, IA .................................................................................................................... 2,200 2,200

KANSAS

ARKANSAS CITY, KS ................................................................................................................. 2,600 2,600
26

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

KENTUCKY

DEWEY LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY) ............................................................................................. 1,946 1,946

KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY ............................................................... 24,866 34,866

MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND IN ........................................................... 26,100 40,000

METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, BEARGRASS CREEK, KY ............................................................. 1,400 1,400

METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY ....................................................................... 2,500 2,500

LOUISIANA

ASCENSION PARISH, LA ........................................................................................................... ........................ 500

COMITE RIVER, LA ................................................................................................................... 2,000 4,000

EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, EI, LA ....................................................................................... ........................ 500

GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LA ................................................................................................ ........................ 200

INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA ....................................................................... 7,000 12,000

J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA .................................................................................... 13,700 15,000

LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE PROTECT .......................................... 3,000 6,000

LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) .............................................. 461 461

LIVINGSTON PARISH, LA .......................................................................................................... ........................ 500

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA .................................................................................... ........................ 200

MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, L ............................................ 196 196

NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) .................................................... 2,000 2,000

OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, LA .................................................................................................. ........................ 1,000

SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA ...................................................................................................... 16,500 35,000

WEST BANK AND VICINITY, NEW ORLEANS, LA ....................................................................... 35,000 28,500

MARYLAND

ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD ........................................................................................................ 1,003 1,003

ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD ...................................................................................... 500 500

CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRO. RES. AND PROTECTION, MD AND VA .......................................... ........................ 1,600

CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA .............................................................. 3,000 4,500

CUMBERLAND, MD ................................................................................................................... ........................ 4,000

POPLAR ISLAND, MD ................................................................................................................ 14,101 14,101

MASSACHUSETTS

CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, MA (MAJOR REHAB) ................................................... 9,895 9,895

MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOSTON, MA ....................................................................... ........................ 1,000

MICHIGAN

GENESSE COUNTY (ENVIRONMENTAL INFRA), MI .................................................................... ........................ 200

NEGAUNEE, MI ......................................................................................................................... ........................ 250

SAULT STE MARIE LOCK REPLACEMENT, MI ........................................................................... ........................ 2,000

TWELVE TOWNS DRAIN RETENTION FACILITY, MI .................................................................... ........................ 388

MINNESOTA

BRECKENRIDGE, MN ................................................................................................................ ........................ 1,000

CROOKSTON, MN ..................................................................................................................... 1,043 1,043

LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN (MAJOR REHAB) ................................................. 600 600

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSISSIPPI PLACE, ST PAUL, MN .............................................. ........................ 250

MISSISSIPPI

DESOTO COUNTY, MS .............................................................................................................. ........................ 10,955

GULFPORT HARBOR, MS .......................................................................................................... ........................ 2,500

MISSISSIPPI ENVIRON INFRA, SEC. 592, MS ........................................................................... ........................ 8,000

PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ..................................................................................................... 2,989 2,989

MISSOURI

BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO ................................................................................... 2,000 2,500

BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO .............................................................................. 6,000 10,000

BOIS BRULE LEVES, AND DRAINAGE, MO ............................................................................... ........................ 500

MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO ............................................................... 2,000 3,000

MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO ........................................ 1,700 1,700

MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT, MO ......................................... ........................ 3,000
27

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

STE GENEVIEVE, MO ................................................................................................................ 150 150

TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR (DAM SAFETY) ..................................................................... 5,000 5,500

MONTANA

FORT PECK FISK HATCHERY, MT ............................................................................................. ........................ 8,000

RURAL MONTANA, MT .............................................................................................................. ........................ 3,000

NEBRASKA

ANTELOPE CREEK, NE ............................................................................................................. ........................ 1,500

SAND CREEK WATERSHED, NE ................................................................................................ ........................ 500

WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NE ............................................................................... ........................ 500

MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE AND SD ....................................................... 1,000 1,000

WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE .......................................................................................... 1,082 1,082

NEVADA

RURAL NEVADA, NV ................................................................................................................. ........................ 10,000

TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV ............................................................................... 23,300 26,300

NEW JERSEY

BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG INLET (ABSECON ISLAND), .............................................. 1,000 1,000

BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG (BRIGANTINE ISLAND), NJ ................................................ ........................ 500

CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ ........................................................................... 1,728 1,728

DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA AND DE ................................................................ 300 10,000

GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ ................................................................. 7,355 7,355

LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ .............................................................. 1,841 2,500

PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NJ .............................................................................. ........................ 500

PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, N ......................................... 1,000 500

PASSAIC RIVER STEAMBANK RESTORATION, (MINISH PARK), NJ ............................................ ........................ 500

RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, NJ ........................................................................................ ........................ 250

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ ............................................................................... 100 100

RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ .......................................................... 6,488 7,000

SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ................................................................................... 3,000 3,000

TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ .......................................................................... 9,200 10,000

NEW MEXICO

ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM ....................................................................................... 1,800 2,500

ALAMOGORDO, NM ................................................................................................................... 3,500 4,100

CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM .................................................................................................... ........................ 6,000

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, NM ......................................................... ........................ 600

RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE, ......................................... ........................ 600

NEW YORK

ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, .......................................... 1,750 1,750

EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET AND JAMAICA BAY, ......................................... 1,250 1,250

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY ................................................................................ 2,700 2,700

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY .......................................................................... 3,800 3,800

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ ............................................................... 115,000 100,000

NORTH CAROLINA

BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC ....................................................................................... 2,040 2,040

CAROLINA BEACH AND VICINITY, NC ...................................................................................... 3,510 3,510

DARE COUNTY BEACHES, BODIE ISLAND, NC ......................................................................... ........................ 1,000

WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER (TOPSAIL BEACH), NC ............................................. ........................ 200

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ...................................................................................................... 9,650 20,000

NORTH DAKOTA

BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION, ............................................... 1,518 2,000

GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB) ..................................................... 6,500 6,500

GRAFTON, PARK RIVER, ND ..................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000

GRAND FORKS, ND-EAST GRAND FORKS, MN ......................................................................... 23,496 37,000

MO RIVER RESTORATION, ND .................................................................................................. ........................ 50
28

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

SHEYENNE RIVER, ND ............................................................................................................. 3,367 3,367

OHIO

HOLES CREEK, WEST CARROLLTON, OH ................................................................................. ........................ 2,000

METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH ................................................... 8,500 3,000

MILL CREEK, OH ...................................................................................................................... 3,900 1,000

WEST COLUMBUS, OH ............................................................................................................. 1,800 500

OKLAHOMA

CANTON LAKE (DAM SAFETY), OK ........................................................................................... ........................ 2,000

LAWTON, OK ............................................................................................................................. ........................ 2,500

TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) ........................................................................... 4,400 4,400

OREGON

BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR AND WA (MAJOR REHAB) ...................................... 3,363 6,363

COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, OR AND WA .................................................... ........................ 5,000

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA ............................................ 2,900 2,900

ELK CREEK LAKE, OR .............................................................................................................. 500 500

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA ....................................... 2,000 2,000

WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR .................................................................. 10,000 10,000

PENNSYLVANIA

LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA .................................................... 35,000 35,000

PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT) ........................................................................ 600 600

SCHUYKILL RIVER PARK, PA .................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000

WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING) ................................................................................. 10,021 10,021

PUERTO RICO

ARECIBO RIVER, PR ................................................................................................................ 1,000 1,000

PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR ................................................................................... 5,200 3,000

RIO DE LA PLATA, PR .............................................................................................................. 1,100 1,100

RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR .......................................................................................................... 16,500 5,000

SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (DEEPENING AND WIDENING) ...................................................... 5,000 5,000

FOLLY BEACH, SC .................................................................................................................... ........................ 200

LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SC ........................................................................................ ........................ 350

SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD ....................................................................................... 6,000 6,000

CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD ................................................... 2,800 9,000

MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SD ........................................................................................ ........................ 500

PIERRE, SD .............................................................................................................................. 4,300 6,000

TENNESSEE

BLACK FOX, OAKLANDS AND MURFREE SPRINGS WETLANDS, TN .......................................... ........................ 1,070

CUMBERLAND COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, TN ........................................................................... ........................ 1,700

TEXAS

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX .................................................................................................. 4,700 6,000

CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX ...................................................................................................... 2,966 2,966

DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TX ........................................................................................ ........................ 9,280

EL PASO, TX ............................................................................................................................ 2,800 2,800

HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX ................................................................ 18,726 40,000

JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX ..................................................... 2,200 2,200

NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER BARRIER, TX ................................................. 4,108 4,108

NORTH PADRE ISLAND, PACKERY CHANNEL, TX ..................................................................... ........................ 5,000

RED RIVER CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX AND OK ......................................................................... ........................ 2,000

SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX .................................................................................................... 12,000 12,000

VERMONT

LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED INITIATIVE, VT ........................................................................ ........................ 500
29

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

VIRGINIA

AIWW, BRIDGE AT GREAT BRIDGE, VA .................................................................................... 9,706 9,706

EMBREY DAM, VA .................................................................................................................... ........................ 3,000

JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (MAJOR REHAB) ....................................... 6,000 6,000

LAKE MERRIWEATHER, LITTLE CALFPASTURE, VA ................................................................... ........................ 3,000

NORFOLK CHANNEL HARBOR AND DEPENING,VA .................................................................... ........................ 4,000

ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA ....................................................... 2,000 2,000

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) .................................................................... 2,294 2,294

WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM GAS ABATEMENT, WA .............................................................................. 900 3,000

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR AND ID ............................................................. 95,000 85,000

HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, WA ........................................................ 9,500 9,500

LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR ..................................... 2,000 2,000

MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ............................................................................... 200 900

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY) ............................................................................... 1,400 1,400

PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS, WA .......................................................................... ........................ 1,500

SHOALWATER BAY SHORELINE EROSION, WA ......................................................................... ........................ 1,000

THE DALLES POWERHOUSE (UNITS 1-14), WA AND OR (MAJOR REH .................................... 250 500

WEST VIRGINIA

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY) ..................................................................................... 2,600 4,300

GREENBRRIAR RIVER, WV ....................................................................................................... ........................ 3,000

LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V ....................................... 15,000 23,400

MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV ..................................................................................... 52,154 65,200

ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV AND OH .............................................. 2,500 2,500

WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV ................................................................. 2,000 2,000

WYOMING

JACKSON HOLE, WY ................................................................................................................. ........................ 500

MISCELLANEOUS

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206) .............................................................. 10,000 15,000

AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 3,000 3,500

BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL ............................................................................. 3,000 3,000

DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM ............................................ 8,000 14,000

DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM ............................................................ 7,000 7,000

EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SEC. 14) .................................... 7,000 9,000

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION .................................................................................................. 19,130 19,130

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) ........................................................................... 20,000 30,000

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—BOARD EXPENSE ........................................................ 45 45

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—CORPS EXPENSE ........................................................ 185 185

NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111) ................................................................. 500 1,500

NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107) ................................................................................... 6,000 9,000

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONME ....................................... 14,000 17,000

SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATIO .................................... 6,000 6,000

SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 103) ............................................................... 3,500 3,500

SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECT (SECTION 208) .............................................................. 500 500

REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ......................................................... ¥116,095 ¥241,730

TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL .............................................................................. 1,350,000 1,538,000

Sand Point, AK.—The Committee has included a provision directing the Corps to proceed with construction of the Sand Point

Harbor in accordance with the Chief of Engineers Report.

Sitka Harbor, AK.—The Committee notes that in designing the

Sitka Harbor breakwater, the Corps failed to take into account the

severity of the wave activity. As a result, the breakwater has failed

to prevent wave action, particularly during stormy weather. There-
30

fore, the project must be redesigned and modifications installed.

The Committee has included a provision to hold the City of Sitka

harmless for any additional cost sharing requirements that would

otherwise be mandated because of the Corps’ design deficiency.

Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, AZ.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,500,000 for the Rio de Flag project to continue construction.

Rio Salado, Phoenix and Tempe Reaches, AZ.—The Committee

recommendation includes the full budget request by the administration. The Committee is pleased that this unique project is gaining the attention and interest of the business community and the

environmental community alike.

Tres Rios, AZ.—The Committee has included $7,000,000 for this

project in fiscal year 2004, which was not included in the administration’s budget request. The funds are for the continuation of this

project, including the flood control levee and design of the pump

stations for the wetlands.

Tuscon Drainage Area, AZ.—The Committee has included

$5,000,000 for this project, which was not included in the budget

request.

Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, AR & OK.—The Committee

has provided additional funds for the continued construction of this

project.

Ozark-Jeta Taylor (Powerhouse, Major Rehab), AR.—During calendar year 2001, the Ozark-Jeta Taylor turbines were down 63 percent of the time resulting in a revenues lost to the General Fund

of the Treasury. To address this, the Committee recommendation

includes $3,000,000 to continue this much-needed rehabilitation

project.

Harbor/South Bay Water Recycling, CA.—The Committee has included $4,000,000 for this project with the expectation that it will

allow for the continued construction of the Madrona Marsh Lateral

and other related elements. As this project was not included in the

budget request, the Committee has included scarce resources for its

continued construction.

Imperial Beach (Imperial Beach-Silver Strand), CA.—The Committee has included $200,000 for the continued design of the Imperial Beach project.

Oakland Harbor (50 Foot Project), CA.—The Committee recommendation includes $20,000,000 for this critical harbor project.

The Committee regrets that it cannot provide optimum funding, efforts which are hampered because the administration only requested $7,000,000 for this project. Given that this project is already under construction, the Committee encourages the administration to include realistic project funding in future budget submissions.

Port of Los Angeles (Main Channel Deepening), CA.—The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 for this project. Despite the fact this project is already under construction, the administration did not propose any funding for this project. The Committee expects the administration to budget for a project of this

scope more responsibly in the future.

South Sacramento County Streams, CA.—The Committee is

aware that there are hydrologic project design issues which could
31

impact the cost and schedule of the project. Therefore, the Committee has only provided the budget request.

Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Fenwick

Island, DE.—The Committee recommendation includes $214,000

for the continued construction of this project begun in fiscal year

2003.

Delaware Bay Coastline, Port Mahon, DE.—The Committee has

included $500,000 for the continuation of construction begun last

fiscal year.

Central and Southern Florida, FL.—The Committee recommendation includes $90,000,000 to continue the Everglades Restoration projects, the same level of funding as fiscal year 2003. This

should be in no way considered any diminution of interest or support by the Committee for these vitally important ecosystem restoration projects. The Committee also encourages the Corps to respond to current concerns regarding implementation of the restoration project.

Everglades and South Florida Restoration, FL.—The Committee

has included a provision that conditions expenditure of funds appropriated in this Act for the purpose of construction of the projects

for the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration. The

Committee directs that the Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency certify by September 30, 2003 and every 12

months thereafter until September 30, 2006 to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Senate Environment and

Public Works Committee indicating that the water entering A.R.M.

Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National

Park meets all applicable State water quality standards and numeric criteria adopted for phosphorus throughout A.R.M.

Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National

Park, as well water quality requirements set forth in the Consent

Decree entered in United States v. South Florida Water Management District and that the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations respond in writing to the report indicating that the

funds are available for expenditure.

Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements, FL.—The Committee

recommendation includes $1,000,000 for the implementation of the

wastewater and stormwater improvements. The Committee believes these efforts need to be carried out in concert with the ongoing Everglades restoration work.

Tampa Harbor, FL.—The Committee has included $500,000 for

the continuation of the General Reevaluation Report examining

navigation improvements for the Federal portion of this project.

Brunswick Harbor, GA.—The Committee recommendation includes $6,000,000 for this project. The Committee is aware that the

bids for this project greatly exceeded the Government estimate, and

though there was a low bidder, there is a pending protest. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Corps to resolve this issue and

reevaluate the cost of the project, seeking additional authority if

necessary.

Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake Wildlife Mitigation, GA &

SC.—The Committee has included $3,850,000 to complete the execution of the Memorandum of Agreement and the documentation
32

and payment of the mitigation lands to the State of South Carolina.

Hawaii Water Management, HI.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for continuation of the construction phases

of this project for the water systems on the drought-plagued portions of the State of Hawaii.

Iao Stream Flood Control, HI.—The Committee recommendation

includes $175,000 to complete the DDR and NEPA documentation,

and initiate the design phase.

Kaumalapau Harbor, Lanai, HI.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 to continue the construction of this project.

Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IL & KY.—The Committee

recommendation includes $53,000,000 for the Olmsted Locks and

Dam project. This reduced funding level should in no way be considered any diminution of interest or support for the project, but

instead reflects the very limited resources of the Committee. None

of the funds provided for the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project are

to be used to reimburse the Claims and Judgment Fund.

Nutwood Drainage and Levee District, IL.—The Committee is

aware of induced flooding issues which must be resolved prior to

the award of the construction contract, the completion of plans and

specifications, and the granting of a 404 permit. The Committee is

also aware of issues regarding credit for work completed by the

non-Federal sponsor. The Committee encourages the Corps to resolve these issues expeditiously but expects that any credit provided to the non-Federal sponsor shall not be precedent setting.

Mississinewa Lake, IN.—The Committee has included

$21,000,000 for the completion of this project.

McAlpine Lock and Dam, IN & KY.—The Committee has included $40,000,000 for the McAlpine Lock and Dam project. The

Committee has included additional funding because of the project’s

critical nature.

Lock and Dam 19, Mississippi River, IA (Major Rehabilitation).—

The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 to continue construction work begun in fiscal year 2003.

Missouri River Levee System, L–385 IA, NE, KS, & MO.—The

Committee has included sufficient funding to avoid work stoppages

and interest penalties; as well as completing the project this fiscal

year. The Committee has also included funds to complete the final

levee contract for L–15.

Comite River, LA.—The Committee recommendation includes additional funds to award the Phase II construction contract for the

Lilly Bayou Control Structure.

Grand Isle and Vicinity, LA.—The Committee has included

$200,000 for the completion of the General Reevaluation Report

and expects the Corps to resolve any remaining issues so the

project may proceed.

Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, LA.—The Committee has

included additional funds to complete the demolition of eastside

businesses on schedule and to initiate two levee construction contracts, as well as continuing the engineering and design work for

the project.

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.—The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 to continue construction of nec-
33

essary navigation channel refinements, land purchases, and development for mitigation of project impacts, and construction of

project recreation and appurtenant features.

Ouachita River Levees, LA.—The Committee has included funds

for the completion of Levee Item 2 and to begin work on Levee

Item 3, which is to include gravel surfacing.

Southeast Louisiana, LA.—The Committee has included

$35,000,000 for the Southeast Louisiana project. Though the Committee has included the additional funds, it remains very concerned

with the increasing scope and cost of this project. Though the Federal Government has a responsibility to mitigate the impacts of

Federal channels and waterways on our communities, the Committee is concerned that this project has no foreseeable completion.

Therefore, the Committee encourages the Corps to better define the

project’s scope of work and plan the construction’s progression in

order for the project to fully realize its designed benefits as soon

as is practicable.

Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program, MD, VA, & PA.—The Committee recommendation includes

$1,600,000, which was not included in the budget request. These

funds are for the completion of the Preconstruction, Engineering

and Design phase and the initiation of the Marsh Creation Project.

Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, MD & VA.—The Committee

has included $4,500,000 for this continuing construction project.

The Committee remains concerned that the benefits of the project

will not be fully realized until the issue of agricultural effluents is

resolved.

Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, MA.—The Committee has

included $1,000,000 for the continued construction of the project.

Twelve Towns Drain Retention Facility, MI.—The Committee recommendation includes $388,000 for the completion of plans and

specifications.

DeSoto County, MS.—The Committee recommendation includes

$10,955,000 for the completion of this project.

Pascagoula Harbor, MS.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,989,000, which is equal to the administration’s request.

Blue River Channel, Kansas City, MO.—The Committee has included $10,000,000 to continue construction on the railroad bridge

alterations, complete plans and specifications, and the General Reevaluation Report.

Bois Brule Levee and Drainage, MO.—The Committee has included $500,000 for this project. The Committee is aware that the

project sponsor decided to proceed only with the deficiency correction portion of the project and place the levee raise on hold.

Rural Montana, MT.—The Committee has provided $3,000,000

for the development of the Project Cooperation Agreements, Project

Management Plans, and necessary NEPA documentation for the

Conrad, Belgrade, Drummond, Wisdom, Melston, and Manhattan

projects, as well as and other qualified participants.

Antelope Creek, NE.—The Committee recommendation includes

$1,500,000 for the continued construction of this flood damage reduction project.

Rural Nevada, NV.—The Committee has provided $10,000,000

for the Rural Nevada Project. Within the funds provided the Corps
34

is directed to give consideration to projects at Boulder City, Lyon

County, (Carson River Regional Water System) Gerlach, Incline

Village, Round Hill, Mesquite, Moapa, Spanish Springs, Battle

Mountain, Virgin Valley, Lawton-Verdi, Esmeralda County, and

Searchlight. Other communities that meet the program criteria

should be considered as funding allows.

Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV.—The Committee has pro- vided $26,300,000 to continue construction of this flood control

project. The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for

work performed in accordance with section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.

Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Absecon Island, NJ.—The

Committee recommendation includes additional funding for the

beachfill construction effort.

Delaware Mainstem Channel Deepening, NJ, DE & PA.—The

Committee has included $10,000,000 for this project which has undergone a rigorous cost-benefit reanalysis. The Corps is to be commended for initiating this effort, and, as expected, the project has

been validated by both the General Accounting Office and outside

auditors as having a cost-benefit ratio which exceeds the mandated

Federal standards.

Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, NJ.—The Committee recommendation includes additional funds to initiate Segment U levee and floodwall.

Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ.—The Committee has included an additional $800,000 to initiate the construction of the

Hereford Inlet portion of the project.

Acequias Irrigation System, NM.—The Committee has included

an additional $700,000 for additional construction contract awards.

The Committee supports the program for rehabilitating acequias in

New Mexico, and feels that it is of historical and cultural significance to the State. There is concern however, that the process for

determining environmental impacts of each acequia project is disproportionately time consuming and expensive. The Committee

therefore directs the Corps to seek ways to streamline the NEPA

process, including the use of ‘‘programmatic’’ assessments addressing multiple projects where practicable.

Central New Mexico, NM.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the completion of the construction work on

the Double Eagle II Infrastructure Upgrade, the Bosque Farms

Plant, the Tijeras Water System upgrade and the Bernalillo plant.

In addition, the Committee has included $1,000,000 for the Black

Mesa Area Flood Management project.

Middle Rio Grande Flood Damage Reduction, NM.—The Committee has provided $600,000 for the completion of the General Reevaluation Report.

New York and New Jersey Harbor, NY & NJ.—The Committee

recommendation includes $100,000,000 for the Harbor project. This

reduced funding level should in no way be considered any diminution of interest or support for the project, but instead it reflects the

very limited resources of the Committee.

Dare County Beaches, Bodie Island, NC.—The Committee has included $1,000,000 to continue preconstruction monitoring and real

estate acquisition.
35

Wilmington Harbor, NC.—The Committee has included

$20,000,000 for this critical harbor project. The Committee regrets

that it cannot provide optimum funding at this time. The Committee notes that the administration only requested $9,650,000 for

a project of this size, and encourages the administration to request

more realistic funding in future fiscal years.

Buford-Trenton Irrigation District Land Acquisition, ND.—The

Committee recommendation includes funds for the purchase of additional easements.

Devils Lake, ND.—The Committee continues to support the con- struction of the Devils Lake outlet and notes that $5,000,000 of

previously appropriated funds for construction remain available

until expended. The Committee also urges the Corps to request sufficient funding in future budget requests to construct this project.

Grand Forks, ND–East Grand Forks, MN.—The Committee has

provided $37,000,000 for this project to continue construction.

Missouri River Sedimentation, ND.—The Committee has pro- vided $50,000 for this project. The Committee understands that the

Corps will use the funds provided, along with previously appropriated funds, to continue the required assessment study.

Holes Creek, West Carrollton, OH.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the Holes Creek project, which was not

included in the budget request. The Committee expects that these

funds will be sufficient to complete the construction of additional

floodwalls and relocations.

Canton Lake (Dam Safety), OK.—The Committee has included

$2,000,000 for the Canton Lake project. The Committee is aware

that there are improvements needed on the dam, including stabilizing the existing spillway.

Lawton, OK.—The Committee has included $2,500,000 for this

project and expects the Corps to continue construction.

Columbia River Channel Improvements, OR & WA.—The Committee has included $5,000,000 for this project, which includes ecosystem restoration efforts. The Committee expects that this effort

will further improve the Corps’ ‘‘no jeopardy’’ biological opinion

standings. Therefore, the Committee expects that the administration should budget for this project in a responsible manner.

Schuylkill River Park, PA.—The Committee has included

$1,000,000 for this project and expects the Corps to negotiate and

execute the Project Cooperation Agreement.

Charleston Harbor, SC.—The Committee has provided

$5,000,000 for this widening and deepening project, which is the

full capability of the Corps.

Lakes Marion and Moultrie, SC.—The Committee has provided

$350,000 for this project, which is all that can be provided under

the current project authorization.

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.—The Committee notes that Title VI of the Water Resources Development Act

of 1999, as amended, authorizes funding to pay administrative expenses, implementation of terrestrial wildlife plans, activities associated with land transferred or to be transferred, and annual expenses for operating recreational areas. Within the funds provided,

the Committee directs that not more than $1,000,000 shall be provided for administrative expenses, and that the Corps is to dis-
36

tribute remaining funds as directed by Title VI to the State of

South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule

Sioux Tribe.

Missouri River Restoration, SD.—The Committee has included

$500,000, the full Corps capability, to complete the assessment and

initiation of the implementation plan for the basin.

Pierre, SD.—The Committee has included $6,000,000 for the

Pierre, South Dakota flood damage reduction project.

Black Fox, Oaklands and Murfree Springs Wetlands, TN.—The

Committee has provided $1,070,000 for the continued construction

of this project, which was not included in the budget request.

Cumberland County Water Supply, TN.—The Committee has included funds for the continued construction of this project.

Brays Bayou, TX.—The Committee has included $6,000,000 for

this project related to flood damage reduction.

Dallas Floodway Extension, TX.—The Committee has provided

funds and legislative language to continue plans and specification

development, real estate activities and resume project construction,

including the Cadillac Heights segment of the project.

Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, TX.—The Committee

has included $40,000,000 for this high priority project which is

needed for the safe and cost-effective movement of cargo.

Red River Chloride Control Project, TX & OK.—The Committee

has included $2,000,000 for the continued construction of this

project.

Embrey Dam, VA.—The Committee has included $3,000,000 for

this continuing construction project.

Lake Merriweather, Little Calfpasture (Goshen Dam), VA.—The

Committee has included $3,000,000 for the continuation of this

project.

Norfolk Harbor and Channels (Deepening), VA.—The Committee

has included $4,000,000 for the continuation of this necessary navigation project.

Chief Joseph Dam Gas Abatement, WA.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for the continued construction of

this project. The additional funds are provided for the award of

construction contracts related to the right abutment, staging area

and cofferdam fabrication.

Columbia River Fish Mitigation, WA, OR & ID.—The Committee

has provided $85,000,000 for the Fish Mitigation project. This reduced funding level should in no way be considered any diminution

of interest or support for the project, but instead it reflects the very

limited resources of the Committee.

Mt. St. Helens Sediment Control, WA.—The Committee recommendation includes $700,000 above the administration’s request.

These funds are for the initiation of a sensitivity analysis to Cowlitz River tributaries as a result of elevating river stages and proceeding with the analysis of alternatives to find a permanent solution to the sediment control. In addition, the Committee expects

the Corps to initiate a General Reevaluation Report.

Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, WV, KY, & VA.—The Committee has provided

$23,400,000 for continuation of the project. Within the funds provided, the Committee recommendation includes $17,000,000 for the
37

Buchanan County, Dickenson County, and Grundy, VA elements.

Further, the Committee recommendation includes $6,400,000 for

Kermit, Lower Mingo County, McDowell County, Upper Mingo and

Wayne County, WV.

Aquatic Plant Control Program.—The Committee has included

$3,500,000 for the Aquatic Plant Control program’s base research

and development activities. The Committee is aware of the growing

aquatic invasive plant infestation problem around the county and

supports the efforts of the Corps, and private sector, to develop new

management and control technologies. Currently, the Committee is

aware that approximately 25 Federal agencies are involved in

invasive species activities and that the estimated economic impacts

from all invasive species totals as much as $137,000,000,000. The

Committee further believes that success in the management of

these invasive species is dependent upon a strong, stable research

program. In an effort to maximize limited funding for eradication

and harvesting, the Committee strongly recommends that these efforts be undertaken only where a local sponsor agrees to provide

50 percent of the cost of the work. Within the funds provided,

$300,000 is for a cost shared effort with the State of South Carolina and $400,000 is for a cost shared effort with the State of

Vermont. The Committee urges the Corps to establish a cost

shared program with the State of Hawaii.

Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program.—The

Committee recommendation includes $14,000,000 for the program.

Within the funds provided, $6,000,000 is provided for the Corps to

continue work on Waterbury Dam in Vermont.

Ability to Pay.—Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended, requires that all project cooperation

agreements for flood damage reduction projects, to which non-Federal cost sharing applies, will be subject to the ability of non-Federal sponsors to pay their shares. Congress included this section in

the landmark 1986 Act to ensure that as many communities as

possible would qualify for Federal flood damage reduction projects,

based more on needs and less on financial capabilities. The Secretary published eligibility criteria in 33 CFR 241, which requires

a non-Federal sponsor to meet an ability-to-pay test. However, the

Committee believes that the Secretary’s test is too restrictive and

operates to exclude most communities from qualifying for relief

under the ability-to-pay provision. For example, 33 CFR 241.4(f)

specifies that the test should be structured so that reductions in

the level of cost-sharing will be granted in ‘‘only a limited number

of cases of severe economic hardship,’’ and should depend not only

on the economic circumstances within a project area, but also on

the conditions of the state in which the project area is located.

While within the letter of the law, the Secretary’s policies do not

appear to be keeping the spirit of the law. The Secretary is directed

to report to the Appropriations Committees within 90 days of enactment of this Act on a proposal intended to be published in the

Federal Register to revise 33 CFR 241 eligibility criteria to allow

a more reasonable and balanced application of the ability-to pay

provision.
38

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

The continuing project authorities listed below, allow the Corps

great flexibility to respond to various, limited-scope, water resource

problems facing communities throughout the Nation. This program

has proven to be remarkably successful in providing a quick response to serious local problems. These problems range from flood

control and navigation to bank stabilization and environmental restoration. The Committee has provided funds in excess of the budget

request for virtually all of these accounts. As a general rule, once

a project has received funds for the initial phases of any of these

authorities, the project will continue to be funded as long as it

proves to be environmentally sound, technically feasible, and economically justified, as applicable. With this in mind, the Committee

has chosen to limit explicit direction of these project authorities.

The Committee is aware that there are funding requirements for

ongoing, continuing authorities projects that may not be accommodated within the funds provided for each program. It is not the

Committee’s intent that ongoing projects be terminated. If additional funds are needed to keep ongoing work in any program on

schedule, the Committee urges the Corps to reprogram the necessary funds.

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).—The Committee

has provided $15,000,000 for the Section 206 Program. Within the

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $200,000 for

Tamarisk Eradication, CO for plans and specifications; $200,000

for Yampa River/Hayden restoration project (Upper Yampa Water

Conservancy District), CO; $200,000 for Sqauw Creek, IL ecosystem restoration for plans and specifications; $250,000 for

Chariton River/Rathburn Lake Watershed, IA to complete plans

and specifications; $192,000 for Duck Creek-Fairmont Park Wetlands restoration, Scott County, IA for planning and design analysis; $304,000 for Lemay Wetlands, MO to initiate and complete

restorations; $200,000 for Bottomless Lake State Park, NM;

$100,000 for James Wallace Memorial Dam, Santa Rosa, NM;

$100,000 for Jemez River Aquatic and Riparian Habitat, NM;

$200,000 for Concord Streams Restorations, Concord, NC; $75,000

for the design phase of Little Sugar Creek, NC aquatic ecosystem

restoration; $100,000 for project modifications to East Harbor State

Park, OH; $100,000 for Cherokee Creek Aquatic ecosystem restoration, OK for a feasibility study; $100,000 for Crow Creek Aquatic

ecosystem restoration, OK; $100,000 for Alsop Brownwood, Johnson

Creek, OR for a feasibility study; $100,000 for Oaks Bottom, OR for

a feasibility study; $100,000 for Brush Neck Cove, Warwick, RI for

a feasibility study; $150,000 for Ninigret and Cross Mills Ponds,

Charlestown, RI for construction; $300,000 for Mad Island Aquatic

ecosystem restoration, TX; and $50,000 for Underwood Creek restoration, Milwaukee, WI.

Navigation Mitigation Projects (Section 111).—The Committee

has provided $1,500 for the Section 111 Program. Within the

amount provided, the recommendation includes $1,280,000 to continue construction of the Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach, ME

project to mitigate shoreline damages caused by the Federal navigation project.
39

Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment (Section 1135).—The Committee has provided $17,000,000 for the Section 1135 Program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $170,000 for Big Creek Spillway, IA for a modifications project; $550,000 for construction of the Honey Creek Wetlands, Greenville Marsh, Lucas County, IA; $310,000 for Lower

Rouge River restoration, Wayne County, MI for a feasibility study;

$320,000 for Rouge River Oxbow restoration, MI for a feasibility

study; $100,000 for Upper Rouge River restoration, Wayne County,

MI for a feasibility study; $700,000 for riparian and wetland restoration, Pueblo of Santa Ana, NM; $200,000 for Joe Creek habitat

restoration, OK; $250,000 for Lower Columbia Slough, OR for construction; and $100,000 for Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey barriers,

VT.

Emergency Streambank & Shoreline Protection Projects (Section

14).—The Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the Section 14

Program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $60,000 for the planning and design analysis at Beaver

Creek, Ackley, IA; $341,000 for Iowa River, Sac and Fox Settlement, Tama County, IA; $40,000 for planning and design analysis

for Red Duck Creek, KY; $300,000 for Ramsay, Bessemer, Township, Gogebic County, MI for planning and design analysis and construction; $100,000 for planning and design analysis at Sturgeon

River, Baraga County, MI; $800,000 for Rio Puerco, NM; and

$250,000 for Burlington, VT.

Flood Control Projects (Section 205).—The Committee has provided $30,000,000 for the Section 205 Program. Within the amount

provided, the recommendation includes: $75,000 for a feasibility

study at Bono, AR; $155,000 for Oak Creek, Florence, CO for a feasibility study; $225,000 for plans and specifications at East Boyer

River, Denison, IA; $150,000 for a feasibility study at Kitty Creek

and Maquoketa River, City of Monticello, IA; $200,000 for Olive

Hill, KY for a feasibility study; $60,000 for a feasibility study at

Red Duck Creek, KY; $100,000 to investigate flooding problems

along Bayou Choupique in the vicinity of the Chitimacha Reservation in St. Mary Parish, LA; $40,000 for Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Flood Control Project, LA for a feasibility study; $350,000 for

plans and specifications and to initiate construction at Granite

Falls, MN; $800,000 for Little Puerco River, Gallup, NM; $200,000

for Hobbs, NM; $200,000 for Hatch, NM; $500,000 to continue the

Spanish Springs Valley, NV flood prevention project; $1,000,000 for

construction of the Wahpeton, ND, flood control project; $100,000

for Cane Creek, TN for a feasibility study; $100,000 for Jones

Creek, TN for a feasibility study; and $100,000 for Jamestown Island Seawall, VA for plans and specifications.

Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material (Section 204).—The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Section 204 Program. Within the amount provided the recommendation includes $212,000 for

Blackbottoms, Des Moines County, IA,

Shoreline Protection Projects (Section 103).—The Committee has

provided $3,500,000 for the Section 103 Program. Within the

amount provided, the recommendation includes $75,000 for Luna

Pier, MI for a feasibility study.
40

Small Navigation Projects (Section 107).—The Committee has

provided $9,000,000 for the Section 107 Program. Within the

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $750,000 for Aun’u

Harbor, American Samoa for a preliminary study; $200,000 for

Ta’u Harbor, American Samoa; $350,000 for Horseshoe Bend erosion project, KY; $100,000 for Detroit River navigation improvements, MI; $75,000 for Ontonagon Harbor, MI for a feasibility

study; and $60,000 for Charlestown Breachway navigation study,

RI.

Snaging and Clearing for Flood Control (Section 208).—The

Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the Section 208 Program.

Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes $25,000

for Deer Creek, Webster County, KY for a planning, design and

analysis.

Tribal Partnership Program.—The Committee acknowledges the

serious impacts of coastal erosion and flooding due to continued climate change in Alaska. The Committee expects the Corps to continue its work in this area.

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

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $342,334,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 280,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 329,000,000

This appropriation funds planning, construction, and operation

and maintenance activities associated with water resource projects

located in the lower Mississippi River Valley from Cape Girardeau,

Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico.

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA ............................................................................................ 435 435

DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA ................................................................................... 800 900

SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR ................................................................................................. .......................... 100

SPRING BAYOU, LA .............................................................................................................. 500 500

TENSAS RIVER BASIN, LA .................................................................................................... .......................... 200

COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS .................................................. 185 350

FLETCHER CREEK, TN ......................................................................................................... 120 120

GERMANTOWN, TN ............................................................................................................... 51 51

MILLINGTON AND VICINITY, TN ............................................................................................ 84 84

MORGANZA TO THE GULF, LA ............................................................................................. 3,487 5,000

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA ........................................................................... 695 695

SUBTOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................. 6,357 8,435

CONSTRUCTION

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN .................................................... 39,562 41,000

FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH (EIGHT MILE CREEK), AR ............................................ 2,050 2,050

HELENA AND VICINITY, AR .................................................................................................. 2,180 2,180

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ................................................ 42,919 47,000

ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO ............................................................................................ 2,365 3,000
41

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ................................................................... 7,768 8,000

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ..................................................................................................... 14,075 15,000

MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA .......................................................................................... 3,200 3,200

HORN LAKE CREEK, MS ...................................................................................................... .......................... 395

BACKWATER PUMP, MS ....................................................................................................... .......................... 12,000

MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, LA & MS ................................................ .......................... 30

YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS ....................................................................... 890 1,000

DALTA HEADWATERS PROJECT, MS ..................................................................................... .......................... 17,000

MAIN STEM, MS ................................................................................................................... .......................... 25

REFORMULATION UNIT, MS ................................................................................................. .......................... 500

YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS ........................................................................................ 205 205

YAZOO BASIN, UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS ..................................................................... 6,645 12,000

ST. JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO ....................................................... .......................... 1,000

NONCONNAH CREEK, TN & MS ........................................................................................... 2,618 3,200

WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN ................................................................................................. .......................... 1,600

Subtotal, CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................... 124,477 170,385

MAINTENANCE

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN .................................................... 69,688 69,688

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ............................................................................ 370 370

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ............................................................................ 466 466

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR ...................................................................... 105 105

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR ...................................................................... 135 135

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ................................................ 6,340 7,000

ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO ............................................................................................ 7,505 9,000

TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA ..................................................... 2,400 2,400

WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR ............................................................................................ 1,290 1,290

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ............................................................................. 50 50

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ............................................................................ 35 35

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ................................................................... 2,450 2,450

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ..................................................................................................... 13,335 13,335

BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA ....................................................................... 15 281

BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA ........................................................................... 85 85

BONNET CARRE, LA ............................................................................................................. 1,975 1,975

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ............................................................................ 550 550

LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA ................................................................... 2,207 2,207

MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA .......................................................................................... 910 910

OLD RIVER, LA .................................................................................................................... 9,915 9,915

TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA ...................................................................... 3,425 3,425

GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS ................................................................................................... 30 250

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ........................................................................... 296 296

VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS .................................................................................................... 35 345

YAZOO BASIN: ...................................................................................................................... (32,050) (40,645)

ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ................................................................................................ 6,300 7,500

BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS ...................................................................................... 170 2,800

ENID LAKE, MS ........................................................................................................... 5,505 6,200

GREENWOOD, MS ....................................................................................................... 650 850

GRENADA LAKE, MS ................................................................................................... 6,170 7,000

MAIN STEM, MS .......................................................................................................... 1,480 3,480

SARDIS LAKE, MS ....................................................................................................... 8,630 9,500

TRIBUTARIES, MS ....................................................................................................... 1,135 1,135

WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS ....................................................................... 470 470

YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ................................................................................... 730 900

YAZOO CITY, MS ......................................................................................................... 810 810

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ........................................................................... 167 167

WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO ....................................................................................................... 4,265 4,265

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ............................................................................ 101 101

MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN ........................................................................... 1,010 1,010

MAPPING .............................................................................................................................. 1,235 1,235

SUBTOTAL, MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................... 162,440 173,986
42

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ..................................................... ¥13,274 ¥23,806

TOTAL, FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES .......................... 280,000 329,000

The Committee believes that it is essential to provide adequate

resources and funding to the Mississippi River and Tributaries program in order to protect the large investment in flood control facilities. Although much progress has been made, considerable work remains to be done for the protection and economic development of

the rich national resources in the Valley. The Committee expects

the additional funds to be used to advance ongoing studies, initiate

new studies, and advance important construction and maintenance

work. In conjunction with efforts to optimize use of the additional

funding provided, the Committee expects the Corps to make the

necessary adjustments in lower priority activities and non-critical

work in order to maximize the public benefit within the Mississippi

River and Tributaries program.

General Investigations

Southeast Arkansas, AR.—The Committee has included $100,000

for the continued study of the Southeast Arkansas project.

Tensas River Basin, LA.—The Committee has included $200,000

to continue the feasibility phase of the Tensas River Basin study.

Construction

Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, & TN.—The

Committee has included $47,000,000 for the continuation of the

construction on the Mississippi River Levees project, including the

plans and specifications and initiation of construction on the Lower

Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive Site.

Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, Yazoo Backwater Project (Pumping

Plant and Nonstructural Features), MS.—The Committee has included $12,000,000 and statutory language directing the Corps to

complete the design of the pumping plant, real estate acquisition

and the initiation of the pump supply contract.

Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, Mississippi Delta Headwaters Project,

MS.—The Committee has included $17,000,000 for this essential

project which consists of sixteen watersheds with efforts including

bank stabilization to grade control structures and channel modifications.

Maintenance

Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, & TN.—The

Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000 which includes

funds for gravel surfacing at selected locations.

St. Francis River and Tributaries, AR & MO.—An additional

$1,495,000 has been provided above the budget request for maintenance items in Missouri.
43

Grand Prairie Region, AR.—The Committee has included bill

language directing the Corps, using previously appropriated funds,

to continue construction of the water withdrawal features associated with the project as directed in the conference report accompanying the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,

2002.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,927,556,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,939,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,949,000,000

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

ALABAMA

ALABAMA-COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL .......................................................... 285 285

ALABAMA-COOSA RIVER, AL .................................................................................................... 2,961 2,961

BAYOU LA BATRE, AL .............................................................................................................. 2,000 2,000

BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ...................................................................... 22,100 23,100

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL ...................................................................................... 5,000 5,000

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL ................................................................................ 50 50

MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM ............................................................................. ........................ 5,429

MOBILE HARBOR, AL ............................................................................................................... 19,040 22,040

ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL ................................................................................... 5,726 5,726

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL ............................................................................. 100 100

TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL ............................................. 1,500 1,500

TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS .................................................................. 21,500 22,500

WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA ................................................................... 6,892 6,892

ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK ....................................................................................................... 2,969 2,969

CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK ......................................................................................................... 3,259 3,259

COOK INLET SHOALS, AK ......................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000

CORDOVA HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................ 400 400

DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK ....................................................................................................... 906 906

HOMER HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................... 370 370

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK ................................................................................ 41 41

NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................................... 239 239

NOME HARBOR, AK .................................................................................................................. 285 1,285

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK ......................................................................................... 533 533

ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ ...................................................................................................................... 1,563 1,563

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ ................................................................................ 87 87

PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ .......................................................................................................... 1,498 1,498

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ ............................................................................ 35 35

WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ ...................................................................................................... 184 184

ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR .................................................................................................................... 4,297 4,297

BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR ................................................................................. 6,126 6,126

BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ...................................................................................................... 1,751 1,751

BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR .......................................................................................................... 5,180 5,180

DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR .......................................................................................... 5,319 5,319

DEGRAY LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................... 7,103 7,103

DEQUEEN LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................. 1,567 1,567

DIERKS LAKE, AR ..................................................................................................................... 1,131 1,131
44

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

GILLHAM LAKE, AR .................................................................................................................. 1,531 1,531

GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR ........................................................................................................ 6,391 6,391

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................................................ 25 400

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................................................ 192 192

MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR ............................................. 29,493 35,493

MILLWOOD LAKE, AR ............................................................................................................... 1,503 1,503

NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR ...................................................................................... 5,559 5,559

NIMROD LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................... 2,036 2,036

NORFORK LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................. 3,471 3,471

OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR ............................................................................................................ 25 750

OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA ........................................................................... 10,221 10,221

OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR .............................................................................. 3,917 3,917

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR ......................................................................................... 6 6

WHITE RIVER, AR ..................................................................................................................... 200 200

YELLOW BEND PORT, AR ......................................................................................................... 15 126

CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA .......................................................................................................... 2,269 2,269

BODEGA BAY, CA ..................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,800

BUCHANAN DAM, H V EASTMAN LAKE, CA ............................................................................. 2,526 2,526

COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA ........................................................................ 3,401 3,401

DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA ........................................................ 4,421 4,421

FARMINGTON DAM, CA ............................................................................................................ 341 341

HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA ........................................................................................... 2,621 2,621

HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA ......................................................................................... 6,945 6,945

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA ................................................................................ 1,167 1,167

ISABELLA LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................. 1,365 1,365

LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBOR MODEL, CA .................................................................. 175 175

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA .......................................................................... 4,931 4,931

MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA ............................................................................................. 280 280

MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA .......................................................................................................... 282 282

MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA ....................................................................................................... 1,460 1,460

NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA ............................................................................................................. 2,789 2,789

NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA ............................................................... 1,697 1,697

OAKLAND HARBOR, CA ............................................................................................................ 6,785 9,285

OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA ......................................................................................................... 1,160 1,160

PETALUMA RIVER, CA .............................................................................................................. ........................ 1,250

PINE FLAT LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................ 2,732 2,732

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA ......................................................................................... 1,960 1,960

RICHMOND HARBOR, CA ......................................................................................................... 6,250 6,250

SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA ........................................................................ 2,106 2,106

SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA ........................................... 1,255 1,255

SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY, CA .............................................................................. 60 60

SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA ........................................................... 1,273 1,273

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL) ................................................... 2,189 2,189

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................. 2,092 2,092

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA ......................................................................................................... 2,065 3,000

SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA .................................................................................................. 3,815 3,815

SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................ 1,905 1,905

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA ............................................................................ 1,447 1,447

SUCCESS LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................. 2,132 2,132

SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA ...................................................................................................... 5,172 5,172

TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA ........................................................................................ 1,818 1,818

VENTURA HARBOR, CA ............................................................................................................ 2,910 2,910

YUBA RIVER, CA ...................................................................................................................... 66 66

COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO ........................................................................................................... 282 282

CHATFIELD LAKE, CO ............................................................................................................... 1,690 2,023

CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO ....................................................................................................... 839 1,172

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO ............................................................................... 92 92
45

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO ................................................................................................ 2,338 2,338

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO ............................................................................ 292 292

TRINIDAD LAKE, CO ................................................................................................................. 1,441 1,775

CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT ............................................................................................................ 343 343

COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT .................................................................................................. 459 459

HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT ..................................................................................................... 252 252

HOP BROOK LAKE, CT ............................................................................................................. 857 857

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT ................................................................................ 81 81

LONG ISLAND SOPUND, TREATMENT OF DREDGE MATERIAL, CT ............................................ ........................ 500

MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT ................................................................................................ 406 406

NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT ................................................................................................ 330 330

NORWALK HARBOR, CT ............................................................................................................ ........................ 1,000

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT ......................................................................................... 1,303 1,303

SOUTHPORT HARBOR, CT ........................................................................................................ ........................ 500

STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT ..................................................................................... 353 353

THOMASTON DAM, CT .............................................................................................................. 442 442

WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT ..................................................................................................... 452 452

DELAWARE

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, D ...................................... 14,994 14,994

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, D ...................................... 48 48

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE ......................................................................................... 55 55

WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE ...................................................................................................... 4,366 4,366

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC ............................................................................... 7 7

POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL) .................................................... 1,100 1,100

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC ........................................................................................ 35 35

WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC ..................................................................................................... 50 50

FLORIDA

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ......................................................................................................... 3,800 3,800

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL .................................................................................. 13,005 13,005

ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL .................................................................................... 1,000 1,000

FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL ....................................................................................................... 2,556 2,556

FORT PIERCE HARBOR, FL ...................................................................................................... 65 65

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL ................................................................................ 200 200

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL ...................................................... 680 1,880

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ..................................................................................................... 6,551 6,551

JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA ........................................ 6,686 6,686

MIAMI HARBOR, FL .................................................................................................................. 1,515 1,515

MIAMI RIVER, FL ...................................................................................................................... 5,850 5,850

OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL .................................................................................................. 4,316 4,316

PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL ...................................................................................................... 1,916 1,916

PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL ...................................................................................................... 500 500

PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL ......................................................................................................... 1,500 1,500

PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL ............................................................................................. 1,255 1,255

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL ......................................................................................... 1,000 1,000

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL ....................................................................................... 3,400 3,400

TAMPA HARBOR, FL ................................................................................................................. 3,985 3,985

GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA .............................................................................................................. 6,000 6,000

APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL & ........................................... 1,500 4,709

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA ............................................................................... 178 178

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA ....................................................................................................... 3,993 3,993

BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA ......................................................................... 9,100 9,100

CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA ................................................................................................. 10,012 10,012

HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC .................................................................................................. 13,964 13,964
46

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA ................................................................................ 41 41

J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC ................................................................................. 11,747 11,747

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC ................................................................ 7,746 8,746

SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA .......................................................................................................... 12,540 12,540

SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA ................................................................................. 154 154

WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL ............................................................................... 6,600 6,600

HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI .................................................................................................. 176 176

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI ................................................................................. 191 191

MANELE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, HI ......................................................................................... 656 656

PORT ALLEN HARBOR, KAUAI, HI ............................................................................................ 90 90

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI .......................................................................................... 485 485

IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID ............................................................................................................ 2,202 2,202

DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID .................................................................................... 2,271 3,271

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID ................................................................................. 72 72

LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID ............................................................................................................. 2,167 2,167

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID ............................................................................. 394 394

ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN ............................................................................. 3,985 3,985

CARLYLE LAKE, IL .................................................................................................................... 4,410 4,410

CHICAGO HARBOR, IL .............................................................................................................. 2,319 2,319

CHICAGO RIVER, IL .................................................................................................................. 362 362

FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL ................................................................................................. 213 213

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND IN .................................................................... 25,726 25,726

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND IN .................................................................... 1,889 1,889

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ................................................................................. 546 546

KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL ........................................................................................... 1,688 1,688

LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL ............................................................................................... 537 537

LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL ............................................................................................................. 5,495 5,495

MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION) ........................................ 44,429 45,429

MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION) ........................................ 17,374 18,374

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL .......................................................................................... 30 30

REND LAKE, IL ......................................................................................................................... 4,818 4,818

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL .......................................................... 111 111

WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL ........................................................................................................... 2,027 2,027

INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN .............................................................................................................. 684 684

BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN ............................................................................................. 2,774 2,774

CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN ............................................................................................................ 635 635

CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN ..................................................................................................... 745 745

INDIANA HARBOR, IN ............................................................................................................... 316 316

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN ................................................................................. 346 346

J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN .................................................................................................... 951 951

MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN ................................................................................................... 1,970 1,970

MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN .......................................................................................................... 1,234 1,234

MONROE LAKE, IN ................................................................................................................... 762 762

PATOKA LAKE, IN ..................................................................................................................... 687 687

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN .......................................................................................... 55 55

SALAMONIE LAKE, IN ............................................................................................................... 681 681

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN ......................................................... 115 115

IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA .............................................................................................................. 3,037 3,700

FORT MADISON, IA ................................................................................................................... ........................ 50

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA ................................................................................. 190 190

MISSOURI RIVER—KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA ................................................. 157 157
47

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

MISSOURI RIVER—RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS AND MO ..................................................... 5,355 6,000

MISSOURI RIVER—SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA AND NE ............................................................ 2,260 2,260

MUSCATINE, IA ........................................................................................................................ ........................ 205

RATHBUN LAKE, IA .................................................................................................................. 3,438 3,438

RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA .............................................................................. 3,663 5,000

SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA ............................................................................................................. 4,223 4,223

SCHELDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, IA ............................................................................ ........................ 334

KANSAS

CLINTON LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................... 1,857 1,857

COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS ...................................................................................................... 1,760 1,760

EL DORADO LAKE, KS .............................................................................................................. 939 939

ELK CITY LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................. 650 650

FALL RIVER LAKE, KS .............................................................................................................. 1,385 1,500

HILLSDALE LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................ 759 759

JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS ............................................................................ 2,025 2,025

KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS ............................................................................................................... 1,269 1,269

MARION LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................... 2,443 3,000

MELVERN LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................. 1,731 1,731

MILFORD LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................. 2,783 2,783

PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS ................................................................................... 984 984

PERRY LAKE, KS ...................................................................................................................... 2,090 2,890

POMONA LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................... 1,931 1,931

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS ............................................................................ 129 129

TORONTO LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................. 464 464

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS ......................................................................................................... 1,839 1,839

WILSON LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................... 1,377 1,377

KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN .................................................................... 8,902 8,902

BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY ........................................................................................................ 2,484 2,484

BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY ......................................................................................................... 35 35

BUCKHORN LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................... 1,394 1,394

CARR CREEK LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................ 1,448 1,448

CAVE RUN LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................ 819 819

DEWEY LAKE, KY ..................................................................................................................... 1,636 1,636

ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY .................................................................................... 25 ........................

FISHTRAP LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................. 1,681 1,681

GRAYSON LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................. 1,241 1,241

GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY ........................................................................................... 1,205 1,205

GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY ........................................................................................................... 2,359 2,359

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................................................ 97 97

KENTUCKY RIVER, KY .............................................................................................................. 17 17

LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY ......................................................................................................... 1,572 1,572

MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY ......................................................................................................... 583 583

MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY ..................................................................... 92 92

NOLIN LAKE, KY ....................................................................................................................... 2,056 2,056

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN AND OH ............................................................... 31,372 31,852

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN AND OH ......................................................... 4,560 4,560

PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................. 1,030 1,030

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY ......................................................................................... 6 6

ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY .......................................................................................................... 2,848 2,848

TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY .......................................................................................................... 981 981

WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY ........................................................................... 10,670 10,670

YATESVILLE LAKE, KY .............................................................................................................. 1,082 1,082

LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L ........................................ 19,367 20,367

BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA ............................................................................................. 286 3,000

BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA ............................................................................................. 864 864

BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA .................................................. 133 1,200
48

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

BAYOU LACOMBE, LA .............................................................................................................. ........................ 315

BAYOU PIERRE, LA .................................................................................................................. 31 31

BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA ........................................................................................... 165 1,300

BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA ............................................................................. 35 35

BAYOU TECHE, LA ................................................................................................................... 48 354

CADDO LAKE, LA ...................................................................................................................... 183 183

CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ............................................................................................ 12,064 12,064

FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA ......................................................................................................... 1,558 1,558

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA ...................................................................................... 19,418 19,418

HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA .............................................................................................. 1,242 1,242

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................................................ 797 797

J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA .................................................................................... 12,013 15,013

LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA ............................................................................................. 32 421

MADISON PARISH PORT, LA ..................................................................................................... 13 80

MERMENTAU RIVER, LA ........................................................................................................... 2,651 2,651

MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA .......................................................................... 1,841 5,116

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, .............................................. 56,206 56,206

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA .................................................................................... 13,485 13,485

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA ......................................................................................... 80 80

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA ....................................................................................... 2,000 2,000

WALLACE LAKE, LA .................................................................................................................. 312 312

WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA .......................................................................... 7 247

WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO B DULAC, LA ............................................. 37 237

MAINE

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME ............................................................................... 17 17

KENNEBEC RIVER, ME ............................................................................................................. 45 45

NARRAGUAGUS, ME ................................................................................................................. ........................ 1,000

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME ........................................................................................ 1,886 1,886

SCARGOROUGH RIVER, ME ...................................................................................................... ........................ 500

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME ........................................................ 17 17

WELLS HARBOR, ME ................................................................................................................ 50 50

MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR ANCHORAGES AND CHANNELS, MD AND VA ......................................... 68 68

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD ............................................................ 18,416 18,416

BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL) .......................................................................... 500 500

BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSI ....................................... 676 676

CHESTER RIVER, MD ............................................................................................................... 930 930

CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV .................................................................................. 165 165

FISHING CREEK, MD ................................................................................................................ ........................ 300

HONGA RIVER AND TAR BAY, MD ........................................................................................... 80 1,500

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD ............................................................................... 34 34

JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV ............................................................................... 1,774 1,774

KNAPPS NARROWS, MD ........................................................................................................... 651 651

OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD ............................................... 960 960

POCOMOKE RIVER, MD ............................................................................................................ 989 989

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD ........................................................................................ 365 365

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD ........................................................................... 96 96

TILGHMAN ISLAND HARBO, MD ............................................................................................... ........................ 555

TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, MD .................................................................................................... 1,364 1,364

UPPER THOROFARE, SOMERSET, MD ...................................................................................... ........................ 792

WICOMICO RIVER, MD ............................................................................................................. 1,514 1,514

MASSACHUSETTS

AUNT LYDIA’S COVE, CHATHAM, MA ....................................................................................... 300 300

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA ........................................................................................................... 486 486

BIRCH HILL DAM, MA .............................................................................................................. 450 450

BOSTON HARBOR, MA ............................................................................................................. 3,000 3,000

BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA .......................................................................................................... 447 447

CAPE COD CANAL, MA ............................................................................................................. 7,772 7,772
49

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA ......................................................... 227 227

CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA ...................................................................................................... 171 171

EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA ..................................................................................................... 301 301

GREEN HARBOR, MA ............................................................................................................... 310 310

HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA ..................................................................................................... 428 428

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA ............................................................................... 114 114

KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA ............................................................................................................ 453 453

LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................................................. 364 364

NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER, ....................................... 300 300

NEW BEDFORD AND FAIRHAVEN HARBOR, MA ....................................................................... ........................ 500

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA ........................................................................................ 1,316 1,316

TULLY LAKE, MA ...................................................................................................................... 412 412

WEST HILL DAM, MA ................................................................................................................ 573 573

WESTVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................................................... 407 407

MICHIGAN

ARCADIA HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................. 20 20

BLACK RIVER, PORT HURON, MI ............................................................................................. 16 16

CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI .......................................................................................... 466 466

CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI ....................................................................................................... 119 119

DETROIT RIVER, MI .................................................................................................................. 3,458 3,458

FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI ......................................................................................................... 3,112 3,112

GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI .................................................................................................... 810 810

HOLLAND HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................. 618 618

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI ................................................................................ 153 153

KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI ..................................................................................................... 428 428

LELAND HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................... 20 170

LEXINGTON HARBOR, MI .......................................................................................................... 10 10

LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................ 12 208

LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI ......................................................................................................... 946 946

MANISTEE HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................... 227 227

MARQUETTE HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................ 10 10

MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND WI .......................................................................................... 154 154

MONROE HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................. 138 138

MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI ......................................................................................................... 21 21

ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI ....................................................................................................... 473 473

PENTWATER HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................ 45 45

PORT AUSTIN HARBOR, MI ...................................................................................................... 20 214

PORT SANILAC HARBOR, MI .................................................................................................... 27 27

PORTAGE LAKE HARBOR, MI ................................................................................................... 1,167 1,167

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI ......................................................................................... 182 182

ROUGE RIVER, MI .................................................................................................................... 177 177

SAGINAW RIVER, MI ................................................................................................................. 2,001 2,501

SAUGATUCK HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................ 1,203 1,203

SEBEWAING RIVER (ICE JAM REMOVAL), MI ........................................................................... 7 7

ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI ............................................................................................................... 1,565 1,565

ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MI ......................................................................................................... 561 561

ST. MARYS RIVER, MI .............................................................................................................. 19,092 19,092

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI ......................................................... 2,410 2,410

MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD .................................................................. 255 255

DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI .............................................................................. 4,991 4,991

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN ............................................................................... 107 107

LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ..................................................................... 568 568

MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ........................................................................................................... 175 175

MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION) ........................................ 36,056 36,056

ORWELL LAKE, MN ................................................................................................................... 1,045 1,045

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN ........................................................................................ 67 67

RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN ..................................................................................................... 99 99

RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN .................................................... 4,196 4,196
50

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN ....................................................... 273 273

MISSISSIPPI

ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ............................................................................................................. 685 685

BILOXI HARBOR, MS ................................................................................................................ ........................ 1,250

CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS ............................................................................................... 8 87

EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS ....................................................................................... 170 170

ENID LAKE, MS ........................................................................................................................ 682 682

GRENADA LAKE, MS ................................................................................................................. 700 700

GULFPORT HARBOR, MS .......................................................................................................... 2,500 2,500

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ............................................................................... 57 57

MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS ................................................................................................. 26 51

OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS .............................................................................................................. 1,600 1,600

PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ..................................................................................................... 4,460 4,460

PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA ....................................................................................................... 343 343

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS ........................................................................................ 180 180

ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS .......................................................................................................... 21 604

SARDIS LAKE, MS .................................................................................................................... 545 545

WOLF AND JORDAN RIVERS, MS ............................................................................................. ........................ 1,000

YAZOO RIVER, MS ................................................................................................................... 115 115

MISSOURI

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO .............................................................................................. 30 330

CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO ......................................................... 6,440 6,440

CLEARWATER LAKE, MO .......................................................................................................... 1,959 1,959

HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO ....................................................................... 10,977 10,977

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ............................................................................... 817 817

LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO ............................................................................................... 850 850

LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO ........................................................................................................ 875 875

MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO ........................................ 18,099 18,099

NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO ..................................................................................................... 22 340

POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO .................................................................................................. 1,828 1,828

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO ........................................................................................ 6 6

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO ........................................................................... 316 316

SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO ............................................................................................................. 1,118 1,118

STOCKTON LAKE, MO ............................................................................................................... 5,362 5,362

SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MO ........................................................................................... ........................ 374

TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO ........................................................................................................... 5,772 5,772

UNION LAKE, MO ..................................................................................................................... 10 10

WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO ........................................................................................................... 234 234

MONTANA

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT .................................................................................................. 5,413 5,413

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT ............................................................................... 12 12

LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT ........................................................................................ 1,453 1,453

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT ............................................................................ 87 87

NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE AND SD .................................................... 8,422 8,422

HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE ..................................................................................................... 1,486 1,486

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE ................................................................................ 122 122

MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL, NE, IA, KS, MO, ............................................ 350 350

PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, NE .................................................................... 564 564

SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE ........................................................................................ 708 708

NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV ................................................................................ 43 43

MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA ........................................................................................... 552 552

PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV ............................................................................. 288 368

NEW HAMPSHIRE

BLACKWATER DAM, NH ............................................................................................................ 461 461
51

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

COCHECO RIVER, NH ............................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000

EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH ............................................................................................. 481 481

FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH ...................................................................................................... 500 500

HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH ............................................................................................. 887 887

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH ............................................................................... 12 12

NEW HAMPSHIRE UPLAND DISPOSAL SITE .............................................................................. ........................ 300

OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH ......................................................................................................... 537 537

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH ........................................................................................ 300 300

SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH ................................................................................................... 498 498

NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ............................................................................................................... 1,520 1,520

COLD SPRING INLET, NJ .......................................................................................................... 500 500

DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ .......................................................................................... 20 20

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA AND DE ............................................ 19,290 20,800

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ ......................................................... 3,615 3,715

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ ................................................................................ 89 89

NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ .......................................................................... 1,815 1,815

NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ .......................................................... 100 100

MANAQUAN RIVER, NJ ............................................................................................................. ........................ 175

PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ ...................................................................... 425 425

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ ......................................................................................... 785 785

RARITAN RIVER, NJ .................................................................................................................. 450 450

SANDY HOOK BAY AT LEONARD, NJ ........................................................................................ 70 70

SALEM RIVER, NJ ..................................................................................................................... ........................ 825

SHARK RIVER, NJ ..................................................................................................................... 70 70

NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM ................................................................................................................... 1,712 3,882

COCHITI LAKE, NM ................................................................................................................... 2,569 7,079

CONCHAS LAKE, NM ................................................................................................................ 1,560 2,460

GALISTEO DAM, NM ................................................................................................................. 434 634

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM ............................................................................... 137 137

JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM ....................................................................................................... 637 3,287

SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM ........................................................................................... 1,176 1,646

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM ........................................................................... 227 227

TWO RIVERS DAM, NM ............................................................................................................ 463 463

UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL, NM .......................................................... ........................ 1,500

NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY ................................................................................................................... 471 471

ARKPORT DAM, NY .................................................................................................................. 275 275

BARCELONA HARBOR, NY ....................................................................................................... 3 3

BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY ......................................................... 2,950 2,950

BROWNS CREEK, NY ................................................................................................................ 80 80

BUFFALO HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................................. 1,263 1,263

BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY ..................................................................................................... 300 300

CATTARAUGUS CREEK HARBOR, NY ........................................................................................ 5 5

DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................................. 305 305

EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY .................................................................................................... 140 140

EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY ........................................................................................................... 500 500

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY ................................................................................ 2,350 2,350

GLEN COVE CREEK, NY ........................................................................................................... 100 100

HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY ................................................................................................. 350 350

HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT) ................................................................................................... 2,510 2,510

HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C) ...................................................................................................... 2,935 2,935

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY ................................................................................ 454 454

JAMAICA BAY, NY .................................................................................................................... 140 140

LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY ........................................................................ 2,000 2,000

MORICHES INLET, NY .............................................................................................................. 30 630

MT. MORRIS LAKE, NY ............................................................................................................. 2,753 2,753
52

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY ........................................................................ 3,660 3,660

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY .......................................................................................................... 4,460 4,460

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL) ............................................................... 5,344 5,344

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSIT ....................................... 750 750

OLCOTT HARBOR, NY ...............................................................................................................55

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY ......................................................................................... 1,220 1,220

ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY ....................................................................................................... 55 55

RONDOUT HARBOR, NY ........................................................................................................... 150 150

SAG HARBOR, NY .................................................................................................................... 100 100

SHINNECOCK INLET, NY ........................................................................................................... 416 1,500

SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY ........................................................ 774 774

STURGEON POINT HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................... 20 20

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY ........................................................ 586 586

WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY ....................................................................................................... 1,044 1,044

WILSON HARBOR, NY ...............................................................................................................33

NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC .............................................................................. 831 831

B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC ................................................................................ 1,993 1,993

BEAUFORT HARBOR, NC .......................................................................................................... 400 400

BOGUE INLET AND CHANNEL, NC ........................................................................................... 866 866

CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC ........................................................................... 803 803

CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC ................................................................................................... 1,088 1,088

FALLS LAKE, NC ....................................................................................................................... 2,113 2,113

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC ............................................................................... 33 33

LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC ............................................................................................... 1,017 1,017

MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC ........................................................................................... 6,390 6,390

MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC .......................................................... 50 50

MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC ................................................................................................ 12,917 12,917

NEW RIVER INLET, NC ............................................................................................................. 839 839

NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC ......................................................... 665 665

PAMLICO AND TAR RIVERS, NC ............................................................................................... 219 219

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC ........................................................................................ 75 75

ROANOKE RIVER, NC ............................................................................................................... 178 178

W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC ............................................................................. 2,853 2,853

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ...................................................................................................... 6,906 6,906

NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN-HALEY LAKE, ND ...................................................................................................... 163 163

GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND .................................................................................. 12,664 12,964

HOMME LAKE, ND .................................................................................................................... 921 921

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND ............................................................................... 68 68

LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND ............................................................................ 1,944 1,944

PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ................................................................................................................ 461 461

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND ............................................................................ 113 113

SOURIS RIVER, ND .................................................................................................................. 340 340

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND ........................................................ 29 29

OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................... 699 1,500

ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................ 1,245 1,245

BERLIN LAKE, OH .................................................................................................................... 1,690 1,690

CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH ....................................................................................................... 1,490 1,490

CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH ................................................................................................ 888 888

CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................ 3,235 3,235

CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH ......................................................................................................... 579 879

COOLEY CANAL, OH ................................................................................................................. 20 20

DEER CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................... 637 637

DELAWARE LAKE, OH ............................................................................................................... 1,181 1,181

DILLON LAKE, OH ..................................................................................................................... 532 532

FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................... 735 735
53

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

HURON HARBOR, OH ............................................................................................................... 108 108

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH ............................................................................... 210 210

LORAIN HARBOR, OH ............................................................................................................... 4,483 4,483

MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ....................................................................... 25 25

MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH ...................................................................... 793 793

MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH ................................................................................................... 1,176 1,176

MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH ............................................................................................... 7,799 7,799

NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH .......................................................................... 185 185

PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................... 788 788

PORT CLINTON HARBOR, OH ................................................................................................... 10 10

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH ........................................................................................ 129 129

ROCKY RIVER, OH ................................................................................................................... 3 503

ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ........................................................................ 30 30

SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH .......................................................................................................... 825 825

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH ........................................................ 165 165

TOLEDO HARBOR, OH .............................................................................................................. 4,004 4,004

TOM JENKINS DAM, OH ............................................................................................................ 238 238

TOUSSAINT RIVER, OH ............................................................................................................. 20 20

VERMILION HARBOR, OH ......................................................................................................... 28 528

WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH ................................................................................... 455 455

WEST HARBOR, OH .................................................................................................................. 3 503

WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH ................................................................................................. 941 941

OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................. 715 715

BIRCH LAKE, OK ...................................................................................................................... 482 482

BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK .......................................................................................................... 1,684 1,684

CANDY LAKE, OK ..................................................................................................................... 20 20

CANTON LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................... 2,302 2,302

COPAN LAKE, OK ..................................................................................................................... 707 707

EUFAULA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................. 5,889 5,889

FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................... 6,463 6,463

FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................... 846 846

GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK ................................................................................................ 514 514

HEYBURN LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................. 612 612

HUGO LAKE, OK ....................................................................................................................... 1,638 1,638

HULAH LAKE, OK ...................................................................................................................... 1,230 1,230

KAW LAKE, OK ......................................................................................................................... 2,016 2,016

KEYSTONE LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................ 6,834 6,834

OOLOGAH LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................. 2,099 2,099

OPTIMA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................... 406 406

PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK ....................................................... 35 35

PINE CREEK LAKE, OK ............................................................................................................. 921 921

ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIRS, OK ....................................................... 4,275 4,495

SARDIS LAKE, OK ..................................................................................................................... 1,096 1,096

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK ............................................................................ 387 387

SKIATOOK LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................. 1,353 1,353

TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK .................................................................................................... 3,217 3,217

WAURIKA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................. 1,241 1,241

WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK ..................................................................................... 6,551 6,551

WISTER LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................... 948 948

OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR .............................................................................................................. 666 666

BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................. 261 261

BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ............................................................................. 4,849 4,849

CHETCO RIVER, OR ................................................................................................................. ........................ 300

COLUMBIA AND LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLA ............................. 16,674 16,674

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA ...................................................................... 10,028 10,028

COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, O ...................................... 382 382

COOS BAY, OR ......................................................................................................................... 3,598 3,598
54

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

COQUILLE RIVER, OR ............................................................................................................... ........................ 300

COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR ..................................................................................................... 724 724

COUGAR LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................... 3,577 3,577

DEPOE SLOUGH, OR ................................................................................................................ ........................ 400

DETROIT LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................... 2,002 2,002

DORENA LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................... 535 535

FALL CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................. 464 464

FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................ 956 956

GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR .......................................................................................... 2,545 2,545

HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR ........................................................................................................... 4,895 4,895

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR ............................................................................... 161 161

JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ................................................................................. 4,038 4,538

LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR ...................................................................................................... 2,027 2,027

LOST CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................ 5,154 5,154

MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ................................................................................... 5,484 5,484

PORT ORFORD, OR .................................................................................................................. ........................ 300

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR ........................................................................................ 200 200

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR ............................................................................ 60 60

SIUSLAW RIVER, OR ................................................................................................................ ........................ 200

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR ........................................................ 134 134

TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, WA ............................................................................................... ........................ 300

WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR ..................................................................... 259 259

WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR ........................................................................... 58 58

WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR ....................................................................................................... 599 599

YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR ............................................................................................. 1,228 1,228

PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA ............................................................................................................ 4,596 4,596

ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA .......................................................................................................... 712 712

AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA ............................................................................................... 254 254

BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA .............................................................................................................. 1,095 1,095

BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA ........................................................................................................... 2,810 2,810

CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA ................................................................................................. 962 962

COWANESQUE LAKE, PA .......................................................................................................... 3,118 3,118

CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA ..................................................................................................... 1,369 1,369

CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA ........................................................................................................ 743 743

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA ............................................................................... 1,057 1,057

ERIE HARBOR, PA .................................................................................................................... 135 135

FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA .......................................................................................... 789 789

FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA .................................................................................................. 681 1,000

GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA .............................................................. 348 348

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA ................................................................................ 271 271

JOHNSTOWN, PA ....................................................................................................................... 997 997

KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA ...................................................................... 1,437 1,437

LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................ 885 885

MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA ................................................................................................... 820 820

MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ....................................................................................................... 15,158 15,158

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH AND WV ................................................................... 22,504 22,504

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH AND WV ............................................................ 488 488

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA ......................................................................................... 21 21

PROMPTON LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................... 455 455

PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA ................................................................................................................ 17 17

RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................... 5,674 5,674

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA ............................................................................ 57 57

SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA ............................................................................................................ 1,360 1,360

SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA .................................................................................................... 1,829 1,829

STILLWATER LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................. 385 385

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA ........................................................ 79 79

TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA ................................................................................................... 3,852 3,852

TIONESTA LAKE, PA ................................................................................................................. 1,790 1,790

UNION CITY LAKE, PA .............................................................................................................. 224 224
55

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA .................................................................................................. 810 810

YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA .................................................................................................. 691 691

YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD .............................................................................. 1,804 1,804

RHODE ISLAND

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI ................................................................................. 6 6

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI .......................................................................................... 2,163 2,163

PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, RI .................................................................................... 21,000 21,000

SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC ............................................................................... 269 1,432

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ...................................................................................................... 9,740 10,500

COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ........................................................................... 3,380 3,380

FOLLY RIVER, SC ..................................................................................................................... 277 452

GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC ..................................................................................................... 2,719 2,719

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC ................................................................................ 26 26

MURRELLS INLET, SC .............................................................................................................. 45 45

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC ......................................................................................... 229 229

TOWN CREEK, SC .................................................................................................................... 419 419

SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD ......................................................................................... 6,715 6,715

CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE, SD .............................................................. ........................ 5,000

COLD BROOK LAKE, SD ........................................................................................................... 238 238

COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD ........................................................................................... 192 192

FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD ...................................................................... 6,873 6,873

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD ................................................................................ 21 21

LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN ................................................................................................. 907 907

MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND GAVINS PT, SD, MT ........................................ 410 410

OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND ...................................................................................... 13,768 13,768

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD ............................................................................ 48 48

TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN ............................................................................................................ 8,604 8,604

CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN .............................................................................................. 5,612 5,612

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN ......................................................................................................... 2,480 2,480

CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ............................................................................. 3,870 3,870

DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN .......................................................................................................... 6,120 6,120

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................................................ 127 127

J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ............................................................................ 3,150 3,150

OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN ......................................................................................... 7,685 7,685

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN ......................................................................................... 6 6

TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ............................................................................................................ 16,521 18,826

WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN ....................................................................................................... 20 510

TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................... 589 589

ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL—AREA VI ............................................ 1,262 1,262

BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX ......................................................................................... 659 659

BARDWELL LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................ 1,598 1,598

BELTON LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................... 3,299 3,299

BENBROOK LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................... 2,038 2,038

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX ................................................................................. 2,413 2,413

CANYON LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................... 2,770 2,770

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ...................................................................................... 6,650 6,650

DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX ........................................................................................... 8,500 8,800

ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX ................................................................. 3 3

FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX ................................................................... 2,660 2,660

FREEPORT HARBOR, TX ........................................................................................................... 4,500 4,500

GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX ................................................................................ 4,676 4,676

GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX ................................................................................................. 1,568 1,568
56

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................... 2,596 2,596

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX ...................................................................................... 21,329 21,329

HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX .......................................................................................................... 1,223 1,223

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX .................................................................................................. 13,539 13,539

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX ................................................................................ 256 256

JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX ........................................................................................................... 1,141 1,141

JOE POOL LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................. 626 626

LAKE KEMP, TX ........................................................................................................................ 487 487

LAVON LAKE, TX ...................................................................................................................... 3,312 3,312

LEWISVILLE DAM, TX ............................................................................................................... 3,124 3,124

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................. 4,690 4,690

NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX ....................................................................................................... 1,597 1,597

NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX ....................................................... 1,711 1,711

O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX ............................................................................................. 1,419 1,419

PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................... 794 794

PROCTOR LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................. 1,683 1,683

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX ......................................................................................... 50 50

RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX .......................................................................................................... 689 689

SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX ............................................................................................. 8,849 8,849

SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX .............................................................................. 5,618 5,618

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX ............................................................................. 190 190

SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................. 3,323 3,323

STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX ................................................................................................ 2,487 2,487

TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................... ........................ 1,000

TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX ......................................................................... 100 100

TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX ...................................................................... 1,946 1,946

WACO LAKE, TX ....................................................................................................................... 2,316 2,316

WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................. 958 958

WHITNEY LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................... 4,695 4,695

WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX ..................................................................................... 3,404 3,404

UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT ................................................................................ 65 65

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT ............................................................................ 464 464

VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT ....................................................................................................... 651 651

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT ................................................................................ 42 42

NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY .......................................................................... 50 50

NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT .................................................................................................... 582 582

NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT ................................................................................................ 621 621

TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT ............................................................................................................. 595 595

UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT ......................................................................................................... 545 545

WINHALL BROOK, VT ................................................................................................................ ........................ 830

VIRGINIA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA .................................................................... 1,991 1,991

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, VA .................................................................... 1,033 1,033

BONUM CREEK, VA .................................................................................................................. 705 705

CAPE CHARLES CITY HARBOR, VA .......................................................................................... 25 25

CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA ....................................................................................................... 915 915

GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA .............................................................................. 1,756 1,756

HAMPTON CREEK, VA .............................................................................................................. 733 733

HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS HBR, VA (DRIFT REM ................................. 1,200 1,200

HOSKINS CREEK, VA ................................................................................................................ 1,479 1,479

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA ................................................................................ 111 111

JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA .................................................................................................... 3,107 3,107

JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA AND NC ............................................................................................ 10,839 10,839

JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA ..................................................................... 1,341 1,341

LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA ............................................................................................................. 200 200

MONROE BAY AND CREEK, VA ................................................................................................ 422 422
57

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ............................................................................................................ 7,115 7,115

NORFOLK HARBOR, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS ........................................ 200 200

NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA ............................................................................... 343 343

OYSTER CHANNEL, VA ............................................................................................................. 310 310

PHILPOTT LAKE, VA .................................................................................................................. 3,854 3,854

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA ......................................................................................... 750 750

QUINBY CREEK, VA .................................................................................................................. 40 40

RUDEE INLET, VA ..................................................................................................................... 1,180 1,180

WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA .......................................................................... 1,285 1,285

YORK RIVER, VA ...................................................................................................................... 1,585 1,585

WASHINGTON

BELLINGHAM HARBOR, WA ...................................................................................................... 50 50

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA .......................................................................................................... 711 711

COLUMBIA RIVER BTN CHINOOK AND HEAD, WA .................................................................... ........................ 500

EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA ..................................................................... 1,579 1,579

GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA ........................................................................... 8,377 8,377

HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA .................................................................................................... 2,050 2,050

ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA .......................................................................................... 7,770 7,770

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA ............................................................................... 295 295

LAKE CROCKETT (KEYSTONE HARBOR), WA ............................................................................ 7 7

LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ...................................................................................... 6,262 6,262

LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA ........................................................................................ 1,342 1,342

LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA .................................................................................... 2,074 2,074

LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................................................ 2,004 2,004

MILL CREEK LAKE, WA ............................................................................................................ 1,196 1,196

MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ............................................................................... 263 263

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA ....................................................................................................... 2,931 2,931

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA ........................................................................................ 347 347

PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA ......................................................................... 961 961

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA ............................................................................ 472 472

SEATTLE HARBOR, WA ............................................................................................................. 985 985

STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA ..................................................................................................... 254 254

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA ........................................................ 62 62

SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA ...................................................................................................... 520 520

TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA .............................................................................................. 115 115

THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR ............................................................................. 3,278 3,278

WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA .......................................................................................... 510 510

WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV ........................................................................................................... 1,061 1,061

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................. 1,074 1,074

BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................ 1,446 1,446

EAST LYNN LAKE, WV .............................................................................................................. 1,609 1,609

ELKINS, WV .............................................................................................................................. 18 18

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV ............................................................................... 106 106

KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV ................................................................................ 7,655 7,655

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY AND OH ................................................................... 24,270 24,270

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY AND OH ............................................................ 2,366 2,366

R D BAILEY LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................. 1,457 1,457

STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV ............................................................................................. 836 836

SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV ....................................................................................................... 1,469 1,469

SUTTON LAKE, WV ................................................................................................................... 1,785 1,785

TYGART LAKE, WV .................................................................................................................... 4,195 4,195

WISCONSIN

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI .................................................................................................... 1,599 1,599

FOX RIVER, WI ......................................................................................................................... 3,929 3,929

GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ......................................................................................................... 3,492 3,492

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI ................................................................................ 47 47

KENOSHA HARBOR, WI ............................................................................................................ 178 178
58

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI .......................................................................................................... 120 120

MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI ........................................................................................................ 63 63

MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI ......................................................................................................... 781 781

PORT WASHINGTON HARBOR, WI ............................................................................................ 170 170

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI ......................................................................................... 96 96

SHEBOYGAN HARBOR, WI ........................................................................................................ 991 991

STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI ........................................... 317 317

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI ......................................................... 472 472

TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI ....................................................................................................... 1,200 1,200

WYOMING

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY ............................................................................... 11 11

JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY .................................................................................................... 1,217 1,217

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY ............................................................................ 86 86

MISCELLANEOUS

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH .............................................................................. 725 1,025

AUTOMATED BUDGET SYSTEM (ABS) ...................................................................................... 285 285

COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM .................................................................................... 2,750 2,750

CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION) ......................................................................... 1,545 1,545

DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE ...................................................................................... 8,000 8,000

DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM ....................................... 1,180 1,180

DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER) ....................................... 6,755 6,755

DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM ...................................................... 1,545 1,545

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM ...................................................................... 300 300

FACILITY PROTECTION ............................................................................................................. 13,000 13,000

GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELS ...................................................................... 1,000 1,000

HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION ..................................................................... 675 675

INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS ............................................................................... 4,120 4,120

LONG TERM OPTION ASSESSMENT FOR LOW USE NAVIGATION .............................................. 1,000 1,000

MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS ............................................................ 1,750 1,750

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM .......................................................................................... 45 45

NATIONAL DAM SECURITY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 30 30

NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP) ................................................... 6,000 6,000

NATIONAL LEWIS AND CLARK COMMEMORATION COORDINATOR ............................................ 310 310

PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM ....................................................... 815 815

PROTECT, CLEAR AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS(SEC 3) ......................................................... 50 50

RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM (RMSP) ...................................................... 1,545 1,545

REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM .......................................... 1,545 1,795

RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHABILITATION ............................................... 675 675

REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS .............................................................................................. 500 650

WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS) ................................................................ 725 725

WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS ................................................................................... 4,745 4,745

REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ......................................................... ¥13,491 ¥102,538

TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ..................................................................... 1,933,571 1,949,000

The Committee continues to believe that it is essential to provide

adequate resources and attention to operation and maintenance requirements in order to protect the large Federal investment. Yet,

current and projected budgetary constraints require the Committee

to limit the amount of work that can be accomplished in the fiscal

year. In order to cope with the current situation, the Corps has had

to defer or delay scheduled maintenance activities.

Maintenance backlogs continue to grow, with much of the backlog being essential maintenance dredging needed to keep the Nation’s ports, harbors, and waterways open and able to efficiently

handle important national and international trade activities. Yet,

the Committee is aware that out-year budget planning guidance for
59

the Corps of Engineers projects that the current appropriations for

their critical operation and maintenance activities will continue to

decline for the foreseeable future. If additional resources are not

made available, the Committee will be forced to cut back on services, and begin to terminate and close many projects and activities.

The Committee is aware of the Corps’ efforts to stretch the limited resources to cover all of its projects and to effect savings

through a variety of means. With an increasing number of projects

entering the inventory, and budgetary constraints increasing, it is

clear that the Corps will have to find innovative ways of accomplishing required maintenance work, while reducing operational

and other costs. Adjustments in lower-priority programs and noncritical work should optimize limited resources while maximizing

the public benefit.

The budget request has proposed that no navigation project with

less than one billion ton-miles of cargo be eligible for maintenance

dredging. The Committee believes that this is in direct conflict with

the way projects are analyzed. Project analysis is based upon Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and

Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (1983), the Corps

of Engineers Planning Guidance Notebook (2000), and other polices

and procedures. For navigation studies, the analysis centers on

transportation savings to the Nation considering the ultimate origins and destinations of commodities to be moved. Operation and

maintenance costs are considered as a part of this analysis and are

figured into the benefit to cost ratio utilized to make the investment decision. By applying an arbitrary ton-mile figure to determine O&M funding decisions, the budget request has essentially

obviated the need for any of the previous studies undertaken to determine the investment decision.

The Committee is concerned about the annual proposals for reductions of maintenance funding for ‘‘low use waterways and

ports’’. These tributary waterways naturally do not enjoy the same

level of relative efficiencies as mainstem waterways. The Mississippi and Ohio Rivers handle tremendous volumes of traffic over

long distances and so generate impressive ton-mile statistics. Tributaries, by nature, provide generally short, smaller channels with

lower traffic densities. Consequently, ‘‘ton-mile’’ statistics for tributary waterways are dwarfed by statistics for the mainstem waterways. It is important to recognize that the commerce on the tributaries is usually only a small part of the total journey between producer and consumer. When these statistics are compared on a system basis, nearly all of these waterways appear to ‘‘pay their way’’

and are performing as the economic analysis indicated when they

were originally authorized.

Uncertainties in maintenance funding for lower use projects, seriously impact their abilities to compete and become higher use facilities. Without funding to provide a stable channel and authorized

depths and widths, industries and shippers are reluctant to make

the necessary investments in using these projects. The Committee

believes that proposed elimination of maintenance funding for authorized projects is not only a serious disservice to the public, but

is demonstrates a profound lack of respect for the congressional
60

oversight committees that have jurisdiction for authorization and

deauthorization of such projects.

The Committee is not in favor of funding projects which are no

longer economically viable nor environmentally sustainable. Unfortunately, the administration has chosen a path of under-funding, or

an entire lack of funding, for projects in an effort to achieve de

facto deauthorization through the appropriations process by utilizing the billion-ton-mile model. Therefore, the Committee has determined, in the best interest of the Corps, to deauthorize projects

which are listed as ‘‘inactive’’ by the Corps, those projects which

are authorized to which no funds have been obligated.

Further, the Committee believes much could be learned by the

open exchange of how ‘‘low use’’ waterways and ports are calculated, for the billion-ton-mile does not adequately reflect the flow

of commerce today. The Committee remains concerned about the

economic impacts of not maintaining all of our waterways and

ports at their authorized depths. As a result of waterways not

being maintained at the authorized depths, shippers are forced to

divide their cargo and place it on a number of smaller ships in

order to make passage to the final destination, with an approximate cost to industry of $1,000,000,000 a year. This adds significantly to the cost and time of the movement of products in and

around our waterways, something which the administration does

not appropriately take into account when formulating the budget

for the Corps. Therefore, the Committee strongly encourages the

administration to put forth a proposal for a model which better reflects the flow of goods along all of our ports and waterways, including lightering. Until then, however, the Committee believes the

administration has the responsibility to budget for each and every

project such that the authorized widths and depths are maintained.

MANAGEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDS

The Committee is concerned that current and projected budgetary constraints will only exacerbate the increasing impact of inadequate funding necessary for the effective protection of the Federal investment in Corps of Engineers facilities. With that in mind,

the Committee feels it imperative that careful consideration be

given to the disposition of appropriated funds such that they are

applied effectively. It is the feeling of the Committee that too often,

surplus O&M funding is held and reprogrammed in one part of the

organization, while shortages in other parts of the organization

slow the execution of vital operation and maintenance of facilities.

Though the Committee has considered retracting the 100 percent

reprogramming authority, a privilege granted to the Corps, it instead requests that the Corps, within 3 months of enactment of

this Act, report back to the Senate Appropriations Committee with

a plan for ensuring effective management and expenditure of O&M

funds.

CORPS HOPPER DREDGE FLEET

During fiscal year 2002, the Committee requested the General

Accounting Office [GAO] to review the benefits and effects of current and proposed restrictions on the Corps’ hopper dredge fleet.

The Committee faces significant future investments in the Corps
61

hopper dredge fleet, as it is rapidly aging. The Committee believes

that the investment decisions must take into consideration the subsequent use of the fleet. The final GAO report, released March,

2003, reviewed the impacts of operational changes to the fleet since

fiscal year 1993. GAO’s findings made it clear to the Committee

that additional costs have been imposed upon the Corps with the

decreased use of the fleet, but that the benefits have not been realized. Additionally, the GAO found that the Corps’ contracting process for hopper dredges was not effective. Most importantly, the

GAO reported that the Corps of Engineers’ did not have even a limited system to evaluate the costs and benefits of the varying operational levels of its hopper dredge fleet, nor did it have a means

to make maintenance and repair decisions of the fleet taking operational use into consideration. The Committee remains concerned

that since 2000, the Corps has provided a report to Congress which

has been found to have no analytical basis, thus calling into question the ready reserve policy.

Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to report to the Committee within 6 months of enactment of this Act,

with a detailed plan of how it intends to rectify the current situation. The plan is to include how the Corps intends to establish a

baseline for determining the appropriate use of the Corps’ hopper

dredge fleet in the future. Finally, the Corps shall include a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of the existing and

proposed restrictions on the use of the fleet. Overall, the Committee expects the Corps to put in place measures by which better

investment decisions regarding the fleet can be made.

Alabama-Coosa River, AL.—The Committee has included an additional $2,961,000 for annual maintenance dredging of the Alabama-Coosa River and for work at Swift Creek Park.

Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, AL.—The Committee has

included an additional $1,000,000 for the removal of materials from

the upland disposal site and repairs to lock gates at Holt Lock.

Within the funds available, the Committee directs the Corps to

begin the relocation, process of office warehouse, shop, and dock facilities in Tuscaloosa, AL.

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, AL & MS.—The Committee recommendation includes a total of $22,500,000. Within the funds provided, $1,500,000 is provided to maintain mitigation on State managed lands.

McClellan-Kerr Navigation System, AR & OK.—The Committee

has included additional funding for Tainter gate replacement,

bridge pads and gate seals, and additional funding is provided for

Tar Creek, OK.

Bodega Bay, CA.—The Committee has provided funds for the

preparation of the upland disposal site for the dredging of Bodega

Bay.

Oakland Harbor, CA.—The Committee has included an additional $2,500,000 for maintenance dredging of Oakland Harbor to

its authorized depth.

San Joaquin River, CA.—The Committee has included funds for

additional maintenance dredging.

Cherry Creek, Chatfield and Trinidad Lakes, CO.—The Committee has included $1,000,000 over the budget request for these
62

three lakes. Frequent inundation of recreation areas are causing

health and safety concerns requiring repair or replacement of the

facilities. This action in no way is intended to alter the Corps of

Engineers’ lease and property accountability policies. It is the Committee’s understanding that the State of Colorado has agreed to

cost share this project on a 50–50 basis. It is also the understanding of the Committee that the Secretary is not to assume, nor

share in the future cost of the operation and maintenance of these

recreation facilities.

Treatment of Dredge Material from Long Island Sound, CT.— $500,000 is provided to continue the demonstration program for the

use of innovative technologies for the treatment of dredge material

from Long Island Sound. The Committee also expects the Corps to

initiate work on the Environmental Impact Statement for open

water disposal of dredge material from Long Island Sound.

Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, DE &

MD.—The Committee recommendation is $14,994,000. Funds are

provided for routine operation and maintenance activities and for

immediate reimbursement to the State of Delaware for normal operation and maintenance costs incurred by the State for the SR–

1 Bridge, from station 58 ∂00 to station 293 ∂00, between October

1, 2003 and September 30, 2004. The reimbursable costs include

electric lighting and associated late fees, power sweeping, drainage

cleaning, snow removal, surface deicing, and periodic bridge inspections. The Corps shall initiate necessary repairs to the SR–1 Bridge

once repair recommendations resulting from the bridge inspections

are received.

Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, GA, AL, & FL.— The Committee recommendation includes $4,709,000 which includes annual dredging of the river channel, annual operations and

maintenance of the George W. Andrews Lock, spot dredging of

shoals, continuation of slough mouth restorations, continuation of

restoration efforts at Corley Slough, and routine operations and

maintenance of the project.

Richard B. Russell Dam, GA & SC.—The Committee has included an additional $1,000,000 for the mandated mitigation payment related to turbine operations at Richard B. Russell Dam.

Dworshak Reservoir, ID.—The Committee has included an additional $1,000,000 for critical work at the Dworshak Reservoir.

Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis,

(MVR & MVS Portions), IL, IA, MN, MO, & WI.—The Committee

has provided an additional $1,000,000 above the budget request for

each portion for ongoing major maintenance items. The Corps

should give consideration to Tow Haulage Unit Replacement and

the conservation of the endangered Higgins Eye Mussel.

Coralville Lake, IA.—The Committee has included an additional

$663,000 above the budget request for needed repairs at Coralville

Lake.

Missouri River-Rulo to the Mouth, IA, NE, KS, & MO.—The

Committee has included an additional $645,000 above the budget

request for maintenance dredging.

Red Rock Dam and Lake Red Rock, IA.—The Committee has included additional funds for stabilizing rim erosion, rebuilding of

pumps, and levee repairs at Red Rock Dam and Lake Red Rock.
63

Fall River Lake, KS.—Additional funds are provided for needed

repairs at Fall River Lake.

Marion Lake, KS.—The Committee has included an additional

$557,000 for needed repairs at Marion Lake.

Perry Lake, KS.—The Committee has included additional funds

to complete the repair of the flood gates at Perry Lake.

Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, LA.—The

Committee has provided additional funds for maintenance dredging.

Barataria Bay Waterway, LA.—The Committee has included additional funds for maintaining the authorized depth of the project,

construction of a necessary breakwater, and dredging in the bar

channel.

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.—Funds provided above the

budget request are for bank stabilization repairs, dredging entrances to oxbow lakes, routine operation and maintenance activities, annual dredging requirements, and backlog maintenance.

Narraguagus River, ME.—$1,000,000 has been provided for the

dredging of the Narraguagus River to the authorized depth and

width.

Scarborough River, ME.—$500,000 has been provided for the

dredging of the Scarborough River.

Saginaw River, MI.—The Committee has included funding to initiate preparations for the maintenance dredging of the Saginaw

River.

Cocheco River, NH.—The Committee recommendation includes

$1,000,000 for the construction of the dredge disposal site.

Delaware River, Philadelphia to Trenton, NJ.—Of the funds provided, the Committee has included additional funds for needed

maintenance dredging.

Cochiti Lake, NM.—The recommendation includes full funding to

complete the necessary Environmental Impact Statement work regarding the lowering of water levels at Cochiti in response to the

requirements of the pending biological opinion on the Rio Grande.

Also funds are included for the alternative Al Black area.

Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, ND.—The Committee has included funding for limited facility improvements and mosquito control.

Alum Creek Lake, OH.—The Committee has included an additional $801,000 above the budget request to repair spillway gates

at Alum Creek Lake.

Conneaut Harbor, OH.—The Committee has included additional

funding for the dredging of Conneaut Harbor.

Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam, OK.—The Committee has included

an additional $220,000 above the budget request for the repair of

the lock’s mitre gates.

Tar Creek, OK.—The Committee is aware of the significant environmental, economic, and human health impacts caused by the

abandoned mining operations in the Tar Creek and Spring River

watersheds, located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma. The Committee

is aware of the extent and complexity of the problems which require a coordinated effort from multiple Federal, State, tribal, and

local agencies pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding

among the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection
64

Agency, and the Department of Interior signed May 2003. Further,

the Committee expects the Corps to pursue efforts at Tar Creek as

its authorities allow.

Bonneville Lock and Dam, OR and WA.—Within available funds,

the Corps should begin repairs to the Washington Shore Visitor

Center’s Fish Viewing Building.

John Day Lock and Dam, OR and WA.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for serious safety repairs for this vital link in the

Columbia-Snake Waterway system. The Committee believes that

the budget request does not adequately address the serious nature

of the problems at this structure and has accordingly provided

funds above the budget request. The problems being experienced at

this structure are indicative of the way maintenance of structures

in the Federal inventory has been shortchanged. Timely, adequate

maintenance funding would have likely prevented the costly measures that must now be undertaken to correct the problems. The

Committee strongly encourages that adequate funding for maintenance be included in future budget submissions.

Tillamook Bay and Bar, OR.—The Committee has included

$300,000 to begin the repairs in Tillamook Bay.

Francis E. Walter Dam, PA.—The Committee has included an additional $319,000 above the budget request for the needed road repair/relocation work.

Providence River and Harbor, RI.—The Committee has included

$21,000,000 to continue the Providence River and Harbor project,

which is the same as the administration’s request.

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, SC.—The Committee has included additional funds to complete maintenance dredging from

Charleston to Winyah Bay began in fiscal year 2003.

Charleston Harbor, SC.—The Committee has included an additional $760,000 above the budget request for the dredging of the

entrance channel of Charleston Harbor.

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.—The Committee notes that Title VI of the Water Resources Development Act

of 1999, as amended, requires that funding to inventory and stabilize cultural and historic sites along the Missouri River in South

Dakota, and to carry out the terrestrial wildlife habitat programs,

shall be provided from the Operation and Maintenance account.

The Committee has provided $5,000,000 to protect cultural resource sites and provide funding to the State and Tribes for approved restoration and stewardship plans and in compliance with

the requirements of Title VI, directs the Corps to contract with or

reimburse the State of South Dakota and affected Tribes to carry

out these duties.

Tennessee River, TN.—The Committee expects that of the funds

provided, $275,000 shall be made available to dredge Florence Port,

Alabama.

Denison Dam (Lake Texoma), TX.—The Committee has included

additional funding for the replacement of gate seals at Denison

Dam.

Texas City Ship Channel, TX.—The Committee recommendation

includes $1,000,000 for maintenance dredging of the Texas City

Ship Channel.
65

Lower Granite Lock and Dam, WA.—The Committee has provided $2,074,000 for this project. Within available funds assessments and improvements should be undertaken to prepare for the

Confluence Project in Asotin County, WA.

Aquatic Nuisance.—The Committee has included an additional

$300,000 above the budget request for the Corps to address the

hydrilla at Lake Ouachita, AR and aquatic nuisance on the

Tangipahoa River, LA.

Facility Protection.—The Committee has provided $13,000,000.

The Committee has been informed that this is the average annual

cost for guards at critical facilities.

Lewis and Clark Commemoration.—The Committee has provided

the budget request for the Lewis and Clark Commemoration Coordinator. The Committee expects the Corps, within available funds,

to continue to perform maintenance and repair of the recreation facilities related to the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration. The Committee is aware of the lead-time required to repair

and rehabilitate recreational facilities for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration. Therefore, the Corps of Engineers

may, within available funds, perform maintenance and repair these

facilities as is considered necessary to accommodate the anticipated

visitor population.

Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program.—Additional funds have been provided to initiate a demonstration project

at Benson Beach, WA.

Removal of Sunken Vessels.—The Committee has included an additional $150,000 for the Corps to perform a detailed examination

of the remains of the vessel ‘‘State of Pennsylvania’’ located in the

Christina River in an effort to assess the cost and method of removal to this impediment to navigation.

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $138,096,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 144,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 139,000,000

An appropriation of $139,000,000 is recommended for the regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers.

This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, including

wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,

the Clean Water Act of 1977, and the Marine Protection, Research

and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.

The appropriation helps maintain program performance, protects

important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships with States

and local communities through watershed planning efforts.

The Committee is aware that in approving the certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Islander East Pipeline project,

the FERC adopted a specific project purpose for the pipeline. In the

course of its 404 evaluations, the Committee understands the

Corps may have undertaken to alter that project purpose. The

Committee directs the Corps to rely exclusively on the project purpose as established by the FERC and conduct their analysis of alternatives accordingly.
66

The Committee urges the Corps to take into account the geographical and/or hydrological conditions and criteria necessary for

determining jurisdiction, including such regulatory terms as adjacent, isolated, and tributary while formulating its proposed rule

which responds to the Supreme Court’s decision in Solid Waste

Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

No. 99–1178.

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $144,057,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 140,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 140,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000 to

continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial

Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 2004.

The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites under

the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Public Law 105–

62.

FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program was

established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the Department

of Energy through existing appropriation accounts. In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the Committee

intended to transfer only the responsibility for administration and

execution of cleanup activities at eligible sites where remediation

had not been completed. It did not intend to transfer ownership of

and accountability for real property interests that remain with the

Department of Energy.

The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the cleanup

of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its work for the

Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. The Committee

always intended for the Corps’ expertise be used in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under FUSRAP. The

Committee expects the Corps to continue programming and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers—Civil program.

REVOLVING FUND

Business Process and Computer Modernization

The Committee is aware that the Corps has undertaken an effort

to modernize its business processes and systems and understands

the efficiencies that may be gained through such an effort. However, the Committee remains very concerned that, to date, the

Project Management Business Plan [PMBP] and its associated computer modernization (P2) have not been deployed. In addition, the

Committee is concerned that this effort may be outside the realm

of expertise and experience possessed within the Corps. Further,

the Committee is concerned that too much emphasis is being

placed on the process of their work, and that accomplishment of the

Corps mission is suffering at the hands of developing complicated
67

business processes and upward reporting systems that are as yet

unproven. By its own acknowledgement, it is of utmost importance

to the Corps to attract and maintain high quality project management expertise. Therefore the Committee is greatly concerned that

imposing a prescriptive project management system will undermine

the Corps’ ability to attract and maintain such expertise. In order

to ensure that desirable results are achieved, the Committee directs the Corps’ to provide, within 45 days of enactment of this Act,

and quarterly thereafter, a progress report on the implementation

of the Project Management Business Plan [PMBP], and computer

modernization (P2) to the Committee. The report shall include

milestones for achieving desired goals, cost accounting describing

sunk costs and cost to complete, as well as results and cost savings

realized or expected. Notwithstanding the Committees desire to see

this effort expedited, the Corps is cautioned that the systems

should not be deployed until they are fully functional, and capable

of completely serving their intended purposes. Lastly, the Committee understands that the Corps has undertaken a survey of how

the Project Management Business Process is being received in the

field, and would be very interested in seeing the results of that survey.

Replacement of Corps of Engineers Aircraft

The Committee realizes that reliable and readily available transportation is necessary for the Corps of Engineers to effectively perform many of its missions, especially those related to emergencies,

and that the Corps division offices support these missions in the

geographic regions for which they are responsible. The Committee

found the report required as part of the fiscal year 2003 appropriations activities lacking and therefore directs the Corps to re-evaluate the costs and benefits of the Corps maintaining its own aircraft.

This reanalysis must include all other options for air transportation, including the use of military aircraft. With constricted budgets, the Committee is skeptical that the possession and maintenance of an aircraft by any division or district is both cost-effective

and mission-essential when compared to alternatives, such as use

of military aircraft and leasing. Therefore, the Corps must present

to the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy

and Water Development a justification that includes a complete

and thorough economic analysis for approval before any additional

aircraft are acquired. The Corps is directed to submit, within 6

months, a justification and economic analysis to support the continued maintenance of aircraft by the Corps as an asset.

GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $154,143,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 171,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 160,000,000

This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office, Chief of

Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research and statistical

functions of the Corps of Engineers. The Committee recommendation is $160,000,000.
68

Executive Direction and Management.—The Office of the Chief of

Engineers and eight division offices supervise work in 38 district

offices.

Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.—This support center provides administrative services (such as personnel, logistics,

information management, and finance and accounting) for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate field operating activities.

Institute for Water Resources.—This institute performs studies

and analyses amd develops planning techniques for the management and development of the Nation’s water resources.

United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.—This

center provides centralizes support for all Corps finance and accounting sites.

Office of Congressional Affairs.—The Committee has included

statutory language for the past several years prohibiting any funds

from being used to fund an Office of Congressional Affairs within

the executive office of the Chief of Engineers. The Committee believes that an Office of Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works

Program would hamper the efficient and effective coordination of

issues with the Committee staff and Members of Congress. The

Committee believes that the technical knowledge and managerial

expertise needed for the Corps headquarters to effectively address

Civil Works authorization, appropriation, and Headquarters policy

matters resides in the Civil Works organization. Therefore the

Committee strongly recommends that the office of Congressional

Affairs not be a part of the process by which information on Civil

Works projects, programs, and activities is provided to Congress.

The Committee reminds the Corps that the General Expenses

Account is to be used exclusively for executive oversight and management of the Civil Works Program.

In 1998, The Chief of Engineers issued a Command Directive

transferring the oversight and management of the General Expenses account, as well as the manpower associated with this function, from the Civil Works Directorate to the Resource Management Office. General Expense funds are appropriated solely for the

executive management and oversight of the Civil Works Program

under the direction of the Director of Civil Works.

The Committee is pleased with the efforts of the Corps to restructure the management of general expense funds. It continues

to believe that the general expense dollars are ultimately at the

discretion of the Chief of Engineers and are intended to be utilized

in his effort to carry out the Corps’ mission. The new controls put

in place to manage the general expense dollars and evaluate the

needs of the Corps address the Committee’s previous concerns. The

Committee requests the Corps provide biannual written notification of the dispersal of general expense funds.

General Accounting Office Audit

The Committee is aware that there has been a change in which

entity conducts the financial audits of the Army Corps of Engineers. Traditionally, audits on the Corps have been performed by

the Army Audit Agency [AAA] pursuant to the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. Since fiscal year 1993, AAA has audited the
69

Corps’ at the direct delegation and oversight of the Department of

Defense Inspector General, which has concurred on each AAA audit

of the Corps. The Committee is further aware that AAA issued an

unqualified opinion of the Corps’ statements for the Southwest Division in fiscal year 1997. Disclaimers were received elsewhere

within the Corps’ financial statements that year primarily due to

automation of the Corps’ financial accounting systems. By fiscal

year 2000, most issues were resolved with regard to the outstanding areas of AAA’s concerns and in fiscal year 2001, the Corps

received a qualified opinion on its balance sheets. This was done

with the full knowledge and concurrence of the Department of Defense Inspector General.

The Committee understands that the fiscal year 2002 audit is

uncompleted because AAA was abruptly relieved of its audit responsibilities of the Corps, now being handled by the Department

of Defense Inspector General. As a result of this change in auditors, the Committee believes it is an opportune time to establish a

baseline for future audit work of the Corps, including audit standards and procedures as required by the CFO Act of 1990. Therefore, the Committee requests that a full financial audit be conducted by the General Accounting Office in an effort to establish

a baseline for future audit work. This audit is to include the financial evaluation information from both the Defense Inspector General that has assumed the work of AAA, as well as the work previously conducted by AAA. The Committee strongly believes that

this review will establish transparent goals and measures by which

future audits of the Corps will be conducted.

Corps Reevaluation and Transformation

The Committee applauds the Corps’ effort of reevaluating its

functions and responsibilities over the last year. This effort has

been done both internally and externally within the Corps and has

included a wide variety of stakeholders. The Committee is pleased

that the Corps has taken the initiative to address the many issues

facing them and their stakeholders, particularly given the many recent controversies regarding cost/benefits analysis of Corps’

projects. The Committee supports the Corps’ efforts to transform

itself into a more effective, more responsive agency through the

‘‘2012’’ initiative, and hopes that the Corps will be able to implement needed changes. However, until that roadmap is complete,

the Committee is reluctant to fund the full increase sought for the

‘‘General Expense’’ account. Therefore, the Committee has included

$160,000,000 for the Corps, an increase over this year’s budget by

$6,000,000, approximately a 4 percent increase to cover inflation.

The Committee also directs the Corps of Engineers to continue

with this important effort and report regularly to the Committee

on the progress made and the impediments to change.

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $14,902,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 70,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,000,000

The Committee has included $40,000,000 for the FCCE account,

$30,000,000 over the previous fiscal year. The funds provided are
70

less than the request and have been provided without prejudice.

The Committee believes that the amount provided better reflects

the constrained budget environment.

This account provides funds for preparedness activities for natural and other disasters, response, and emergency flood fighting

and rescue operations, hurricane response, and emergency shore

protection work. It also provides for emergency supplies of clean

water where the source has been contaminated or where adequate

supplies of water are needed for consumption.

RAPID DEPLOYMENT FLOOD WALL

The Committee is aware of the successful testing of the Rapid

Deployment Flood Wall at the Engineering Research and Development Center in Vicksburg, Mississippi. This technology has proven

to be promising in the effort to fight floods, cost-effective, quick to

deploy and successful in protecting property from flood damage,

damages which total millions each year. The Committee therefore

encourages the Corps to pursue the use of this technology in its efforts to fighting floods.

GENERAL PROVISIONS—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

Language included under Section 101 restates language contained in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,

2000, Public Law 106–60 which places a limit on credits and reimbursements allowable per project and annually.

SEC. 102. The Committee has included a provision which prohibits the reorganization or change of the Corps and its statutory

mission without a subsequent Act of Congress.

SEC. 103. The Committee has included a new provision regarding

the Alamogordo, NM flood control project.

SEC. 104. The Committee has included a new provision regarding

the continuing contracts of the General Investigations Appropriation.

SEC. 105. The Committee has provided a new provision making

technical corrections to the Kake Dam Replacement, Kake, Alaska

project.

SEC. 106. The Committee has included a new provision for the

deauthorization of inactive Corps projects.

SEC. 107. The Committee has included a general provision regarding the deauthorization of some components of the Federal

Channel in RI.

SEC. 108. The Committee has included a new provision regarding

Tar Creek, OK.

SEC. 109. The $2,000,000 of the Construction, General funds appropriated in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Act, 2003, shall be used to provide, technical assistance at full Federal expense, to the Alaskan communities of Bethel, Dillingham,

Shishmaref, Kakatovik, Kivalina, Unalakleet, and Newtok to address coastal erosion. Due to rapid erosion in Shishmaref,

$1,000,000 of the technical assistance should be provided to that

community.

SEC. 110. The Committee has included a new provision regarding

the American and Sacramento Rivers, CA project.
71

The bill includes language in Section 111 which directs that none

of the funds made available in fiscal year 2002 may be used to

carry out any activity relating to closure or removal of the St.

Georges Bridge across the Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River

to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland.

SEC. 112. The Committee has included language extending the

date for which the Corps can except funds from non-Federal entities to process permits.

SEC. 113. The Committee has included a provision regarding Sec.

353 of Public Law 105–227.

SEC. 114. The Committee has included a new provision regarding

special authority for emergency project restoration.

SEC. 115. Amends Sec. 595 of the Water Resources Development

Act of 1999.

SEC. 116. The Committee has included a provision regarding

PMA receipts.
(72)

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $35,992,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 44,191,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 44,191,000

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2004 to carry out

the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act totals

$44,191,000. An appropriation of $36,063,000 has been provided for

Central Utah project construction; $9,423,000 for fish, wildlife, and

recreation, mitigation and conservation. The Committee recommendation provides $1,728,000 for program administration and

oversight.

The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II–VI of Public

Law 102–575) provides for the completion of the central Utah

project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act

also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes an account in the

Treasury for the deposit of these funds and of other contributions

for mitigation and conservation activities; and establishes a Utah

Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities

for carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $808,203,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 771,217,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 853,517,000

An appropriation of $853,517,000 is recommended by the Committee for general investigations of the Bureau of Reclamation. The

water and related resources account supports the development,

management, and restoration of water and related natural resources in the 17 Western States. The account includes funds for

operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest

overall level of benefits, to protect public safety, and to conduct

studies on ways to improve the use of water and related natural

resources. Work will be done in partnership and cooperation with

non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies.

BUDGET LIMITATIONS AND REDUCTIONS

Constrained spending limits have made it difficult for the Committee to formulate a balanced Energy and Water Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. In order to adhere to the sub-
73

committee’s allocations, address the critical ongoing activities, correct program imbalances contained in the President’s fiscal year

2004 budget, and respond to the numerous requests of the Members, the Committee finds it necessary to recommend numerous adjustments to funding levels proposed in the budget. Finally, the

Committee regrets that many worthwhile projects could not be recommended for funding because of the lack of authorization and the

shortfall in resources.

The Committee is concerned with the way in which underfinancing is applied to the Water and Related Resources Account.

Accordingly, the Committee has made changes to the Water and

Related Resources line item for underfinancing. The Committee has

divided underfinancing between the Resources Management Subaccount and the Facilities Operation and Maintenance Subaccount.

The Committee directs that the underfinancing amount in each

subaccount initially be applied uniformly across all projects within

the subaccounts. Upon applying the underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming procedures should be undertaken to account

for schedule slippages, accelerations or other unforeseen conditions.

The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the

following table along with the budget request.

BUILDING AND SITE SECURITY

The Committee is aware of the heightened threat of terrorist activity since the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent

financial burden this places on the Bureau of Reclamation in managing the security of the many public assets and critical infrastructure within its control. In order to offset some of the financial burden of the Bureau, the Committee provided $25,000,000 in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations’ bill to defray some of

these costs, which were not included in the Bureau’s fiscal year

2003 budget request. The Committee encourages the Administration to include funding for specific security related costs in future

budget submissions for the Bureaus, as many of these costs are recurring.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

ARIZONA

AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ............... .................. 5,743 .................. 5,743

CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER BASIN ....................... 34,009 78 34,009 78

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I .......... 751 10,499 751 10,499

COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM .......................... 3,500 .................. 4,250 ..................

FORT MCDOWELL SETTLEMENT ACT ..................................................... 1,000 .................. 1,000 ..................

NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................. 325 .................. 325 ..................

PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJ ..... 250 .................. 250 ..................

SALT RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................ 87 .................. 87 ..................

SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJ .............. 4,017 .................. 4,017 ..................

SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................ 775 .................. 775 ..................

TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION .............................................. 630 .................. 630 ..................

TUCSON AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE STUDY ................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

YUMA AREA PROJECTS .......................................................................... 1,552 21,120 1,552 21,120
74

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

CALIFORNIA

CACHUMA PROJECT ............................................................................... 751 665 751 665

CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAMS ............................................. 215 .................. 215 ..................

CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PROJECT .......... 700 .................. 700 ..................

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:

AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION .......................................................... 1,966 7,033 1,966 7,033

AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT .................................................... 9,899 100 9,899 100

DELTA DIVISION ............................................................................ 10,039 6,041 11,539 6,041

EAST SIDE DIVISION ..................................................................... 1,465 2,450 1,465 2,450

FRIANT DIVISION .......................................................................... 2,393 3,782 3,143 3,782

MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS ........................................ 13,284 1,087 18,784 1,087

REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINT ........ .................. 24,000 .................. 18,000

SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION ..................................................... 4,215 1,808 6,715 1,808

SAN FELIPE DIVISION ................................................................... 745 .................. 745 ..................

SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION ................................................................ 383 .................. 383 ..................

SHASTA DIVISION ......................................................................... 831 7,134 1,581 7,134

TRINITY RIVER DIVISION .............................................................. 7,616 2,970 7,616 2,970

WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS ................................................ 1,800 11,076 1,800 11,076

WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT ............................ 40,437 6,538 11,437 6,538

YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION ............................................... 1,000 .................. 1,000 ..................

LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT .............................. 200 .................. 1,500 ..................

LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT ........ 1,100 .................. 1,100 ..................

LONG BEACH DESALINATION RESEARCH/DEVELOPMENT PROJ ............. .................. .................. 700 ..................

MISSION BASIN BRACKISH GROUNDWATER DESALTING DEMO ............. .................. .................. .................. ..................

NAPA-SOMOMA-MARIN AGRICULTURAL REUSE PROJECT ...................... .................. .................. 500 ..................

NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT ......... 1,300 .................. 1,300 ..................

ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WTR RECLAMATION PROJ, PHS 1 ............ 1,300 .................. 2,500 ..................

ORLAND PROJECT .................................................................................. 41 445 41 445

PASADENA RECLAIMED WATER PROJECT .............................................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT ........................................................ 1,000 .................. 2,000 ..................

SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM ............................. 4,300 .................. 4,300 ..................

SAN DIEGO RIVER RESTORATION .......................................................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT .............................................................. 1,300 .................. 1,300 ..................

SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION PROJECT ....................................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

SAN JOSE WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM ..................... 1,000 .................. 1,000 ..................

SOLANO PROJECT .................................................................................. 1,522 2,693 1,522 2,693

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................ 1,135 .................. 1,135 ..................

WATSONVILLE AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT ............................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

VENTURA RIVER PROJECT ..................................................................... 529 .................. 529 ..................

COLORADO

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP SECTIONS 5 AND 8 ....................... 58,000 .................. 57,000 ..................

COLLBRAN PROJECT .............................................................................. 184 1,513 184 1,513

COLORADO—BIG THOMPSON PROJECT ................................................ 12 10,198 12 10,198

COLORADO—BIG THOMPSON PROJECT—HORSETOOTH DAM .............. .................. 3,153 .................. 3,153

COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................ 77 .................. 77 ..................

GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ............................................... 206 546 206 546

PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ........................................... 52 2,050 52 2,050

FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT ............................................................. 69 145 69 145

FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT ........................................................... .................. 5,443 200 5,443

LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY .............................................. 593 1,838 593 1,838

MANCOS PROJECT ................................................................................. 88 57 88 57

PINE RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................ 141 113 141 113

SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT ................................................................... 356 4,237 356 4,237

UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT ...................................................................... 181 124 181 124

HAWAII

HAWAIIAN RECLAIM AND REUSE STUDY ............................................... .................. .................. 100 ..................
75

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

IDAHO

BOISE AREA PROJECTS ......................................................................... 2,637 4,047 2,637 4,047

COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT .............. 19,000 .................. 19,000 ..................

DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, BOISE ........................................ 200 .................. 200 ..................

IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................ 580 .................. 580 ..................

MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS ................................................................... 3,459 2,041 3,459 2,041

MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT ............ 200 .................. 200 ..................

KANSAS

KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ..................................................... 143 .................. 143 ..................

WICHITA PROJECT ................................................................................. 7 208 7 208

MONTANA

FORT PECK PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM ........................................ .................. .................. 8,000 ..................

HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT ..................................................................... .................. 1,056 .................. 1,056

MILK RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................ 1,045 558 1,045 558

MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................... 533 .................. 533 ..................

ROCKY BOY’S/NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL WATER, MT ........................ .................. .................. 915 ..................

NORTH DAKOTA

DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................... 223 .................. 223 ..................

DAKOTAS TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ...................................... 326 .................. 326 ..................

PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM, GARRISON DIVERSION ........ 13,928 3,386 25,000 3,386

NEBRASKA

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT ....................................................................... .................. 58 .................. 58

NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................. 191 .................. 191 ..................

NEW MEXICO

ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER AND RECLAMATION REUSE ........ .................. .................. 1,362 ..................

CARLSBAD PROJECT .............................................................................. 2,036 1,056 2,036 1,056

CONCHAS PROJECT STUDY ................................................................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY ............................................... .................. .................. 250 ..................

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT ............................................................. 6,467 10,921 13,567 20,921

NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................................... 300 .................. 300 ..................

NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT ........................................... 391 .................. 391 ..................

PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT .................................. .................. 127 .................. 327

RIO GRANDE PROJECT .......................................................................... 796 3,186 796 3,186

SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................ 179 .................. 179 ..................

SANTA FE—WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT .................... .................. .................. 250 ..................

SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROG ............ .................. .................. .................. ..................

TUCUMCARI PROJECT ............................................................................ 104 4 104 4

UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ...................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

NEVADA

CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS WATER REUSE, NV ................................... .................. .................. 1,000 ..................

HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY .......................................................... 100 .................. 600 ..................

LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT (HUMBOLT, NEWLANDS, WASHOE) ............ 6,467 2,446 6,467 2,446

LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM ............................................. 1,408 .................. 1,408 ..................

SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT ................................ .................. .................. 3,000 ..................

OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT .............................................................................. .................. 205 700 205

MCGEE CREEK PROJECT ....................................................................... .................. 460 .................. 460

MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT .................................................................... .................. 267 .................. 267

NORMAN PROJECT ................................................................................. 250 176 250 176

NORTH FORK OF THE RED RIVER PROJECT .......................................... .................. .................. 150 ..................

OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................ 188 .................. 188 ..................

W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT ........................................................................... .................. 314 .................. 314

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT ...................................................................... .................. 887 .................. 887
76

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

OREGON

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT .................................................................... 212 465 212 465

DESCHUTES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT ................................ 500 .................. 750 ..................

DESCHUTES PROJECT ............................................................................ 418 155 418 155

DESCHUTES PROJECT, TUMALO, BEND FEED CANAL ............................ .................. .................. 500 ..................

DESCHUTES PROJECT, WICKIUP DAM ................................................... .................. 3,000 .................. 3,000

EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS ............................................................... 781 280 781 280

GRANDE RONDE WATER OPTIMIZATION STUDY ..................................... 100 .................. 100 ..................

KLAMATH PROJECT ................................................................................ 20,041 776 20,041 776

OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .................................................... 620 .................. 620 ..................

ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, SAVAGE RAPIDS PUMPING PLNTS ...... .................. .................. .................. ..................

ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION ................................ 554 172 554 172

TUALATIN PROJECT ................................................................................ 287 127 287 127

TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY ........................ .................. .................. .................. ..................

UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT, PHASE III STUDY ....................................... 200 .................. 400 ..................

UMATILLA PROJECT ............................................................................... 601 2,101 601 2,101

WILLOW LAKE NATURAL TREATMENT SYSTEM, OR ............................... .................. .................. 300 ..................

SOUTH DAKOTA

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER PROJECT ......................................... .................. .................. 20,000 ..................

MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT .................................................. 2,000 15 15,000 15

MNI WICONI PROJECT ........................................................................... 6,717 6,254 20,217 6,254

PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT .......................................... .................. .................. 1,000 ..................

RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM ............................................ .................. 28 .................. 28

TEXAS

AUSTIN WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT ............................................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

BALMORHEA PROJECT ........................................................................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT ................................................................... .................. 117 .................. 117

EL PASO WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE ........................................ .................. .................. 371 ..................

LEON CREEK QUARRY/MITCHELL LAKE WATER REUSE PROJECT ......... .................. .................. .................. ..................

LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES ............................... .................. .................. 6,000 ..................

NUECES RIVER ...................................................................................... .................. 536 .................. 536

SAN ANGELO PROJECT .......................................................................... .................. 276 .................. 276

TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................ 202 .................. 202 ..................

UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT ................................................................................... 128 62 128 62

MOON LAKE PROJECT ............................................................................ 45 15 45 15

NAVAJO SANDSTONE AQUIFER RECHARGE STUDY ................................ .................. .................. .................. ..................

NEWTON PROJECT ................................................................................. 61 24 61 24

NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ...................................... 280 .................. 280 ..................

OGDEN RIVER PROJECT ........................................................................ 373 40 373 40

PROVO RIVER PROJECT ......................................................................... 843 355 843 355

SCOFIELD PROJECT ............................................................................... 121 66 121 66

SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ....................................... 300 .................. 300 ..................

STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT ............................................................ 198 7 198 7

WEBER BASIN PROJECT ........................................................................ 1,650 431 1,650 431

WEBER RIVER PROJECT ........................................................................ 87 63 87 63

WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT ................................................................... 4,547 4,435 4,547 4,435

LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY ............. 25 .................. 100 ..................

MAKAH INDIAN COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY .................... 25 .................. 200 ..................

SALMON CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION, WA ................................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

STORAGE DAM FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY ............................... 550 .................. 550 ..................

TULALIP TRIBES WATER QUALITY FEASIBILITY STUDY .......................... 50 .................. 150 ..................

WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................. 525 .................. 525 ..................

YAKIMA PROJECT ................................................................................... 1,179 6,066 1,179 6,066

YAKIMA PROJECT, KEECHELUS DAM, SOD ............................................ .................. 3,700 .................. 3,700
77

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT ....................... 12,730 .................. 12,730 ..................

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE ................................................ .................. .................. 500 ..................

WYOMING

KENDRICK PROJECT .............................................................................. 6 4,048 6 4,048

NORTH PLATTE PROJECT ....................................................................... 10 1,038 10 1,038

SHOSHONE PROJECT ............................................................................. 10 1,193 10 1,193

WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .................................................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

VARIOUS

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I .......... 9,198 .................. 9,198 ..................

COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, (CRSP), SECTION 5 ................. 7,553 2,469 7,553 2,469

COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 8 ............................... 4,914 .................. 3,992 ..................

COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............. 450 .................. 450 ..................

DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:

DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM ......................................... .................. 1,700 .................. 1,700

INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION ............................................. .................. 40,900 .................. 40,900

SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS ..................................... .................. 18,000 .................. 18,000

SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION STUDIES ........................ .................. 500 .................. 500

DEPARTMENTAL IRRIGATION DRAINAGE PROGRAM ............................... 2,623 .................. 3,623 ..................

DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE .................................................... 1,120 .................. 3,120 ..................

EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM ...................................................... 3,265 .................. 3,265 ..................

EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM ............ .................. 450 .................. 450

ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION .......................... 13,371 .................. 13,371 ..................

ENVIRONMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ACTIVITIES ........ 1,804 .................. 1,804 ..................

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ...................................... 1,483 .................. 1,483 ..................

EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ............................................. .................. 5,521 .................. 5,521

FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM .................................. .................. 1,575 .................. 1,575

GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES ............................................................... 1,989 .................. 2,089 ..................

INITIATIVES ............................................................................................ 11,000 .................. 7,400 ..................

LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ........................................ 8,994 .................. 8,994 ..................

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM .......................................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM .............................. 13,822 .................. 13,822 ..................

LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................... 325 .................. 325 ..................

MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS .................................. .................. 639 .................. 639

NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION ......................................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM ................................................. 8,600 .................. 8,600 ..................

NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING ............... 1,571 .................. 1,571 ..................

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ................... 344 1,029 344 1,029

PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM, OTHER PROJECTS ............... 2,998 34,709 2,998 34,709

POWER PROGRAM SERVICES ................................................................ 991 250 1,241 250

PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM .............................................. 565 .................. 565 ..................

RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION ................................................... 4,491 .................. 4,491 ..................

RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT .......................................... 2,800 .................. 2,800 ..................

RECREATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMIN .................... 1,720 .................. 1,720 ..................

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM:

ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT DESALINATION PROGRAM .......... 2,000 .................. 2,000 ..................

APPLIED SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT .................. 4,190 .................. 4,190 ..................

DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM .......... 775 .................. 7,375 ..................

HYDROELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION/ENHANCE ....... 990 .................. 990 ..................

TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT ....................................................... 350 .................. 350 ..................

WATERSHED/RIVER SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .............. 1,000 .................. 1,000 ..................

SITE SECURITY ...................................................................................... .................. 28,583 .................. 28,583

SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION ................................................... 267 .................. 267 ..................

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES ..................................................... 1,908 .................. 1,908 ..................

TITLE XVI, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM ..................... 1,430 .................. 3,130 ..................

UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES—TECHNICAL SUPPORT ...... .................. .................. .................. ..................

WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM ........................ 6,639 .................. 6,639 ..................

WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON ANTICIP DELAYS ................... ¥40,030 .................. ¥38,945 ¥7,133
78

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

RESCISSION ........................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES ............................. 422,965 348,252 508,198 345,319

LOAN PROGRAM

VARIOUS

LOAN ADMINISTRATION ......................................................................... 200 .................. 200 ..................

Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, AZ.—The Committee has included an additional $750,000 for the All American

Canal Regulating Reservoir under the Colorado River Front Work

and Levee System.

Tres Rios Wetland Demonstration, AZ.—An amount of $630,000

has been provided for the Bureau for the Tres Rios Wetland Demonstration program. The Committee strongly supports this cost

shared effort, and believes it is important that this wetland habitat

and environmental research and development activities continue.

This program provides essential data needed to support the development and success of the larger Tres Rios environmental restoration project, and the Rio Salado project being carried out by the

Army Corps of Engineers.

Colusa Basin Integrated Resources Management Plan, CVP, Sacramento River Division, CA.—The Committee has provided $400,000 for the completion of the feasibility study.

Glen Colusa Fish Screen, CVP, Sacramento River Division, CA.— The Committee has provided an additional $1,600,000 the fish

screen project.

Arkansas Valley Conduit, CO.—The Committee has included an

additional $200,000 to continue the reevaluation report. The Committee supports these efforts but believes that the project needs appropriate review by the authorizing committee, in particular, the

Committee notes that the project, if authorized, should follow the

standard Reclamation policy of an M&I project of the beneficiaries

paying 100 percent of the allocated costs.

Carter Lake, CO.—The Committee is aware of the issues surrounding the Carter Lake, CO project and encourages the Bureau

to continue working with the conservancy district.

Hawaii Resources Study, HI.—The Committee has included

$100,000 for water recycling opportunities in the State of Hawaii.

Fort Peck/Dry Prairie Rural Water System, MT.—The Committee

has included $8,000,000 for the continued construction of this mandated rural water delivery project. The Committee remains disappointed that the administration, despite the fact the project is in

peak construction, chose not to budget for this project. The Committee understands that the Final Engineering Report is to sit before Congress 90 days before construction and that due to the

delays within the fiscal year 2003 enactment, there was a reduced

capability. The Committee expects that those funds will be made

available for this project when needed, as intended by Congress.
79

Rocky Boy’s/North Central Regional Water System, MT.—The

Committee has included $915,000 for this project. The funds are

provided to allow for completion of the Final Engineering Report,

NEPA compliance documents, and a Water Conservation Plan for

the system.

Garrison Diversion Unit, ND.—The Committee has provided $28,386,000 for the continued construction and operation of this

project. This funding level should in no way be considered any diminution of interest or support for the project, but instead reflects

the very limited resources of the Committee.

Middle Rio Grande Project, NM.—The Committee is aware of the

current drought situation and the recent court decision relating to

the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow. As a result of the decision, the

Committee has determined that the ESA Workgroup, though well

intentioned, has not produced the much needed results to further

efforts to meet the Biological Opinion requirements. Therefore, the

Committee has only provided $7,000,000 for this effort this year

and has also included a new general provision which provides for

increased oversight of the Workgroup and minnow efforts. Of the

$7,000,000 provided, the Bureau of Reclamation is to fund the following activities: silvery minnow population management, fish passage activities, non-native species management, water management

activities, and improvement of water quality. Prior to the obligation

of funds, the Bureau is to submit the funding levels for each category, accompanied by a detailed spending plan, to the Committee

for approval. The Committee reiterates that the cost-share requirements for this program are 75 percent Federal/25 percent non-Federal. The Committee has also included $100,000 for the Isleta

Pueblo water planning studies.

Middle Rio Grande Project, Endangered Species Collaborative

Program, NM.—The Committee is concerned that efforts on the

part of the Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program

Workgroup (Workgroup) have been protracted and inefficient. To

that end, the Committee calls for the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation and

the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, to establish an executive committee for purposes of streamlining and expediting the efforts of the Workgroup. For fiscal year 2004, the Committee requires that a detailed spending plan be submitted for approval

prior to appropriated funds being obligated or expended. The Committee further requests that the Bureau of Reclamation and the

Fish and Wildlife Service, within 45 days of enactment of this Act,

appraise the current composition, structure, and decision-making

processes of the Workgroup, identify any impediments to its’ efficiency, and report back to the Committee with a remedial plan of

improvement. Support of future appropriations by the Committee

will be largely contingent on the success demonstrated by the executive committee in achieving the desired improvements.

Middle Rio Grande Project, Middle Rio Grande Levees, NM.—The

Committee has provided an additional $10,000,000 for the repair of

the Middle Rio Grande levees, work began in fiscal year 2003.

Pecos River Basin Water Supply Salvage Project, NM.—The Committee is aware that the Bureau of Reclamation carries out the

Pecos River Basin Water Supply Salvage project in collaboration
80

with the State of New Mexico. The Committee directs that the Bureau of Reclamation, within funds appropriated for the Facilities

and Maintenance and Rehabilitation, not to provide less than

$200,000 for this eradication effort. Finally, the Committee is

pleased that the Bureau and the State of New Mexico have forged

a good working relationship with regard to the contentious issues

relating to the Pecos River.

Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer, OK.—The Committee has included

$700,000 to continue Phase One of the investigation assessing the

hydrology of the aquifer and the future management of water resources.

North Fork of the Red River, OK.—The Committee has provided

$150,000 to expand the scope of the current W.C. Austin Water

Availability Study to develop a groundwater flow model on the

North Fork of the Red River drainage and to investigate potential

opportunities for augmenting water supply.

Deschutes Project, Tumalo, Bend Feed Canal, OR.—The Committee has included $500,000 for the continued construction of this

project.

Umatilla Basin Phase III Feasibility Study, OR.—The Committee

has included an additional $200,000 for the Bureau to evaluate the

feasibility of several options for improving water quality and

instream flows.

Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, SD.—The Committee has

provided $20,000,000 for this continuing construction project. The

Committee is disappointed that the administration has chosen not

to request funding for this project, despite that it is in peak construction. The Committee urges the administration to budget for

this project more responsibly in the future.

Mid-Dakota Rural Water System, SD.—The Committee has included $15,000,000 for this continuing construction project.

Mni Wiconi Project, SD.—The Committee has provided

$20,217,000 for this continuing construction project. This funding

level should in no way be considered any diminution of interest or

support for the project, but instead reflects the very limited resources of the Committee.

El Paso Water Reclaim and Reuse Project, TX.—The Committee

has included $371,000 for this continued project.

Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources, TX.—The Committee

has included $6,000,000 for the Bureau to begin the implementation of cost sharing agreements.

Columbia Basin Project, WA.—Of the funds provided, $250,000 is

for the final design of Phase 2 of the Icicle Creek Restoration

project.

Yakima River Basin Water Storage Study, WA.—The Committee

has provided $500,000 for the continued feasibility study, which

was not in the administration’s budget request.

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project: Title I.—The Committee is concerned that the Bureau of Reclamation is having to

make excess releases of more than 100,000 acre feet of water per

year from storage in Colorado River reservoirs in order to meet the

delivery requirements of the Mexican Water Treaty. This loss of

water has become particularly acute due to the drought in the Col-
81

orado River Basin, and the loss of more than 100,000 acre feet per

year depletes all seven Basin States of badly needed water.

Title I of the Salinity Control Act of 1974 to implement the

agreement with Mexico, known as Minute 242, identified construction of the Yuma Desalting Plant as the solution preferred by the

United States, Mexico, and the seven Colorado River Basin States.

The Bureau of Reclamation is urged to expedite its modifications

to the existing Yuma Desalting Plant to accomplish state of the art

operation and accelerate the permitting and environmental compliance process for the operation of the Plant and report the status

to the Committee within 180 days of enactment of this Act.

Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program.—The Committee has

included an additional $750,000 for the Uncompahgre, CO selenium project, and an additional $250,000 for the completion of the

Stewart Lake/Middle Green River, UT selenium project.

Drought Emergency Assistance Program.—The Committee has

provided an additional $1,000,000 for drought assistance to the

Navajo Nation, NM; and $1,000,000 for the completion of the emergency wells in Santa Fe, NM and within the funds appropriated for

drought emergency assistance, the Committee urges the agency to

provide full and fair consideration of the request for drought assistance from the State of Hawaii. The Committee understands the impacts of the significant drought which has lasted several years in

the West, and has provided additional funds for drought assistance

in an effort to mitigate some effects of the drought.

General Planning Studies.—The Committee has included an additional $100,000 for the continuation of the Arch Hurley Water

Conservation Study, NM.

Western Water Initiative.—The dire drought the West is currently

experiencing, combined with an unprecedented number of water

users and endangered species and related requirements, make

water use efficiencies more critical than ever. The Committee has

provided $7,400,000 for this new initiative proposed by the administration. The Committee regrets that it could not fully fund this

effort and the reduction does not reflect the Committee’s strong

support for this effort but instead its budget constraints. The initiative is an effort to enhance efficiency and performance in water and

power delivery. Ultimately, the Committee believes that the initiative, if successfully carried out, will result in enhanced efficiency in

the operation of Reclamation programs and projects. Of the funds

provided $1,400,000 is for the Desert Research Institute to address

water quality and environmental issues in ways that will bring industry and regulators to mutually acceptable answers.

The Committee believes that the water resource and efficiency

issues, combined with the drought and endangered species listings,

make the Rio Grande River in New Mexico the embodiment of the

Western Water Initiative. Therefore, the Committee has included

$2,000,000 to provide for efficiency and water improvements related to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy district, including a

system evaluation, siphons, flow measurement gages, gates and the

automation of diversions.

Power Program Services.—The Committee has included an additional $250,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to evaluate a pilot
82

project to optimize the production of hydropower from the Colorado

River Storage Project.

Science and Technology, Desalination Research and Development

Program.—The Committee has included an additional $6,600,000

for desalination efforts for research and development of new, advanced technologies to create new additional water supplies using

desalination and related technologies. The Commissioner is directed to assess the potential use of advanced water treatment

technologies as a resource to create new net water supplies and to

evaluate project benefits, economic values and environmental effects. Further, the Commissioner should identify resource needs

that can be met through these technologies and inter-party transfers, and to identify obstacles to be overcome (physical, financial,

institutional, and regulatory). In using the funds provided, the Bureau shall pay particular attention to research and development of

shallow well pretreatment, brine disposal and recycling, micro-filtration and ultra-filtration, and water conditioning. Further, the

Committee continues to urge the Bureau of Reclamation to place

a higher priority on desalination activities in future budgets given

the importance of sustainable water supplies to the West and to

other regions of the country.

Of the funds provided, $4,000,000 is for the continuation of the

project in Tularosa, NM. The Committee notes that, with regard to

the Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Center, section

7 of the Water Desalination Act of 1996 does not apply to the

project because it is a joint Federal effort. In addition, $2,600,000

is provided to further desalination research and development activities of the Bureau.

Title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse.—The Committee has

included $500,000 in additional funds for the Alamogordo, NM desalination study.

The Committee has also included $1,000,000 in additional funds

for the WateReuse Foundation. The funds shall be available to support the Foundation’s research priorities.

The Committee recommends $200,000 for the Bureau to work

with local authorities in Hawaii to investigate and identify opportunities for reclamation and reuse of municipal, industrial, domestic,

and agricultural wastewater, and naturally occurring impaired

ground and surface waters and to design and construct demonstration and permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse such waters.

Water Management and Conservation Program.—Within the

funds provided, the Committee has provided $500,000 to continue

urban water conservation programs within the service area of the

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and $200,000

for the Bureau to initiate a cost shared, industrial recirculation

water efficiency study to determine the benefits and liabilities related to recirculating water use by industries in Southern California to conserve water.

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $48,586,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 39,600,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 39,600,000
83

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,600,000, the

same as the budget request for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.

The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of Public Law

102–575. This fund was established to provide funding from project

beneficiaries for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition,

and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of California. Revenues are derived from payments

by project beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project

beneficiaries include several required by the Act (Friant Division

surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to non-CVP users,

and tiered water prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation and restoration payments.

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. ...........................

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... $15,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ...........................

This account funds activities that are consistent with the

CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18

State and Federal Agencies and representatives of California’s

urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals of

the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water supply

reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California’s water distribution system.

The CALFED Program was established in May 1995, for the purpose of developing a comprehensive, long-term solution to the complex and inter-related problems in the San Francisco Bay-Delta

area of California. The program’s focus is on the health of the ecosystem and improving water management. In addition, this program addresses the issues of uncertain water supplies, aging levees, and threatened water quality.

Absent authorizing legislation, the Committee has recommended

no funding under the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration

Project. In order to support the efforts of the State of California to

provide a safe, clean water supply and improve the environment,

the Committee has provided funds for previously authorized studies under the Central Valley Project. These studies will support

and further the goals of the overall CALFED Program until such

time as the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Project is

reauthorized.

The Committee has provided an additional $7,500,000 over the

budget request for the Central Valley Project. Additional funds to

support the goals of CALFED are provided as follows:

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL WATER ACCOUNT

Miscellaneous Project Programs.—$1,000,000 to acquire water

and ground water storage.
84

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

Delta Division Oversight.—$500,000 to continue coordination, administration, planning, performance tracking and science activities

in coordination with CALFED Program Implementation Plan.

STORAGE

Delta Division.—$1,000,000 for Reclamation to continue participating in planning and study activities associated with enlarging

Los Vaqueros reservoir.

Friant Division.—$750,000 to continue storage investigations in

the Upper San Joaquin Watershed.

Sacramento River Division.—$500,000 to continue planning and

study activities for Sites reservoir.

Shasta Division.—$750,000 to continue evaluating the potential

impacts of the proposed Shasta raise.

CONVEYANCE

Miscellaneous Project Programs.—$1,000,000 for the continuation

of feasibility levels studies and technical assistance to the State of

California; $1,000,000 for the Bureau for the administration of storage, conveyance, water use efficiency, ecosystem restoration,

science and water transfer; $1,000,000 for the environmental water

account.

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $54,513,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 56,525,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 56,525,000

The Committee recommendation for general administrative ex- penses is $56,525,000. This is the same as the budget request.

The policy and administrative expenses program provides for the

executive direction and management of all reclamation activities,

as performed by the Commissioner’s offices in Washington, DC,

Denver, CO, and five regional offices. The Denver office and regional offices charge individual projects or activities for direct beneficial services and related administrative and technical costs. These

charges are covered under other appropriations.

Endangered Species Requirements.—The Committee is aware

that the Bureau of Reclamation is facing increasing costs for endangered species requirements which currently are not tracked nor

reflected in the Bureau’s budget documents. The Committee believes that these costs are dramatically increasing each year as the

listing of species grows, however the Bureau’s budget submission,

in most instances, does not necessarily reflect these costs. Since

there is no specific account or activity related to the general ESA

efforts the Bureau carries out, these increasing costs erode the base

funding of the budget, something which needs to be addressed.

Therefore, the Committee requests that the Bureau of Reclamation,

within 9 months of enactment of this Act, is to provide the Committee with a report which contains a cost accounting of the ESA

expenditures the Bureau bears as it carries out its mission. The

Committee is interested in both costs that are carried in the Water

and Related Resources account as well as the OM&R account.
85

Contracting Out.—The Committee continues to be committed to

increasing the contracting out of the Bureau’s functions which are

reasonably done in the private sector, particularly planning, engineering and design work. However, the Committee also believes

that some Federal capability is necessary and needs to be maintained. The Committee is pleased that the Bureau made the 10

percent target for fiscal year 2003, and looks forward to working

with the Commissioner to further the administration’s initiative in

this area with regards to the Bureau.

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Section 201. The Committee has included a continuing provision

regarding the Indian Self Determination Act and the Bureau of

Reclamation.

Section 202 of the bill includes language regarding the San Luis

Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.

Section 203 of the bill includes language that States requirements for purchase or lease of water from the Middle Rio Grande

or Carlsbad Projects, New Mexico.

Section 204 of the bill includes language concerning Drought

Emergency Assistance.

Section 205. The Committee has included a new general provision regarding ESA requirements on the Rio Grande River, NM.

Section 206. The Committee has included a new general provision which reforms the ESA Collaborative Workgroup.

Section 207. The Committee has included a new general provision regarding the cost-sharing on the Tularosa Desalination Facility, NM.

Section 208. The Committee has included a continuing provision

regarding CALFED studies.

Section 209. The Committee has included a new provision regarding the Western Water Initiative.

Section 210. The Committee has included a new provision regarding a study authority for Hawaii.

Section 211. The Committee has included a new provision regarding the CUP account.
(86)

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Title III provides for the Department of Energy’s programs relating to energy supply, environmental management, science, national

security and other related programs, including the power marketing administrations, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

REPROGRAMMINGS

The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully

inform the Committee when a change in program execution or

funding is required during the fiscal year. A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds from one activity to another within

an appropriation, or any significant departure from a program,

project, or activity described in the agency’s budget justification, including contemplated site budgets as presented to and approved or

modified by Congress in an appropriations act or the accompanying

statement of managers or report. For construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one construction project identified in the justifications to another or a significant change in the scope of an approved project.

Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the Act or report.

In cases where unforeseen events or conditions are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be submitted in advance to the

Committee and be fully explained and justified. The Committee has

not provided the Department with any internal reprogramming

flexibility in fiscal year 2004, unless specifically identified in the

House, Senate, or conference reports. Any reallocation of new or

prior year budget authority or prior year deobligations must be

submitted to the Committees in writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the Committees on Appropriations.

ENERGY SUPPLY

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $696,858,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 861,805,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 920,357,000

The purposes of the programs funded under Energy Supply are

to develop new energy technologies and improve existing energy

technologies through basic and applied research and targeted programs in technology development. This account provides funds for

both operating expenses and capital equipment for the advancement of the various energy technologies. The Energy Supply account includes the following major programs: renewable energy resources; nuclear energy; electricity transmission and distribution;
87

environment, safety and health; energy support activities; and energy supply infrastructure.

RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $419,492,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 444,207,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 358,476,000

The Committee recommendation provides $358,476,000 for re- newable energy resources, a decrease of $61,016,000 from the current year level.

This program undertakes research and development of renewable

energy and related technologies to meet the growing need for clean

and affordable energy. Program activities range from basic research in universities and national laboratories to cost-shared applied research, development, and field validation in partnership

with the private sector.

The recommendation for Renewable Energy Resources reflects

the Committee’s strong belief that only a balanced portfolio of production and distribution technologies and strategies will fulfill our

Nation’s long-term needs and goals for both energy and the environment.

Renewable Energy Technologies

Biomass/Biofuels—Energy Systems.—The Committee recommendation includes $75,005,000 for biomass/biofuels energy systems, an increase of $5,255,000 over the request.

The Department has indicated a desire to end direct support to

the Regional Biomass Energy Program [RBEP]. The Committee believes that the RBEP has been a successful partnership with the

five distinct regions it has served. The Committee recommendation

includes $2,000,000 and directs the Department to work with regional governors’ organizations to make RBEP even more successful. The Committee recommendation also includes $3,500,000 for

the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, a successful consortium of 34 universities and 33 agribusinesses and trade associations. The recommendation includes $20,000,000, the amount of the

request, for the Bioconversion Production Integration Program.

Geothermal.—The Committee recommends $26,300,000 for geothermal technology development, an increase of $800,000 over the

request, including continued funding (at current year levels) for

GeoPowering the West.

Hydrogen Research.—The Committee recommendation strongly

supports and endorses the administration’s broad new investments

in hydrogen technology through the FreedomCAR and Hydrogen

Fuel Initiative and recognizes hydrogen to be a highly promising

and cost effective energy carrier. As such, the Committee recommendation includes $87,982,000 for hydrogen research, the

amount of the request and $48,522,000 above the current year

level.

Industrial consumption of hydrogen, especially by the petrochemical and fertilizer communities is large and growing. The rate

of petro-chemical hydrogen consumption necessary for gasolinepowered vehicles will accelerate as global reserves of sweet crude

oil diminish. The dominant resource for hydrogen production today
88

is natural gas whose reformation into hydrogen and carbon dioxide

contributes significantly to atmospheric greenhouse gases. Moreover, natural gas reserves are insufficient to service simultaneously

domestic heating and electricity requirements, industrial hydrogen

consumption, and future demands by hydrogen powered vehicles

and other fuel cell applications that would accompany the future

‘‘Hydrogen Economy.’’ Thus, the Committee recommendation seeks

to focus the resources of the initiative on developing the most economical means of producing hydrogen from renewable sources and

nuclear power.

The administration proposes to eliminate the funding of fuel cell

activities within the Energy & Water Development appropriation.

The Committee rejects that portion of the budget request and expects appropriate fuel cell activities to continue within this appropriation.

The Committee understands that the funding provided in fiscal

year 2004 will support several competitive solicitations for research, development, and demonstration proposals on production,

delivery, storage, and infrastructure validation technologies. The

Committee directs that at least $5,000,000 should be used to support a competitive solicitation for solid oxide fuel cell research

under a cost-shared grant program to look at the application of

solid oxide electrochemical technology for co-production of hydrogen

and electricity and also for storage of electricity through closed and

open system regenerative fuel cells.

Hydropower.—The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for hydropower, a reduction of $2,489,000 from the request. The amount includes $400,000 to assess low head and low power resources.

Solar Energy.—The Committee recommendation for solar energy

programs is $89,693,000, an increase of $10,000,000 above the

budget request.

The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for the

Southeast and Southwest photovoltaic experiment stations. The

Department should continue to fully support the success of the

public/private Million Solar Roofs initiative. Based on new information before the Committee that calls into question earlier concerns

raised by the National Research Council regarding the potential of

concentrating solar power technologies, the Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 from within available funds for

concentrating solar power. If the Department needs more than

$5,000,000 in fiscal year 2004 to regain lost momentum in the CSP

program, the Committee urges the Department to seek a reprogramming.

Zero Energy Buildings.—The Committee recommendation includes no funding for zero energy building technologies and supports the full transfer and incorporation of these activities into the

building technologies program funded under the jurisdiction of Interior and Related Agencies appropriations.

Wind.—The Committee recommendation includes $41,600,000 for

wind, the same as the request. The Committee expects the Department to utilize funds to accelerate development and deployment of

low wind speed turbines. The Wind Powering America initiative is

to be continued at last year’s funding level. The Committee con-
89

tinues to recognize the need for a set-aside for small wind programs.

The Committee is aware that the potential for expanding wind

generated energy to new locations is significant, but further development in the Dakotas and the Upper Midwest is stymied by transmission constraints. The Committee is committed to developing the

potential of wind energy in the United States and especially on

tribal lands. The Committee directs the Department to work with

the transmission industry to conduct a comprehensive analysis of

upper Midwest wind energy locations and transmission requirements and to report to the Committee on Appropriation by May 31,

2004.

Intergovernmental Activities.—The Committee recommendation

includes a total of $9,500,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 from the

budget request. The intergovernmental activities total includes

$5,000,000 for the tribal energy program to help Native Americans

develop renewable energy resources on their lands and helps tribal

leaders develop energy plans. Within the funds provided to the

tribal energy program, the Committee includes $1,000,000 for the

Council of Renewable Energy Resource Tribes [CERT] to provide

technical expertise and training of Native Americans in renewable

energy resources development and electric generation facilities

management. The intergovernmental total includes $4,500,000 for

the International Renewable Energy program to promote the use of

renewable energy resources in international markets. From within

the funds provided, the Committee recommendation includes

$750,000 for the Renewable Energy Policy Project [REPP] to conduct a survey of all commercially viable renewable energy technologies to determine the job and skill requirements relating to the

manufacturing, installation, and operation and maintenance for

each technology.

The Committee is aware that in October 2002 the Department,

on behalf of an interagency working group of nine Federal agencies,

released a 5-year strategic plan to implement the Clean Energy

Technology Exports [CETE] Initiative. The Committee notes that

the CETE strategic plan outlines a program to increase U.S. clean

energy technology exports to international markets through increased coordination among Federal agency programs as well as to

enhance program coordination with non-governmental, private sector, and other international partners. The Committee is disappointed by the apparent lack of progress. Recognizing that opportunities to open and expand international markets and export U.S.

clean energy technologies are very important to helping achieve national and international energy security, economic, trade, environmental, and climate change objectives, the Committee directs the

interagency working group, through the Department of Energy and

other Federal agency partners, to provide the Appropriations Committee with a report, no later than January 15, 2004, on the status

of the implementation of the strategic plan and specific actions that

each of the participating agencies have taken in fiscal year 2003

and will take in fiscal year 2004 to engage non-governmental, private sector, and other international partners.
90

Renewable Support and Implementation

Departmental Energy Management Program.—The Committee

recommendation includes $1,800,000, an increase of $310,000 over

the current year level. The Department should continue to fund,

through internal competition, the most cost effective opportunities

to improve energy efficiency in the Department’s facilities, employing renewable or other technologies as appropriate.

Renewable Energy Production Incentive.—The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000, the amount the Department requested under the electricity reliability sub-program. The Committee instead funds the requested amount under renewable support and implementation.

Renewable Program Support.—The Committee recommendation

includes $4,000,000 to continue the efforts of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] to develop renewable energy resources uniquely suited to the Southwestern United States through

its virtual site office in Nevada.

National Climate Change Technology Initiative

The Department’s budget request proposes to create and fund

this new initiative to support competitive solicitations to promote

applied research that has, as its primary goal, the reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions or the sequestration of greenhouse gases.

The Committee strongly supports the goals of this initiative and

has recommended funding for the development of these technologies within the existing renewable energy and nuclear energy

programs. The Committee recommendation does not include separate funding for the national climate change technology initiative.

Facilities and Infrastructure

National Renewable Energy Laboratory.—The Committee recommendation includes $7,700,000 for facilities and infrastructure,

an increase of $3,500,000 over the current year level. The recommendation includes $4,200,000 for operation and maintenance of

facilities and $3,500,000 for construction of Project 04–E–001,

Science and Technology Facility, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory.—The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 for engineering and design of the energy reliability and efficiency laboratory.

Program Direction

The Committee recommendation includes $13,146,000, a decrease

of $2,750,000 from the current year level, and primarily reflects the

transfer of those resources to the new Office of Electricity and Energy Assurance.

ELECTRICITY AND ENERGY ASSURANCE

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $0

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 0

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 100,425,000

The Committee directs the creation of a new Office for Electricity

and Energy Assurance, reporting directly to the Under Secretary
91

for Energy, Science and Environment. The Committee’s recommendation is consistent with the principles espoused in the

President’s National Energy Policy report issued in May, 2001, and

section 926 of S. 1005, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. The office

shall lead a national effort to modernize and expand our Nation’s

electricity delivery system to ensure economic and national security. The office should be primarily responsible for the full spectrum of transmission, distribution, demand response, storage,

transmission siting and permitting, and other technologies that affect supply and demand in the delivery of electricity. In carrying

out this effort, the office shall coordinate and develop a comprehensive, multi-year strategy to improve the Nation’s electricity transmission and distribution; ensure that the recommendations of the

Secretary’s National Transmission Grid Study are implemented;

carry out the research, development, and demonstration functions;

grant authorizations for electricity import and export; perform

other electricity transmission and distribution-related functions assigned by the Secretary; and develop programs for workforce training in power and transmission engineering. The office shall also assume the responsibilities of the energy security and assurance program.

Activities previously funded under the electric energy systems

and storage program within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the energy security and assurance program

shall be consolidated and funded under this new office.

The Committee recommendation includes $100,425,000 for these

activities, including $7,587,000 for program direction. The Committee recommendation includes a total of $20,000,000 in additional funds for the Department’s energy assurance mission. Of the

additional funds included, $16,000,000 shall be available for the

National Energy Technology Laboratory [NETL] to support the Department in accordance with its National Agenda for Energy Assurance activities, and $4,000,000 shall be available to support construction, renovation, furnishing, and demolition of NETL facilities

in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Morgantown, West Virginia, as

authorized in Public Law 107–63.

NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $259,990,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 390,601,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 437,422,000

The Committee recommendation provides $437,422,000 for nuclear energy, an increase of $44,821,000 above the request.

Radiological Facilities Management.—The Committee recommendation includes $66,650,000, an amount that is $4,000,000

above the request for radiological facilities management. The Department is directed to use the additional resources for upgrades

of radiological facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.—The Committee

recommends $22,000,000 for university reactor fuel assistance and

support, an increase of $3,500,000 over the request. University nuclear engineering programs and university research reactors represent a fundamental and key capability in supporting our national
92

policy goals in health care, materials science and energy technology.

The Committee strongly supports both the University Reactor

Fuel Assistance and Support program’s efforts to provide fellowships, scholarships, and grants to students enrolled in science and

engineering programs at U.S. universities, as well as efforts to provide fuel assistance and reactor upgrade funding for universityowned research reactors.

The Committee notes the progress of the Department in carrying

out congressional direction to establish and support regional university reactor consortia. Although progress is visible, the Committee remains concerned about the ability of the Nation to respond to the growing demand for trained experts in nuclear science

and technology in the face of financial and other challenges affecting engineering programs and research reactor facilities at American universities. The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $3,500,000 over the request to fund additional consortia

and strongly encourages the Department to request sufficient funding in future years to fund all meritorious proposals, including appropriate proposals to support health physics university programs.

The Committee commends the State of South Carolina for recently creating one of the first new graduate nuclear engineering

programs in the last 20 years. The Committee strongly encourages

the Department to support the University of South Carolina’s new

nuclear engineering graduate program, using Departmental resources to further leverage the investments recently made by the

State of South Carolina. The Committee is also aware that the University of Nevada-Las Vegas is contemplating the addition of a

graduate nuclear engineering program to their curriculum. The

Committee hopes and expects that the Department will be supportive of this worthy effort.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research and

development includes a total of $151,746,000, an increase of

$24,721,000 over the budget request.

Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.—The Committee recommendation includes $12,000,000, the same as the budget request.

Nuclear Energy Technologies.—The Committee recommendation

includes a total of $55,721,000, an increase of $7,721,000 over the

budget request.

The recommendation includes $24,973,000 for nuclear power

2010, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the request, and the Department is directed to focus the resources on the demonstration of the

regulatory licensing processes of 10 CFR Part 52 for early site permits, design certifications, and combined construction and operating licenses. The Committee recommendation does not includes

direct support of gas reactor fuel technologies within nuclear power

2010, and instead funds such activities under the generation IV nuclear systems initiative.

The recommendation includes $29,720,000 for the generation IV

nuclear energy systems initiative, an increase of $20,000,000 over

the request, and the Department is directed to use the additional
93

resources to begin the research, development and design phase of

an advanced reactor hydrogen co-generation project at Idaho National Laboratory.

The Committee remains interested in the potential use and application of small modular reactors that would be inherently safe,

be relatively cost effective, contain intrinsic design features which

would deter sabotage or diversion, require infrequent refuelings,

and be primarily factory constructed and deliverable to remote

sites. The Department shall continue to support the international

effort to develop this technology.

The recommendation does not include the requested funding for

the national climate change technology initiative.

Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.—The Committee recommendation

includes $8,000,000, an increase of $4,000,000 over the request.

The additional funding is provided to support research and development necessary to support-high-temperature electrolysis and sulfur-iodine thermochemical technologies necessary to the advanced

reactor hydrogen co-generation project at Idaho National Laboratory. Additionally, the recommendation includes $2,000,000 to continue the development, in partnership with industry and national

laboratories, of an efficient high temperature heat exchanger at the

University of Nevada-Las Vegas. These funds shall be provided to

the UNLV Research Foundation.

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.—The Committee recommendation

includes $78,025,000, an increase of $15,000,000 over the budget

request. The initiative should continue to focus on development of

fuel cycle technologies that minimize the toxicity of final waste

products resulting from spent fuel while recovering energy remaining in spent fuel; maximizing the utility of the Yucca Mountain repository, consistent with statutory limits on its contents, or any future repository; and minimizing proliferation concerns and environmental impacts of the fuel cycle. The initiative shall assist the Secretary with development of alternative technology options that may

influence the Secretary’s 2007 statutorily required recommendation

for the need to develop a second repository.

The Committee notes that the January 2003 Report to Congress

on this project focused primarily on use or modification of existing

reprocessing technologies. The Committee directs that the Department shall also explore new and alternative approaches to provide

high confidence that the options finally chosen are the best for further development. The Department shall also contract for studies

to determine the probable extent of global uranium reserves and

global uranium demand. Based on these studies, and on a range of

assumptions about the available capacity of monitored retrievable

storage and repositories in the country, the project shall identify

time scales on which elements of an advanced fuel cycle must be

operational in order to impact national requirements for management of spent fuel. This study should include information to guide

Congress in establishing the date by which an advanced recycle facility must be available for performing research on scalable, proliferation resistant, waste efficient, recycle technologies as well as

other key facilities supporting future spent fuel management strategies. Based on these studies, the Secretary is directed to report to

Congress by March 2005 with quantitative goals for the program
94

including evaluation of future spent fuel inventories, and detailed

analysis of the various options to achieve these goals.

To provide confidence in the technology options proposed, the

project will use Department of Energy national laboratory and University expertise to perform research and development of advanced

technologies for spent fuel treatment and transmutation of plutonium, higher actinides and long-lived fission products. Advanced

nuclear material recycle and safeguard technologies, proliferationresistant nuclear fuels, and transmutation systems shall be investigated. Both reactor-based and a combination of reactor and accelerator-based transmutation approaches may be included as part of

the research and systems analysis.

The project shall use international and university collaborations

to provide cost effective use of research funding. Within the funds

made available for this initiative, $1,500,000 is provided for the

Idaho Accelerator Center, $4,500,000 for the University of Nevada

Las Vegas, and $3,000,000 for directed research aimed at enhancing university-based collaborations focused on the Advanced Fuel

Cycle Initiative with U.S. universities. All university research shall

be closely coordinated with the technical projects conducted by

principal investigators within the national laboratories.

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommendation includes $78,160,000, an increase of $12,600,000 over the request. The recommendation includes an additional $6,000,000 for the addition of a high-temperature gas loop in the Advanced Test Reactor, and an additional

$6,600,000 for deferred landlord activities including the development of a remote treatment facility to treat remote-handled transuranic waste, remediation of an industrial waste pond, and to address other critical infrastructure issues.

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation includes $60,207,000 for program direction, the amount of the request.

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $22,553,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 30,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,437,000

The Committee recommendation includes $22,437,000 for non-defense environment, safety, and health which includes $15,641,000

for program direction.

ENERGY SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $0

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 0

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 17,600,000

The Committee recommendation provides $17,600,000 for energy

supply infrastructure.

The Energy Supply Infrastructure program provides assistance,

technical support, and project funding to specific energy projects.

The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the Upper
95

Lynn Canal power supply project, $5,000,000 for the Swan LakeLake Tyee segment of the Southeastern Alaska Intertie System,

$1,000,000 for the Tazimina hydroelectric project, $2,000,000 for

the Juneau/Green’s Creek/Hoonah intertie project, $100,000 for the

Hope distribution line relocation, $500,000 to support the planning

and permitting of the Petersburg/Kake intertie project, and

$2,000,000 for the Lake Louise/Glenallen facility.

The Committee recommendation also includes $5,000,000 for the

National Center on Energy Management and Building Technologies

and directs that this initiative shall be subject to the cost-sharing

requirements of a research project rather than a demonstration

project.

NON-DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION COMPLETION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $0

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 170,875,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 171,875,000

The Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion program is responsible for managing and addressing the environmental legacy

resulting from nuclear energy and civilian energy research programs. The programs and activities are funded within the following

subprograms.

2006 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS

The Committee recommendation includes $48,677,000, the same

as the request. This program provides funding for completing

cleanup and closing down facilities with an accelerated cleanup

plan closure date of 2006 or earlier (such as Lawrence Berkeley

National Laboratory). In addition, this program provides funding

for environmental management sites where overall site cleanup

will not be complete by 2006 but cleanup projects within a site (for

example, spent fuel removal and TRU waste shipped off-site) will

be complete by 2006.

2012 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS

The Committee recommendation includes $119,750,000, the same

as the request. This program provides funding for completing

cleanup and closing down facilities with an Accelerated Cleanup

Plan closure date of 2007 through 2012 (such as, Brookhaven National Laboratory and West Valley Demonstration Project). In addition, this program provides funding for environmental management

sites where overall site cleanup will not be complete by 2012 but

cleanup projects within a site (for example, spent fuel removal and

TRU waste shipped off-site) will be complete by 2012.

The Committee understands that the Department recently issued

a Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant

Impact related to remediation of the Energy Technology and Engineering Center [ETEC]. The Committee is concerned that under

the Department’s plans, the ETEC site will not be remediated to

CERCLA standards. The Committee understands that the Department intends to remediate 5,500 cubic meters of soil around one installation, leaving in place an additional 400,000 cubic meters of

contaminated soil. This may represent an unacceptable deviation
96

from the Department’s commitment in a 1995 Department of Energy-EPA Joint Policy. Under that agreement, the Department

committed to fund an EPA radiological survey of the ETEC site

and to remediate the site to CERCLA standards. The Committee

urges the Department to fulfill those commitments and reassess

whether the decision meets the joint policy and CERCLA standards.

2035 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS

The Committee recommendation includes $6,448,000, an increase

of $4,000,000 over the request. This program provides funding for

completing cleanup and closing down facilities that are expected to

be completed beyond 2012 but by 2035. The Committee recommendation includes a total of $6,000,000 for the Department to

continue activities related to accelerated remediation of the former

Atlas Mill Site in Moab, Utah. In evaluating alternatives for site

remediation, the Department shall give full consideration to removal or relocation given the sites on the Colorado River.

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommendation includes the use of $3,000,000

in prior year balances.

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $0

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 418,124,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 396,124,000

The Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund supports projects to maintain, decontaminate, decommission and otherwise remediate the

gaseous diffusion plants at Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky;

and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In addition, the Uranium/Thorium Licensee Reimbursement program activities are funded within this

appropriation.

Decontamination and Decommissioning.—The Committee recommendation includes $370,124,000, an increase of $3,000,000

above the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes

$167,359,000 for activities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and

$80,894,000 for Portsmouth, Ohio, the amounts of the budget request. The Committee recommendation provides a total of

$121,871,000 for activities related to the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, including $2,000,000 for continued support of the Kentucky Consortium for Energy and Environment.

The Committee is dismayed by the failure of the Commonwealth

of Kentucky and the Department to reach an agreement on accelerated cleanup at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Recognizing

that environmental contamination poses an unacceptable risk to

the health and well being of the citizens of western Kentucky, this

Committee has generously provided ample resources for cleanup at

Paducah for several consecutive years. However, the inability of

State and Federal regulators to work cooperatively in the best interests of the citizens of Kentucky in reaching an agreement places

the continued availability of such funds in jeopardy. It should be
97

noted that Kentucky is the only State that has not yet signed a letter of intent to enter into an accelerated cleanup agreement with

the Department. The Committee eagerly awaits the completion of

a report from the General Accounting Office examining the slow

pace of cleanup at the Paducah facility. The Committee expects

GAO’s report to show the absence of an agreement and continued

intransigence of all parties have unnecessarily delayed the cleanup

of environmental hazards at Paducah.

Uranium/Thorium Reimbursement.—The Committee recommendation includes $26,000,000, a reduction of $25,000,000

from the budget request, but an increase of $10,000,000 over the

current year level and $25,000,000 over the fiscal year 2002 level.

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $0

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 292,121,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 302,121,000

The Non-Defense Environmental Services program supports nondefense related activities that indirectly support the primary environmental management mission of accelerated risk reduction and

closure. The programs and activities are funded within the following subprograms.

COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $1,034,000, the same

as the request. This program funds activities that are indirectly related to on-the-ground cleanup results but are integral to the Office

of Environmental Management’s ability to conduct cleanup at specific sites (for example, Agreements in Principles with State regulators and tribal nations and Site Specific Advisory Boards).

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP PROJECTS

The Committee recommendation includes $43,842,000, the same

as the request. This program provides funds to support the transfer

of additional contaminated excess facilities to the environmental

management program from other Departmental programs for surveillance and maintenance and eventual decontamination and decommissioning (for example, the Fast Flux Test Facility beginning

in 2004). These transfers constitute new work for the Office of Environmental Management.

NON-CLOSURE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES

The Committee recommendation includes $257,245,000, the same

as the request. This program provides funds for activities that indirectly support the Department’s accelerated cleanup and closure

mission such as gaseous diffusion plant uranium programs. These

activities, while not in direct support of cleanup, provide valuable

services to other Departmental priorities and missions.

Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Project, Paducah,

Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio.—The Committee recommendation

includes a total of $100,000,000 including $96,800,000 for the construction line item (02–U–101) and $3,200,000 in operating funding. The Department shall use these funds only for the project
98

scope as described in the budget justifications and none of the

funds provided may be used to cover administrative costs at other

Departmental sites. The additional $10,000,000 shall be used for

construction at the Paducah, Kentucky facility. The additional

funding shall have no effect on the amounts available for the Portsmouth, Ohio facility.

SCIENCE

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $3,261,328,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 3,310,935,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,360,435,000

The Science account funds investment in basic research critical

to the success of the Department’s missions in national security,

energy security and economic security. Programs funded under this

account perform a leadership role in advancing the frontiers of

knowledge in the physical sciences and areas of biological, environmental and computational sciences. The programs are also responsible for providing world-class research facilities for the Nation’s

broader scientific enterprise. The Science account includes the following major programs: high energy physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental research, basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing research, science laboratories infrastructure, and fusion energy sciences.

GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES

Investment in the physical sciences and engineering plays a critical role in enabling U.S. technological innovation and global economic leadership. It is essential to the development and utilization

of our energy resources, as well as innovations in the areas of defense, the environment, communications and information technologies, health care and much more. Over the past 50 years, half

of U.S. economic growth has come from prior investment in science

and technological innovation. Life expectancy has grown from 55

years in 1900 to nearly 80 years today.

The Department of Energy is the leading source of Federal investment for R&D facilities and fundamental research in the physical sciences. Yet investment in the Department’s R&D has declined in constant dollars from $11,200,000,000 in 1980 to

$7,700,000,000 in 2001. As a percentage of GDP, total Federal investment in the physical sciences and engineering has been cut

roughly in half since 1970.

Shrinking investment in the physical sciences and engineering

poses serious risks to DOE’s ability to perform its mission. It also

threatens the Nation’s science and technology enterprise. DOE

faces a shortage of nearly 40 percent in its technical workforce over

the next 5 years. To meet its needs, DOE must compete with industry for a shrinking pool of skilled workers, many of whose leaders

also report serious shortages of scientists and engineers.

American educational institutions are failing to attract sufficient

numbers of U.S. students, especially women and minorities, into

undergraduate and graduate programs in the physical sciences and

engineering. For these skills the United States is now more heavily
99

dependent on foreign nations than ever before. The H1–B visa has

become a main element of U.S. technology policy.

As fewer foreign students choose to pursue their education in the

United States, and too few U.S. students enter these fields, our

vulnerability grows. The National Science Foundation reports that

between 1996 and 1999, the number of Ph.D.s in science and engineering awarded to foreign students declined by 15 percent. Only

5 percent of U.S. students now earn bachelors degrees in natural

science or engineering. Since 1986, the total number of bachelors

degrees in engineering is down 15 percent. Between 1994 and 2000,

the number of Ph.D.s awarded in physics in the United States declined by 22 percent.

These trends must be reversed. Many DOE user facilities do not

operate at their designed capacity. As a result, opportunities and

momentum are lost as researchers and students encounter barriers

to the pursuit of their studies, including promising research opportunities at the boundaries of the life sciences, physical sciences, engineering, and computer sciences. Future U.S. global leadership

and technological leadership will rely upon today’s investment in

research in all of the science and engineering disciplines.

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $722,264,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 737,978,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 737,978,000

The Committee recommendation includes $737,978,000 for high energy physics, an increase of $15,714,000 over the current year

level.

The high energy physics program focuses on gaining insights into

the fundamental constituents of matter, the fundamental forces in

nature, and the transformations between matter and energy at the

most elementary level. The program encompasses both experimental and theoretical particle physics research and related advanced accelerator and detector technology R&D. The primary

mode of experimental research involves the study of collisions of

energetic particles using large particle accelerators or colliding

beam facilities.

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $381,872,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 389,430,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 389,430,000

The Committee recommends $389,430,000 for nuclear physics, an

increase of $7,558,000 over the current year level.

The nuclear physics program supports and provides experimental

equipment to qualified scientists and research groups conducting

experiments at nuclear physics accelerator facilities. These facilities provide new insights and advance our knowledge of the nature

of matter and energy and develop the scientific knowledge, technologies and trained manpower needed to underpin the Department’s nuclear missions. The Committee supports the Continuous

Electron Bean Accelerator Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and encourages the Jefferson Lab to increase operational time and thereby reduce the significant backlog
100

of peer reviewed and approved scientific experiments and begin

work toward the 12 GeV upgrade. Therefore, the Committee urges

the Department to grant approval and include adequate funds in

its fiscal year 2005 request to continue this process.

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $506,685,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 499,535,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 534,035,000

The Committee recommendation includes $534,035,000 for biological and environmental research, an increase of $34,500,000 over

the current year level.

The biological and environmental research program develops the

knowledge base necessary to identify, understand, and anticipate

the long-term health and environmental consequences of energy

use and development. The program utilizes the Department’s

unique scientific and technological capabilities to solve major scientific problems in the environment, medicine, and biology. The

Committee recommendation includes an additional $3,000,000 for

the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Washington and $7,776,000 for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. The Committee recommendation

includes the budget request of $17,496,000 for low dose radiation

research.

Genomes to Life.—The Committee recommendation continues its

strong support of the ‘‘genomes to life’’ activities aimed at understanding the composition and function of biochemical networks that

carry out essential processes of living organisms. This activity is

funded at $69,039,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the request.

Energy-Water Supply Technologies.—The Committee recommendation includes an additional $15,500,000 to support a research and demonstration program to study energy-related issues

associated with water resources and issues associated with sustainable water supplies for energy production. The recommendation includes $6,000,000 to continue the arsenic removal research in conjunction with the American Water Works Association Research

Foundation as begun in fiscal year 2003; $4,000,000 in support of

desalination research consistent with the Desalination and Water

Purification Technology Roadmap in partnership with the Bureau

of Reclamation; and $1,500,000 to support the public/private

ZeroNet Energy-Water Initiative. The Committee recommendation

also includes $4,000,000 to fund a demonstration of a stand-alone

stirling engine that will run on any fuel. The engine shall be a

portable, closed-cycle, reciprocating, and regenerative heat engine

used in conjunction with an electrical generator to convert heat, external to the engine, into electricity and usable thermal power.

This engine should be combined with an advanced vapor compression distillation system for making drinking water from virtually

any water source. The water system shall remove all contaminants,

including volatile compounds. The goal of the combined stirling and

water system is to provide safe water and power in remote rural

areas. The value and efficiency of the combined system will come

from using the emission free engine’s waste heat to help power the
101

water purifier. The demonstration of this technology should take

place on Native American reservations.

Molecular Medicine.—The Committee recommendation includes

an additional $6,000,000 for programs that bring together PET imaging, systems biology and nanotechnology to develop new molecular imaging probes. These probes should provide a biological diagnosis of disease that is informative of the molecular basis of disease

and specific for guiding the development of new molecular therapies. The programs must bring together chemists, physicists, biologists and imaging scientists to produce new technologies and

science in the stated area. The particular disease orientation is in

cancers such as breast, prostrate, colorectal, melanoma and others

and degenerative neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s and

Parkinson’s diseases.

The Committee is concerned about consequence mitigation activities and public health impacts associated with the threat of any radiological event and strongly encourages the Department to develop

therapeutic radiological countermeasures to protect against exposure to the effects of ionizing radiation. The Committee is aware

of the potential of inositol signaling molecules as a therapy for exposure to ionizing radiation and encourages the Department to support research of this emerging technology. The Committee recommends the Science and Technology Division of the Department

of Energy fund medical therapy research arid other treatment options to protect the public health against radiation exposure.

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,023,305,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,008,575,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,008,575,000

The Committee recommendation includes $1,008,575,000, the

same as the budget request.

The basic energy sciences [BES] program funds basic research in

the physical, biological and engineering sciences that support the

Department’s nuclear and non-nuclear technology programs. The

BES program is responsible for operating large national user research facilities, including synchrotron light and neutron sources,

a combustion research facility, as well as smaller user facilities

such as materials preparation and electron microscopy centers. The

BES program supports a substantial basic research budget for materials sciences, chemical sciences, energy biosciences, engineering

and geosciences.

Research

The Committee recommendation includes $788,625,000, the

amount of the request, for materials sciences, engineering research,

chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy biosciences.

Construction

Spallation Neutron Source.—The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of $124,600,000 to continue construction

at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Spallation Neutron

Source [SNS] to meet the Nation’s neutron scattering needs.
102

Nanoscale Science Research Centers.—The Committee recommendation supports the high priority given to nanoscale research and has included the budget request totaling $87,850,000

for the nanoscale science research centers at Brookhaven National

Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge

National Laboratory, and the joint effort between Sandia National

Laboratories and Los Alamos National Laboratory.

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation provides $183,490,000 for advanced scientific computing research, an increase of $10,000,000

over the current year level.

The Advanced Scientific Computing Research [ASCR] program

supports advanced computational research—applied mathematics,

computer science, and networking—to enable the analysis, simulation and prediction of complex physical phenomena. The program

also supports the operation of large supercomputer user facilities.

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $48,590,000, an increase of

$5,000,000 for Oak Ridge National Laboratory infrastructure. The

program supports infrastructure activities at the five national labs

under the direction of the Office of Science.

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $248,375,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 257,310,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 257,310,000

The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is

$257,310,000, an amount that is equal to the budget request.

The fusion energy sciences program supports research emphasizing the underlying basic research in plasma and fusion sciences,

with the long-term goal of harnessing fusion as a viable energy

source.

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor.—The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of $1,990,000

to allow the Department to enter multilateral international negotiations aimed at building the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor [ITER], a burning plasma physics experiment many

view as an essential next step toward eventually developing fusion

as a commercially viable energy source. Reasonably conservative

estimates suggest that the United States’ participation in ITER

will require approximately $1,500,000,000 over the next 10 years

in direct contributions to the construction of ITER and in supporting science. The Department’s request of less than $2,000,000

in direct support of the ITER project for fiscal year 2004 certainly

leads the Committee to question the Department’s commitment to

supporting ITER without prejudice or damage to alternative fusion

technologies, much less other Departmental science programs.

The Department’s proposed fiscal year 2004 budget proposes to

cut severely long-term activities in fusion technology and advanced

design that will have significant impact on the ultimate

attractiveness of fusion power. The Committee recommends that,
103

within available funds, the Department should make adjustments

to redress the imbalance resulting from these cuts.

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommendation provides $51,887,000 for safeguards and security, an increase of $3,760,000 over the request.

The safeguards and security line identifies the funding necessary

for the physical protection, protective forces, physical security, protective systems, information security, cyber security, personnel security, materials control and accountability and program management activities for national laboratories and facilities of the Office

of Science.

SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommendation provides $6,470,000 for science

workforce development, an increase of $1,045,000 from the current

year level.

The science workforce development program provides limited

funding to train young scientists, engineers, and technicians to

meet the demand for a well trained scientific and technical workforce, including the teachers that educate the workforce. The Committee encourages the Department of Energy to provide funds and

technical expertise for high school students to participate in the

2004 For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology

[FIRST] Robotics competition. FIRST has proven to be a valuable

program to introduce and mentor students in math and science.

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation provides $147,053,000 for

science program direction, an increase of $11,554,000 from the current year level.

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL FUND

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $144,058,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 161,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 140,000,000

The Committee recommendation includes $425,000,000 for nuclear waste disposal. Of that amount, $140,000,000 is derived from

the nuclear waste fund, and $285,000,000 shall be available from

the ‘‘Defense nuclear waste disposal’’ account. The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the State of Nevada and $8,000,000 for affected units of local government in accordance

with the statutory restrictions contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. These funds are direct payments, not grants or cooperative

agreements, and are available until expended. The failure of the

Department to request any funding for state or county oversight

programs in fiscal year 2004 indicates a disturbing lack of support

for congressionally-mandated programs to identify impacts, to

make comments and recommendations to the Secretary, and to provide information about the repository to local residents, particularly concerning policy developments at the national level. The

Committee strongly urges the Department to include funding for

states and affected units of local government in the fiscal year 2005
104

budget request. During fiscal year 2003, audits of affected unit of

local government funds provided to Nye and Lincoln Counties in

Nevada resulted in nearly $2,000,000 in disallowed costs. These

costs were disallowed despite the advance approval of the county

work plans by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Nuclear Waste.

However, the disallowed costs should be borne by the the affected

units of local government [AULGs]. The balance of funds appropriated for the AULGs should be made available for appropriate

and allowable programs and activities of the AULGs and should

not be utilized by the Department for any other purpose. The Committee expects the Department and the AULGs to do a substantially better job of complying with congressional direction concerning appropriate uses for these funds. The Department and the

AULGs should work cooperatively to set funding guidelines to prevent a repeat of these problems.

The Committee recommendation includes funding for the following research and oversight activities: $2,500,000 for the University of Nevada-Reno to conduct nuclear waste repository research

in the areas of materials evaluation, fundamental studies on degradation mechanisms, alternate materials and design, and computational and analytical modeling; $1,500,000 for the Research

Foundation at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas to conduct safety and risk analyses, simulation and modeling, systems planning,

and operations and management to support radioactive and hazardous materials transportation; $1,000,000 for the Research Foundation at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas to assess earthquake

hazards and seismic risk in Southern Nevada; $2,500,000 for the

Desert Research Institute’s Yucca Mountain Environmental Monitoring Program; $2,500,000 for the University of Nevada-Reno to

expand the earthquake engineering and simulation facility. These

funds are available until expended. In fiscal year 2003, the Office

of Civilian Radioactive Nuclear Waste appeared to some to be dilatory in releasing funding required by Congress to the State of Nevada, the affected units of local government, and other grant recipients. The Committee directs the Department to deliver a report to

the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, by no later than

October 31, 2003, detailing how and when all fiscal year 2004

grants will be distributed.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $205,280,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 326,306,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 309,564,000

(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. ¥$120,000,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... ¥146,668,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥146,668,000

The Department recommends $309,564,000 for departmental administration, a net appropriation of $162,896,000. This amount

represents a decrease of $16,742,000 from the budget request and
105

is detailed further in the table at the end of the portion of the report regarding Title III.

The Departmental Administration account funds policy development and analysis activities, institutional and public liaison functions, and other program support requirements necessary to ensure

effective operation and management. The account also covers salaries and expenses for the Office of the Secretary; Board of Contract

Appeals; Chief Information Officer; Congressional and intergovernmental affairs; Economic impact and diversity; General Counsel;

Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation; Policy and International Affairs; and Public Affairs.

The Committee recommendation includes an additional

$5,000,000 for the Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation

for increased oversight and reporting on new Office of Environmental Management acceleration contracts.

The National Research Council [NRC] observed progress in improving DOE project management procedures over the past 3 years,

but noted that it is still too soon to observe any measurable affect

on project performance. The NRC found that it will require several

more years to determine if changes in DOE project management

culture have increased its ability to undertake projects that support its missions and whether DOE project managers have the ability plan and execute them successfully. Accordingly, the Committee

directs DOE to contract with the NRC to provide continued oversight until sustained improvement in project performance can be

documented and measured.

INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $37,426,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 39,462,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 39,462,000

The Committee has provided $39,462,000 for the Office of the Inspector General, the same as the budget request.

The Office of the Inspector General provides agency-wide audit,

inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies which create conditions for

existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement.

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy are

provided for in two categories—the National Nuclear Security Administration and Environmental and Other Defense Activities. Appropriation accounts under the National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA] are Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator.

Environmental and Other Defense Activities include appropriation

accounts for Defense Site Acceleration Completion, Defense Environmental Services, Other Defense Activities, and Defense Nuclear

Waste Disposal.
106

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

The National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA], a separately organized and semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy, came into existence on March 1, 2000. The missions of the NNSA are: (1) to enhance United States national security through the military application of nuclear energy; (2) to maintain and enhance the safety, reliability, and performance of the

United States nuclear weapons stockpile, including the ability to

design, produce, and test, in order to meet national security requirements; (3) to provide the United States Navy with safe, militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants and to ensure the safe

and reliable operation of those plants; (4) to promote international

nuclear safety and nonproliferation; (5) to reduce global danger

from weapons of mass destruction; and (6) to support United States

leadership in science and technology. The programs and activities

of the NNSA are funded through the following appropriation accounts: Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation,

Naval Reactors, and Office of the Administrator.

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $5,914,409,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 6,378,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,473,814,000

The Weapons Activities account provides for the maintenance

and refurbishment of nuclear weapons in order to sustain confidence in their safety, reliability, and performance; the expansion

of scientific, engineering, and manufacturing capabilities to enable

certification of the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile; and the

manufacture of nuclear weapon components under a comprehensive

test ban. The Weapons Activities account also provides for maintaining the capability to return to the design and production of new

weapons and to underground nuclear testing if so directed by the

President. The major elements of the program include the following: directed stockpile work, campaigns, readiness in technical

base and facilities, facilities and infrastructure, secure transportation asset, and safeguards and security.

Weapons Activities Reprogramming Authority.—The conference

agreement provides limited reprogramming authority within the

Weapons Activities account without submission of a reprogramming to be approved in advance by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The reprogramming thresholds will be as

follows: directed stockpile work, science campaigns, engineering

campaigns, inertial confinement fusion, advanced simulation and

computing, pit manufacturing and certification, readiness campaigns, and operating expenses for readiness in technical base and

facilities. In addition, funding of not more than $5,000,000 may be

transferred between each of these categories and each construction

project subject to the following limitations: only one transfer may

be made to or from any program or project; the transfer must be

necessary to address a risk to health, safety or the environment or

to assure the most efficient use of weapons activities funds at a

site; and funds may not be used for an item for which Congress has

specifically denied funds or for a new program or project that has
107

not been authorized by Congress. Congressional notification within

15 days of the use of this reprogramming authority is required.

Transfers during the fiscal year which would result in increases or

decreases in excess of $5,000,000 or which would be subject to the

limitations outlined above require prior notification and approval

from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

The Committee recommendation includes $1,367,786,000 for directed stockpile work, an increase of $3,000,000 over the request.

The directed stockpile work program encompasses all activities

that directly support specific weapons in the stockpile. These activities include maintenance and day-to-day care; planned refurbishment; reliability assessments; weapon dismantlement and disposal;

and research, development, and certification technology efforts to

meet future stockpile requirements.The NNSA Administrator shall

insure that all of the assessments provided to him have utilized the

judgements of independent, expert, and cognizant reviewers who

are not normally involved in the stewardship of the assessed nuclear warheads or their associated delivery systems.

Stockpile Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $433,150,000, the same as the budget request. Stockpile

R&D provides for assessment, certification, surveillance and maintenance research and development for systems comprising our enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. The recommendation also includes $21,000,000, the amount of the request for advanced concept

initiative activities.

Stockpile Maintenance.—The Committee recommends

$415,746,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the request, to provide for stockpile maintenance and production and exchange of limited life components in the enduring stockpile, as well as major refurbishment activities to extend the stockpile life of the W87, W76,

W80, and B61 weapons systems. The additional resources are intended to support activities at the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Stockpile Evaluation.—The Committee recommends

$202,886,000, the amount of the request, to support new material

laboratory tests, new material flight tests, stockpile laboratory

tests, stockpile flight tests, quality evaluations, special testing, and

surveillance of weapons systems to support assessment of the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile, all of which contributes to the Annual Certification to the President.

Dismantlement/Disposal.—The Committee recommends

$37,722,000, the amount of the request. The program includes all

activities associated with weapon retirement and disassembly.

Production Support.—The Committee recommends $271,113,000,

a reduction of $7,000,000 from the request to adjust for a lowerthan-expected program growth.

CAMPAIGNS

The Committee recommendation includes $2,370,655,000 for

campaigns, a reduction of $24,800,000 from the budget request.

The campaigns program focuses on scientific, technical and engineering efforts to develop and maintain critical capabilities and
108

tools needed to support stockpile refurbishment and continued assessment and certification of the stockpile for the long term in the

absence of underground nuclear testing. The major elements of the

campaigns program are: science campaigns, engineering campaigns, inertial confinement fusion and high yield, advanced simulation and computing, pit manufacturing and certification, and

readiness campaigns.

Science Campaigns

Primary Certification.—The Committee recommends $64,849,000,

a reduction of $1,000,000 to adjust for a lower-than-expected program growth.

Dynamic Materials Properties.—The Committee recommends

$87,251,000 an increase of $5,000,000 from the request. The Committee commends the administration for its investment in the future through university grants, partnerships and cooperative agreements. Using $5,000,000 of the available funds, the Administration

is directed to make full use of existing and developing capabilities

for materials properties studies, including the subcritical experiments at the U1a facility, Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research facility and the Atlas facility at the Nevada Test

Site. The Committee understands that this materials work is essential to predicting the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons

in the absence of nuclear weapons testing.

Advanced Radiography.—The Committee recommends

$65,985,000, the same as the request. The recommendation includes $24,844,000 for advanced radiography requirements and

technology development.

Secondary Certification and Nuclear Systems Margins.—The

Committee recommends $54,463,000, a reduction of $1,000,000 to

adjust for a lower-than-expected program growth, for radiation

source development, radiation, case dynamics studies radiation

transport and the effects of aging, and refurbishment on secondary

performance.

Engineering Campaigns

Enhanced Surety.—The Committee recommends $36,974,000, a

reduction of $1,000,000 to adjust for a lower-than-expected program growth, to develop and demonstrate advanced initiation concepts and enhanced use denial concepts, and to enhance efforts to

establish high precision, micro-system technologies for enhanced

surety of future weapon systems.

Weapons Systems Engineering Certification.—The Committee recommends $27,238,000, a reduction of $1,000,000 to adjust for a

lower-than-expected program growth, to accelerate the acquisition

of experimental data necessary to validate new models and simulation tools being developed in the Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign.

Nuclear Survivability.—The Committee recommends

$22,977,000, a reduction of $1,000,000 to adjust for a lower-thanexpected program growth, to develop and validate tools to simulate

nuclear environments for survivability assessments and certification; restore the capability to provide nuclear-hardened microelectronics and microsystem components for the enduring stockpile;
109

and accelerate the qualification and certification of the neutron

generator and the arming, fusing and firing system for the refurbished W76.

Enhanced Surveillance.—The Committee recommendation includes $92,781,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the request to

adjust for a lower-than-expected program growth.

Advanced Design and Production Technologies.—The Committee

recommendation includes $77,917,000, a reduction of $2,000,000

from the request to adjust for a lower-than-expected program

growth.

Project 01–D–108 Microsystem and Engineering Science Applications [MESA], SNL, Albuquerque, NM.—The Committee recommendation includes an additional $43,200,000 to accelerate the

construction schedule consistent with projected stockpile needs.

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield

The Committee recommends $432,769,000, a decrease of

$34,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for National Ignition Facility construction, Project 96–D–111, and $282,769,000 for the ICF ignition and

high yield program.

National Ignition Facility.—The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for construction and $96,300,000 for the NIF

demonstration program, consistent with the revised NIF project

baseline. All construction and support activities related to the NIF

should be funded from either the NIF construction line or the NIF

demonstration program. The Committee is concerned about the

dramatic growth in other NIF-related activities funded elsewhere

in the inertial confinement fusion campaign and specifically rejects

that portion of the budget request. As such, the budget request for

experimental support technologies is reduced by $44,000,000, and

the balance of that sub-program is directed towards the support of

other high energy density physics laboratories and facilities.

Inertial Fusion Technology.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to initiate assessments and initial development

and testing of Z-Pinch inertial fusion energy.

Petawatt Lasers.—The Committee also includes an additional

$5,000,000 for university grants and other support. Within this

amount, $2,500,000 is provided for continued development of an

ultra short pulse petawatt laser at the University of Texas; and

$2,500,000 is provided to continue short-pulse laser development

and research at the University of Nevada, Reno.

The Committee understands that high intensity laser physics enables major new areas of science and engineering endeavor in the

United States and that advances in this field will enable important

progress in critical aspects of basic science, fusion energy, and national security. A robust, coordinated program in high intensity lasers will affordably maintain U.S. leadership in this critically important area. Accordingly, the Committee directs that Department

to pursue a joint high intensity laser program with the National

Science Foundation. The Committee further directs the NNSA and

the Department’s Office of Science to develop, in collaboration with

the NSF, a report that identifies the benefits and disadvantages of

multi-agency coordinated research in high intensity laser science
110

and delineates how a joint program in this area will be structured.

This report should be delivered to the Committee no later than

April 15, 2004.

Advanced Simulation and Computing

The Committee recommendation includes $725,626,000, an

amount that is $25,000,000 below the budget request.

Currently the National Academies Computer Science and Telecommunications Board and the JASONs are completing separate

reports due to the Committee on August 1, 2003 as directed in the

Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, Public Law 108–7.

The recommendation of the Committee to reduce the program by

$25,000,000 still leaves the program with just under a $60,000,000

increase over the adjusted current year level, excluding construction. The recommended reduction is without prejudice and the

Committee expects to revisit the appropriate level of funding at

conference with the benefit of the National Academies’ and JASONs’ reports.

Pit Manufacturing and Certification

The Committee recommendation includes a total of $320,228,000

for the pit manufacturing and certification campaign, the same as

the budget request. This amount includes $235,365,000 to support

the manufacturing and certification of a W88 pit consistent with

the project baseline. The Committee directs the NNSA to revise as

appropriate the pit production and certification plan and submit

the report to the relevant congressional committees by March 31,

2003, and annually thereafter.

Modern Pit Facility.—The Committee recommendation includes a

total of $22,810,000, the same as the budget request. The recommendation includes $7,000,000 to continue conceptual design of

the modern pit facility and $15,810,000 to support a site selection

decision for the modern pit facility in fiscal year 2004.

Readiness Campaigns

Stockpile Readiness Campaign.—The Committee recommends

$55,158,000 for the stockpile readiness campaign the amount of the

request. This program, initiated in fiscal year 2001, enables the Y–

12 National Security Complex to replace or restore production capability and to modernize aging facilities. At present, all of the critical manufacturing capabilities required for weapons refurbishments at Y–12 do not exist.

High Explosives Manufacturing and Weapons Assembly/Disassembly Readiness.—The Committee recommends $27,649,000, a

reduction of $2,000,000 to adjust for lower-than-expected program

growth, to establish production-scale high explosives manufacturing and qualification; to deploy and validate technologies and facilities for production re-qualification; and, to demonstrate and

validate Enterprise Integration and Collaborative Manufacturing.

Non-Nuclear Readiness.—The Committee recommends

$34,397,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 to adjust for lower-than-expected program growth, to deploy commercial products and processes for components supporting the B61, W80, and W76 stockpile

life extension programs; to modify existing tritium loading and
111

cleaning facilities to support stockpile life extension programs; and,

to support neutron target loading and detonator production.

Tritium Readiness.—The Committee recommendation includes

$134,893,000 for the tritium readiness campaign, the same as the

request.

Cooperative Agreements.—The Committee recognizes that cooperative agreements with universities are important resources for developing essential technical data for stockpile stewardship. Additionally, such long-term relationships with universities allow considerable opportunity for promoting advanced studies and recruiting the future workforce in technical areas that are critical to the

continuing stewardship enterprise. The Committee remains supportive of this activity and directs the administration to honor existing cooperative agreements as this new office implements its responsibilities. The Committee is aware of the successful partnerships between the NNSA and the University of Nevada-Las Vegas

and the University of Nevada-Reno that have been fostered

through a series of cooperative agreements. The Department is encouraged to renew these agreements at higher levels as appropriate.

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

The Committee recommendation includes $1,731,585,000, an increase of $118,114,000 from the budget request.

The readiness in technical base and facilities [RTBF] program

provides the underlying physical infrastructure and operational

readiness for the directed stockpile work and campaign programs.

RTBF activities include ensuring that facilities are operational,

safe, secure, and in compliance with regulatory requirements, and

that a defined level of readiness is sustained at facilities funded by

the Office of Defense Programs.

Operations of Facilities.—The Committee recommends

$1,091,773,000, an increase of $117,000,000, to maintain warm

standby readiness for all RTBF facilities with some allowance for

inflation. Within available funds, an additional $10,000,000 is provided to support the operation of facilities at the Nevada Test Site,

including the Device Assembly Facility, the Joint Actinide Shock

Physics Experimental Research facility, operations associated with

the Atlas relocation project, U1a operations, general plant projects

and other NTS support facilities.

For continued facility upgrades, refurbishments, operations and

maintenance costs associated with and for the National Center for

Combating Terrorism, an additional $25,000,000 is provided. The

Committee directs that not less than $5,000,000 of the funds for

the NCCT be provided jointly to the Institute for Security Studies

at UNLV and the comparable program at the University of Nevada-Reno.

The Committee recommendation also includes an additional

$10,000,000 for facility operations at Pantex, an additional

$10,000,000 for operation of facilities at Y–12, an additional

$20,000,000 for the Kansas City Plant to address pension liability

issues, an additional $15,000,000 for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and an additional $20,000,000 for the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Committee recommendation includes
112

an additional $8,000,000 for modification of the Z-Beamlet laser to

the Z Machine at Sandia National Laboratories.

Technology Transfer and Industrial Partnerships.—The Committee recognizes that partnerships with industry may enable the

weapons complex to accomplish its mission more efficiently. Such

partnership can provide access to new technologies, processes, and

expertise that improve NNSA’s mission capabilities. One of the

most successful technology transfer and commercialization efforts

in the Department of Energy has occurred with the not-for-profit

Technology Ventures Corporation around Sandia National Laboratories, resulting in over 30 start-up ventures and thousands of jobs

created. The Committee has included an additional $3,000,000 and

directs the NNSA to continue to support this highly successful public/private partnership at the NNSA laboratories and the Nevada

Test Site. The Committee recommendation also includes $1,000,000

for the NNSA to utilize the capabilities of its laboratories for a

joint effort with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on

sensor technologies and applications.

Program Readiness.—The Committee recommends $131,093,000,

the same as the budget request, to enhance readiness and maintain

materials processing and component manufacturing readiness.

Special Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes

$60,025,000 for special projects. Within available funds, $6,900,000

is provided for the New Mexico Education Enrichment Foundation;

$500,000 for the design, fabrication, and installation of exhibits at

the Atomic Testing History Institute; $2,500,000 for stockpile stewardship research at the Nevada terrawatt facility at the University

of Nevada-Reno; and $6,900,000 for the Sandia National Laboratories. The Los Alamos County Schools Program is funded at the

level of the President’s request.

The Committee is aware of concerns expressed by the City of

Oak Ridge and Anderson and Roane counties in the State of Tennessee regarding the level of financial assistance provided by the

Department of Energy. As a Manhattan Project atomic energy community, the Department has a special relationship with Oak Ridge.

Although the area receives modest support from the Department as

part of the Payment in Lieu of Tax program, economic development

has been severely limited by extensive Federal ownership of lands,

aging infrastructure, and disproportionately high local tax rates.

Unfortunately, Oak Ridge has not achieved the level of self-sufficiency envisioned by the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955.

The Committee urges the Department to work with city and county

officials to develop a plan to help the Oak Ridge community

achieve financial self-sufficiency.

Material Recycle and Recovery.—The Committee recommends

$76,189,000, the amount of the budget request.

Nuclear Weapons Incident Response.—The Committee recommends $89,694,000, the amount of the request, to enhance the

state of response readiness at various locations.

Construction Projects.—The Committee recommends an appropriation of $274,940,000, for construction projects under Readiness

in Technical Base and Facilities.

The following list details changes in appropriations for construction projects under Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities:
113

Project 04–D–103 Project Engineering and Design [PED], Various

Locations.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,564,000,

an increase of $1,564,000. The additional amount is to support the

replacement of Fire Station No. 1, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. The

base request also includes $800,000 to support the replacement of

Fire Station No. 2, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. The Department is

directed to provide a study of the potential benefits in terms of

both time and cost of utilizing a design-build process for the replacement of these fire stations. Neither station meets current fire

regulations which has practical and potential impacts on the state

of test readiness. This report shall be provided to the House and

Senate Committee by August 31, 2003.

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM

The Committee recommendation includes $265,123,000, the same

as the budget request.

The facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program is a

multi-year but limited term effort to restore the physical infrastructure of the weapons complex and eliminate the maintenance

backlog. The program provides funds to accomplish deferred maintenance and utilities replacement while improving facility management practices to preclude further deterioration.

The FIRP program was designed to be a program of limited duration to accomplish these purposes. The Committee notes its concern

that the regular maintenance budgets within the RTBF account remain under funded and are thus still contributing to the deferred

maintenance backlog—3 years after the FIRP program was created,

and during a period when weapons complex funding increased from

an annual rate of approximately $5,000,000,000 to approximately

$6,700,000,000. The Committee directs the NNSA to request a

budget that allows all sites within the complex to adequately fund

maintenance activities at appropriate levels to achieve an orderly

reduction of the infrastructure deferred maintenance backlog down

to the private industry standard for comparable facilities. The

NNSA shall establish procedures to ensure the site managers and

laboratory managers are appropriately funding maintenance.

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

The Committee recommendation includes a total of $162,400,000,

a reduction of $20,000,000 from the budget request. The fiscal year

2003 supplemental included an additional $20,000,000 for the secure transportation asset and the Committee directs the use of

these carryover balances for fiscal year 2004.

The secure transportation asset program provides for the safe,

secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear material, and

weapon components between military locations and nuclear complex facilities within the United States.

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommendation includes $585,750,000, the same

as the budget request.

The safeguards and security line identifies the funding necessary

for all safeguard and security requirements (except for personnel
114

security investigations) at NNSA landlord sites, specifically the

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National

Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, the Nevada Test Site,

Kansas City Plant, Pantex Plant, Y–12 Plant, and the Savannah

River Site Tritium Facilities.

The Committee encourages the Administration to support a joint

Air Force/NNSA research and development program in physical security systems and technologies at the Sandia National Laboratory.

The Committee remains concerned about the unintended effects

of the misguided effort to fund security as a separate line item,

rather than as an element of overhead. This situation results in the

relative inability of line management to control the resources required to execute the security mission and interferes with the riskmanagement decisions necessary to effective management by the

laboratory directors and plant or site managers. Ironically, the separate funding of security, introduced 3 years ago as a measure to

improve security, restricts the ability of managers to move monies

into security activities when needed. Therefore, the Committee directs the NNSA to eliminate the separate line-item treatment of

the security budget in its fiscal year 2005 budget request in a manner consistent with the recommendation of the April 2002 Report

of the Commission on Science and Security (‘‘Hamre Commission’’).

Furthermore, the Administrator of the NNSA shall have the ability

to authorize the augmentation of the Safeguards and Security account upon the request of a laboratory director, plant manager, or

site manager in order to address urgent security needs or provide

enhanced protection for special weapons projects. The augmentation of funds shall be permissible with 15 days advance notification

to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and shall not

require the approval of a formal reprogramming action by the Congress. Funds for security augmentation shall be derived from other

NNSA accounts or from indirect funds of the laboratory, plant or

site.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,020,860,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,340,195,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,340,195,000

The Committee recommendation includes $1,340,195,000 for defense nuclear nonproliferation, the same as the budget request.

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account funds programs

and activities to (1) prevent the spread of materials, technology,

and expertise relating to weapons of mass destruction; (2) detect

the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction worldwide; (3) provide for international nuclear safety, and (4) eliminate inventories

of surplus fissile materials usable for nuclear weapons. These highly important initiatives address the danger that hostile nations or

terrorist groups may acquire weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material, dual-use production technology or weapons of

mass destruction expertise. The major elements of the program include the following: nonproliferation and verification research and

development, nonproliferation and international security, and nonproliferation programs with Russia.
115

The fiscal year 2003 Energy and Water Development Appropria- tions Act provided $1,020,860,000 for nuclear nonproliferation activities. Since that time, Congress has appropriated an additional

$148,000,000 for defense nuclear nonproliferation in supplemental

appropriations bills. Unfortunately, a substantial portion of the

total appropriated funding for fiscal year 2003 remains unspent

and unobligated.

These programs are of critical interest to this Committee and to

Congress as a whole. However, success is still coming much too

slowly. Security upgrades have still not begun on more than 100

tons of Russia’s plutonium and HEU. In the year since United

States and Russian officials proclaimed the removal of HEU from

24 research institutes around the world a high priority, none has

been removed. Many of Russia’s nuclear warhead storage sites

have yet to receive interim security upgrades and few if any have

received permanent upgrades. And this is added to a complete lack

of credible information on the location and status of Russia’s substantial stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. There is no question

that the Russian bureaucracy is slow and problematical, but such

should not be used as an excuse for the difficulty of the task, but

as the reason these issues deserve greater levels of coordination

and attention at the highest levels of the U.S. government.

Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that the rate of expenditure for nonproliferation programs lags substantially behind

that of the rest of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Carry-over rates of 40 percent are not uncommon. Although the

Committee recognizes the difficulty in implementing nonproliferation activities in Russia, the Committee strongly urges the Department to improve on this level of performance. However, the Committee does not expect the Department to carry out these programs

with any less rigorous oversight in ensuring efficient and cost-effective implementation. The securing and safeguarding of fissile nuclear material abroad is a critical component of our Nation’s terrorism prevention effort.

NONPROLIFERATION VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommendation includes $234,873,000, an increase of $31,000,000 from the request.

The nonproliferation and verification research and development

program conducts applied research, development, testing, and evaluation leading to prototype demonstrations and detection systems

that are critical to the United States response to current and projected threats posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and

diversion of special nuclear material. The program works directly

with agencies responsible for monitoring proliferation and combating terrorism.

The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 to complete

funding for the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology

PASSCAL Instrument Center. The Committee recommendation includes $8,000,000 in emergency response funding for the Remote

Sensing Laboratory to recover eroding emergency response infrastructure, repair and replace aging equipment, and begin upgrading capabilities to current technology. From within the funds provided to RSL, the Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000
116

for the University of Nevada-Reno for the development of state-ofthe-art chemical, biological, and nuclear detection sensors. The

Committee also encourages the Office of Nuclear Nonproliferation

to assess the capabilities of the Fire Training Academy in Elko, Nevada, to determine if it has utility to the Department as a place

to conduct nuclear exposure training activities. The Department

should report back to the House and Senate Committees by December 31, 2003.

The Committee recommendation includes an additional

$20,000,000 in support of the nuclear and radiological national security program. The NNSA is directed to provide for the sustained

development of advanced technologies needed to counter nuclear

terrorism threats and should focus on improving capabilities

through research and development in threat assessment and prediction, basic nuclear understanding, sensors and detection systems, consequence mitigation, forensics and attribution and rendersafe technologies. From within the funds provided for ground-based

nuclear explosion monitoring, the Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 in support of the 3-year research effort by the

Caucasus Seismic Information Network.

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Committee recommendation includes $121,734,000, an increase of $20,000,000 from the request.

The nonproliferation and international security program supports

activities to: control the export of items and technology useful for

weapons of mass destruction [WMD]; implement international safeguards in conjunction with the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]; monitor and implement treaties and agreements; develop and implement policy in support of international security efforts aimed at securing high-risk nuclear material; develop and implement transparency measures to assure international nonproliferation and arms control commitments; and explore and implement innovative approaches to improve regional security.

The Committee recommendation includes $8,270,000 for continuing the efforts for disposition of spent nuclear fuel in

Kazakhstan.

The Committee commends the NNSA for engaging the wider U.S.

scientific community in contributions to the treaty monitoring program. The Committee will not continue direction that the NNSA

compete a specific portion of the treaty monitoring program, but

strongly encourages the laboratories to continue to incorporate

more industry and academic involvement and to establish metrics

that will allow the Committee to track progress in this effort.

The Committee recommendation includes an additional

$20,000,000 to reinvigorate initiatives focused on removing nuclear

weapons-usable materials from vulnerable sites around the world.

These activities are essential to prevent terrorist groups or states

hostile to the United States from acquiring destructive nuclear capabilities. The Administrator, working with the Secretary, must

utilize the NNSA’s strength in the inter-agency process to become

the lead agency for all such governmental activities world-wide.
117

NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA

The Committee recommendation includes $1,030,505,000, a decrease of $4,083,000 from the request.

International Materials Protection, Control, and Cooperation.—

The Committee recommendation includes $226,000,000, the same

as the request. This program will continue to improve the security

for nuclear material and weapons in Russia by installing basic

rapid upgrades and through comprehensive security improvements.

The increased funding from fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations and the fiscal year 2004 recommendation will allow for

additional material consolidation and control work. The Committee

continues to believe that these activities are critical elements of the

United States nonproliferation efforts.

Regarding the second line of defense activities within the

MP,C&C program, the Committee urges the NNSA to continue its

efforts in the use of integrated monitoring methodology for special

nuclear monitoring detection at airports, ports, and border crossing

in the former Soviet Union and newly independent States and to

continue to accelerate the Megaports initiative funded with

$84,000,000 in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental.

The Committee directs that $5,000,000 of the total amounts

available to the NNSA to address the threats of radiological dispersion devices be made available to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for bilateral and international efforts to strengthen regulatory

controls over radioactive sources that are at the greatest risk of

being used in RDDs.

Accelerated Materials Disposition.—The Committee recommendation recommends $30,000,000, the amount of the budget request to

accelerate the purchase of Russian HEU in amounts beyond the

1993 United States-Russia HEU Purchase Agreement. These additional amounts would be used to: establish a reserve inventory of

low enriched uranium for use as fuel in the United States; accelerate development of low enriched research reactor fuel designs,

and increase the amount of Russian HEU down-blended under the

material consolidation and conversion program.

Russian Transition Initiatives.—The Committee recommendation

includes $50,000,000 to support the Initiatives for Proliferation

Prevention [IPP] and the Nuclear Cities Initiative [NCI] programs

to reduce the risk of adverse migration of former Soviet nuclear

and other WMD expertise, and to work with the Russians in

downsizing their nuclear weapons complex. The Committee recommendation includes an additional $10,000,000 over the budget

request for IPP.

HEU Transparency Implementation.—The Committee recommendation includes $18,000,000 to support continued work with

Russia to provide confidence to the United States that the Russian

highly enriched uranium [HEU] being converted is from its military stockpile, consistent with the 1993 United States-Russia HEU

Purchase Agreement.

International Nuclear Safety.—With the completion of the Sovietdesigned reactor safety program in fiscal year 2003, the Committee

recommendation does not continue a separately funded international nuclear safety program. The Committee strongly rec-
118

ommends the remaining programs in research reactor safety and

shutdown in the former Soviet Union, Kazakhstan BN–350 reactor

shutdown, nuclear power plant protection, nuclear safety cooperation with China and other international organizations, and international emergency management and cooperation shall be consolidated and continued within the nonproliferation and international

security program.

Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production Program.—

The Committee recommendation includes $50,000,000 for this program to assist the Russian Federation in ceasing its production of

weapons-grade plutonium production by providing replacement

power production capacity.

Fissile Materials Disposition.—The Committee recommendation

includes $656,505,000, the same as the budget request. This program conducts activities in both the United States and Russia to

dispose of fissile materials that would pose a threat to the United

States if acquired by hostile nations or terrorist groups.

Excess weapons grade plutonium in Russia is a clear and present

danger to the security of the United States because of the possibility that it will fall into the hands of non-Russian entities or provide Russia with the ability to rebuild its nuclear arsenal at a rate

the United States may be unable to equal. For that reason, the

Committee considers the Department’s material disposition program of comparable importance to weapons activities; both are integral components of our national effort to reduce any threat posed

to the United States and to deter the threat that remains.

The Committee recommendation includes $193,805,000 for U.S.

surplus materials disposition, the same as the budget request.

Construction.—

Project 99–D–141 Pit Disassembly & Conversion Facility.—The

Committee recommends $13,600,000, the same as the budget request.

Project 99–D–143 Mixed Oxide [MOX] Fuel Fabrication Facility.—The Committee recommends $402,000,000, the same as the

budget request.

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommendation includes the use of $46,917,000

in prior year balances.

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $702,196,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 768,400,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 768,400,000

The Committee recommendation includes $768,400,000, the same

as the budget request.

The Naval Reactors account funds the design, development, and

testing necessary to provide the Navy with safe, militarily effective

nuclear propulsion plants in keeping with the Nation’s nuclearpowered fleet defense requirements. During 2003, the program expects to exceed 126 million miles safely steamed by the nuclear

fleet, and will continue to support and improve operating reactors

and plant components, and carry out test activities and
119

verification. Additionally, Naval Reactors will continue to develop

nuclear reactor plant components and systems for the Navy’s new

attack submarine and next-generation aircraft carriers, and continue to maintain the highest standards of environmental stewardship by responsibly inactivating shut down prototype reactor

plants.

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $325,102,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 347,980,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 337,980,000

The Committee recommendation includes $337,980,000, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request.

The Office of the Administrator account provides corporate planning and oversight for programs funded by the Weapons Activities,

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors appropriations including the National Nuclear Security Administration field

offices. This account provides the Federal salaries and other expenses of the Administrator’s direct staff, headquarters employees,

and employees at the field service center and site offices. Program

Direction for Naval Reactors remains within that program’s account, and program direction for the Secure Transportation Asset

remains in Weapons Activities.

The National Nuclear Security Administration Act and subsequent Appropriations Acts have included requirements or direction

to develop and implement a planning, programming, and budgeting

system. The Committee directs the Department to retain the Institute for Defense Analysis to conduct an independent assessment of

the NNSA’s PPBS process and structure, including its comparability to that of the Department of Defense. The review should

also determine whether the NNSA’s PPBS is capable of being used

as the central decision making process for resource allocation decisions and the extent to which it has been incorporated by NNSA

M&O contractors.

In December 2003, the National Nuclear Security Administration

[NNSA] implemented a major reorganization. The new organizational structure eliminated a layer of management and set the

NNSA to achieve an overall 20 percent reduction in Federal personnel, with Headquarters committing to take a 30 percent cut.

The Administrator said the reorganization follows the principles of

the President’s Management Agenda, which strives to improve Government through performance and results. As a result of this organizational change, the NNSA field operation was affected the most.

An NNSA Service Center was established in Albuquerque, New

Mexico, consolidating numerous functions from the previous field

operations offices. This consolidation of functions was done to

streamline business functions and involves the movement of personnel from the previous Nevada and Oakland Operations Offices.

The movement of personnel is scheduled to be complete by the end

of fiscal year 2004. The Committee directs the Administrator to forward to the House and Senate Committees, no later than October

31, 2003, a position-by-position listing of the exact Headquarters

jobs to be eliminated in order to achieve the agreed-to 30 percent

Federal personnel reduction.
120

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

The 2004 budget proposes to restructure Environmental Management programs. Activities funded under the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management account, the Defense

Facilities Closure Projects account, and the Defense Environmental

Management Privatization account in 2003 and prior years are

transferred to the Defense Site Acceleration Completion account

and the Defense Environmental Services accounts.

The Department is pursuing alternative accelerated cleanup and

risk-reduction strategies that are intended to significantly reduce

life-cycle cost and schedules for cleanup of the former nuclear

weapons production complex. When the Department reaches agreement with regulatory officials on these strategies, establishes a

new funding profile and estimates the cost savings for the alternate

cleanup strategy, these activities will be funded within the appropriate Defense or Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion accounts.

The Department’s defense environmental management program

is responsible for identifying and reducing health and safety risks,

and managing waste at sites where the Department carried out defense nuclear energy or weapons research and production activities

which resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination. The Environmental Management program goals are to

eliminate and manage the urgent risk in the system; emphasize

health and safety for workers and the public; establish a system

that increases managerial and financial control; and establish a

stronger partnership between DOE and its stakeholders.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONTRACT PERFORMANCE AND

OVERSIGHT

The Committee notes with concern the recent notification by the

Department that the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant, Richland,

Washington, construction project baseline would increase from

$4,350,000,000 to $5,781,000,000, an increase of over

$1,400,000,000. The relative lack of outrage over a baseline change

of that magnitude speaks volumes about what the Congress and

public have come to expect from the Department’s clean-up program. The tank waste treatment project has a long and sordid history that indicates both the magnitude of the task before the Department, as well as the Department’s historic combination of overly optimistic cost estimates coupled with consistent project mismanagement. The Committee notes its concern in the demonstrated pattern of Departmental officials announcing reform of

some aspect of the clean-up program, only to depart and be replaced by a new set of officials coming before the Committee to describe dramatic cost overruns on the project baselines promised by

their predecessors, and claiming no responsibility for the assumptions underlying those previous commitments.

The Department is now into the second year of entering into new

acceleration and reform agreements consistent with the policy conclusions of the Secretary’s 2001 top-to-bottom review of the environmental clean-up program. The effort is commendable in its success in focusing the Department and its stakeholders on the impor-
121

tance of completing clean-up activities decades earlier than

planned. The acceleration agreements entered into at the various

clean-up sites have allowed the Department to book huge paper

out-year savings and acceleration of completion dates. For example,

the Department is claiming savings of $12,000,000,000 and 20

years at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina; $30,000,000,000

and 35 years at Hanford, Washington; $2,000,000,000 and 6 years

at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and $19,000,000,000 and 35 years at

Idaho. In many cases the savings are based on assumed changes

in law, yet-to-be reformed regulatory environments, contractor savings, and other highly optimistic assumptions. The Department has

had its successes, most notably Rocky Flats, Colorado, and should

be commended. But even with such highlights, the weight of the

historical record leaves the Committee to question who will be

around in the future (other than the taxpayers) when these estimated cost savings will inevitably be revised.

Thus, the Committee recommendation includes an additional

$5,000,000 for the Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation

to increase its oversight of the Department’s new acceleration and

reform clean-up agreements. The Department is directed to report

back to the Committee by March 15, 2004, on a proposal to utilize

the additional funds to establish a formal process by which the Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation shall certify to the

Committees that new acceleration and reform agreements based on

the site performance management plans are comprehensive in their

cost estimates and contain adequate contingency. Among the items

that should be considered are, for example, whether the contract

cost estimate is dependent on any change of existing law or regulation, whether contract success is dependent on the development of

certain technology; whether the contract estimate contains reserves

for normal or foreseeable project evolution; or other items that

would allow both the Department and the Congress to improve

oversight and confidence in the cost savings promised in the acceleration and reform agreements.

DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION COMPLETION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $0

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 5,814,635,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,770,695,000

The Defense Site Acceleration Completion account funds programs responsible for managing and addressing the environmental

legacy resulting from nuclear weapons related activities. The account’s activities are funded within the following subprograms.

2006 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS

The Committee recommendation includes $1,245,171,000, the

same as the budget request. This program includes all geographic

sites with an accelerated cleanup plan closure date of 2006 or earlier (such as Rocky Flats, Fernald and Mound). In addition, this account provides funding for Environmental Management [EM] sites

where overall site cleanup will not be complete by 2006 but cleanup

projects within a site will be complete by 2006.
122

The Committee strongly urges the Department to establish and

implement a plan, or use existing plans, in which the waste material in the Fernald silos will be packaged, transported, and disposed at a commercial, NRC-licensed or Agreement State-licensed

facility. The Fernald silos’ waste is waste from processing ore for

its source material content and disposal of this waste as if it were

‘‘11e.(2) by-product material’’ is critical to meeting the congressional expectation of a safe, timely and cost-effective closure of the

Fernald facility by 2006.

2012 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS

The Committee recommendation includes $2,221,714,000, a reduction of $6,600,000 from the request. This program includes all

geographic sites with an accelerated cleanup plan closure date of

2007 through 2012 (such as Pantex and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory—Site 300). In addition, this account provides

funding for EM sites where overall site cleanup will not be complete by 2012 but cleanup projects within a site will be complete

by 2012.

The Committee recommendation reflects the transfer of

$6,600,000 from the Office of Environmental Management to the

Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology at Idaho National Laboratory for support of deferred landlord activities.

2035 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS

The Committee recommendation includes $1,899,384,000, an increase of $6,500,000 above the request. This program provides

funding for site closures and site specific cleanup and closure

projects that are expected to be completed after 2012 but by 2035.

The Department is expected to continue making PILT payments

to counties that have the Hanford reservation within their boundaries and at last year’s level. Within available funds for activities

on the Hanford reservation, the Committee also directs the Department to fund the following: The Hazardous Waste Worker Training

Program at levels consistent with fiscal year 2003 levels. The Committee recommendation includes $6,000,000 for the worker training

programs at the Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency

Response Training and Education Center [HAMMER] and

$1,000,000 to support communications infrastructure, oversight,

and management activities for HAMMER. In fiscal year 2003 the

Committee directed that this program was to be transferred to the

Department of Homeland Security and is disappointed that this

has not yet occurred. The Committee recognizes the critical importance of HAMMER to Washington State and the Nation and expects the Department to make every effort to transfer this program

to the Department of Homeland Security during fiscal year 2004

and beyond. Finally, the Committee provides $1,000,000 to the

State of Oregon to cover costs of its clean-up effort, including emergency drills, planning activities, technical review of Departmental

waste management and clean-up plans, participation in the Hanford Advisory Board meetings and other meetings at Hanford.

The Department is directed to pay its title V air permitting fees

at the Idaho National Laboratory consistent with prior year levels.
123

The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of $1,356,000 for activities at Amchitka Island, Alaska.

The Committee also encourages the Office of Environmental

Management to assess the capabilities of the Fire Training Academy in Elko, Nevada, to determine if it has utility to the Department as a place to conduct environmental management training activities. The Department should report back to the House and Senate Committees by December 31, 2003.

The conferees are aware that the resolution of the Pit 9 dispute

at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

has been in process for over 5 years at the cost of tens of millions

of dollars in legal expenses with no appreciable progress. In the

Statement of the Managers accompanying the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act, the Department of Energy was directed

to participate in mediation and failing that to go to binding arbitration to end this dispute and proceed with clean up activities. The

conferees note with disappointment that the Department has made

little or no progress toward that end. The Pit 9 litigation should

be brought to an end as expeditiously as possible.

Carlsbad Field Office.—The recommendation includes an additional $3,500,000 which shall be made available to the Carlsbad

community for educational support, infrastructure improvements,

and related initiatives to address the impacts of accelerated operations.

The Committee understand that the Carlsbad Field Office has established a joint task force with the City of Carlsbad to evaluate

the needs, functions, and requirements of a record center in Carlsbad. In order to provide more timely information in a useable format to citizens, researchers, stakeholders, and regulators, the Committee provides an additional $2,000,000 directs the Department to

consolidate at Carlsbad, all record archives relevant to the operations of WIPP and the TRU waste in the repository.

The Committee directs the Department to utilize up to

$5,000,000 from within funds available to the Office of Environmental Management to support the important work of the National

Border Technology Partnership Program to reduce waste streams

that threaten public health and safety in collaboration with the

United States-Mexico Border Health Commission.

Waste Analysis Requirements for the Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant.—The Committee recognizes that the WIPP facility is central

to the cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex and that waste

should be emplaced as quickly and safely as possible—for reasons

of reducing clean-up costs, public safety, and with the growing

threat of radiological terrorism, for national security. Current law

and regulation regarding the sampling and analysis of waste destined for WIPP produces substantial health and safety risks to

workers with little if any corresponding public benefit. Both the

New Mexico Environmental Evaluation Group, an independent

WIPP oversight group, and the National Academy of Sciences have

strongly suggested that waste destined for disposal at WIPP should

not undergo hazardous waste sampling and analysis. To this end,

the Committee believes that eliminating dangerous and excessive

waste confirmation requirements that offer little if any benefit to

the health and safety of the public will serve the national interests
124

inherent in the safe and expeditious cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex. For these reasons, the Committee has included language in section 310 that requires that waste characterization be

limited to determining that the waste is not ignitable, corrosive, or

reactive. This confirmation will be performed using radiography or

visual examination of a representative subpopulation of the waste.

The language further directs the Secretary of Energy to seek a

modification to the WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to implement the provisions of this bill by December 31, 2003. The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for regulatory and

technical assistance to the State of New Mexico to amend the existing WIPP Hazardous Waste Permit to comply with the provisions

of the bill.

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommendation includes $299,977,000, the same

as the request. The safeguards and security line identifies the

funding necessary for all safeguard and security requirements for

sites at which Office of Environmental Management has responsibility. This includes activities related to site-specific safeguards and

security plans; facilities master security plans, cyber security plans,

and personnel security programs at EM sites.

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT

The Committee recommendation includes $85,080,000, an increase of $21,160,000 over the budget request. This program focuses on high priority technical needs at near-term closure sites

and projects. In addition, the technology program will focus on

identifying technical vulnerabilities and alternative solutions in

support of the Department’s accelerated cleanup strategies.

Within available funds, the Committee provides $6,000,000 for

the Western Environmental Technology Office; $6,000,000 for the

Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory; and

$4,350,000 for the University Research Programs in Robotics.

The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the subsurface science research institute under development with Idaho

National Laboratory and the Inland Northwest Research Alliance

[INRA] institutions.

The Department is directed to renew its cooperative agreements

with the University of Nevada-Las Vegas through its Research

Foundation, and the University of Nevada-Reno.

The Department shall continue its support of the Tribal Colleges

Initiative grant, involving Crownpoint Institute of Technology, Dine ́

College, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, to develop

high-quality environmental programs at tribal colleges.

The Committee recommendation includes an additional

$4,000,000 for continued support of the international agreement

and collaboration with AEA Technology to address alternative cost

effective technologies for cleaning up legacy waste.

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommendation for Defense Site Acceleration

Completion includes a funding adjustment of $65,000,000 for use of
125

prior year balances and anticipated schedule slippage, a reduction

of $15,924,000 from the current year level.

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $0

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 995,179,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 987,679,000

The Defense Environmental Services account funds defense related activities that indirectly support the primary environmental

management mission of accelerated risk reduction and closure. The

programs and activities are funded within the following subprograms.

COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $63,837,000, an increase of $2,500,000 over the request. This program funds activities

that are indirectly related to on-the-ground cleanup results and are

integral to the Department’s ability to conduct cleanup at sites (for

example, Agreements in Principle with State regulators and tribal

nations, and Site Specific Advisory Boards).

The Committee recommendation includes an additional

$2,500,000 for the Waste Management Education and Research

Consortium consistent with the terms of its cooperative agreement

with the Department. From within available funds, $500,000 shall

be used to support the Energy and Environmental Hispanic Community Participation project of the Self Reliance Foundation needed to increase Hispanic community understanding of and participation in environmental management initiatives of the Department.

The Committee encourages the Department of Energy to continue to work collaboratively with the Western States to reach consensus on mutually agreeable routes for the transportation of

transuranic nuclear waste to the Waste Isolation Plant in New

Mexico. The Committee believes that the success of the WIPP Program Implementation Guide agreed to by the Department and the

Western Governor’s Association can be attributed to the cooperative relationship between the States and DOE. The Committee

urges DOE to continue to work in a cooperative fashion with the

States toward consensus and concurrence on proposed shipping

routes.

FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE URANIUM ENRICHMENT

DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING [D&D] FUND

The Committee recommendation includes $452,000,000, the same

as the budget request. This program funds the Federal Government

contribution to the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund, as required

by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

NON-CLOSURE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES

The Committee recommendation includes $189,698,000, the same

as the budget request. This program funds ongoing activities that

indirectly support the Environmental Management accelerated

cleanup and closure mission. These activities provide valuable support to other Departmental priorities and missions.
126

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation includes $282,144,000, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request. This program provides

the funding necessary for oversight and management functions for

the EM program, including Federal salaries and benefits, travel,

and other costs.

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $511,659,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 522,678,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 492,209,000

The Other Defense Activities account provides funding for the

following Departmental offices and functions: security; intelligence;

counterintelligence; independent oversight and performance assurance; defense-related environment, safety and health support;

worker and community transition, legacy management; and hearings and appeals.

SECURITY

The Committee recommendation includes $211,757,000, the same

as the budget request.

The security program consists of the following elements: nuclear

safeguards and security, security investigations, and program direction. These programs provide policy for the protection of the Department’s nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, classified information, and facilities. They ensure a Department-wide capability to

continue essential functions across a wide range of potential emergencies, allowing DOE to uphold its national security responsibilities and provide security clearances for Federal and contractor

personnel.

INTELLIGENCE

The Committee recommendation includes $39,823,000 for intelligence activities, the same as the budget request.

The intelligence program is focused on providing the Department, other U.S. Government policy makers, and the Intelligence

Community with foreign intelligence technical analyses and technology applications relevant to the Department’s core missions and

unique capabilities.

COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

The Committee recommendation includes $45,955,000, the same

as the budget request.

The counterintelligence program is responsible for the development and implementation of an effective program throughout the

Department to identify, neutralize and deter foreign government or

industrial intelligence, and international terrorist activities at or

involving departmental programs, personnel, facilities, technologies, classified information and unclassified sensitive information.

The Department has proposed consolidating the counterintelligence activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration
127

into one office within the Department of Energy. While the Department’s concerns about the duplication of effort and inefficiency are

valid, the Committee is not prepared to accept the notion that the

Department, rather than the NNSA, is the appropriate home for

the consolidated counterintelligence program. The most critical

counterintelligence programs are currently found in the NNSA, not

the Department. In the view of the Committee, a preferable solution may be to move the Department’s counterintelligence programs into the NNSA.

INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

The Committee recommendation includes $22,575,000 for independent oversight and performance assurance, the amount of the

budget request.

The Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance program

provides independent evaluation and oversight of safeguards, security, environment, safety, health emergency management, cyber security and other critical functions for the Department.

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

The Committee recommendation includes a total of $105,761,000,

a decrease of $1,925,000 from the budget request. The recommendation includes $17,410,000 for program direction, a reduction of $3,000,000 from the budget request.

The defense-related environment, safety and health program is a

corporate resource that provides Departmental leadership and

management to protect the workers, public, and environment in the

areas of oversight, health studies, radiation effects research, employee compensation support, and program direction. The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue

the DOE worker records digitization project through the Research

Foundation at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. The Committee

continues to be concerned that the Department has failed to recognize the importance of automating records management processes

and continues to encumber extraordinary costs by employing labor

intensive procedures in support of these requirements. Though the

Committee recommended a Department-wide standardization of

processes to ensure data preservation and access, the Committee is

not aware of a comprehensive coordinated effort being undertaken

within the Department. The Committee is also aware that even

within the Environment Safety & Health organization, parallel activities were undertaken to digitize worker records while another

part of the organization sought the digitization of similar worker

records to support the Employee Compensation Initiative. To the

extent that there is a desire to digitize records in support of the

ECI, the Committee strongly encourages the Department to utilize

the existing program at UNLV. The Committee recommends $3,075,000, an increase of

$2,075,000 above the request, for medical monitoring at the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, and

Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This will fully fund, as required by law, the

worker screening program for both current and former workers.

The Committee strongly supports and requires the continued use

of helical low-dose CAT scanning for early lung cancer detection in
128

workers with elevated risks of lung cancer. Such tests may detect

lung cancers at an early stage even when they are not visible with

conventional x-rays. The program in place at the gaseous diffusion

plants is successfully identifying early lung cancers at a stage

when they are treatable and can be expected to dramatically increase survival rates.

The Committee supports and is pleased with the Department’s

efforts to expand the Voluntary Protection Program [VPP] and

other voluntary cooperative programs. The Department’s work in

expanding participation in the program and promoting prompt review and processing of applications is particularly noteworthy. In

fiscal year 2004, the Committee expects DOE to continue to place

priority on the DOE–VPP as it is an important part of the Department’s ability to ensure worker safety and health.

The Committee urges the Department to consider, as appropriate, requiring its contractor at the Nevada Test Site to assume

responsibility for self-insuring for worker compensation for all diagnosed occupationally induced hearing loss claims for those employed at the Nevada Test Site prior to 1994, to notify former employees and the State of Nevada, and to reimburse the DOE contractor for the related costs.

Energy Employees Compensation Initiative.—The Committee recommendation includes $16,000,000, the amount of the request, for

the Energy Employees Compensation Initiative. Title 36 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (Public Law 106–398) established the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation program to provide benefits to DOE contractor workers made

ill as a result of exposures from nuclear weapons production. The

Department is responsible for establishing procedures to assist

workers in filing compensation claims.

LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommendation includes $57,525,000, an increase of $10,000,000 from the budget request.

The Department proposes the creation of a new Office of Legacy

Management in fiscal year 2004. The purpose of the office would

be to conduct stewardship activities at sites where active environmental remediation as a result of weapons production has been

completed. These activities include records management, groundwater monitoring and the administration of post closure contractor

liabilities. The Committee endorses the creation of such an office

and also recommends that the new Office of Legacy Management

incorporate the mission and budget of the Office of Worker and

Community Transition. Beginning in fiscal year 2004, those activities carried out pursuant to section 3161 of the National Defense

Authorization Act of 1993 to provide options to assist workers affected by workforce restructuring, assistance to communities, and

disposition of excess assets shall be carried out by the new Office

of Legacy Management.

The Committee directs the Department to complete without further delay the remaining record of decision for the Weldon Spring

Site Remedial Action Project and provide such funding as it necessary for remaining site clean-up activities.
129

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 for National Security Programs Administrative support. This fund pays

for departmental services that are provided in support of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

The Committee recommendation includes $3,797,000 for the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the same as the budget request.

The Office of Hearings and Appeals conducts all of the Department’s adjudicative process and provides various administrative

remedies as may be required.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $312,952,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 430,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 285,000,000

The Committee recommends $285,000,000 for defense nuclear

waste disposal, a decrease of $65,000,000 from the budget request.

This account provides the Federal Government’s fiscal year 2004

contribution to the nuclear waste repository program to support

nuclear waste repository activities attributed to atomic energy defense activities.

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

Public Law 95–91 transferred to the Department of Energy the

power marketing functions under section 5 of the Flood Control Act

of 1944 and all other functions of the Department of the Interior

with respect to the Bonneville Power Administration, Southeastern

Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and

the power marketing functions of the Bureau of Reclamation, now

included in the Western Area Power Administration.

All Power Marketing Administrations except Bonneville are

funded annually with appropriations, and related receipts are deposited in the Treasury. Bonneville operations are self-financed

under authority of Public Law 93–454, the Federal Columbia River

Transmission System Act of 1974, which authorizes Bonneville to

use its revenues to finance operating costs, maintenance and capital construction, and sell bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance any remaining capital program requirements.

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION FUND

The Bonneville Power Administration [BPA] is the Federal electric power marketing agency in the Pacific Northwest, a 300,000

square-mile service area that encompasses Oregon, Washington,

Idaho, western Montana, and small portions of adjacent states in

the Columbia River basin. BPA markets hydroelectric power from

21 multipurpose water resource projects of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers and 10 projects of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, plus

some energy from non-Federal generating projects in the region.

These generating resources and BPA’s transmission system are operated as an integrated power system with operating and financial
130

results combined and reported as the Federal Columbia River

Power System [FCRPS]. BPA is the largest power wholesaler in the

Northwest and provides about 45 percent of the region’s electric energy supply and about three-fourths of the region’s electric power

transmission capacity.

BPA finances its operations on the basis of the self-financing authority provided by Federal Columbia River Transmission System

Act of 1974 (Transmission Act) (Public Law 93–454) and the borrowing authority provided by the Pacific Northwest Electric Power

Planning and Conservation Act (Pacific Northwest Power Act)

(Public Law 96–501) for energy conservation, renewable energy resources and capital fish facilities. Authority to borrow is available

to the BPA on a permanent, indefinite basis.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $4,505,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 5,100,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,100,000

The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric

power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11 Southeastern

States. There are 23 projects now in operation with an installed capacity of 3,092 megawatts. Southeastern does not own or operate

any transmission facilities and carries out its marketing program

by utilizing the existing transmission systems of the power utilities

in the area. This is accomplished through transmission arrangements between Southeastern and each of the area utilities with

transmission lines connected to the projects. The utility agrees to

deliver specified amounts of Federal power to customers of the Government, and Southeastern agrees to compensate the utility for the

wheeling service performed.

The Committee recommendation includes $34,400,000 for purchase power and wheeling activities, an increase of $19,937,000

over the current year level.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $27,200,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 28,600,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,600,000

The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing agent

for the power generated at Corps of Engineers’ hydroelectric plants

in the six-State area of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana with a total installed capacity of 2,158

megawatts. It operates and maintains some 1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating projects, and 24 substations, and sells

its power at wholesale primarily to publicly and cooperatively

owned electric distribution utilities.

The Committee recommendation includes $2,800,000 for purchase power and wheeling activities, an increase of $1,288,000 over

the current year level.
131

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $167,760,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 171,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 177,950,000

The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for marketing electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation, the

Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water

Commission which operate hydropower generating plants in 15

Central and Western States encompassing a 1.3-million-squaremile geographic area. Western is also responsible for the operation

and maintenance of almost 17,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines with more than 260 substations.

Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund.—This fund is dedicated

primarily for environmental mitigation expenditures covering fish

and wildlife, and recreation resources impacted by the Central

Utah Project and the Colorado River Storage Project in the State

of Utah. For fiscal year 2004, the President’s Budget proposes to

transfer the authorities and future contributions for the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account from the Secretary

of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, to the Secretary of

the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. The Committee recommendation does not include this change in law. Of the total resources

available to the Western Power Administration, $6,200,000 shall be

transferred to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation

Commission. The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 on

a non-reimbursable basis for a transmission study on the placement of 500 MW of wind energy in North Dakota and South Dakota.

The Committee recommendation includes $186,100,000 for purchase power and wheeling activities, an increase of $29,976,000

over the current year level.

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

The Committee recommendation is $2,640,000, the same as the

budget request.

Creation of the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance

Fund was directed by the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal years 1994–95. This legislation also directed that the fund be

administered by the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration for use by the Commissioner of the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission to defray operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams in Texas.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $192,000,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 199,400,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 199,400,000
132

SALARIES AND EXPENSES—REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. ¥$192,000,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... ¥199,400,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥199,400,000

The Committee recommendation includes $199,400,000, the

amount of the budget request, for the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission [FERC]. Revenues are established at a rate equal to

the amount provided for program activities, resulting in a net appropriation of zero.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regulates key interstate aspects of the electric power, natural gas, oil

pipeline, and hydropower industries. Regulated entities pay fees

and charges sufficient to recover the Government’s full costs of operations.

The Federal Power Act [FPA] requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to collect from non-Federal hydropower project

licensees reasonable annual charges to recompense the United

States for a project’s use, occupancy, and enjoyment of Federal

lands, but in setting such charges, to seek to avoid increasing the

price of power to the consumer. Since 1987, the Commission has

used an established U.S. Forest Service [USFS] and Bureau of

Land Management [BLM] assessment system. The method satisfies

the legislative mandate to collect reasonable fees without increasing the cost of power to the consumer and provides significant administrative savings.

Recently, the General Accounting Office [GAO] conducted an

analysis of the Commission’s charges for use of Federal lands

(GAO–03–383), and although not determining what would be a reasonable fee pursuant to the FPA, attempted to determine the net

benefits of a select few hydropower projects as a substitute for fair

market value. It should be noted here that the provisions of section

10(e) of the FPA do not call for the Commission to collect either

fair market value or net benefits. Nevertheless, GAO concluded

that the Commission is only collecting 2 percent of the fair market

value. As the GAO Report itself acknowledges, the analysis of such

a limited sample of projects cannot reliably be extrapolated to the

unstudied projects; to obtain valid results, all projects would have

to be analyzed. The cost of undertaking such analyses would be

prohibitive, which was a major reason the Commission has never

adopted a project-specific valuation methodology. The GAO’s

project-specific methodology would in most cases, result in drastic

increases in charges to licensees that ultimately would be passed

on to the consumers and would require extensive data collection

and analysis thereby increasing the Commission’s administrative

costs, which would increase costs to almost all licensees, not only

those which occupy Federal lands. Also, there would be a high

probability that the assessed charges would be challenged resulting

in further increases in administrative costs. Considering all of

these factors, the GAO net benefits methodology appears to be inconsistent with the previously stated requirements of the FPA.

Therefore, the Commission’s continued use of locally determined

values for fixing annual charges is appropriate, administratively efficient, and consistent with the requirements of setting reasonable
133

charges that seek to avoid increasing the costs of power to the consumer, as required by section 10(e) of the FPA.

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION

(RESCISSION)

The Committee recommendation includes the rescission of

$15,329,000 from Defense Environmental Management Privatization. The balances shall be derived as follow: $13,329,000 from the

Paducah Disposal Facility Privatization (OR–574) and $2,000,000

from the Portsmouth Disposal Facility Privatization (OR–674).

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee’s detailed funding recommendation for programs

in Title III, Department of Energy, are contained in the following

table.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

ENERGY SUPPLY

RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Renewable energy technologies:

Biomass/biofuels energy systems .................................................................................. 69,750 75,005

Geothermal technology development ............................................................................. 25,500 26,300

Hydrogen research ......................................................................................................... 87,982 87,982

Hydropower ..................................................................................................................... 7,489 5,000

Solar energy ................................................................................................................... 79,693 89,693

Zero energy building ...................................................................................................... 4,000 ........................

Wind energy systems ..................................................................................................... 41,600 41,600

Intergovernmental activities .......................................................................................... 12,500 9,500

Electricity reliability ....................................................................................................... 76,866 ........................

Total, Renewable energy technologies ...................................................................... 405,380 335,080

Electric energy systems and storage ..................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Renewable support and implementation:

Departmental energy management ............................................................................... 2,300 1,800

International renewable energy program ....................................................................... ........................ ........................

Renewable energy production incentive program ......................................................... ........................ 4,000

Renewable Indian energy resources .............................................................................. ........................ ........................

Renewable program support .......................................................................................... ........................ 4,000

Total, Renewable support and implementation ........................................................ 2,300 9,800

National climate change technology initiative ....................................................................... 15,000 ........................

Facilities and infrastructure:

National renewable energy laboratory ........................................................................... 4,200 4,200

Construction:

02–E–001 Project engineering and design, NREL Golden, CO ................... ........................ ........................

04–E–001 Science and technology facility ................................................. ........................ 3,500

Total, National renewable energy laboratory .......................................... 4,200 7,700

Oak Ridge National Laboratory:

Construction: 04–E–TBD Plant engineering and design (PED), energy reliability

and efficiency laboratory .................................................................................. 750 750

Total, Facilities and infrastructure .............................................................. 4,950 8,450
134

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Program direction .................................................................................................................... 16,577 13,146

Subtotal, Renewable Energy Resources .................................................................... 444,207 366,476

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Reduction for nuclear hydrogen initiative .............................................................................. ........................ ¥8,000

TOTAL, RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES ................................................................ 444,207 358,476

ELECTRICITY ENERGY AND ASSURANCE

Office of Electricity and Energy Assurance ............................................................................ ........................ 45,000

High temperature superconducting R&D ................................................................................ ........................ 47,838

Program direction .................................................................................................................... ........................ 7,587

TOTAL, ELECTRICITY AND ENERGY ASSURANCE ........................................................ ........................ 100,425

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Radiological facilities management:

Space and defense infrastructure ................................................................................. 36,230 40,230

Medical isotopes infrastructure ..................................................................................... 26,425 26,425

Isotope support and production ........................................................................... ........................ ........................

Construction: 599–E–201 Isotope production facility (LANL) ..................... ........................ ........................

Subtotal, Isotope support and production .............................................. ........................ ........................

Offsetting collections ............................................................................................ ........................ ........................

Subtotal, Medical isotopes infrastructure ........................................................ 26,425 26,425

Total, Radiological facilities management ...................................................... 62,655 66,655

University reactor fuel assistance and support ..................................................................... 18,500 22,000

Research and development:

Nuclear energy plant optimization ................................................................................ ........................ ........................

Nuclear energy research initiative ................................................................................. 12,000 12,000

Nuclear energy technologies .......................................................................................... 48,000 55,721

Nuclear hydrogen initiative ............................................................................................ 4,000 8,000

Advanced fuel cycle initiative ....................................................................................... 63,025 78,025

Total, Research and development ............................................................................. 127,025 153,746

Fast flux test facility (FFTF) ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Idaho facilities management:

Radiological facilities .................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

ANL-West operations ...................................................................................................... 31,615 44,215

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................... 31,615 44,215

INEEL infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 31,605 31,605

Test reactor area landlord .................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Construction:

99–E–201 Isotope production facility (LANL) ............................................. ........................ ........................

99–E–200 Test reactor area electrical utility upgrade, Idaho National

Engineering Lab, ID ................................................................................. 1,840 1,840

95–E–201 Test reactor area fire and life safety improvements, Idaho

National Engineering Lab, ID .................................................................. 500 500

Subtotal, Construction ........................................................................ 2,340 2,340

Subtotal, INEEL infrastructure ............................................................ 33,945 33,945

Total, Idaho facilities management ................................................... 65,560 78,160
135

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ................................................................................ 56,654 56,654

Nuclear facilities management:

EBR–II shutdown ............................................................................................................ ........................ ........................

Disposition of spent fuel and legacy materials ............................................................ ........................ ........................

Disposition technology activities ................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Total, Nuclear facilities management ....................................................................... ........................ ........................

Advanced fuel cycle initiative ................................................................................................ ........................ ........................

Program direction .................................................................................................................... 60,207 60,207

Subtotal, Nuclear Energy ........................................................................................... 390,601 437,422

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY ......................................................................................... 390,601 437,422

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense) ...................................................... 10,000 6,796

Program direction .................................................................................................................... 20,000 15,641

TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH ............................................................ 30,000 22,437

ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Technical information management program ........................................................................ ........................ ........................

Program direction .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ....................................................................... ........................ ........................

ENERGY SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE

Energy Supply Infrastructure .................................................................................................. ........................ 17,600

TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................... ........................ 17,600

Subtotal, Energy supply ............................................................................................. 864,808 936,360

General reduction .................................................................................................................... ........................ ¥13,000

Less security charge from reimbursable work ....................................................................... ¥3,003 ¥3,003

TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY ............................................................................................ 861,805 920,357

NON-DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION COMPLETION

Accelerated completions, 2006 ............................................................................................... 48,677 48,677

Accelerated completions, 2012 ............................................................................................... 119,750 119,750

Accelerated completions, 2035 ............................................................................................... 2,448 6,448

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................... 170,875 174,875

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ¥3,000

TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION COMPLETION ......................................... 170,875 171,875

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Site closure ............................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Site/project completion ........................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Post 2006 completion ............................................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Fast flux test facility (FFTF) ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Long-term stewardship ........................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Excess facilities ...................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................
136

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Subtotal, Non-Defense Environmental Management ................................................ ........................ ........................

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ............................................ ........................ ........................

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECOMTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND

Decontamination and decommissioning ................................................................................. 367,124 370,124

Uranium/thorium reimbursement ............................................................................................ 51,000 26,000

TOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT D&D FUND ............................................................... 418,124 396,124

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Community and regulatory support ........................................................................................ 1,034 1,034

Environmental cleanup projects ............................................................................................. 43,842 43,842

Non-closure environmental activities ..................................................................................... 160,445 160,445

Construction: 02–U–101 Depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion project, Paducah, KY and Portsmouth, OH .................................................................................... 86,800 96,800

TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES .............................................. 292,121 302,121

URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund:

Decontamination and decommissioning ........................................................................ ........................ ........................

Uranium/thorium reimbursement ................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Total, Uranium enrichment D&D fund ...................................................................... ........................ ........................

Other Uranium Activities:

Maintenance and pre-existing liabilities ....................................................................... ........................ ........................

02–U–101 Depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion project, Paducah, KY and

Portsmouth, OH ......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

96–U–201 DUF6 cylinder storage yard, Paducah, KY .................................................. ........................ ........................

Total, Other uranium activities ................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

TOTAL, URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION ............................... ........................ ........................

SCIENCE

High energy physics ................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................

Research & Technology .................................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Facility operations .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Proton accelerator-based physics .................................................................................. 399,494 399,494

Electron accelerator-based physics ............................................................................... 159,486 159,486

Non-accelerator physics ................................................................................................. 43,000 43,000

Theoretical physics ......................................................................................................... 42,256 42,256

Advanced technology R&D ............................................................................................. 81,242 81,242

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................... 725,478 725,478

Construction: 98–G–304 Neutrinos at the main injector, Fermilab ............................. 12,500 12,500

Total, High energy physics ........................................................................................ 737,978 737,978

Nuclear physics ....................................................................................................................... 389,430 389,430

Biological and environmental research .................................................................................. 499,535 534,035

Construction: 01–E–300 Laboratory for Comparative and Functional Genomics,

ORNL .......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................
137

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Total, Biological and environmental research ...................................................... 499,535 534,035

Basic energy sciences:

Research:

Materials sciences and engineering research ...................................................... 567,711 567,711

Chemical sciences, geosciences and energy biosciences .................................... 220,914 220,914

Engineering and geosciences ............................................................................... ........................ ........................

Energy biosciences ................................................................................................ ........................ ........................

Subtotal, Research ........................................................................................... 788,625 788,625

Construction:

04–R–313–Nanoscale science research center, the molecular foundry ............. 35,000 35,000

04–R–314 Nanoscale science research center, the center for integrated nontechnologies, SNL/LASL .................................................................................... 29,850 29,850

03–SC–002 Project engineering & design (PED) SLAC ....................................... 7,500 7,500

03–R–312 Center for nanophase materials sciences, ORNL .............................. 20,000 20,000

03–R–313 Center for Integrated Nenotechnology ................................................ ........................ ........................

02–SC–002 Project engineering and design (VL) ................................................ 3,000 3,000

99–E–334 Spallation neutron source (ORNL) ...................................................... 124,600 124,600

Subtotal, Construction ...................................................................................... 219,950 219,950

Total, Basic energy sciences ............................................................................ 1,008,575 1,008,575

Advanced scientific computing research ............................................................................... 173,490 183,490

Energy research analyses ....................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Science laboratories infrastructure:

Infrastructure support .................................................................................................... 1,520 1,520

Oak Ridge landlord ........................................................................................................ 5,079 10,079

Excess facilities disposal .............................................................................................. 5,055 5,055

Construction:

04–SC–001 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ............... 2,000 2,000

03–SC–001 Science laboratories infrastructure project engineering and design

(PED), various loc ............................................................................................. ........................ ........................

MEL–001 Multiprogram energy laboratory infrastructure projects, various locations .................................................................................................................. 29,936 29,936

02–SC–001 Multiprogram energy laboratories, project engineering design, various locations ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Subtotal, Construction ...................................................................................... 31,936 31,936

Total, Science laboratories infrastructure ........................................................ 43,590 48,590

Fusion energy sciences ........................................................................................................... 257,310 257,310

Safeguards and security ......................................................................................................... 48,127 51,887

Science workforce development .............................................................................................. 6,470 6,470

Science program direction:

Field offices .................................................................................................................... 83,802 80,102

Headquarters .................................................................................................................. 58,217 58,217

Science education .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Technical information management program ............................................................... 7,774 7,714

Energy research analyses .............................................................................................. 1,020 1,020

Total, Science program direction .............................................................................. 150,813 147,053

Subtotal, Science ....................................................................................................... 3,315,318 3,364,818

General reduction/use of prior year balances ........................................................................ ........................ ........................

Less security charge for reimbursable work .......................................................................... ¥4,383 ¥4,383

Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) .............................................................. ........................ ........................

TOTAL, SCIENCE ......................................................................................................... 3,310,935 3,360,435
138

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Repository program ................................................................................................................. 85,830 64,830

Program direction .................................................................................................................... 75,170 75,170

TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL ........................................................................... 161,000 140,000

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations:

Salaries and expenses:

Office of the Secretary .......................................................................................... 4,624 4,624

Board of Contract Appeals ................................................................................... 653 653

Chief information officer ...................................................................................... 42,214 35,214

Congressional and intergovernmental affairs ...................................................... 4,724 4,724

Economic impact and diversity ............................................................................ 4,701 4,701

General counsel ..................................................................................................... 22,879 22,879

International affairs .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation ................................................... 104,210 109,210

Policy office ........................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Policy and international affairs ............................................................................ 17,777 14,777

Public affairs ........................................................................................................ 4,465 4,465

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ...................................................................... 206,247 201,247

Program support:

Minority economic impact ..................................................................................... 1,400 1,192

Policy analysis and system studies ..................................................................... 1,000 397

Energy security and assurance ............................................................................ 2,000 2,000

Environmental policy studies ................................................................................ 1,500 569

Engineering and construction management reviews ........................................... ........................ ........................

Cybersecurity and secure communications .......................................................... 26,432 26,432

Corporate management information program ...................................................... 37,632 27,632

Subtotal, Program support ............................................................................... 69,964 58,222

Total, Administrative operations ...................................................................... 276,211 259,469

Cost of work for others ........................................................................................................... 75,095 75,095

Subtotal, Departmental Administration .................................................................... 351,306 334,564

Use of prior year balances and other adjustments ............................................................... ........................ ........................

Funding from other defense activities ................................................................................... ¥25,000 ¥25,000

Total, Departmental administration (gross) ............................................................. 326,306 309,564

Miscellaneous revenues .......................................................................................................... ¥146,668 ¥146,668

TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net) ......................................................... 179,638 162,896

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Office of Inspector General ..................................................................................................... 39,462 39,462

TOTAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ................................................................... 39,462 39,462

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Directed stockpile work:

Stockpile research and development ............................................................................. 433,150 433,150

Stockpile maintenance ................................................................................................... 405,746 415,746
139

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

Stockpile evaluation ....................................................................................................... 202,885 202,885

Dismantlement/disposal ................................................................................................ 37,722 37,722

Production support ......................................................................................................... 278,113 271,113

Field engineering, training and manuals ...................................................................... 7,170 7,170

Total, Directed stockpile work ................................................................................... 1,364,786 1,367,786

Campaigns:

Science campaigns:

Primary certification ............................................................................................. 65,849 64,849

Dynamic materials properties ............................................................................... 82,251 87,251

Advanced radiography ........................................................................................... 65,985 65,985

Secondary certification and nuclear systems margins ........................................ 55,463 54,463

Subtotal, Science campaigns ........................................................................... 269,548 272,548

Engineering campaigns:

Enhanced surety ............................................................................................................. 37,974 36,974

Weapons system engineering certification .................................................................... 28,238 27,238

Nuclear survivability ...................................................................................................... 23,977 22,977

Enhanced surveillance ................................................................................................... 94,781 92,781

Advanced design and production technologies ............................................................. 79,917 77,917

Engineering campaigns construction activities ............................................................ 4,500 4,500

Construction: 01–D–108 Microsystem and engineering science applications

(MESA), SNL, Albuquerque, NM ........................................................................ 61,800 105,000

Subtotal, Engineering campaigns & construction ...................................... 66,300 109,500

Subtotal, Engineering campaigns ............................................................... 331,187 367,387

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield ..................................................... 316,769 282,769

Construction: 96–D–111 National ignition facility, LLNL .................................... 150,000 150,000

Subtotal, Inertial confinement fusion .............................................................. 466,769 432,769

Advanced simulation and computing ............................................................................ 713,326 688,326

Construction:

01–D–101 Distributed information systems laboratory, SNL, Livermore,

CA ............................................................................................................ 12,300 12,300

00–D–103, Terascale simulation facility, LLNL, Livermore, CA .................. 25,000 25,000

00–D–105 Strategic computing complex, LANL, Los Alamos, NM ............. ........................ ........................

00–D–107 Joint computational engineering laboratory, SNL, Albuquerque,

NM ........................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Subtotal, Construction ........................................................................ 37,300 37,300

Subtotal, Advanced simulation and computing ................................. 750,626 725,626

Pit manufacturing and certification .............................................................................. 320,228 320,228

Readiness campaigns:

Stockpile readiness ............................................................................................... 55,158 55,158

High explosives manufacturing and weapons assembly/disassembly readiness .................................................................................................................. 29,649 27,649

Non-nuclear readiness .......................................................................................... 37,397 34,397

Materials readiness .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Tritium readiness .................................................................................................. 59,893 59,893

Construction: 98–D–125 Tritium extraction facility, SR ............................. 75,000 75,000

Subtotal, Tritium readiness ..................................................................... 134,893 134,893

Subtotal, Readiness campaigns ............................................................. 257,097 252,097

Total, Campaigns .................................................................................... 2,395,455 2,370,655
140

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Readiness in technical base and facilities:

Operations of facilities .................................................................................................. 972,773 1,091,773

Program readiness ......................................................................................................... 131,093 131,093

Special projects .............................................................................................................. 42,975 60,025

Material recycle and recovery ........................................................................................ 76,189 76,189

Containers ...................................................................................................................... 16,006 16,006

Storage ........................................................................................................................... 11,365 11,365

Nuclear weapons incident response .............................................................................. 89,694 89,694

Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and fac ....................................................... 1,340,095 1,476,145

Construction:

04–D–101 Test capabilities revitalization, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM ..................................................................................................... 36,450 36,450

04–D–102 Exterior communications infrastructure modernization, Sandia National Laboratories ........................................................................................... 20,000 20,000

04–D–103 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ................. 2,000 3,564

04–D–104 National security sciences building, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM ....................................................................................... 50,000 50,000

04–D–125 Chemistry and metallurgy facility replacement project, Los Alamos

National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM .............................................................. 20,500 20,500

04–D–126 Building 12–44 production cells upgrade, Pantex plant, Amarillo,

TX ...................................................................................................................... 8,780 8,780

04–D–127 Cleaning and loading modifications, Savannah River site, Aiken,

SC ..................................................................................................................... 2,750 2,750

04–D–128 TA–18 mission relocation project, Los Alamos Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM ........................................................................................................... 8,820 8,820

03–D–101 Sandia underground reactor facility SURF, SNL, Albuquerque, NM .. ........................ ........................

03–D–102 LANL Administration Building (LANL) ................................................. ........................ ........................

03–D–103 Project engineering and design various locations ............................. 10,570 10,570

03–D–121 Gas transfer capacity expansion, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City,

MO .................................................................................................................... 15,300 15,300

03–D–122 Purification facility, Y–12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN ............................... ........................ ........................

03–D–123 Special nuclear materials requalification, Pantex plant, Amarillo,

TX ...................................................................................................................... 7,628 7,628

02–D–103 Project engineering and design, various locations ............................ 10,950 10,950

02–D–105 Engineering technology complex upgrade, LLNL, CA ......................... 9,776 9,776

02–D–107 Electrical power systems safety communications and bus upgrades, NV ........................................................................................................ 2,887 2,887

01–D–103 Project engineering and design (PE&D), various locations ............... 1,600 1,600

01–D–107 Atlas relocation, Nevada test site, NV ............................................... ........................ ........................

01–D–108 Microsystems and engineering sciences applications complex

(MESA), SNL, Albuquerque, NM ........................................................................ ........................ ........................

01–D–124 HEU materials facility, Y–12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN .......................... 45,000 45,000

01–D–126 Weapons Evaluation Test Laboratory Pantex Plant, Amarillo, TX ...... 2,838 2,838

01–D–800 Sensitive compartmented information facility, LLNL, CA .................. ........................ ........................

99–D–103 Isotope sciences facilities, LLNL, Livermore, CA ................................ ........................ ........................

99–D–104 Protection of real property (roof reconstruction—Phase II), LLNL,

Livermore, CA ................................................................................................... 3,500 3,500

99–D–106 Model validation & system certification center, SNL, Albuquerque,

NM .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

99–D–108 Renovate existing roadways, Nevada Test Site, NV ........................... ........................ ........................

99–D–125 Replace boilers and controls, Kansas City plant, Kansas City,

MO .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

99–D–127 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Kansas City plant,

Kansas City, MO ............................................................................................... 12,475 12,475

99–D–128 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Pantex consolidation, Amarillo, TX .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................

98–D–123 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Tritium factory modernization and consolidation, Savannah River, SC ......................................... ........................ ........................

98–D–124 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Y–12 consolidation,

Oak Ridge, TN .................................................................................................. ........................ ........................

97–D–123 Structural upgrades, Kansas City plant, Kansas City, MO ............... ........................ ........................
141

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

96–D–102 Stockpile stewardship facilities revitalization (Phase VI), various

locations ........................................................................................................... 1,552 1,552

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................. 273,376 274,940

Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities ...................................... 1,613,471 1,751,085

Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program .......................................................... 261,404 261,404

Construction: 04–D–203 Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program

(FIRP), project engineering design (PED), various locations .................................... 3,719 3,719

Total, Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program .............................. 265,123 265,123

Secure transportation asset:

Operations and equipment ............................................................................................ 123,605 123,605

Program direction .......................................................................................................... 58,795 58,795

Use of prior year balances ............................................................................................ ........................ ¥20,000

Total, Secure transportation asset ............................................................................ 182,400 162,400

Safeguards and security ......................................................................................................... 582,067 582,067

Construction: 99–D–132 SMRI nuclear material safeguards and security upgrade

project (LANL), Los Alamos, NM ................................................................................ 3,683 3,683

Total, Safeguards and security ............................................................................ 585,750 585,750

Subtotal, Weapons activities ................................................................................ 6,406,985 6,502,799

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

General reduction .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Less security charge for reimbursable work .......................................................................... ¥28,985 ¥28,985

Subtotal, Weapons activities ..................................................................................... 6,378,000 6,473,814

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–117) ................................................................. ........................ ........................

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–206) ................................................................. ........................ ........................

Rescission (Public Law 107–206) .......................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) .............................................................. ........................ ........................

TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................... 6,378,000 6,473,814

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Nonproliferation and verification, R&D .................................................................................. 203,873 234,873

Construction: 00–D–192 Nonproliferation and international security center (NISC),

LANL ........................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Total, Nonproliferation and verification, R&D ...................................................... 203,873 234,873

Nonproliferation and international security ............................................................................ 101,734 121,734

Nonproliferation programs with Russia:

International materials protection, control, and cooperation ....................................... 226,000 226,000

Accelerated highly enriched uranium (HEU) disposition ............................................... ........................ ........................

Russian transition initiative .......................................................................................... 40,000 50,000

HEU transparency implementation ................................................................................ 18,000 18,000

International nuclear safety .......................................................................................... 14,083 ........................

Elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production program .................................... 50,000 50,000

Accelerated materials disposition ................................................................................. 30,000 30,000

Fissile materials disposition:

U.S. surplus materials disposition ....................................................................... 193,805 193,805

Russian surplus materials disposition ................................................................. 47,100 47,100

Construction:

01–D–407 Highly enriched uranium (HEU) blend down, Savannah River,

SC ............................................................................................................ ........................ ........................
142

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

99–D–141 Pit disassembly and conversion facility Savannah River, SC .. 13,600 13,600

99–D–143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah River, SC ....... 402,000 402,000

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................. 415,600 415,600

Subtotal, Fissile materials disposition ................................................... 656,505 656,505

Total, Nonproliferation programs with Russia ........................................ 1,034,588 1,030,505

Program direction .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Subtotal, Defense nuclear nonproliferation .............................................................. 1,340,195 1,387,112

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ¥46,917

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–117) ................................................................. ........................ ........................

Regular appropriations (Public Law 107–206) ...................................................................... ........................ ........................

Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) .............................................................. ........................ ........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ....................................................... 1,340,195 1,340,195

NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development ................................................................................................... 724,600 724,600

Construction:

03–D–201 Cleanroom technology facility, Bettis atomic power lab, West Mifflin, PA ............................................................................................................... 300 300

01–D–200 Major office replacement building, Schenectady, NY ........................ ........................ ........................

90–N–102 Expended core facility dry cell project, Naval Reactors Facility, ID .. 18,300 18,300

Subtotal, Construction ...................................................................................... 18,600 18,600

Total, Naval reactors development .................................................................. 743,200 743,200

Program direction .................................................................................................................... 25,200 25,200

TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS .......................................................................................... 768,400 768,400

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Office of the Administrator ..................................................................................................... 347,980 337,980

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ............................................................................................ ........................ ........................

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ................................................................... 347,980 337,980

TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION .......................................... 8,834,575 8,920,389

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT.

Site/project completion:

Operation and maintenance .......................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Construction:

03–D–414, Preliminary project engineering and design (PE&D), Aiken, SC ....... ........................ ........................

02–D–402 Intec cathodic protection system expansion project, INEEL, Idaho

Falls, ID ............................................................................................................ ........................ ........................

02–D–420 Plutonium packaging and stabilization, Savannah River ................. ........................ ........................

01–D–414 Preliminary project, engineering and design (PE&D), various locations .................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................

99–D–402 Tank farm support services, F&H area, Savannah River site, Aiken,

SC ..................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

99–D–404 Health physics instrumentation laboratory (INEL), ID ....................... ........................ ........................

98–D–453 Plutonium stabilization and handling system for PFP, Richland,

WA ..................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

96–D–471 CFC HVAC/chiller retrofit, Savannah River site, Aiken, SC ............... ........................ ........................
143

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

86–D–103 Decontamination and waste treatment facility (LLNL), Livermore,

CA ..................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Total, Site/project completion ...................................................................... ........................ ........................

Post 2006 completion:

Operation and maintenance .......................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Construction: 93–D–187 High-level waste removal from filled waste tanks, Savannah River, SC ............................................................................................................ ........................ ........................

Office of River Protection:

Operation and maintenance ................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Construction:

03–D–403 Immobilized high-level waste interim storage facility, Richland, WA .................................................................................................. ........................ ........................

01–D–416 Hanford waste treatment plant, Richland, WA ......................... ........................ ........................

97–D–402 Tank farm restoration and safe operations, Richland, WA ...... ........................ ........................

94–D–407 Initial tank retrieval systems, Richland, WA ............................ ........................ ........................

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................. ........................ ........................

Subtotal, Office of River Protection ........................................................ ........................ ........................

Total, Post 2006 completion ................................................................... ........................ ........................

Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution ......................................................................... ........................ ........................

Science and technology .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Excess facilities ...................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Multi-site activities ................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Safeguards and security ......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Program direction .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Subtotal, Defense environmental management ........................................................ ........................ ........................

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

General reduction .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Less security charge for reimbursable work .......................................................................... ........................ ........................

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–117) ................................................................. ........................ ........................

Rescission (Public Law 107–206) .......................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) .............................................................. ........................ ........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRON. RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT ................................. ........................ ........................

DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS

Site closure ............................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Safeguards and security ......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS ..................................................... ........................ ........................

DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION COMPLETION

Accelerated completions, 2006 ............................................................................................... 1,245,171 1,245,171

Accelerated completions, 2012 ............................................................................................... 1,512,554 1,505,954

Construction:

04–D–414 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ................ 23,500 23,500

04–D–423 Container surveillance capability in 235–F, Savannah River ........... 1,134 1,134

02–D–402 Intec cathodic protection system expansion project, INEEL, Idaho

Falls, ID ............................................................................................................ 1,126 1,126

01–D–416 Hanford waste treatment plnt, Richland WA ..................................... 690,000 690,000

Subtotal, Construction ...................................................................................... 715,760 715,760
144

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Total, Accelerated completions, 2012 .............................................................. 2,228,314 2,221,714

Accelerated completions, 2035 ............................................................................................... 1,892,884 1,899,384

Construction:

04–D–408 Glass waste storage building #2, Savannah River ........................... 20,259 20,259

03–D–403 Immobilized high-level waste interim storage facility, Richland,

WA ..................................................................................................................... 13,954 13,954

03–D–414 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ................. 51,500 51,500

Subtotal, Construction ...................................................................................... 85,713 85,713

Total, Accelerated completions, 2035 .............................................................. 1,978,597 1,985,097

Safeguards and security ......................................................................................................... 299,977 299,977

Technology development and deployment .............................................................................. 63,920 85,080

Subtotal, Defense site acceleration completion ....................................................... 5,815,979 5,837,039

Less security charge for reimbursable work .......................................................................... ¥1,344 ¥1,344

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ¥65,000

TOTAL, DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION COMPLETION ................................................. 5,814,635 5,770,695

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION

Privatization initiatives, various locations ............................................................................. ........................ ........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. PRIVATIZATION ....................................... ........................ ........................

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Community and regulatory support ........................................................................................ 61,337 63,837

Federal contribution to the uranium enrichment ................................................................... 452,000 452,000

Non-closure environmental activities ..................................................................................... 189,698 189,698

Program direction .................................................................................................................... 292,144 282,144

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ........................................................... 995,179 987,679

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ..................................................... 6,809,814 6,758,374

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Other national security programs:

Energy security and assurance:

Energy security ...................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Program direction ................................................................................................. 4,272 ........................

Subtotal, Energy security and assurance ........................................................ 4,272 ........................

Office of Security:

Nuclear safeguards and security ......................................................................... 104,713 104,713

Security investigations .......................................................................................... 54,554 54,554

Corporate management information program ...................................................... ........................ ........................

Cyber security and secure communications ......................................................... ........................ ........................

Program direction ................................................................................................. 52,490 52,490

Subtotal, Office of Security .............................................................................. 211,757 211,757

Intelligence ..................................................................................................................... 39,823 39,823

Counterintelligence ......................................................................................................... 45,955 45,955

Independent oversight and performance assurance ..................................................... 22,575 22,575

Advanced accelerator applications ................................................................................ ........................ ........................

Environment, safety and health (Defense) .................................................................... 87,276 88,351

Program direction—EH ......................................................................................... 20,410 17,410

Subtotal, Environment, safety & health (Defense) .......................................... 107,686 105,761
145

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

Worker and community transition ................................................................................. 12,321 ........................

Program direction—WT ........................................................................................ 2,679 ........................

Subtotal, Worker and community transition .................................................... 15,000 ........................

Office of Legacy Management ....................................................................................... 47,525 45,216

Program Direction ................................................................................................. ........................ 12,309

Subtotal, Office of Legacy Management .......................................................... 47,525 57,525

National Security programs administrative support ..................................................... 25,000 25,000

Office of hearings and appeals .................................................................................... 3,797 3,797

Subtotal, Other defense activities ............................................................................ 523,390 512,193

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ¥15,000

Less security charge for reimbursable work .......................................................................... ¥712 ¥712

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–117) ................................................................. ........................ ........................

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–206) ................................................................. ........................ ........................

Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) .............................................................. ........................ ........................

Less transfer of Energy Security and Assurance ................................................................... ........................ ¥4,272

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES .......................................................................... 522,678 492,209

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Defense nuclear waste disposal ............................................................................................. 430,000 285,000

CERRO GRANDE FIRE ACTIVITIES

Cerro Grande fire activities (rescission) ................................................................................ ¥75,000 ........................

TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES .......................................................... 16,522,067 16,455,972

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:

Purchase power and wheeling ....................................................................................... 15,000 34,400

Program direction .......................................................................................................... 5,100 5,100

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ...................................................................... 20,100 39,500

Offsetting collections .............................................................................................................. ........................ ¥19,400

Offsetting collections (Public Law 106–377) ......................................................................... ¥15,000 ¥15,000

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION ..................................................... 5,100 5,100

SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:

Operating expenses ........................................................................................................ 4,663 4,663

Purchase power and wheeling ....................................................................................... 288 2,800

Program direction .......................................................................................................... 19,205 19,205

Construction ................................................................................................................... 4,732 4,732

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ...................................................................... 28,888 31,400

Offsetting collections .............................................................................................................. ........................ ¥2,512

Offsetting collections (Public Law 106–377) ......................................................................... ¥288 ¥288

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................... 28,600 28,600
146

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:

Construction and rehabilitation ..................................................................................... 12,200 12,950

System operation and maintenance .............................................................................. 36,204 36,204

Purchase power and wheeling ....................................................................................... 20,000 186,100

Program direction .......................................................................................................... 126,588 126,588

Utah mitigation and conservation ................................................................................. ........................ 6,200

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ...................................................................... 194,992 368,042

Offsetting collections .............................................................................................................. ........................ ¥166,100

Offsetting collections (Public Law 98–381) ........................................................................... ¥3,992 ¥3,992

Offsetting collections (Public Law 106–377) ......................................................................... ¥20,000 ¥20,000

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION ..................................................... 171,000 177,950

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................... 2,640 2,640

TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS ......................................................... 207,340 214,290

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal energy regulatory commission ................................................................................... 199,400 199,400

FERC revenues ........................................................................................................................ ¥199,400 ¥199,400

Subtotal, Federal energy regulatory commission ...................................................... ........................ ........................

Defense Environmental Management Privatization (rescission) ............................................ ........................ ¥15,329

GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ................................................................. 22,163,367 22,148,203

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

The following list of general provisions are recommended by the

Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions which

have been included in previous Energy and Water Development

Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:

Language under section 301 prohibits the use of funds to award,

amend or modify a contract in a manner that deviates from the

Federal Acquisition Regulations unless on a case-by-case basis, a

waiver is granted by the Secretary of Energy. Similar language was

contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2003.

Language is included under section 302 which prohibits the use

of funds in this Act to develop or implement a workforce restructuring plan or enhanced severance payments and other benefits for

Federal employees of the Department of Energy under section 3161

of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1993,

Public Law 484. A similar provision was contained in the Energy

and Water Development Act, 2003.

Language is included under section 303 which prohibits the use

of funds for severance payments under the worker and community

transition program. A similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2003.
147

Language is included under section 304 which prohibits the use

of funds in this Act to initiate requests for proposals or expression

of interest for new programs which have not yet been presented to

Congress in the annual budget submission, and which have not yet

been approved and funded by Congress. A similar provision was

contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2003.

Language is included under section 305 which permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with

appropriation accounts established in this bill. A similar provision

was contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2003.

Language is included under section 306 that prohibits the use of

funds by the Bonneville Power Administration to enter into energy

efficiency contracts outside its service area.

Language is included under section 307 which provides that the

Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration

may authorize 2 percent of the amount allocated to a nuclear weapons production plant for the production plant to engage in research,

development, and demonstration activities with respect to the Engineering and manufacturing capabilities of the plant in order to

maintain and enhance such capabilities at the plant. A similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water Development Act,

2003.

Language is included in section 308 specifically authorizing intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 2004 Intelligence Authorization Act.

Language is included under section 309 which provides that none

of the funds in this Act may be used to dispose of transuranic

waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant which contains concentrations of plutonium in excess of 20 percent by weight for the aggregate of any material category on the date of enactment of this Act,

or generated after such date. A similar provision was contained in

the Energy and Water Development Act, 2003.

Language is included in section 310 that requires that waste

characterization at WIPP be limited to determining that the waste

is not ignitable, corrosive, or reactive. This confirmation will be

performed using radiography or visual examination of a representative subpopulation of the waste. The language directs the Department of Energy to seek a modification to the WIPP Hazardous

Waste Facility Permit to implement the provisions of this bill by

December 31, 2003.

Language is included in section 311 that allows the Department

to dispose of certain waste at Fernald, Ohio as ‘‘byproduct material’’ as defined by section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act.

Language is included in section 312 that requires the Secretary

to collect fees for Army Corps of Engineers hydropower operation

and maintenance funding under certain conditions.
(148)

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $70,827,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 33,145,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 71,145,000

The Committee recommendation for the Appalachian Regional Commission totals $71,145,000, $38,000,000 more than the request.

The Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] is a regional economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed of

the Governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a Federal cochairman who is appointed by the President.

Consistent with the administration’s budget request, the Committee recommendation does not include funding for ARC highways. Funding for ARC development highways is provided through

the Highway Trust Fund in fiscal years 1999 through 2004 consistent with provision contained in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.

The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and investment opportunities to the Appalachian region, and is encouraged

by the findings of a preliminary trade report determining that Appalachian firms might find significant trade and investment opportunities, particularly in the energy, high technology, and transportation sectors, in the Republic of Turkey and the surrounding region. In this regard, the Committee supports the AppalachianTurkish Trade Project [ATTP], a project to promote opportunities

to expand trade, encourage business interests, stimulate foreign

studies, and to build a lasting and mutually meaningful relationship between the Appalachian States and the Republic of Turkey,

as well as the neighboring regions, such as Greece. The Committee

commends the ARC for its leadership role in helping to implement

the mission of the ATTP. The Committee expects the ARC to continue to be a prominent ATTP sponsor. The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 to construct

a multi-purpose facility for Noxubee County, Mississippi. The Committee typically does not choose to direct funding to specific

projects within the jurisdiction of the Appalachian Regional Commission. However, the Committee notes the severe economic conditions in this poor rural area require immediate action, and believes

it appropriate to exercise the Congressional prerogative in this

case.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $18,876,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 19,559,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 19,559,000
149

An appropriation of $19,559,000, the amount of the request, is

recommended for fiscal year 2004.

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by the

Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The Board,

composed of five members appointed by the President, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy regarding

public health and safety issues at the Department’s defense nuclear

facilities. The Board is also responsible for investigating any event

or practice at a defense nuclear facility which has or may adversely

affect public health and safety. The Board is responsible for reviewing and evaluating the content and implementation of the standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy.

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $7,948,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 2,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,000,000 for

the Delta Regional Authority.

The Delta Regional Authority [DRA], authorized by Public Law

106–554, was established to assist an eight-state, 236-county region of demonstrated distress in obtaining transportation and basic

public infrastructure, skills training, and opportunities for economic development essential to strong local economies.

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $47,688,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 9,500,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 48,500,000

The Committee recommendation includes $48,500,000 for the

Denali Commission.

The Denali Commission is a regional economic development

agency established in 1998 for the intended purpose of delivering

basic utilities, including affordable power, and other essential infrastructure to the nation’s most geographically isolated communities. The Committee is encouraged by the progress of the Denali

Commission in assisting distressed communities throughout Alaska, and urges continued work among local and State agencies, nonprofit organizations and other participants in meeting the most

pressing infrastructure needs.

The Committee recommendation includes funding for the Eyak

power plant remediation project, relocation and modernization of

the Nome power plant, the Tok/Chistochina transmission line, the

Fire Island power line extension, and the CVEA co-generation

project.

Of the amounts provided to the Denali Commission, $5,000,000

is for community showers and washeteria in villages with homes

with no running water; $5,000,000 is for multi-purpose community

facilities including the Bering Straits Region; $10,000,000 is for

teacher housing in remote villages such as Savoogna, Allakaket,

Hughes, Huslia, Minto, Nulato, and Ruby where there is limited

housing available for teachers which, in some instances, forces
150

teachers to live in their schools; $10,000,000 is for facilities serving

Native elders and senior citizens to enable them to remain in their

home village; and $5,000,000 is for (1) the Rural Communications

service to provide broadcast facilities in communities with no television or radio station or no more than one television or radio station and (2) the Public Broadcasting Digital Distribution Network

to link rural broadcasting facilities together to improve economies

of scale, share programming, and reduce operating costs.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $577,806,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 618,800,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 618,800,000

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. ¥$520,087,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... ¥538,844,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥538,844,000

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $57,719,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 79,956,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 79,956,000

The Committee recommendation includes $79,956,000, the same

amount as the request, for the Commission.

Nuclear energy received a strong endorsement in the National

Energy Policy of May 2001 and serious industry interest has

emerged in building a new generation of nuclear power plants in

the United States to meet the Nation’s electricity demands. Three

nuclear utilities have announced intentions to submit early site

permit applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC].

Others are also expected to submit early site permit applications

over the next few years. Industry has proposed a new risk-informed

regulatory framework to license the next generation of plants. The

framework would build on the successful structure of the revised

reactor oversight process and be reactor design neutral. NRC

should evaluate the merits of this approach and establish the new

framework through rulemaking.

The Committee recommendation for the NRC is $618,800,000.

This amount is offset by estimated revenues of $538,844,000 resulting in a net appropriation of $79,956,000.

Fee Recovery.—Pursuant to the agreement reached in fiscal year

2001, the NRC is required to recover 92 percent of its budget authority, less the appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund, by assessing license and annual fees.

Reports.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to

provide monthly reports on the status of its licensing and other

regulatory activities. In addition, continued congressional oversight

is necessary to ensure the NRC streamlines its business processes
151

to improve regulatory efficiency while reducing unnecessary burden

on licensees.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $6,797,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 7,300,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,300,000

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. ¥$6,392,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... ¥6,716,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥6,716,000

This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector General of

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee recommends

an appropriation of $584,000 for fiscal year 2004.

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $3,179,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 3,177,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,177,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,177,000 for

the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The Nuclear Waste

Policy Amendments Act of 1987 directed the Board to evaluate the

technical and scientific validity of the activities of the Department

of Energy’s nuclear waste disposal program. The Board must report

its findings not less than two times a year to the Congress and the

Secretary of Energy.
(152)

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS

The following list of general provisions are recommended by the

Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions which

have been included in previous Energy and Water Development

Appropriations Acts:

Language is included under section 501 which provides that none

of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress, other than

to communicate to Members of Congress as described in section

1913 of Title 18, United States Code. A similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2000, Public

Law 106–60.

Language is included under section 502 which requires that

American-made equipment and goods be purchased to the greatest

extent practicable. A similar provision was contained in the Energy

and Water Development Act, 2000, Public Law 106–60.

Language is included under section 503 making a technical correction to the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to

the House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is

not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty

stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate

during that session.’’

The recommended appropriations in title III, Department of Energy, generally are subject to annual authorization. However, the

Congress has not enacted an annual Department of Energy authorization bill for several years, with the exception of the programs

funded within the atomic energy defense activities which are authorized in annual defense authorization acts. The authorization

for the atomic energy defense activities, contained in the National

Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004, is currently in conference with the House.

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

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 17, 2003, the

Committee ordered reported en bloc: S. 1427, an original bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2004; S. 1424, an original bill making

appropriations for Energy and Water Development for the fiscal
153

year ending September 30, 2004; and S. 1426, an original bill making appropriations for Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and

related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004;

each subject to amendment and each subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 29–0, a quorum being present. The vote

was as follows:

Yeas Nays

Chairman Stevens

Mr. Cochran

Mr. Specter

Mr. Domenici

Mr. Bond

Mr. McConnell

Mr. Burns

Mr. Shelby

Mr. Gregg

Mr. Bennett

Mr. Campbell

Mr. Craig

Mrs. Hutchison

Mr. DeWine

Mr. Brownback

Mr. Byrd

Mr. Inouye

Mr. Hollings

Mr. Leahy

Mr. Harkin

Ms. Mikulski

Mr. Reid

Mr. Kohl

Mrs. Murray

Mr. Dorgan

Mrs. Feinstein

Mr. Durbin

Mr. Johnson

Ms. Landrieu

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form

recommended by the committee.’’

In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law proposed to

be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing law to be omitted

is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
154

With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the Committee that

it is necessary to dispense with these requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate.

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC.

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED

[In millions of dollars]

Budget authority Outlays

Committee

allocation 1

Amount

of bill

Committee

allocation 1

Amount

of bill

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations

to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution

for 2004: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:

Discretionary ........................................................................ 27,313 27,313 27,359 1 27,310

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:

2004 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 18,112

2005 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 7,815

2006 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 1,342

2007 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 36

2008 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 17

Financial assistance to State and local governments for

2004 ......................................................................................... NA 119 NA 23

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.
155

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropria- tion Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003

Pappropriation Budget estimate

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers—Civil

General investigations .......................................................................................................................................................... 134,141 100,000 131,700 ¥2,441 ∂31,700Construction, general ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,744,598 1,350,000 1,538,000 ¥206,598 ∂188,000Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and

Tennessee ......................................................................................................................................................................... 342,334 280,000 329,000 ¥13,334 ∂49,000

Operation and maintenance, general .................................................................................................................................. 1,927,556 1,939,000 1,949,000 ∂21,444 ∂10,000

Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) ................................................................................................... 39,000 .......................... .......................... ¥39,000 ..........................

Regulatory program .............................................................................................................................................................. 138,096 144,000 139,000 ∂904 ¥5,000FUSRAP ................................................................................................................................................................................. 144,057 140,000 140,000 ¥4,057 ..........................Flood control and coastal emergencies ............................................................................................................................... 14,902 70,000 40,000 ∂25,098 ¥30,000General expenses .................................................................................................................................................................. 154,143 171,000 160,000 ∂5,857 ¥11,000

Total, title I, Department of Defense—Civil .......................................................................................................... 4,638,827 4,194,000 4,426,700 ¥212,127 ∂232,700

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Central Utah Project Completion Account

Central Utah project construction ........................................................................................................................................ 23,489 42,463 42,463 ∂18,974 ..........................Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation ................................................................................................ 11,186 .......................... .......................... ¥11,186 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 34,675 42,463 42,463 ∂7,788 ..........................

Program oversight and administration ................................................................................................................................ 1,317 1,728 1,728 ∂411 ..........................

Total, Central Utah project completion account .................................................................................................... 35,992 44,191 44,191 ∂8,199 ..........................
156

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropria- tion Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003

Pappropriation Budget estimate

Bureau of Reclamation

Water and related resources ................................................................................................................................................ 808,203 771,217 853,517 ∂45,314 ∂82,300

Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) ................................................................................................... 25,000 .......................... .......................... ¥25,000 ..........................

Loan program ....................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 200 200 ∂200 ..........................

(Limitation on direct loans) ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Central Valley project restoration fund ................................................................................................................................ 48,586 39,600 39,600 ¥8,986 ..........................California Bay-Delta restoration .......................................................................................................................................... .......................... 15,000 .......................... .......................... ¥15,000Working capital fund (rescission) ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... ¥4,525 ¥4,525 ¥4,525 ..........................Policy and administration .................................................................................................................................................... 54,513 56,525 56,525 ∂2,012 ..........................

Total, Bureau of Reclamation ................................................................................................................................. 936,302 878,017 945,317 ∂9,015 ∂67,300Total, title II, Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................... 972,294 922,208 989,508 ∂17,214 ∂67,300

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy supply ....................................................................................................................................................................... 696,858 861,805 920,357 ∂223,499 ∂58,552Non-defense site acceleration completion ........................................................................................................................... .......................... 170,875 171,875 ∂171,875 ∂1,000Non-defense environmental management ........................................................................................................................... 213,624 .......................... .......................... ¥213,624 ..........................Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund ................................................................................... .......................... 418,124 396,124 ∂396,124 ¥22,000Non-defense environmental services ................................................................................................................................... .......................... 292,121 302,121 ∂302,121 ∂10,000Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation ............................................................................................................... 453,409 .......................... .......................... ¥453,409 ..........................Science ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,261,328 3,310,935 3,360,435 ∂99,107 ∂49,500

Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) ................................................................................................... 11,000 .......................... .......................... ¥11,000 ..........................

Nuclear Waste Disposal ....................................................................................................................................................... 144,058 161,000 140,000 ¥4,058 ¥21,000Departmental administration ............................................................................................................................................... 205,280 326,306 309,564 ∂104,284 ¥16,742

Miscellaneous revenues ............................................................................................................................................... ¥120,000 ¥146,668 ¥146,668 ¥26,668 ..........................

Net appropriation ............................................................................................................................................... 85,280 179,638 162,896 ∂77,616 ¥16,742
157

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................ 37,426 39,462 39,462 ∂2,036 ..........................

Atomic Energy Defense Activities

National Nuclear Security Administration:

Weapons activities ...................................................................................................................................................... 5,914,409 6,378,000 6,473,814 ∂559,405 ∂95,814

Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) .......................................................................................... 67,000 .......................... .......................... ¥67,000 ..........................

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ................................................................................................................................ 1,020,860 1,340,195 1,340,195 ∂319,335 ..........................

Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) .......................................................................................... 148,000 .......................... .......................... ¥148,000 ..........................

Naval reactors ............................................................................................................................................................. 702,196 768,400 768,400 ∂66,204 ..........................Office of the Administrator ......................................................................................................................................... 325,102 347,980 337,980 ∂12,878 ¥10,000

Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration ...................................................................................... 8,177,567 8,834,575 8,920,389 ∂742,822 ∂85,814

Environmental and Other Defense Activities:

Defense environmental restoration and waste management ..................................................................................... 5,428,806 .......................... .......................... ¥5,428,806 ..........................

Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) .......................................................................................... 6,000 .......................... .......................... ¥6,000 ..........................

Defense facilities closure projects .............................................................................................................................. 1,130,915 .......................... .......................... ¥1,130,915 ..........................Defense site acceleration completion ......................................................................................................................... .......................... 5,814,635 5,770,695 ∂5,770,695 ¥43,940Defense environmental management privatization .................................................................................................... 157,369 .......................... .......................... ¥157,369 ..........................Defense environmental services .................................................................................................................................. .......................... 995,179 987,679 ∂987,679 ¥7,500

Subtotal, Defense environmental management ..................................................................................................... 6,723,090 6,809,814 6,758,374 ∂35,284 ¥51,440

Other defense activities ....................................................................................................................................................... 511,659 522,678 492,209 ¥19,450 ¥30,469

Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) ................................................................................................... 4,000 .......................... .......................... ¥4,000 ..........................

Defense nuclear waste disposal .......................................................................................................................................... 312,952 430,000 285,000 ¥27,952 ¥145,000Cerro Grande fire activities (rescission) .............................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥75,000 .......................... .......................... ∂75,000

Subtotal, Environmental and Other Defenses Activities ........................................................................................ 7,551,701 7,687,492 7,535,583 ¥16,118 ¥151,909Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................................................................................. 15,729,268 16,522,067 16,455,972 ∂726,704 ¥66,095

Power Marketing Administrations

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ...................................................................................... 4,505 5,100 5,100 ∂595 ..........................Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ..................................................................................... 27,200 28,600 28,600 ∂1,400 ..........................Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western Area Power Administration ........................................ 167,760 171,000 177,950 ∂10,190 ∂6,950Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ...................................................................................................... 2,716 2,640 2,640 ¥76 ..........................

Total, Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................................................. 202,181 207,340 214,290 ∂12,109 ∂6,950
158

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropria- tion Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003

Pappropriation Budget estimate

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 192,000 199,400 199,400 ∂7,400 ..........................Revenues applied ................................................................................................................................................................. ¥192,000 ¥199,400 ¥199,400 ¥7,400 ..........................

Subtotal, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Defense Environmental Management Privatization (rescission) .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥15,329 ¥15,329 ¥15,329

Total, title III, Department of Energy ..................................................................................................................... 20,834,432 22,163,367 22,148,203 ∂1,313,771 ¥15,164

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission ...................................................................................................................................... 70,827 33,145 71,145 ∂318 ∂38,000Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board .............................................................................................................................. 18,876 19,559 19,559 ∂683 ..........................Delta Regional Authority ...................................................................................................................................................... 7,948 2,000 7,000 ¥948 ∂5,000Denali Commission ............................................................................................................................................................... 47,688 9,500 48,500 ∂812 ∂39,000Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 577,806 618,800 618,800 ∂40,994 ..........................Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥520,087 ¥538,844 ¥538,844 ¥18,757 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 57,719 79,956 79,956 ∂22,237 ..........................

Office of Inspector General ......................................................................................................................................... 6,797 7,300 7,300 ∂503 ..........................Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥6,392 ¥6,716 ¥6,716 ¥324 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 405 584 584 ∂179 ..........................Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................................................................................................................... 58,124 80,540 80,540 ∂22,416 ..........................

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ............................................................................................................................... 3,179 3,177 3,177 ¥2 ..........................
159

Total, title IV, Independent agencies ..................................................................................................................... 206,642 147,921 229,921 ∂23,279 ∂82,000Grand total:.

New budget (obligational) authority .............................................................................................................. 26,652,195 27,427,496 27,794,332 ∂1,142,137 ∂366,836

Appropriations ....................................................................................................................................... (26,652,195) (27,507,021) (27,814,186) (∂1,161,991) (∂307,165)Rescissions ........................................................................................................................................... .......................... (¥79,525) (¥19,854) (¥19,854) (∂59,671)

Æ