73–752 PS

Calendar No. 79

107TH CONGRESS REPORT

1st Session " ! SENATE 107–39

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATION

BILL, 2002

JULY 13, 2001.—Ordered to be printed

Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2001

Mr. REID, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany S. 1171]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1171) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, favorably

thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2002

Budget estimates considered by Senate ................. $23,008,002,000

Amount of bill as reported to the Senate ............... 25,450,485,000

The bill as reported to the Senate—

Above the budget estimate, 2002 ..................... 2,442,483,000

Over enacted bill, 2001 ..................................... 1,404,173,000
(2)

CONTENTS

TITLE I

Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army:

Corps of Engineers—Civil: Page

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

Construction, general ................................................................................ 29

Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries ..................................... 49

Operation and maintenance, general ....................................................... 54

Regulatory program .................................................................................. 76

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ................................ 76

General expenses ....................................................................................... 77

TITLE II

Department of the Interior:

Central Utah project completion account ....................................................... 79

Bureau of Reclamation: Water and related resources ................................... 79

Bureau of Reclamation loan program account ............................................... 91

Central Valley project restoration fund .......................................................... 91

California bay-delta ecosystem restoration .................................................... 92

Policy and administrative expenses ................................................................ 93

TITLE III

Department of Energy:

Energy Supply .................................................................................................. 95

Renewable energy resources ..................................................................... 95

Nuclear energy programs ......................................................................... 99

Environment, safety, and health .............................................................. 102

Energy support activities .......................................................................... 102

Environmental management (nondefense) ..................................................... 102

Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation ......................................... 103

Nuclear waste fund .......................................................................................... 104

Science ............................................................................................................... 107

High energy physics .................................................................................. 107

Nuclear physics ......................................................................................... 108

Biological and environmental research ................................................... 108

Basic energy sciences ................................................................................ 108

Other energy research programs ............................................................. 109

Fusion energy sciences .............................................................................. 110

Departmental administration .......................................................................... 110

Miscellaneous revenues ............................................................................ 110

Inspector General ............................................................................................. 110

Atomic energy defense activities:

National Nuclear Security Administration:

Weapon activities ............................................................................... 111

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ...................................................... 119

Naval reactors .................................................................................... 122

Office of the Administrator ............................................................... 122

Other defense related activities:

Defense environmental restoration and waste management ......... 122

Defense facilities closure projects ..................................................... 127

Defense environmental management privatization ........................ 128

Other defense activities ..................................................................... 128

Defense nuclear waste disposal ........................................................ 133
Page

3

Department of Energy—Continued

Power marketing administrations:

Operations and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ..... 135

Operations and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration .... 135

Construction, rehabilitation, operations and maintenance, Western

Area Power Administration .................................................................. 135

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................................ 136

General provisions ............................................................................................ 157

TITLE IV

Independent Agencies:

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................................. 159

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................................ 159

Delta Regional Authority ................................................................................. 160

Denali Commission ........................................................................................... 160

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ..................................................................... 160

Office of Inspector General ....................................................................... 162

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ......................................................... 162

TITLE V

General provisions ................................................................................................... 163

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 164

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 164

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 165

Budgetary impact statement .................................................................................. 167

Additional views of Senator Larry E. Craig .......................................................... 168
(4)

PURPOSE

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

year 2002 beginning October 1, 2001, and ending September 30,

2002, 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 2002 budget estimates for the bill total

$23,008,002,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The recommendation of the Committee totals $25,450,485,000. This is

$2,442,483,000 above the budget estimates and $1,404,173,000 over

the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.

The bill, as recommended, is in compliance with the subcommittee allocation under section 302(b)(1) of the Budget Act.

BILL HIGHLIGHTS

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

The amount recommended in the bill includes $15,088,547,000

for atomic energy defense activities. Major programs and activities

include:

Weapon activities ................................................................................... $6,062,891,000

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ......................................................... 880,500,000

Naval reactors ........................................................................................ 688,045,000

Other defense activities ......................................................................... 564,168,000

Defense waste management and environmental restoration ............. 5,389,868,000

Defense facilities closure projects ......................................................... 1,080,538,000

Defense environmental privatization ................................................... 157,537,000

ENERGY SUPPLY

The bill recommended by the Committee provides a total of

$741,139,000 for energy research programs including:

Renewable energy resources ................................................................. $435,600,000

Nuclear energy ....................................................................................... 264,069,000
5

NONDEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

An appropriation of $228,553,000 is recommended for nondefense

environmental management activities of the Department of Energy.

SCIENCE

The Committee recommendation also provides a net appropria- tion of $3,268,816,000 for general science and research activities in

life sciences, high energy physics, and nuclear physics. Major programs are:

High energy physics research ............................................................... $725,100,000

Nuclear physics ...................................................................................... 373,000,000

Basic energy sciences ............................................................................ 1,040,705,000

Biological and environmental R&D ...................................................... 490,000,000

Fusion energy sciences .......................................................................... 248,495,000

Other energy research ........................................................................... 391,516,000

REGULATORY AND OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Also recommended in the bill is $192,010,000 for various regulatory and independent agencies of the Federal Government. Major

programs include:

Appalachian Regional Commission ...................................................... $66,290,000

Delta Regional Authority ...................................................................... 20,000,000

Denali Commission ................................................................................ 40,000,000

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ............................................. 181,155,000

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .......................................................... 506,900,000

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Corps of Engineers:

General Investigations ................................................................... $152,402,000

Construction, General .................................................................... 1,570,798,000

Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries ........................ 328,011,000

Operation and Maintenance, General ........................................... 1,833,263,000

Regulatory Program ....................................................................... 128,000,000

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ..................... 140,000,000

General Expenses ........................................................................... 153,000,000

Central Utah Project Completion Account .......................................... 36,228,000

Bureau of Reclamation:

Water and Related resources ......................................................... 732,496,000

Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account ........................... 7,495,000

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ..................................... 55,039,000

Policy and Administration ............................................................. 52,968,000

The Committee has recommended appropriations totaling ap- proximately $5,050,000,000 for Federal water resource development

programs. This includes projects and related activities of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers—Civil and the Bureau of Reclamation of

the Department of the Interior. The Federal water resource development program provides lasting benefits to the Nation in the area

of flood control, municipal and industrial water supply, irrigation

of agricultural lands, water conservation, commercial navigation,

hydroelectric power, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement.

Water is our Nation’s most precious and valuable resource. It is

evident that water supply in the near future will be as important,

if not more so, than energy. There is only so much water available.

Water cannot be manufactured. Our Nation cannot survive without

water, and economic prosperity cannot occur without a plentiful

supply.
6

While many areas of the country suffer from severe shortages of

water, others suffer from the other extreme—an excess of water

which threatens both rural and urban areas with floods. Because

water is a national asset, and because the availability and control

of water affect and benefit all States and jurisdictions, the Federal

Government has historically assumed much of the responsibility for

financing of water resource development.

The existing national water resource infrastructure in America is

an impressive system of dams, locks, harbors, canals, irrigation

systems, reservoirs, and recreation sites with a central purpose—

to serve the public’s needs.

Our waterways and harbors are an essential part of our national

transportation system—providing clean, efficient, and economical

transportation of fuels for energy generation and agricultural production, and making possible residential and industrial development to provide homes and jobs for the American people.

Reservoir projects provide hydroelectric power production and

downstream flood protection, make available recreational opportunities for thousands of urban residents, enhance fish and wildlife

habitat, and provide our communities and industries with abundant and clean water supplies which are essential not only to life

itself, but also to help maintain a high standard of living for the

American people.

When projects are completed, they make enormous contributions

to America. The benefits derived from completed projects, in many

instances, vastly exceed those contemplated during project development. Flood control projects prevent an average $22,000,000,000

per year in damages, and U.S. ports and harbors annually handle

about $600,000,000,000 in international cargo generating over

$14,500,000,000 in tax revenues, nearly $515,000,000,000 in personal income, contributing $783,000,000,000 to the Nation’s gross

domestic product, and $1,600,000,000,000 in business sales.

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the

Committee on Appropriations held four sessions in connection with

the fiscal year 2002 appropriation bill. Witnesses included officials

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

In addition, the subcommittee received numerous statements and

letters from Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, Governors, State and local officials and representatives, and

hundreds of private citizens of all walks of life throughout the

United States. Information, both for and against many items, was

presented to the subcommittee. The recommendations for fiscal

year 2002 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 12, 2001, recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the Senate.
(7)

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

In the past year, the Corps has received a considerable amount

of criticism over the conduct of its studies. Whistleblower allegations and the findings of the Army’s Inspector General, regarding

the Corps’ conduct of an ongoing study of the need to expand the

navigation capacity of the upper Mississippi River and the Illinois

Waterway, have been widely cited in the press. The Committee

notes that the Inspector General found no criminal violations by

any member of the Corps.

The Committee is satisfied that the Corps has responded professionally to the issues raised and is taking the concerns with all due

seriousness. The Committee believes that the Corps is a unique national resource for managing the competing concerns involved in

the development and protection of national water resources and infrastructure and has faith in the ultimate Corps findings and recommendations arising from the various studies that the Corps is

authorized and directed to undertake. The Committee commends

the Corps for its responsiveness to the American people in developing needed flood control and navigation infrastructure while

keeping a delicate balance with the concerns of the environment.

The Committee 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

$38,000,000,000 to $40,000,000,000 and ignores an accelerating

critical maintenance backlog which nearly doubles from

$450,000,000 to $864,000,000. This maintenance backlog will soon

become entirely unmanageable under the weight of an aging and

crumbling inventory.

Even though the Administration has mounted an initiative to reduce the recreation infrastructure backlog for the Department of

the Interior, the Corps’ water recreation program, the Nation’s

largest, is left to deteriorate. Proposing no new study or 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 those

seeking to capitalize on the recent controversy surrounding the

Corps. 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 $4,305,474,000. This is $405,474,000 above the budget request
8

for fiscal year 2002, but is $235,591,000 below the appropriation for

the current year.

BUDGET CONSTRAINTS

The budget allocation for non-Defense discretionary programs

contained in the Energy and Water Development bill for fiscal year

2002 are constrained below what is necessary for a robust, balanced national water resources program. Faced with these budget

realities, the Committee has had to make tough decisions and

choices in the development of the Corps of Engineers’ budget request for fiscal year 2002. However, while the budget resources for

non-Defense discretionary programs have remained flat or have declined, the number of requests of the Committee continue to increase. This year the Committee received nearly 1,000 requests for

funding for water projects within the Corps’ Civil Works program.

Many supported the funding level in the budget request, but a majority of the requests made of the Committee sought increases over

the budgeted amounts or new items not contained in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2002.

To compound pressures on the budget this year, the Committee

was faced with the recently enacted Water Resources Development

Act of 1999 and 2000. Both acts authorized the construction of

many new projects, extended credit and reimbursement authorities,

and significantly expanded new missions and responsibilities of the

Corps of Engineers into areas which historically have been a State

and local responsibility. The best example of this is the environmental and other infrastructure authorities which the Committee

estimates will cost over $1,200,000,000. It should also be pointed

out that the backlog of authorized but unfunded projects is in excess of $40,000,000,000.

BASIS OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Specifically, in development of the fiscal year 2002 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.

Finally, the Committee received numerous requests to include

project authorizations in the energy and water development appropriations bill. In an effort to support and honor congressional authorizing committees jurisdiction, the Committee has not included

new project authorizations.

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $160,584,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 130,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 152,402,000
9

This appropriation includes funds for surveys, preconstruction

engineering and design, data collection, inter-agency coordination

and research activities to determine the need, engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the environmental and social

suitability of solutions to water and related land resource problems.

The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance

are shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Budget estimate Committee reco

Investigations Planning Investigations 

ALABAMA

(N) ALABAMA RIVER BELOW CLAIBORNE LOCK AND DAM, AL ....................................................................................... 2,617 890 300 .................... 300 (SP) BALDWIN COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION, AL ............................................................................................................. 1,100 100 100 .................... 100 (FDP) BALDWIN COUNTY WATERSHEDS, AL ........................................................................................................................ 750 234 50 .................... 50 (N) BAYOU LA BATRE, AL ............................................................................................................................................... 600 100 50 .................... 50 (N) BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ....................................................................................................... 15,030 642 300 .................... .................... (FDP) BREWTON AND EAST BREWTON, AL ......................................................................................................................... 750 100 50 .................... 50 (SPE) CAHABA RIVER WATERSHED, AL .............................................................................................................................. 1,373 310 160 .................... 160 (N) DOG RIVER, AL ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,651 1,106 250 .................... 250 (SPE) VILLAGE CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM WATERSHED) ......................................................................... 1,463 680 250 .................... 250 

ALASKA

(N) AKUTAN HARBOR, AK ................................................................................................................................................ 9,600 .................... .................... 100 .................... 

ANIAK HARBOR, AK ................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(N) ANCHOR POINT HARBOR, AK .................................................................................................................................... 870 270 50 .................... 50 (N) ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK ..................................................................................................................... 1,188 290 100 .................... 500 (FDP) BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, AK .............................................................................................. 1,140 212 100 .................... 250 (E) CHANDALAR RIVER WATERSHED, VENETIE INDIAN, AK ............................................................................................ 550 137 50 .................... 50 (E) CHENA RIVER WATERSHED, AK ................................................................................................................................ 786 486 100 .................... 100 (N) CRAIG HARBOR, AK .................................................................................................................................................. 600 75 50 .................... 50 (N) DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................................. 3,000 2,115 200 .................... 500 (N) DOUGLAS HARBOR EXPANSION, AK .......................................................................................................................... 4,000 37 .................... 100 .................... (N) FALSE PASS HARBOR, AK ......................................................................................................................................... 4,800 187 .................... 100 .................... 

FIRE ISLAND CAUSEWAY, AK .................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(N) HAINES HARBOR, AK ................................................................................................................................................ 315 150 150 .................... 165 (E) HARDING LAKE WATERSHED, AK .............................................................................................................................. 350 50 50 .................... 100 

KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION, AK ............................................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... 500 

(N) KETCHIKAN HARBOR, AK .......................................................................................................................................... 560 150 50 .................... 100 (N) KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, AK ...................................................................................................................... 512 112 50 .................... 100 (N) LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK .................................................................................................................................. 900 56 50 .................... 150 (N) MEKORYUK HARBOR, AK .......................................................................................................................................... 600 75 50 .................... 100 

MATANUSKA EROSION CONTROL, AK ........................................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 
(N) PERRYVILLE HARBOR, AK ......................................................................................................................................... 800 60 40 .................... 150 (N) PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK ......................................................................................................................................... 435 215 96 .................... 150 (N) QUINHAGAK HARBOR, AK .......................................................................................................................................... 290 17 50 .................... 50 (N) SAINT GEORGE NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, AK .................................................................................................... 650 150 50 .................... 150 (E) SHIP CREEK WATERSHED, AK ................................................................................................................................... 504 190 50 .................... 50 (N) SITKA HARBOR, AK ................................................................................................................................................... 900 75 50 .................... 200 (N) SKAGWAY HARBOR MODIFICATION, AK ..................................................................................................................... 500 161 138 .................... 138 

SKAGWAY RIVER FLOOD CONTROL, AK ..................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(N) UNALAKLEET HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................................................................ 400 55 50 .................... 50 (N) UNALASKA HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................................................ 9,000 .................... .................... 226 .................... (N) VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK ............................................................................................................................. 17,550 .................... .................... 150 .................... (N) WHITTIER BREAKWATER, AK ..................................................................................................................................... 527 127 150 .................... 150 

AMERICAN SAMOA

(N) TUTUILA HARBOR, AS ............................................................................................................................................... 430 206 124 .................... 124 

ARIZONA

COLONIAS ALONG THE US-MEXICO BORDER, AZ ..................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

(FDP) GILA RIVER, NORTHEAST PHOENIX DRAINAGE AREA, AZ ......................................................................................... 1,985 1,842 143 .................... 143 (SPE) LITTLE COLORADO RIVER, AZ ................................................................................................................................... 1,724 249 100 .................... 100 (E) PIMA COUNTY, AZ ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,125 246 400 .................... 400 (E) RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ ........................................................................................................................... 950 150 200 .................... 200 (FC) RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ ................................................................................................................................... 18,200 281 .................... 230 .................... (E) RIO SALADO ESTE, AZ .............................................................................................................................................. 800 110 100 .................... 100 (E) RIO SALADO OESTE, SALT RIVER, AZ ....................................................................................................................... 800 375 300 .................... 300 (FDP) SANTA CRUZ RIVER, GRANT RD TO FT LOWELL RD, AZ .......................................................................................... 1,350 390 100 .................... 100 (E) SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, AZ .................................................................................................. 1,115 516 300 .................... 300 (E) TRES RIOS, AZ .......................................................................................................................................................... 62,800 543 .................... 270 .................... (FC) TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ ................................................................................................................................... 19,400 1,199 .................... 208 .................... (E) VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT, AZ ................................................................................ 2,100 75 100 .................... 100 

ARKANSAS

(FC) ARKANSAS RIVER LEVEES, AR .................................................................................................................................. 10,000 1,135 .................... 187 .................... (N) ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, AR AND OK ................................................................................................. 5,830 1,841 1,200 .................... 1,200 (FC) MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR ............................................................................................................................... 19,500 .................... .................... 200 .................... (FC) NORTH LITTLE ROCK, DARK HOLLOW, AR ................................................................................................................ 19,500 625 .................... 400 .................... 

PINE MOUNTAIN DAM, AR ......................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... RED RIVER WATERWAY, AR, LA, OK, TX ................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(N) RED RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS, AR ................................................................................. 3,355 2,457 450 .................... 500 (COM) WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR AND MO ................................................................................................ 2,000 375 581 .................... 581 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Budget estimate Committee reco

Investigations Planning Investigations 

(E) WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS, AR ......................................................................................................................... 850 637 213 .................... 363 

WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION, AR ................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 169 

CALIFORNIA

(E) ALISO CREEK MAINSTEM, CA ................................................................................................................................... 1,100 200 50 .................... 200 (FC) AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA .......................................................................................................................... 329,300 21,650 .................... 2,000 .................... (FC) ARROYO PASAJERO, CA ............................................................................................................................................ 159,600 .................... .................... 20 .................... (FDP) ARROYO PASAJERO, CA ............................................................................................................................................ 5,565 5,247 318 .................... 480 

ARROYO SECO WATERSHED, CA ............................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

(E) BOLINAS LAGOON ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA ................................................................................................... 11,250 50 .................... 300 .................... 

COYOTE DAM, CA ..................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CA ................................................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA .................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

(FDP) CITY OF WESTMINSTER FLOOD CONTROL DRAINAGE STUDY, CA ............................................................................. 1,100 75 100 .................... .................... 

COAST OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA ................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... 400 GRAYSON AND MURDERER’S CREEK, WALNUT CREEK, CA ...................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 HUNTINGTON BEACH COASTAL BLUFF EROSION, CA ................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

(E) LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA ................................................................................................................................... 1,975 350 200 .................... 200 (FC) LLAGAS CREEK, CA ................................................................................................................................................... 19,000 990 .................... 250 .................... (SPE) LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA ...................................................................................................................................... 1,100 200 200 .................... 350 (N) LOS ANGELES HARBOR MAIN CHANNEL DEEPENING, CA ......................................................................................... 60,000 750 .................... 600 .................... (SPE) LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERCOURSE IMPROVEMENT, CA ........................................................................................ 950 850 100 .................... 100 (FC) LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA ..................................................................................................................................... 10,000 68 .................... 150 .................... (E) MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA .............................................................................................................................. 1,150 304 200 .................... 200 (FDP) MARIN COUNTY SHORELINE, SAN CLEMENTE CREEK, CA ........................................................................................ 1,350 1,275 50 .................... 250 (N) MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA CREEK, CA ........................................................................................................... 3,075 2,045 169 .................... 400 (SPE) MATILIJA DAM, CA .................................................................................................................................................... 2,000 200 400 .................... 523 (E) MIDDLE CREEK, CA .................................................................................................................................................. 16,250 .................... .................... 300 .................... (SPE) MOJAVE RIVER FORKS DAM, CA ............................................................................................................................... 1,135 285 200 .................... 200 (E) MORRO BAY ESTUARY, CA ....................................................................................................................................... 900 300 150 .................... 300 (E) MUGU LAGOON, CA ................................................................................................................................................... 700 450 250 .................... 250 (FC) MURRIETA CREEK, CA .............................................................................................................................................. 25,600 748 .................... 250 .................... (FDP) N CA STREAMS, DRY CREEK, MIDDLETOWN, CA ...................................................................................................... 410 157 150 .................... 150 
(FDP) N CA STREAMS, LOWER CACHE CRK, YOLO CNTY, WOODLAND AND V ................................................................... 1,961 1,393 568 .................... 568 (E) N CA STREAMS, LOWER SACRAMENTO RVR RIPARIAN REVEGETATI ........................................................................ 1,970 1,022 100 .................... 100 (E) NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA ......................................................................................................... 1,777 1,202 300 .................... 300 (E) NAPA VALLEY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA ......................................................................................................... 2,850 200 250 .................... 250 (E) NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA ..................................................................................................................................... 21,109 257 .................... 280 .................... 

NEWPORT BAY (LA

—3 SITE DESIGNATION STUDY), CA ........................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 300 

(E) NEWPORT BAY/SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED, CA ................................................................................................ 1,220 618 300 .................... 300 (E) ORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA ..................................................................................................... 1,200 184 200 .................... 200 

ORANGE COUNTY COAST BEACH EROSION, CA ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... 400 ORANGE COUNTY SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, CA ...................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 139 

(FC) PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE, CA ....................................................................................................................... 9,300 3,469 .................... 750 .................... (E) PAJARO RIVER BASIN STUDY, CA ............................................................................................................................. 1,100 100 50 .................... 50 

PENINSULA BEACH CITY OF LONG BEACH), CA ....................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(E) PINE FLAT DAM, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION, ................................................................................. 22,000 .................... .................... 400 .................... 

PORT OF STOCKTON, CA ........................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 200 

(FDP) POSO CREEK, CA ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,450 250 200 .................... 200 (FC) RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA .................................................................................................................................... 17,836 .................... .................... 100 .................... 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION/CONJUNCTIVE USE PROJECT, CA ................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, CA .................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,000 ROCK CREEK-KEEFER SLOUGH, CA .......................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

(E) RUSSIAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA ...................................................................................................... 3,677 662 300 .................... 300 (SPE) SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CA ................................................................................................................... 5,940 5,354 300 .................... 300 (E) SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN STUDY, ......................................................................... 19,500 13,396 4,479 .................... 5,000 (FDP) SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA ................................................................................................................................ 1,125 175 200 .................... 200 (SP) SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CA ............................................................................................................................... 950 250 100 .................... 100 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, CA ................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 500 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHORELINE, CA ....................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,000 

(N) SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CA ......................................................................................................................................... 1,990 821 300 .................... 300 

SAN GABRIEL RIVER TO NEWPORT BAY, CA ............................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

(FDP) SAN JACINTO RIVER, CA ........................................................................................................................................... 1,000 110 300 .................... 300 (FC) SAN JOAQUIN R BASIN, STOCKTON METRO AREA, FARMINGTON D ......................................................................... 9,750 .................... .................... 200 .................... (E) SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, CONSUMNES AND MOKELUMNE RIVERS, .................................................................... 1,175 150 350 .................... 350 (FDP) SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, FRAZIER CREEK, CA .................................................................................................... 1,600 100 25 .................... 100 (FC) SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA, C ........................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 100 .................... (FDP) SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA, C ........................................................................... 1,611 1,561 50 .................... 50 (FDP) SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, TUOLUMNE RIVER, CA ................................................................................................. 1,600 125 200 .................... 350 (FDP) SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, CA .................................................................................. 847 687 160 .................... 300 (FDP) SAN JUAN CREEK, SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY, CA ..................................................................................................... 1,100 50 100 .................... 100 (FDP) SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA .............................................................................................................................................. 875 150 100 .................... 100 (E) SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA ............................................................................................................................ 2,800 938 300 .................... 300 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Budget estimate Committee reco

Investigations Planning Investigations 

SANTA ANA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BIG BEAR LAKE, CA .................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... SANTA BARBARA AND VENTURA COUNTY SHORELINE, CA ...................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(E) SANTA ROSA CREEK WATERSHED, CA ...................................................................................................................... 1,216 656 300 .................... 300 (E) SANTA YNEZ RIVER, CA ............................................................................................................................................ 600 75 100 .................... 100 

SOLONO BEACH-ENCINITAS, CA ............................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 500 

(E) SONOMA CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CA ................................................................................................................... 2,350 300 300 .................... .................... (FC) SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA .......................................................................................................... 46,100 2,813 .................... 100 .................... (FDP) STRONG AND CHICKEN RANCH SLOUGHS, CA ......................................................................................................... 467 392 75 .................... 75 (FDP) SUTTER COUNTY, CA ................................................................................................................................................ 1,308 307 300 .................... 300 (SPE) TIJUANA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA ................................................................................................ 1,250 250 200 .................... 200 (FC) TULE RIVER, CA ........................................................................................................................................................ 14,000 355 .................... 400 .................... (FC) UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA ................................................................................................................................. 55,000 1,666 .................... 300 .................... (FDP) UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA ................................................................................................................................ 1,845 986 300 .................... 400 (E) UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSHED, CA ............................................................................................................. 3,400 160 200 .................... 200 (N) VENTURA HARBOR SAND BYPASS, CA ..................................................................................................................... 1,300 497 250 .................... 400 

WESTMINSTER, CA .................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 300 

(FC) WESTSIDE TRIBUTARIES TO YOLO BYPASS, CA ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... 50 .................... (FDP) WHITE RIVER AND DEER CREEK, CA ........................................................................................................................ 650 50 25 .................... 25 

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

(FC) YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA ............................................................................................................................................ 19,500 570 .................... 780 .................... 

COLORADO

(RCP) CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS, CO .......................................................................... 1,350 773 250 .................... 250 

FOUNTAIN CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CO ................................................................................................................. 2,100 100 .................... .................... 175 

(E) ZUNI AND SUN VALLEY REACHES, SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, CO ................................................................................. 719 162 200 .................... 400 

COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.

(N) ROTA HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI ..................................................................................................................... 800 .................... 25 .................... 25 (N) TINIAN HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI ................................................................................................................... 800 .................... 25 .................... 25 

DELAWARE

CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHEAD, DE ........................................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 
DELAWARE

COAST FROM CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND ............................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

FLORIDA

(FDP) BISCAYNE BAY, FL .................................................................................................................................................... 3,420 1,360 240 .................... 240 

EGMONT KEY SHORELINE, FL ................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FL ............................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(FDP) HILLSBOROUGH RIVER, FL ........................................................................................................................................ 1,443 185 300 .................... 375 (N) LAKE WORTH INLET, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL ....................................................................................................... 600 146 100 .................... 100 (N) PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL .............................................................................................................................. 6,500 .................... .................... 300 .................... (FDP) WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER, FL ..................................................................................................................................... 1,565 185 300 .................... 300 

GEORGIA

(E) ALLATOONA LAKE, GA ............................................................................................................................................... 926 358 300 .................... 300 (E) ARABIA MOUNTAIN, GA ............................................................................................................................................. 1,100 75 60 .................... 60 (FDP) AUGUSTA, GA ............................................................................................................................................................ 1,700 793 252 .................... 252 (E) INDIAN, SUGAR, ENTRENCHMENT AND FEDERAL PRISON CREEKS, ......................................................................... 1,130 130 100 .................... 100 (E) LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA ...................................................................................................... 1,100 100 100 .................... 100 (FDP) LUBBUB CREEK, GA ................................................................................................................................................. 600 100 50 .................... 50 (E) METRO ATLANTA WATERSHED, GA ............................................................................................................................ 2,230 2,005 175 .................... 175 

NEW SAVANNAH BLUFF LOCK AND DAM, GA ............................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

(E) SAVANNAH HARBOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, GA ............................................................................................... 1,690 855 350 .................... 350 (N) SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA ........................................................................................................................ 144,302 415 .................... 400 .................... (COM) SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, GA AND SC ......................................................................................... 2,548 925 230 .................... 230 (E) UTOY, SANDY AND PROCTOR CREEKS, GA ............................................................................................................... 1,100 100 150 .................... 150 

HAWAII

(E) ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI ....................................................................................................................................... 925 230 350 .................... 350 (N) BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI ................................................................................................ 23,200 130 .................... 100 .................... (N) HONOLULU HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, OAHU, HI ...................................................................................................... 750 568 101 .................... 101 (E) KAHUKU, HI ............................................................................................................................................................... 500 100 50 .................... 50 (N) KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, HAWAII, HI ................................................................................ 900 130 225 .................... 225 (SP) KIHEI AREA EROSION, HI .......................................................................................................................................... 600 100 50 .................... 160 

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

(SP) WAIKIKI EROSION CONTROL, HI ................................................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... 50 .................... 

WAILUPE STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, OAHU, HI ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

IDAHO

(FDP) BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID ........................................................................................................................................... 800 100 50 .................... 50 (FDP) GOOSE CREEK, OAKLEY, ID ...................................................................................................................................... 800 75 150 .................... 150 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Budget estimate Committee reco

Investigations Planning Investigations 

(FDP) KOOTENAI RIVER AT BONNERS FERRY, ID ............................................................................................................... 759 259 50 .................... 50 (FDP) LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, ID .......................................................................................................................... 473 217 256 .................... 256 (FDP) PAYETTE AND SNAKE RIVER, ID ............................................................................................................................... 800 75 150 .................... 150 

ILLINOIS

(FDP) ALEXANDER AND PULASKI COUNTIES, IL .................................................................................................................. 1,712 1,534 130 .................... 130 (FDP) DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II) .......................................................................................................................... 3,000 562 400 .................... 400 

ILLINOIS BEACH STATE PARK (INTERIM 1), IL ......................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL .................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

(E) ILLINOIS RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, IL ........................................................................................................ 2,725 652 825 .................... 825 (FDP) KANKAKEE RIVER BASIN, IL AND IN ......................................................................................................................... 1,770 1,593 177 .................... 177 (SPE) PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL ................................................................................................................... 1,090 779 311 .................... 311 (E) PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL ................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 415 .................... (E) ROCK RIVER, IL AND WI ........................................................................................................................................... 1,555 683 300 .................... 300 (RCP) UPPER MISS AND ILLINOIS NAV STUDY, IL, IA, MN, MO AND WI ............................................................................ 62,767 59,043 3,724 .................... 3,724 

UPPER MISS RIVER COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, IL ..................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 500 

(SPE) UPPER MISS RVR SYS FLOW FREQUENCY STUDY, IL, IA, MN, M ............................................................................ 8,191 6,419 1,200 .................... 1,200 (N) WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL ............................................................................................................................................ 12,302 215 .................... 160 .................... (FC) WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL ............................................................................................................................................ 18,750 405 .................... 341 .................... 

INDIANA

(SPE) INDIANA HARBOR, IN ................................................................................................................................................ 3,100 475 250 .................... 500 (N) JOHN T MYERS LOCKS AND DAM, IN AND KY .......................................................................................................... 225,000 2,312 .................... 2,100 .................... 

LONG LAKE, IN .......................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(E) WOLF LAKE, IN AND IL ............................................................................................................................................. 550 100 100 .................... .................... 

IOWA

(FDP) DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA .................................................................................................................. 1,620 889 450 .................... 450 

FORT DODGE, IA ....................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... LOWER DES MOINES RIVER, IA AND MO .................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

KANSAS

(RCP) TOPEKA, KS ............................................................................................................................................................... 1,287 1,020 133 .................... 133 
(FC) TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO ......................................................................................................................... 25,600 1,163 .................... 122 .................... (FDP) UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS ...................................................................................................................................... 650 75 150 .................... 250 (E) WALNUT AND WHITEWATER RIVER WATERSHEDS, KS .............................................................................................. 545 186 200 .................... 200 

KENTUCKY

(N) GREENUP LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND OH ............................................................................................ 241,300 1,322 .................... 2,372 .................... (FDP) LICKING RIVER, CYNTHIANA, KY ............................................................................................................................... 850 598 252 .................... 252 (E) METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY ............................................................................................. 850 175 325 .................... 325 (FDP) METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, MILL CREEK BASIN, KY ............................................................................................... 850 326 264 .................... 264 (FDP) METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, SOUTHWEST, KY .......................................................................................................... 1,784 1,474 200 .................... 200 

NORTH FORK LICKING RIVER, KY ............................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

(N) OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM SYSTEMS STUDY, KY, IL, IN, PA, WV ................................................................................ 45,300 43,356 1,500 .................... 1,500 

LOUISIANA

(E) AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA ............................................................................. 2,100 300 300 .................... 300 (FDP) ASCENSION PARISH, LA ............................................................................................................................................ 2,275 200 100 .................... 300 (N) ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L ......................................................................... 1,750 250 100 .................... 300 (N) BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA ........................................................................................................................................ 82,400 .................... .................... 300 .................... (N) CALCASIEU LOCK, LA ................................................................................................................................................ 3,190 532 400 .................... 500 (FDP) CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA ................................................................................................................................... 2,100 400 200 .................... 300 

GULF INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY, BANK STABILIZATION AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA ................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(FDP) HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA ................................................................................................................................... 4,500 100 100 .................... 300 (FC) JEFFERSON PARISH, LA ............................................................................................................................................ 39,000 68 .................... 50 .................... (FC) LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA ............................................................................................................................................. 52,000 .................... .................... 400 .................... (E) LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA ..................................................................................... 17,500 3,174 1,072 .................... 1,072 (FC) ORLEANS PARISH, LA ............................................................................................................................................... 61,800 .................... .................... 50 .................... 

OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, LA AND AR ............................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(FDP) PLAQUEMINES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA ............................................................................................... 2,100 100 100 .................... 300 

PORT OF IBERIA, LA ................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(FDP) ST BERNARD PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA ................................................................................................. 1,710 475 300 .................... 400 (FDP) ST CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA .................................................................................................. 2,200 100 100 .................... 300 

ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA .......................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA ............................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

(FDP) WEST SHORE, LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA ................................................................................................................ 1,850 1,653 197 .................... 197 

MARYLAND

(E) ANACOSTIA RIVER FEDERAL WATERSHED IMPACT ASSESSMENT, M ........................................................................ 3,000 2,542 458 .................... 458 (FDP) ANACOSTIA RIVER, PG COUNTY LEVEE, MD AND DC ............................................................................................... 1,453 1,134 240 .................... 240 (E) BALTIMORE METRO, GWYNNS FALLS, MD ................................................................................................................ 4,953 .................... .................... 50 .................... (FC) CUMBERLAND, MD .................................................................................................................................................... 9,750 525 .................... 175 .................... 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Budget estimate Committee reco

Investigations Planning Investigations 

(E) EASTERN SHORE, MD ............................................................................................................................................... 1,250 296 250 .................... 250 (E) LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, MATTAWOMAN, MD ................................................................................. 460 323 87 .................... 87 (E) LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, ST MARY’S, MD ...................................................................................... 680 267 190 .................... 190 (E) SMITH ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, MD ................................................................................................ 5,655 75 .................... 300 .................... 

MASSACHUSETTS

(E) BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, MA AND RI .................................................................................. 1,797 1,050 100 .................... 100 (N) BOSTON HARBOR, MA (45-FOOT CHANNEL) ............................................................................................................. 1,786 236 300 .................... 300 (E) COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MA .................................................................................... 600 100 100 .................... 100 (FC) MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOSTON, MA ......................................................................................................... 32,500 375 .................... 330 .................... (E) SOMERSET AND SEARSBURG DAMS, DEERFIELD RIVER, MA AND VT ...................................................................... 369 166 100 .................... 100 

MICHIGAN

BELLE ISLAND SHORELINE, DETROIT, MI ................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 150 CASS RIVER, VASSAR, MI ......................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... DETROIT RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, MI ..................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 200 DETROIT RIVER MASTER PLAN, MI ........................................................................................................................... 200 100 .................... .................... 100 

(N) GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA .................................................................................. 1,000 499 501 .................... 501 

ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED, MI ................................................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

(N) SAULT STE MARIE (REPLACEMENT LOCK), MI .......................................................................................................... 130,600 2,602 .................... 1,530 .................... 

ST CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST CLAIR, MI ................................................................................................................ 400 200 .................... .................... 200 

MINNESOTA

(E) LOWER ST ANTHONY FALLS RAPIDS RESTORATION, MN .......................................................................................... .................... 900 .................... 100 .................... (E) RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN, ND, SD AND MANITOBA, C ........................................................................ 8,210 200 500 .................... 500 (E) UPPER MISS RIVER WATERSHED MGMT, LAKE ITASCA TO L/D 2, ........................................................................... 3,105 337 200 .................... 200 

MISSISSIPPI

HANCOCK COUNTY, MS ............................................................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

MISSOURI

(FC) CHESTERFIELD, MO .................................................................................................................................................. 37,759 134 .................... 605 .................... (N) HANNIBAL HARBOR, MO ........................................................................................................................................... 400 75 175 .................... 175 
(FDP) KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS ..................................................................................................................................... 3,750 1,272 580 .................... 900 (RCP) MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 AND R460–471, MO ....................................................................... 1,570 1,214 180 .................... 180 

NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO ...................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

(FC) RIVER DES PERES, MO ............................................................................................................................................. 17,400 1,255 .................... 242 .................... (FC) ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO .......................................................................................................................... 6,000 589 .................... 98 .................... (N) ST LOUIS HARBOR, MO AND IL ................................................................................................................................ 15,524 3,410 .................... 284 .................... 

ST LOUIS RIVERFRONT, MO AND IL .......................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(FC) SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO ................................................................................................ 6,500 38 .................... 150 .................... 

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

MONTANA

(FC) LOWER YELLOWSTONE RIVER DIVERSION DAM, MT ................................................................................................. 6,500 75 .................... 25 .................... (COM) YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT ...................................................................................................................... 2,175 200 325 .................... 325 

NEBRASKA

(FC) ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE .............................................................................................................................. 1,014 614 .................... 400 .................... (FDP) LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE .......................................................................................................... 2,481 2,045 350 .................... 350 

LOWER PLATTE RIVER WATERSHED, NE ................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NE ................................................................................................................... 17,586 469 .................... 656 .................... 

(FC) WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NE ................................................................................................................ 591 100 .................... 90 .................... 

NEVADA

LAS VEGAS WASH, NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV .............................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(E) LOWER LAS VEGAS WASH WETLANDS, NV ................................................................................................................ 1,800 1,475 50 .................... 725 (FC) TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV .......................................................................................................................................... 39,200 7,124 .................... 500 .................... (E) WALKER RIVER BASIN, NV ........................................................................................................................................ 1,325 350 200 .................... 200 

NEW HAMPSHIRE

CONNECTICUT RIVER ECO SYSTEM RESTORATION, NH AND VT .............................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(COM) MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN, NH ................................................................................................................................. 3,850 374 300 .................... 500 

NEW JERSEY

(E) BARNEGAT BAY, NJ ................................................................................................................................................... 6,000 50 .................... 300 .................... (SP) BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR, NJ ........................................................................................................ 353,000 573 .................... 263 .................... 

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

(SP) GREAT EGG INLET TO TOWNSEND INLET, NJ ............................................................................................................ 13,600 112 .................... 69 .................... (E) HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ ........................................................................................ 2,500 81 200 .................... 200 (E) LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ ...................................................................................................................................... 2,600 100 75 .................... 200 (SP) MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ........................................................................................................... 10,350 112 .................... 68 .................... (E) NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, ENV RESTORATION, NJ ........................................................................... 6,000 .................... .................... 150 .................... 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Budget estimate Committee reco

Investigations Planning Investigations 

NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HERFORD/CAPE MAY INLET .............................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 200 NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE LONG-TERM NOURISHMENT ....................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

(FC) PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ ................................................................................................................................ .................... 525 .................... 100 .................... (FDP) RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ ........................................................................................................................................ 4,260 198 100 .................... 230 (SP) RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ ........................................................................................... 1,750 86 50 .................... 300 

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, KEYPORT, NJ ............................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 350 

(SP) RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ ............................................................................................ 1,375 632 250 .................... 450 (SP) RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, PORT MONMOUTH, NJ ................................................................................. 18,900 272 .................... 100 .................... (SP) RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ ....................................................................................... 1,919 1,875 44 .................... 44 (FDP) SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ ............................................................................................................ 1,500 190 50 .................... 250 (FC) SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ ................................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... 100 .................... (E) STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ .......................................................................................................... 1,500 190 100 .................... 250 (FDP) UPPER PASSAIC RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ ......................................................................................................... 750 581 169 .................... 169 (FDP) UPPER ROCKAWAY RIVER, NJ ................................................................................................................................... 1,400 581 200 .................... 200 (FDP) WOODBRIDGE RIVER BASIN, NJ ................................................................................................................................ 1,330 198 100 .................... 250 

NEW MEXICO

NAVAJO NATION, NM, AZ AND VT ............................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(COM) RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO AND TX ...................................................................................................................... 2,000 450 300 .................... 300 

SANTA FE, NM .......................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY, NM .............................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 300 

NEW YORK

(FDP) AUSABLE RIVER BASIN, ESSEX AND CLINTON COUNTIES, NY ................................................................................. 800 144 50 .................... 50 (FDP) BOQUET RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ESSEX COUNTY, NY .......................................................................................... 800 142 50 .................... 50 (FDP) BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY ......................................................................................................................................... 900 487 50 .................... 100 

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

(E) FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY ............................................................................................................................... 1,614 1,098 409 .................... 409 (N) FREEPORT CREEK, VILLAGE OF FREEPORT, NY ........................................................................................................ 1,600 100 75 .................... 75 (E) HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS CANAL, NY AND NJ ................................................................................ 2,500 81 400 .................... 400 (E) HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ .............................................................................................................. 6,200 638 1,369 .................... 1,369 (SP) JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, ARVERNE, NY ........................................................................... 1,000 37 50 .................... 50 (SP) JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY ............................................................................................ 2,510 1,910 400 .................... 400 
(N) LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR,NY ..................................................................................................................................... 1,400 575 100 .................... 200 (FDP) LINDENHURST, NY .................................................................................................................................................... 800 149 50 .................... 50 (N) NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ ................................................................................................ 1,100,000 3,951 .................... 2,500 .................... (N) NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE AREAS, NY .......................................................................................................... 1,300 810 200 .................... 200 (SP) NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, NY .................................................................................................. 998 318 50 .................... 250 (SP) NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY ...................................................................................................... 1,850 700 100 .................... 300 (SPE) ONONDAGA LAKE, NY ................................................................................................................................................ 2,102 1,384 350 .................... 350 (E) SAW MILL RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NY .................................................................................................................. 1,600 225 50 .................... 50 (E) SOUTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, NY ....................................................................................................................... 2,150 267 50 .................... 50 (SP) SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY .................................................................................................................... 2,000 1,451 209 .................... 209 (E) UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NY .............................................................................................................. 1,300 150 160 .................... 160 

UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, NY ................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 250 

NORTH CAROLINA

(SP) BOGUE BANKS, NC ................................................................................................................................................... 1,735 350 400 .................... 400 (E) CURRITUCK SOUND, NC ........................................................................................................................................... 1,100 75 200 .................... 200 (SP) DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC ................................................................................................................................... 5,397 2,837 100 .................... 600 (SP) DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC (BODIE ISLAND PORTION) ......................................................................................... 199,467 250 .................... 500 .................... (E) LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC ................................................................................................................................ 1,470 142 83 .................... 83 (FDP) NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC .......................................................................................................................................... 1,100 159 100 .................... 100 (SP) SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC ........................................................................................................... 1,100 .................... 100 .................... 300 (E) TENNESSEE RIVER AND TRIBS, FRANKLIN, MACON COUNTY, NC ............................................................................ 393 238 155 .................... 155 

NORTH DAKOTA

(FC) DEVILS LAKE, ND ...................................................................................................................................................... .................... 6,000 .................... 1,700 .................... (FC) GRAFTON, PARK RIVER, ND ...................................................................................................................................... 19,500 940 .................... 60 .................... 

OHIO

(E) ASHTABULA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH ............................................................................................... 21,130 249 .................... 583 .................... 

BELPRE RIVERFRONT PARK, OH ............................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 200 

(FDP) BUTLER COUNTY, OH ................................................................................................................................................ 850 100 100 .................... 100 (E) HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, MONDAY CREEK, OH ........................................................................... 556 378 178 .................... 178 (E) HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, SUNDAY CREEK, OH ............................................................................ 700 200 200 .................... 200 (E) LOWER BIG DARBY CREEK BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ........................................................................ 1,425 100 370 .................... 370 

MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, HOH .............................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 50 

(E) MUSKINGUM BASIN SYSTEM STUDY, OH .................................................................................................................. 2,061 175 400 .................... 400 

OHIO RIVERFRONT STUDY, CINCINNATI, OH ............................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 OHIO RIVER FLOW COMMODITY STUDY, OH ............................................................................................................. 800 200 .................... .................... .................... 

(FDP) RICHLAND COUNTY, OH ............................................................................................................................................ 600 175 200 .................... 200 

SANDUSKY RIVER, TIFFIN, OH .................................................................................................................................. 100 100 .................... .................... .................... 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Budget estimate Committee reco

Investigations Planning Investigations 

STEUBENVILLE, OH ................................................................................................................................................... 175 25 .................... .................... .................... 

(E) UPPER BIG DARBY CREEK BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ........................................................................ 375 310 65 .................... 65 

WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH .............................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

OKLAHOMA

(E) CIMARRON RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, OK, KS, NM AND CO .................................................................................... 2,620 220 226 .................... 226 

MIAMI AND VICINITY, OK .......................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 300 

(E) SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE STUDY, OK ........................................................................................... 2,900 336 200 .................... ....................(FDP) WARR ACRES, OK ..................................................................................................................................................... 360 186 174 .................... 174 

WISTER LAKE WATERSHED, OK ................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 375 

OREGON

AMAZON CREEK, OR ................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(E) LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA ........................................................................ 3,200 75 135 .................... 135 (E) TILLAMOOK BAY AND ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR ............................................................................. 1,860 1,174 500 .................... 500 

WALLA WALLA WATERSHED, OR AND WA ................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 600 

(COM) WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR ................................................................................................................... 2,284 1,908 130 .................... 130 (E) WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR .............................................................................................. 3,200 171 369 .................... 369 (E) WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR ................................................................................................ 1,590 225 170 .................... 170 

PENNSYLVANIA

(FDP) BLOOMSBURG, PA .................................................................................................................................................... 1,152 791 250 .................... 250 

SCHUYLKILL RIVER, WISSAHICKON, PA .................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

RHODE ISLAND

(N) QUONSET DAVISVILLE PORT, RI ................................................................................................................................ 1,600 100 150 .................... 150 (E) RHODE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, RI ........................................................................................................ 1,200 290 50 .................... 50 (E) RHODE ISLAND SOUTH COAST, HABITAT REST AND STRM DMG REDU ................................................................... 6,825 .................... .................... 160 .................... 

SOUTH CAROLINA

(RCP) ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC ................................................................................................................ 4,722 1,835 655 .................... 655 (COM) BROAD RIVER BASIN, SC ......................................................................................................................................... 975 100 125 .................... 125 (E) CHARLESTON ESTUARY, SC ...................................................................................................................................... 1,677 157 50 .................... 50 
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ....................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(SP) PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC ............................................................................................................................................... 478 378 100 .................... 100 (SP) PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC ............................................................................................................................................... 4,300 .................... .................... 25 .................... 

REEDY RIVER, SC ..................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... SANTEE DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, SC ................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(FDP) WACCAMAW RIVER, SC ............................................................................................................................................. 600 55 195 .................... 195 (E) YADKIN—PEE DEE RIVER WATERSHED, SC AND NC ............................................................................................... 9,750 .................... .................... 50 .................... 

SOUTH DAKOTA

(FDP) NIOBRARA RIVER AND MISSOURI RIVER, SD ........................................................................................................... 350 75 25 .................... 225 

TENNESSEE

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN .......................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

(FDP) DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN ............................................................................................................................................ 910 185 105 .................... 105 

FORT DEFIANCE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CLARKSVILLE, TN ................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(E) FRENCH BROAD WATERSHED, TN ............................................................................................................................. 706 355 280 .................... 280 

TEXAS

(FDP) BOIS D’ARC CREEK, BONHAM, TX ............................................................................................................................ 770 130 200 .................... 200 

BRAZORIA COUNTY, TX ............................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(FDP) BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, WHITE OAK BAYOU, TX .................................................................................. 1,670 472 150 .................... 500 

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

(E) COLONIAS-LWR RIO GRANDE BASIN ALONG TX AND MEXICO BORDER ................................................................... .................... 45 .................... 100 .................... (N) CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, LAQUINTA CHANNEL, TX ..................................................................................... 1,120 742 378 .................... 378 (N) CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ....................................................................................................................... 2,851 2,093 572 .................... 572 

FREEPORT HARBOR, TX ............................................................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(FDP) FREEPORT HURRICANE PROTECTION LEVEE, TX ...................................................................................................... 4,380 75 100 .................... 100 (N) GIWW MODIFICATIONS, TX ........................................................................................................................................ 8,810 219 400 .................... 150 (RCP) GIWW, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT O’CONNOR, TX ...................................................................................................... 4,710 2,843 810 .................... 810 (N) GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX ............................................................................................................ 50,000 .................... .................... 540 .................... (N) GIWW, MATAGORDA BAY, TX .................................................................................................................................... 10,000 150 .................... 200 .................... (RCP) GIWW, PORT O’CONNOR TO CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TX ........................................................................................... 4,660 2,003 600 .................... 600 (FC) GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX ................................................................................................................................ 171,294 6,568 .................... 190 .................... (E) GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX ................................................................................................. 2,600 500 200 .................... 200 (E) LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX ....................................................................................................................... 10,395 1,639 950 .................... 950 (E) MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX ...................................................................................................................................... 1,540 826 100 .................... 100 (E) NORTH BOSQUE RIVER, TX ....................................................................................................................................... 6,600 .................... .................... 100 .................... (E) NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI, TX .......................................................................................................... 19,500 1,319 .................... 130 .................... (FDP) NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX ......................................................................................................................................... 975 590 250 .................... 250 (FC) RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX ....................................................................................................................................... 80,850 311 .................... 50 .................... 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Budget estimate Committee reco

Investigations Planning Investigations 

(E) RESACAS AT BROWNSVILLE, TX ............................................................................................................................... 2,650 75 100 .................... 325 (N) SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX .............................................................................................................................. 3,715 1,064 650 .................... 650 (E) SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX ..................................................................................................................... 4,850 146 450 .................... 450 (FC) SOUTH MAIN CHANNEL, TX ....................................................................................................................................... 153,700 7,495 .................... 380 .................... 

SULPHUR RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, TX .............................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TX ........................................................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... 250 

(FDP) UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX ............................................................................................................................. 9,310 7,739 650 .................... 1,200 

UTAH

PARK CITY, UT .......................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(FDP) PROVO AND VICINITY, UT ......................................................................................................................................... 1,495 620 100 .................... 100 

VIRGINIA

(N) AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA ....................................................................................................................... 22,168 150 .................... 475 .................... (SP) CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, HAMPTON, VA ......................................................................................................... 1,004 872 100 .................... 100 (N) ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA ................................................................................................................. 37,200 .................... .................... 284 .................... 

FOURMILE RUN, VA .................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... GOSHEN DAM, VA ..................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

(N) JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA ..................................................................................................................................... 9,795 376 .................... 295 .................... (FDP) JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (SECTION 216) .......................................................................... 1,650 286 400 .................... 400 (N) NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA ....................................................................................... 3,050 2,104 946 .................... 946 (E) POWELL RIVER WATERSHED, VA .............................................................................................................................. 1,477 1,065 100 .................... 100 

WASHINGTON

(E) BELLINGHAM BAY, WA .............................................................................................................................................. 601 125 200 .................... 300 (FC) CENTRALIA, WA ......................................................................................................................................................... 56,000 5,076 .................... 500 .................... (E) CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA .................................................................................................................................... 700 100 250 .................... 250 

COMMENCEMENT BAY, WA ....................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(E) DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA .............................................................................................................. 92,740 166 .................... 250 .................... (FC) HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA ..................................................................................................................................... 61,192 5,618 .................... 500 .................... (RCP) LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ....................................................................................................................... 2,791 1,741 254 .................... 1,050 (SP) OCEAN SHORES, WA ................................................................................................................................................. 896 100 50 .................... 50 (N) PUGET SOUND CONFINED DISPOSAL SITES, WA ....................................................................................................... 2,124 1,537 225 .................... 225 
(E) PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA ........................................................................... 700 100 200 .................... 200 (FDP) SKAGIT RIVER, WA .................................................................................................................................................... 2,547 1,497 200 .................... 200 (E) SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA ................................................................................................................................. 1,386 175 50 .................... 50 (E) STILLAGUAMISH RIVER BASIN, WA ........................................................................................................................... 20,825 50 .................... 50 .................... 

WALLA WALLA WATERSHED, WA ............................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1,000 WHITE RIVER BASIN, WA .......................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

WEST VIRGINIA

ERICKSON/WOOD COUNTY PUBLIC PORT, WV .......................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

(FC) ISLAND CREEK AT LOGAN, WV ................................................................................................................................. 12,718 2,067 .................... 483 .................... 

LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV .................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100 

(FC) MERCER COUNTY, WV .............................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... 100 .................... (E) NEW RIVER BASIN, WV, NC AND VA ........................................................................................................................ 2,400 200 200 .................... 200 

PARKERSBURG/VIENNA, WV ...................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... WEIRTON PORT, WV .................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

WISCONSIN

(E) BARABOO RIVER, WI ................................................................................................................................................. 2,650 100 240 .................... 240 

WYOMING

(E) JACKSON HOLE RESTORATION, WY ........................................................................................................................... 8,000 225 .................... 175 .................... 

MISCELLANEOUS

COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION .......................................................................................................................... .................... .................... 2,200 .................... 3,200 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES .............................................................................................................................. .................... .................... 100 .................... 100 FLOOD DAMAGE DATA ............................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... 400 .................... 400 FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES .................................................................................................................... .................... .................... 8,200 .................... 9,500 GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION ......................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 200 GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (SEC. 401) ......................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 2,000 HYDROLOGIC STUDIES .............................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... 500 .................... 500 INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES .............................................................................................................................. .................... .................... 500 .................... 500 JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM .......................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 500 NATIONAL SHORELINE ............................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... 300 .................... .................... OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS .......................................................................................................................... .................... .................... 7,200 .................... 7,200 PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES .......................................................................................................................... .................... .................... 6,500 .................... 6,500 PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE) ........................................................................................ .................... .................... 400 .................... 400 PROJECT MONITORING .............................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... 100 .................... .................... REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT .......................................................................... .................... .................... 300 .................... 300 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................ .................... .................... 24,000 .................... 29,000 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS .............................................................................................. .................... .................... 100 .................... 100 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Budget estimate Committee reco

Investigations Planning Investigations 

STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY) ......................................................................................................... .................... .................... 700 .................... 700 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... 700 .................... 700 TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS TECHNOLOGY CENTER ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... 650 .................... 650 REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .......................................................................................... .................... .................... ¥24,050 .................... ¥50,059 

TOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS .............................................................................................................. .................... .................... 96,274 33,726 105,310 

TYPE OF PROJECT:

(N) NAVIGATION(BE) BEACH EROSION CONTROL(FC) FLOOD CONTROL(MP) MULTIPURPOSE, INCLUDING POWER(SP) SHORELINE PROTECTION(FDP) FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION(RCP) REVIEW OF COMPLETED PROJECT(RDP) REVIEW OF DEFERRED PROJECT(COMP) COMPREHENSIVE(SPEC) SPECIAL
27

Aniak Harbor, AK.—The Committee recommendation includes

$100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for Aniak Harbor, AK.

False Pass, AK.—The Committee has provided $313,000 to expedite completion of the plans and specifications for the harbor

project at False Pass, AK.

Kenai River Bluff Erosion, AK.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for a special technical evaluation study of bank stabilization needs along the Lower Kenai River.

Seward Harbor, AK.—Based on the findings of the Corps of Engineers feasibility for navigation improvements to Seward Harbor,

Alaska, the Committee urges the Corps to proceed with implementing this critical project within available funds.

Ship Creek Watershed, AK.—The Committee recommendation includes $150,000 to complete feasibility studies and to initiate

preconstruction engineering and design for Ship Creek Watershed,

AK.

Red River Navigation Study, Southwest Arkansas, AR.—The

Committee has provided $500,000 for continuation of the costshared navigation feasibility study. The Committee understands

that navigation in the Shreveport, Louisiana to Index, Arkansas

reach is an extension of the existing J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, and as such, urges the Corps to perform an additional analysis using the same discount rate and local cost-sharing requirements as required for the existing waterway. This analysis should

be displayed as a part of the feasibility report.

Red River Waterway, AR, LA, OK, & TX.—The Committee has

provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of the Index, AR to

Denison Dam reach of the Red River. The study is to examine environmental restoration and other water resource needs of the river

corridor.

American River Watershed, CA.—The Committee recognizes the

serious flood threat that faces the Sacramento area and has provided $2,600,000 to expedite completion of the preconstruction engineering and design of this vital flood control project.

Los Angeles Harbor Main Channel Deepening, Los Angeles, CA.—

The Committee has provided $2,600,000 to complete

preconstruction engineering and design for the Los Angeles Harbor

Main Channel Deepening, Los Angeles, CA.

Westminster, CA.—An amount of $300,000 is recommended by

the Committee to complete the reconnaissance study and initiate

the feasibility study for the East Garden Grove/Winterburg Channel in Westminster, CA.

Wailupe Stream Flood Control Study, Oahu, HI.—The Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering and design activities for the Wailupe Stream flood control

study, in Oahu, HI.

Illinois Rivers, IL.—The Committee is aware of an innovative

restoration initiative in the Illinois River Basin designed to enhance the waterway as a vital transportation corridor, improve

water quality, protect farmland and open space, and promote important conservation and environmental practices—Illinois Rivers

2020. The project was authorized in Public Law 106–541. The Committee expects the Corps to continue to work with the State of Illinois on this project and to identify appropriate funding sources.
28

Upper Mississippi & Illinois Navigation Study, IL, IA, MN, MO,

& WI.—The Committee has provided $3,724,000 to continue this

study. The Committee recognizes that the controversy over the past

year has considerably slowed progress on completing this important study. However, with the completion of the various investigations and independent reviews, the Committee believes that it is

time for the Corps to finish this nearly decade long study. The

Corps should make every effort to bring this study to a logical conclusion within 18 months of enactment of this act. No funding shall

be expended on preconstruction engineering and design activities

until the feasibility study is completed.

Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Study, IL, IA, MO, MN,

and WI.—The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for

the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Study. The funding

will allow the Corps to initiate studies for the following: development of an integrated strategy and implementation plan for flood

control and flood damage reduction, continued maintenance and

improvement of the navigation project, improved management of

nutrients and sediment, environmental stewardship, and increased

recreational opportunities for the Upper Mississippi River above

Cairo, IL and the entire Illinois River.

Ouachita and Black Rivers, LA & AR.—The Committee understands that there are critical erosion problems along the Ouachita

River in Arkansas and Louisiana. These erosion problems are

threatening Federal flood control levees and hindering navigation,

as well as causing damage to utilities, roads, historic sites and private property. The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps

to assess bank caving locations along the Ouachita River in Louisiana and Arkansas and to prepare an evaluation report identifying and prioritizing the most critical caving locations.

Belle Island Shoreline, Detroit, MI.—The Committee has provided $150,000 to initiate the feasibility studies for stabilization of

the crumbling Bell Island Shoreline. The Committee urges the

Corps to examine the use of innovative techniques for stabilization

alternatives.

Sault Ste. Marie Lock, Sault Ste. Marie, MI.—The Committee

recommendation includes $1,530,000 to complete the

preconstruction engineering and design of the replacement lock at

Sault Ste. Marie in Michigan.

Kansas Citys, MO & KS.—The Committee has provided $900,000

to continue flood damage reduction studies for the Kansas Citys

area of Missouri and Kansas.

Little Tallahatchie River, MS.—The Committee urges the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers to examine a proposal by the Friends of

the Upper Sardis Wildlife Management Area to repair and restore

the Little Tallahatchie River located in Holly Springs National Forest, Mississippi.

Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, NV.—The Committee has provided $725,000 for feasibility studies of the environmental restoration of the Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, Las Vegas, NV.

Grafton, Park River, ND.—The Committee recommendation includes $60,000 to complete the preconstruction engineering and design of the Grafton, Park River, ND flood damage reduction project.
29

Amazon Creek, OR.—The Committee has provided $100,000 to

initiate and complete a reconnaissance study of Amazon Creek in

the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan area.

Niobrara River and Missouri River, SD.—The Committee has

provided $225,000 to complete the reconnaissance study and to initiate the feasibility study.

Upper Trinity River Basin, TX.—The Committee has provided $1,200,000 to continue feasibility studies. The additional amount

provided will allow for completion of the Dallas Floodway and

Stemmons North Industrial Corridor Studies, for continuation of

studies on the Clear and West Forks of the Trinity River and the

Big Fossil Creek Watershed, and for initiation of a new study.

North Padre Island, TX.—The Committee has included $130,000

for the preconstruction engineering and design portion, as well as

continuing the environmental studies, for the North Padre Island,

Texas, flood control project.

Coastal Field Data Collection.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 over the budget request for the Southern

California Beach Processes Study to help preserve the California

coastline from beach erosion.

Great Lakes Remedial Action Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the Great Lakes Remedial

Action Program. The funds will allow for the continuation of development of remedial action plans identified in the Great Lakes

Water Quality Agreement of 1978.

Planning Assistance to States.—Within the funds provided for

Planning Assistance to States, the Committee urges the Corps of

Engineers to initiate an investigation of the streambank erosion

problems in the East Baton Rouge Parish Canal in Baker, Louisiana, and desalinization efforts at Tularosa Basin in Alamogordo,

New Mexico.

Other Coordination Programs.—The Committee encourages the

Corps to use funds provided herein to support the Estuaries Council in the development of a national strategy for estuary habitat

restoration programs.

Research and Development.—The Committee has provided $29,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers R&D Program. Within the

amount provided, $800,000 is for the National Shoreline Erosion

Control Development and Demonstration Program at Allergan

County, Michigan.

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $1,716,165,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 1,324,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,570,798,000

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

projects having navigation, flood control, water supply, hydroelectric, 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.
30

The appropriation provides funds for the Continuing Authorities

Program (projects which do not require specific legislation), which

includes projects for flood control (Section 205), emergency

streambank and shoreline protection (Section 14), beach erosion

control (Section 103), mitigation of shore damages (Section 111),

navigation projects (Section 107), snagging and clearing (Section

208), aquatic ecosystem restoration (Section 206), beneficial uses of

dredged material (Section 204), and project modifications for improvement of the environment (Section 1135).

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Budget estimate Com

om

ALABAMA

(N) MOBILE HARBOR, AL ....................................................................................................................................... 326,605 30,017 2,300 (MP) WALTER F GEORGE POWERHOUSE AND DAM, AL AND GA (MAJOR REH ......................................................... 43,700 1,357 12,325 (MP) WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA (MAJOR REHAB) ..................................................................... 36,000 7,423 3,000 

ALASKA

(N) CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK ...................................................................................................................................... 6,500 1,751 3,300 (N) NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK ............................................................................................................... 20,192 1,294 2,200 (N) ST PAUL HARBOR, AK ...................................................................................................................................... 23,125 12,500 700 

ARIZONA

(E) RIO SALADO, PHOENIX AND TEMPE REACHES, AZ .......................................................................................... 62,730 5,953 13,200 

ARKANSAS

FOURCHE BAYOU BASIN, AR ........................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(N) MCCLELLAN—KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR ................................................................... 651,000 616,536 3,000 (N) MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR ...................................................................................................... 242,000 158,064 18,000 

RED RIVER WATERWAY, INDEX, AR TO DENISON DAM, TX ............................................................................. 76,700 76,700 ........................ RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR ............................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, AR, LA, OK AND TX ................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 

CALIFORNIA

(FC) AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA ................................................................................................................. 87,000 38,268 13,000 (FC) AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS ............................................................... 97,500 5,752 4,500 

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

(FC) CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA ............................................................................................................................ 21,900 12,625 250 (FC) COYOTE AND BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA ........................................................................................................... 43,300 33,331 600 (FC) GUADALUPE RIVER, CA .................................................................................................................................... 128,700 79,188 4,000 (E) HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA ......................................................................................... 47,400 1,589 1,000 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Budget estimate Com

om

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

(SP) IMPERIAL BEACH, SILVER STRAND SHORELINE, CA ........................................................................................ 15,300 3,654 500 (FC) KAWEAH RIVER, CA .......................................................................................................................................... 19,700 6,660 3,000 (FC) LOWER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA ............................................................................ 5,100 3,669 1,431 

LOWER WALNUT CREEK, CA ............................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(FC) MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA .................................................................................. 34,700 30,625 4,075 (FC) MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA ...................................................................................................................... 91,800 19,816 500 (FC) MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA ........................................................................................... 14,700 12,437 2,263 (FC) NAPA RIVER, CA .............................................................................................................................................. 91,000 21,091 5,500 (N) OAKLAND HARBOR, CA (50 FOOT PROJECT) .................................................................................................... 144,000 7,142 2,000 

PETALUMA RIVER, CA ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(FC) SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA ................................................................................... 179,900 114,601 2,326 

SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CA .................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(FC) SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA ................................................................... 20,000 15,008 2,284 (N) SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA ......................................................................................................... 173,000 66,850 250 

SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION, CA .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

(FC) SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA ................................................................................................................................ 19,440 12,832 3,490 (FC) SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA ................................................................................................................... 924,000 685,775 26,800 (N) SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ........................................................................................................................ 5,450 410 100 (FC) SANTA PAULA CREEK, CA ................................................................................................................................ 36,000 19,805 1,700 (FC) STOCKTON METROPOLITIAN FLOOD CONTROL REIMBURSEMENT, CA .............................................................. 35,700 3,352 1,000 .....(FC) SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY) ............................................................................................. 30,900 2,054 1,000 (SP) SURFSIDE—SUNSET—NEWPORT BEACH, CA ................................................................................................. 8,300 700 300 (FC) UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA ............................................................................. 5,810 4,347 1,463 (FC) WEST SACRAMENTO, CA .................................................................................................................................. 17,700 16,332 1,368 

DELAWARE

(SP) DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE ................................................................................................................ 12,600 5,597 270 (SP) DELAWARE COAST, REHOBOTH BEACH TO DEWEY BEACH, DE ....................................................................... 64,900 3,237 100 
FLORIDA

(SP) BREVARD COUNTY, FL ..................................................................................................................................... 136,600 8,939 200 (SP) BROWARD COUNTY, FL (REIMBURSABLE) ....................................................................................................... 90,200 21,422 200 (N) CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ................................................................................................................................. 133,740 35,878 5,701 (E) CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL ........................................................................................................... 2,219,000 560,018 95,278 (SP) DADE COUNTY, FL ............................................................................................................................................ 182,400 70,613 8,000 

DUVAL COUNTY, FL .......................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

(E) EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL ............................................................... 75,000 19,455 19,876 

FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL ................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(N) JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ............................................................................................................................. 11,000 5,384 1,457 (MP) JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, FL AND GA (MAJOR R .......................................................... 29,800 22,037 4,300 (E) KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL ...................................................................................................................................... 265,600 92,532 25,846 (N) MANATEE HARBOR, FL ..................................................................................................................................... 26,485 7,149 1,000 

MARTIN COUNTY, FL ........................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

(N) MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL .......................................................................................................................... 50,255 23,443 5,274 (SP) PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (REIMBURSEMENT) ................................................................................................ 85,000 12,840 200 (N) PALM VALLEY BRIDGE, FL ............................................................................................................................... 19,000 11,701 7,299 (N) PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL .............................................................................................................................. 25,747 2,832 1,215 

PINELLAS COUNTY, FL ..................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ .....PORT EVERGLADES, FL .................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

(SP) ST JOHN’S COUNTY, FL .................................................................................................................................... 184,700 5,458 300 

ST LUCIE INLET, FL .......................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

(N) TAMPA HARBOR, FL ......................................................................................................................................... 751 251 500 

GEORGIA

(N) BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA ................................................................................................................................ 41,461 2,044 4,084 (MP) BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB) .................................................................................................. 27,200 7,319 3,000 (MP) HARTWELL LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB) ........................................................................ 31,000 25,600 4,500 (N) LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA AND SC ................................................................................................. 3,167 1,124 1,300 (FC) OATES CREEK, RICHMOND COUNTY, GA (DEF CORR) ..................................................................................... 11,208 9,739 632 (MP) RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC ......................................................................................... 619,570 603,835 3,000 (MP) THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB) ...................................................................... 69,700 29,265 6,500 

HAWAII

HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT, HI .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Budget estimate Com

om

(FC) IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF CORR) .................................................................................... 15,004 1,224 400 

KAUMALAPAU HARBOR, HI ............................................................................................................................... 11,700 3,000 ........................ 

(N) KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI ..................................................................................................... 5,620 4,194 1,275 (N) MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI ........................................................................................................................... 11,883 3,983 325 

ILLINOIS

(N) CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR) ....................................................................... 24,756 3,895 3,617 (SP) CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL .................................................................................................................................. 174,188 67,459 24,000 (FC) EAST ST LOUIS, IL ........................................................................................................................................... 37,861 30,642 1,000 

EAST ST LOUIS INTERIOR FLOOD CONTROL, IL ............................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

(N) LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH ................................................................. 68,592 24,704 8,038 (FC) LOVES PARK, IL ............................................................................................................................................... 21,000 13,862 1,600 (FC) MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL ..................................................................................................... 501,100 35,678 10,000 (N) MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL AND MO .................................................................................................... 740,636 731,324 500 (N) OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY ..................................................................................... 1,052,000 511,482 34,000 (E) UPPER MISS RVR SYSTEM ENV MGMT PROGRAM, IL, IA, MN, MO ................................................................. 766,195 217,229 21,000 

INDIANA

CALUMET REGION, IN ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(N) INDIANA HARBOR, IN (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY) ................................................................................... 61,100 4,918 5,000 

INDIANA SHORELINE EROSION, IN ................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ INDIANA POLIS CENTRAL WATERFRONT, IN ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(FC) INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN ....................................................................................................... 12,806 1,576 3,600 (FC) LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN ............................................................................................................................. 139,000 77,977 4,000 (FC) MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB) ........................................................................................................ 46,619 2,080 8,500 (FC) OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ACCESS, IN .................................................................................................. 17,500 3,209 2,400 

IOWA

(N) LOCK AND DAM 12, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB) .......................................................................... 15,000 5,464 4,906 
(E) MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION, IA, NE, K ......................................................................... 85,400 63,611 11,000 (FC) MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS AND MO ................................................................................... 152,394 105,689 8,500 (FC) PERRY CREEK, IA ............................................................................................................................................ 46,540 37,905 4,000 

KANSAS

(FC) ARKANSAS CITY, KS ......................................................................................................................................... 20,850 13,384 3,050 

KENTUCKY

CARR CREEK LAKE, KY .................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

(FC) DEWEY LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY) ...................................................................................................................... 17,000 10,808 2,900 (N) KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY ....................................................................................... 533,000 70,058 14,400 

LOUISVILLE WATERFRONT, KY .......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

(N) MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND IN .................................................................................... 278,000 60,316 13,632 (FC) METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, BEARGRASS CREEK, KY ..................................................................................... 7,951 1,270 2,575 (FC) METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY ............................................................................................... 13,524 8,665 1,400 

POND CREEK, KY ............................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY, KY ....................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 

LOUISIANA

(FC) COMITE RIVER, LA ........................................................................................................................................... 106,000 11,361 500 

GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LA ........................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(N) INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA ................................................................................................ 652,000 71,181 10,000 (N) J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA ............................................................................................................ 1,895,807 1,732,172 16,555 (FC) LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE PROTECT ................................................................... 527,000 425,826 7,500 (FC) LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) ....................................................................... 81,000 75,857 1,500 (N) MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, L ..................................................................... 179,800 27,419 575 (N) MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA ............................................................................................................. 92,189 81,184 500 (FC) NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) ............................................................................. 173,000 146,736 2,000 

OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, AR AND LA ............................................................................................................ 30,417 24,516 ........................ 

(FC) SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA .............................................................................................................................. 450,000 233,067 51,908 (FC) WEST BANK AND VICINITY, NEW ORLEANS, LA ............................................................................................... 200,000 61,843 12,000 

MARYLAND

ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD ...................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

(SP) ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD ................................................................................................................................ 25,800 2,095 10,000 (SP) ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD .............................................................................................................. 189,000 34,951 2,300 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Budget estimate Com

om

(N) BALTIMORE HARBOR ANCHORAGES AND CHANNELS, MD AND VA ................................................................. 21,000 3,189 8,000 (E) CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA ....................................................................................... 27,000 6,454 1,500 (E) POPLAR ISLAND, MD ........................................................................................................................................ 320,000 77,700 18,200 

MASSACHUSETTS

(N) CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, MA (MAJOR REHAB) ........................................................................... 31,800 8,375 12,500 (FC) WEST HILL DAM, MA (MAJOR REHAB) ............................................................................................................. 13,200 1,000 9,000 

MINNESOTA

(FC) CROOKSTON, MN .............................................................................................................................................. 7,020 1,708 2,000 (N) LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN (MAJOR REHAB) .......................................................................... 18,800 3,114 800 

NORTHEASTERN, MN ........................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

(N) PINE RIVER DAM, CROSS LAKE, MN (DAM SAFETY) ........................................................................................ 10,200 9,570 630 

STILLWATER, MN .............................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

MISSISSIPPI

DESOTO COUNTY, MS ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(N) GULFPORT HARBOR, MS .................................................................................................................................. 32,948 26,083 100 (N) PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS .............................................................................................................................. 47,789 28,232 1,930 

MISSOURI

(FC) BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO ........................................................................................................... 13,500 1,662 675 (FC) BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO ...................................................................................................... 220,000 175,497 8,400 

BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, MO ......................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(FC) CAPE GIRARDEAU, JACKSON, MO .................................................................................................................... 37,128 32,521 1,717 (FC) MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO ........................................................................................ 29,056 18,579 1,200 (N) MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO ................................................................ 269,273 198,687 4,000 

ST LOUIS, MO .................................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(FC) STE GENEVIEVE, MO ........................................................................................................................................ 34,710 29,598 850 
(MP) TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR (DAM SAFETY) .............................................................................................. 60,200 20,510 5,900 

MONTANA

FORT PECK DAM, MT ....................................................................................................................................... 7,443 5,233 ........................ 

NEBRASKA

(FC) MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE AND SD ............................................................................... 21,000 5,073 1,800 (FC) WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE ................................................................................................................... 10,698 3,884 4,000 

NEVADA

RURAL NEVADA, NV ......................................................................................................................................... 25,000 3,332 ........................ 

(FC) TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV ........................................................................................................ 214,800 109,010 22,000 

NEW HAMPSHIRE

ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, LEBANON, NH ........................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 

NEW JERSEY

(SP) BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG INLET, NJ (ABSECON ISLAN ..................................................................... 290,000 5,284 100 (SP) CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ .................................................................................................... 53,400 16,250 780 (N) DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA AND DE ........................................................................................ 231,000 30,555 10,000 (SP) GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ ......................................................................................... 241,500 36,630 130 (N) NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, PORT JERSEY CHANN ......................................................... 84,300 11,184 22,000 (FC) PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, N ................................................................. 19,700 4,605 5,400 

PASSAIC RIVDR STREAMBANK RESTORATION, NJ ............................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(FC) RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, MAHWAH, NJ AND SUFFERN, NY .................................................................. 8,400 1,559 100 (FC) RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ ..................................................................................................................... 11,800 6,851 4,949 (SP) RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ ....................................................................................................... 343,000 1,126 100 (FC) RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ .................................................................................. 314,400 33,827 10,000 (SP) SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ............................................................................................................ 698,200 120,495 5,000 (SP) TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ ................................................................................................... 163,000 4,702 2,000 

NEW MEXICO

(FC) ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM ................................................................................................................ 66,000 13,224 2,000 (FC) ALAMOGORDO, NM ........................................................................................................................................... 41,400 8,039 3,500 

CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM ............................................................................................................................ 25,000 2,514 ........................ 

(FC) MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELE ................................................................. 46,800 9,889 600 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Budget estimate Com

om

(FC) RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE, .................................................................. 62,300 5,138 300 

NEW YORK

(N) ARTHUR KILL CHANNEL, HOWLAND HOOK MARINE TERMINAL, NY ................................................................. 230,400 8,452 15,000 (SP) ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, .................................................................. 76,500 15,761 300 (SP) EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET AND JAMAICA BAY, ................................................................. 55,000 43,982 1,230 (SP) FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY ......................................................................................................... 119,300 36,374 4,700 (SP) FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY ................................................................................................... 403,400 59,858 2,275 (N) KILL VAN KULL AND NEWARK BAY CHANNEL, NY AND NJ .............................................................................. 580,200 282,643 44,000 

NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NY ................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ONONDAGA LAKE, NY ....................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 

NORTH CAROLINA

(SP) BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, OCEAN ISLE BEACH PORTION, NC ............................................................... 96,600 9,277 300 

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

(SP) WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET, NC ........................................................................................ 112,300 699 300 (N) WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ............................................................................................................................... 248,100 58,068 43,159 (SP) WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC .............................................................................................................................. 26,500 4,609 550 

NORTH DAKOTA

(FC) BUFORD—TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION, ..................................................................... 34,000 17,279 3,000 (MP) GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB) .............................................................................. 44,318 19,813 7,000 (FC) GRAND FORKS, ND—EAST GRAND FORKS, MN ............................................................................................... 178,800 26,741 25,954 (FC) HOMME LAKE, ND (DAM SAFETY) .................................................................................................................... 12,400 8,712 2,400 (FC) SHEYENNE RIVER, ND ...................................................................................................................................... 55,807 28,998 2,000 

OHIO

LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, OH ....................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(FC) METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH ............................................................................ 32,123 5,347 2,700 
(FC) MILL CREEK, OH .............................................................................................................................................. 163,000 102,661 2,000 

OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OH ................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ OTTAWA RIVER, OH .......................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(FC) WEST COLUMBUS, OH ...................................................................................................................................... 97,000 77,754 7,200 

OKLAHOMA

(FC) SKIATOOK LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) ................................................................................................................. 10,000 1,228 1,800 (MP) TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) .................................................................................................... 39,300 16,315 3,700 

OREGON

(MP) BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR AND WA (MAJOR REHAB) .............................................................. 110,800 60,036 10,000 (MP) COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA .................................................................... 79,760 39,970 5,000 (FC) ELK CREEK LAKE, OR ...................................................................................................................................... 179,400 110,273 2,000 (FC) LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN BANK PROTECTION, OR AND WA ................................................................. 28,000 21,693 100 (E) WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR .......................................................................................... 72,000 16,719 8,000 

PENNSYLVANIA

(FC) JOHNSTOWN, PA (MAJOR REHAB) .................................................................................................................... 32,500 29,418 3,082 (N) LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ............................................................................ 705,000 185,322 34,470 

NANTY GLO, PA ................................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA, PA ...................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(SP) PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT) ................................................................................................. 64,785 17,716 392 (FC) SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA .................................................................................................................... 13,374 6,437 4,138 

SCHUYLKILL RIVER PARK, PA .......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ SOUTH CENTRAL PENN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, PA ................................................................................................................ 5,000 276 ........................ .....

(FC) WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING) .......................................................................................................... 131,000 63,293 19,000 

PUERTO RICO

(FC) ARECIBO RIVER, PR ......................................................................................................................................... 14,400 3,199 500 (FC) PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR ........................................................................................................... 430,300 395,516 5,409 (FC) RIO DE LA PLATA, PR ...................................................................................................................................... 66,700 7,340 500 (FC) RIO GRANDE DE LOIZA, PR ............................................................................................................................. 155,300 3,342 500 (FC) RIO GRANDE DE MANATI, PR ........................................................................................................................... 1,500 ........................ 1,500 (FC) RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR .................................................................................................................................. 331,000 75,163 9,000 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Budget estimate Com

om

SOUTH CAROLINA

(N) CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (DEEPENING AND WIDENING) ............................................................................... 98,444 66,766 6,365 

FOLLY BEACH, SC ............................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

(MP) HARTWELL LK,CLEMSON UPPER AND LOWER DIVERSION, SC (DAM S ........................................................... 8,741 400 2,500 

LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SC ................................................................................................................ 15,000 3,352 ........................ 

SOUTH DAKOTA

(FC) BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD ............................................................................................................... 30,450 7,103 6,000 (E) CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD ........................................................................... 107,000 6,252 3,000 (MP) PIERRE, SD ...................................................................................................................................................... 35,000 12,868 6,000 

TENNESSEE

BLACK FOX, MURFREE AND OAKLANDS SPRINGS WETLANDS, TN ................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 

TEXAS

BOSQUE AND LEON RIVERS, TX ...................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

(FC) BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX .......................................................................................................................... 312,485 23,751 4,066 (N) CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX .............................................................................................................................. 28,391 22,826 5,565 (FC) CLEAR CREEK, TX ............................................................................................................................................ 94,115 24,154 1,200 (FC) DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER PROJECT, TX ........................................................................ 95,826 10,698 2,000 (FC) EL PASO, TX ..................................................................................................................................................... 116,300 111,907 3,400 (N) HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX ......................................................................................... 475,468 159,576 28,785 (FC) JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX .............................................................................. 13,630 5,724 2,900 

MOUTH OF COLORADO RIVER, TX .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

(N) NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER BARRIER, TX ......................................................................... 45,375 15,364 8,068 

RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX AND OK ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, TX,AR,LA .................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(FC) SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX .................................................................................................... 155,300 153,632 866 (FC) SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX ............................................................................................................................. 225,752 90,058 9,000 
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX ..................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 

UTAH

(FC) UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UT ............................................................................................................................... 9,660 2,429 500 

VIRGINIA

(N) AIWW BRIDGE AT GREAT BRIDGE, VA ............................................................................................................. 24,054 14,755 7,000 (MP) JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (MAJOR REHAB) ............................................................... 61,800 4,553 4,800 

LYNCHBURG COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW, VA ............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

(N) NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (DEEPENING), VA .................................................................................... 137,400 23,916 486 

RICHMOND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW, VA ............................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

(FC) ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA ............................................................................... 31,000 7,304 3,000 (SP) SANDBRIDGE BEACH, VA ................................................................................................................................. 193,050 3,734 3,380 (SP) VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) ............................................................................................ 273,624 72,084 9,000 

VIRGINA BEACH, VA (REIMBURSEMENT) ......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ .....

WASHINGTON

(E) COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR AND ID ...................................................................................... 1,506,330 706,416 81,000 (N) GRAYS HARBOR, WA ........................................................................................................................................ 28,170 18,170 325 (E) LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR .............................................................. 261,000 230,612 2,555 (FC) MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ........................................................................................................ 199,500 116,476 545 (FC) MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY) ....................................................................................................... 93,720 81,944 3,300 (MP) THE DALLES POWERHOUSE (UNITS 1–14), WA AND OR (MAJOR REH ............................................................ 102,900 25,728 7,000 

WEST VIRGINIA

(FC) BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY) ............................................................................................................. 112,300 11,463 8,000 

CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA, WV .......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV ....................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(FC) LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V ................................................................ 1,931,287 760,170 16,700 (N) LONDON LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV (MAJOR REHAB) ................................................................ 22,200 3,596 4,300 

LOWER MUD RIVER, WV .................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(N) MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV ............................................................................................................. 313,000 46,358 6,200 (N) ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV AND OH ....................................................................... 369,474 362,290 1,300 

SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA, WV ....................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 

(FC) TYGART LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY) .................................................................................................................... 9,500 8,039 1,461 

WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL, WV AND PA ............................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Budget estimate Com

om

(N) WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV ......................................................................................... 235,500 227,344 600 

WISCONSIN

(FC) LAFARGE LAKE, WI ........................................................................................................................................... 17,000 7,472 5,150 

MISCELLANEOUS

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206) ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 15,000 AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM .............................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 3,000 BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204) ............................................................................ ........................ ........................ 1,500 DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM ..................................................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000 DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM .................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 9,000 EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SEC. 14) ............................................................. ........................ ........................ 7,000 EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION .......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 20,000 FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) .................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 30,000 INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—BOARD EXPENSE ................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 45 INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—CORPS EXPENSE ................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 185 NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111) .......................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 500 NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107) ........................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 7,000 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONME ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 21,000 SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 103) ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000 SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECT (SECTION 208) ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000 REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥156,580 

TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL ...................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,324,000 

TYPE OF PROJECT:

(N) NAVIGATION(BE) BEACH EROSION CONTROL(FC) FLOOD CONTROL(MP) MULTIPURPOSE, INCLUDING POWER
43

Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, AR.—An appropriation of $24,000,000 is provided. While this is a significant increase over

the budget request of $18,000,000, it is still far below the amount

needed to fund the project at an optimum level.

Red River Emergency Bank Protection, AR, LA, OK, TX.—The

Committee recommendation includes $4,500,000 to continue bank

stabilization along the Red River in Arkansas.

Red River Below Denison Dam, AR, LA, OK, TX.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,500,000 to continue the project

along the Red River in Arkansas.

Guadalupe River, CA.—An amount of $6,000,000 is recommended for the Guadalupe River, CA flood damage reduction

project.

Sacramento area flood control.—Sacramento California remains

perhaps the most flood threatened major urban area in the country

with upwards of 400,000 people and up to $30,000,000,000 in property at risk, $16,000,000,000 of that in the 100-year flood plain.

Flood control improvements authorized in 1996 and 1999 will provide a doubling of flood protection but still leave the city exposed

to an unreasonable risk of flooding. The Corps should make every

effort to move forward with the authorized improvements as quickly as possible and the Committee has included funding for initiation of the South Sacramento Streams Group project, the American River Common Elements project and the Folsom Modifications

project.

The Committee directs that, in carrying out the work on the

Common Elements project, as modified by section 366 of the Water

Resources Development Act of 1999, the Corps should consider necessary adjustments to the project to pass the existing design emergency release from Folsom Dam for communities along both banks

of the levees along the American River and to provide a uniform

level of protection consistent with the other authorized work along

the Sacramento River.

Delaware Coast, Rehoboth Beach to Dewey Beach, DE.—An appropriation of $100,000, the Corps’ full capability, is provided to

continue construction of the shoreline protection project.

Kaumalapau Harbor, HI.—The Bill includes $1,300,000 to continue construction of the Kaumalapau Harbor, Hawaii project.

McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, IL.—An appropriation of

$17,000,000 is provided. While this is a significant increase over

the budget request of $10,000,000, it is still far below the amount

needed to fund the project at an optimum level.

Olmsted Locks and Dam, IL & KY.—An appropriation of

$41,000,000 is provided. While this is a significant increase over

the budget request of $34,000,000, it is still far below the amount

needed to fund the project at an optimum level. No funds are included for reimbursement of the Claims and Judgement Fund.

Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation, IA, NE, KS, &

MO.—The full capability of $12,609,000 is provided for project mitigation. Funds provided above the budget request are to complete

the Lower Hamburg Site in Missouri and the Kansas Bend Site in

Nebraska.

Missouri River Levee System, IA, NE, KS, MO.—The Committee

recommendation is $9,200,000. Funds provided above the budget
44

request are to accelerate the first contract for the Unit L15 levee

project.

Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, LA.—An appropriation of $15,000,000 is provided. While this is a significant increase over

the budget request of $10,000,000, it is still far below the amount

needed to fund the project at an optimum level. The Committee expects the Corps to continue to work closely with community leaders

to implement the mitigation plan.

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.—An appropriation of $20,000,000 has been provided to continue necessary navigation

channel refinements, mitigation of project impacts, and construction of project recreation elements.

Southeast Louisiana, LA.—An appropriation of $62,000,000 is

provided. While this is a significant increase over the budget request of $51,908,000, it is still far below the amount needed to fund

the project at an optimum level.

DeSoto County, MS.—The Committee has included $5,000,000 to

continue DeSoto County, Mississippi wastewater treatment project,

as authorized under Section 502 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.

Blue River Channel, Kansas City, MO.—The Committee has pro- vided $10,400,000 for the Corps to expedite work on the Blue River

Channel, Kansas City, Missouri flood control project.

Grand Forks, ND-East Grand Forks, MN.—An appropriation of $31,000,000 is provided. While this is an increase over the budget

request of $25,954,000, it is still far below the amount needed to

fund the project at an optimum level.

Fort Peck Dam, MT.—The Committee has provided $700,000 to

continue construction of facilities at Fort Peck Dam.

Central New Mexico, NM.—The Committee recommendation includes $6,000,000 for the Central New Mexico project. Within funds

provided, the Corps’ attention is directed to projects located in

Belen, Los Lunas, Bosque Farms, Bernalillo, Corrales, Bernalillo

County, and the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Rural Nevada, NV.—The Committee has provided $9,000,000 to

continue the Rural Nevada project. Within funds provided, the

Corps is directed to give consideration to projects at Mesquite, Silver Springs, Lawton-Verdi, Moapa, and Elko County, Nevada.

Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV.—The Committee has provided $30,000,000 for the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes project

in Nevada to advance completion of this important flood control

project. The Committee recommendation includes $8,000,000 for reimbursement of work performed by the project non-Federal sponsor

in accordance with Section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.

Wilmington Harbor, NC.—An appropriation of $46,000,000 is

provided. While this is an increase over the budget request of

$43,159,000, it is still far below the amount needed to fund the

project at an optimum level.

Mill Creek, OH.—The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the

General Reevaluation Report and to complete the plans and specifications of the Mill Creek, Ohio project.

Willamette River Temperature Control, OR.—The Committee recommendation includes $9,000,000. The increase over the budget re-
45

quest of $8,000,000, is to expedite the project modifications necessary to improve downstream water temperatures for fish and

wildlife habitat.

Locks and Dams 2, 3, & 4, Monongahela River, PA.—An appro- priation of $40,470,000 is provided. While this is a significant increase over the budget request of $34,470,000, it is still far below

the amount needed to fund the project at an optimum level.

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 restoration plans, activities associated with land transferred or to be transferred, and

annual expenses for operating recreational areas. Within the funds

provided, the Committee directs that not more than $1,000,000

shall be provided for administrative expenses, and that the Corps

is to distribute remaining funds as directed by Title VI to the State

of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule

Sioux Tribe.

Colonias-Lower Rio Grande Basin along Texas & Mexico border.—The Committee has provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue their work in the Texas colonias, and directs that

of this amount $100,000 be used to conduct a reconnaissance study

in the Sparks Colonia in El Paso County, Texas.

Virginia Beach, Hurricane Protection, VA.—The Committee recommendation includes $9,000,000. The Committee understands

that these funds complete the project providing needed flood damage protection to the Virginia Beach area.

Columbia River Fish Mitigation, WA, OR, & ID.—An appropria- tion of $83,000,000 is provided to continue the Columbia River Fish

Mitigation project. This increased level of funding is intended to assist in implementing the recommendations of the recently issued

biological opinion.

Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, West Virginia, and Kentucky.—The Committee recommendation includes a total of $41,100,000 for the Levisa and

Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River

project. The amount provided includes: $4,500,000 for the Clover

Fork, Kentucky, element of the project; $1,000,000 for the City of

Cumberland, Kentucky, element of the project; $1,650,000 for the

town of Martin, Kentucky, element of the project; $2,100,000 for

the Pike County, Kentucky, element of the project, including

$1,100,000 for additional studies along the tributaries of the Tug

Fork and continuation of a Detailed Project Report for the Levisa

Fork; $3,850,000 for the Martin County, Kentucky, element of the

project; $950,000 for the Floyd County, Kentucky, element of the

project; $600,000 for the Harlan County element of the project; and

$800,000 for additional studies along tributaries of the Cumberland

River in Bell County, Kentucky.

The Committee has also provided $18,600,000 for the Corps of

Engineers to continue work on the Grundy, Virginia, element of the

project; $450,000 to complete the Buchanan County, Virginia, Detailed Project Report; and $700,000 to continue the Dickenson

County, Detailed Project Report. The Committee directs the Corps

of Engineers to continue the Dickenson County Detailed Project Re-
46

port as generally defined in Plan 4 of the Huntington District Engineer’s Draft Supplement to the Section 202 General Plan for Flood

Damage Reduction dated April 1997, including all Russell Fork

tributary streams within the County and special considerations, as

may be appropriate, to address the unique relocations and resettlement needs for the flood-prone communities within the County. In addition, the Committee has also provided $1,500,000 for the

Lower Mingo County, West Virginia, element of the project;

$600,000 for the Upper Mingo County, West Virginia, element of

the project; $600,000 for the Wayne County, West Virginia, element

of the project; and $3,200,000 for the McDowell County element of

the project.

Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, WV.—The Committee has pro- vided $28,100,000 for continued construction of the replacement

lock and dam.

Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, Ohio River, WV & OH.—An ap- propriation of $3,500,000 is provided. No funds are included for reimbursement of the Claims and Judgement Fund.

Aquatic Plant Control.—The Committee has provided $5,000,000

for the Aquatic Plant Control Program. While this is an increase

over the budget amount of $3,000,000, it is far less funding than

is needed for this national program. Within the amount provided,

the recommendation includes: $500,000 to eradicate Eurasian

Watermilfoil on Houghton Lake, Michigan; $80,000 to study the

problem of Eurasian Watermilfoil at Clearwater Lake, Michigan;

$250,000 for South Carolina, to be matched by an equal amount by

the State for aquatic plant control activities in that State; $400,000

for aquatic weed control at Lake Champlain, Vermont; and

$300,000 for the removal of aquatic weeds in the Lavaca and

Navidad Rivers, Texas.

Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program.—The

Committee recommendation includes $9,000,000 for the Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program. Within this amount,

$4,000,000 is provided for the Corps of Engineers to continue critical dam safety repairs to Waterbury Dam in Vermont.

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 addi-
47

tional 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 $20,000,000 for the Section 206 Program. Within the

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $105,000 to complete the ecosystem restoration report for the Agua Caliente Wash,

Pima County, AZ, project; $500,000 for completion of engineering

and design and initiation of construction for the Arkansas River

Fisheries Habitat Restoration, Pueblo, CO, project; $175,000 for

feasibility studies for the Mill River, Stamford, CT, project;

$150,000 to initiate feasibility studies on the Wabash River, West

Lafayette, IN, project; $329,000 for the Iowa River and Clear

Creek, Johnson, IA, project; $700,000 for plans and specifications

and to initiate construction for the Whitebreast Creek, IA, project;

$208,000 to initiate plans and specifications for the Hay Creek,

MN, project; $400,000 for the Lawrence Gateway, MA, restoration

project; $100,000 to continue the Carson River, NV project;

$150,000 to continue the Steamboat Creek, Washoe County, NV,

project; $125,000 to continue the Bottomless Lakes State Park,

NM, project; $100,000 to continue the Jemez River, NM, project;

$1,000,000 for plans and specifications and to initiate construction

for the Springfield Millrace, OR, project; $332,000 is provided to

continue the City Creek, UT, project; $350,000 for completion of

plans and specifications for the Jordan River Meander environmental restoration in Utah; $430,000 for the completion of plans

and specifications for the Upper Jordan River ecosystem restoration in Utah; $700,000 for the Salmon Creek, WA, project; and

$117,000 to complete design and initiate construction of the

Brodhead Dam Fish Passage, WI, project.

Navigation Projects (Section 107).—The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the Section 107 Program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $250,000 to complete plans

and specifications and initiate construction of the Russellville

Slackwater Harbor, AR; $500,000 to complete the feasibility studies

and initiate the plans and specifications for the Blytheville Harbor,

AR; $100,000 is provided for feasibility studies of repairing or replacing the existing wave attenuator for Lubec Harbor, Lubec, ME;

$827,000 for construction of the Pemiscot County Harbor, MO;

$45,000 to initiate the feasibility studies for Fairport Harbor, OH;

and $100,000 to initiate feasibility studies at Saxon Harbor, WI.

Navigation Mitigation Projects (Section 111).—The Committee

has provided $1,000,000 for the Section 111 Program. Within the

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $100,000 to initiate studies of shoreline damages attributable to the Federal jetties at Moss Landing Harbor, CA; $150,000 to initiate studies for

the Wells Harbor, Wells, Maine, project; $350,000 for completion of

plans and specifications, environmental documentation, and design

for the estimated $3,500,000 project at Saco River and Camp Ellis

Beach, Maine to mitigate shoreline damages caused by the Federal

navigation project; and 100,000 to initiate studies for the Puget Island Shoreline, WA & OR, project.

Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment (Section 1135).—The Committee has provided $25,000,000 for the Sec-
48

tion 1135 Program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $150,000 to initiate feasibility studies for Horseshoe

Lake, AR; $2,000,000 to continue construction of the Colfax Reach,

South Platte River, Denver, CO, project; $190,000 to initiate plans

and specifications for Spunky Bottoms, Brown County, IL; $100,000

to initiate studies on Nahunt Marsh, Davenport, IA; $500,000 to

initiate and complete design and to initiate construction of the

Brush Creek-Lake of the Enshriners, MO, project; $150,000 for the

feasibility study for Duck Creek, Stoodard County, MO; $500,000

to complete the plans and specifications and initiate construction of

the Kansas City Riverfront, MO, habitat restoration project;

$200,000 for the Albuquerque Biopark, NM, wetlands restoration

project; $2,000,000 for the Pueblo Santa Ana, NM, riparian and

wetland restoration project; $530,000 for the Eagleland environmental restoration project located along the San Antonio River in

Texas; $281,000 is provided to conduct the feasibility study and to

initiate the plans and specifications for the Chamna Area Shoreline, WA, project; and $500,000 to complete the feasibility study

and to initiate and complete the design of the Pasco County Shoreline, WA, project.

Emergency Streambank & Shoreline Protection Projects (Section

14).—The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the Section 14

Program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $800,000 could be used to initiate and complete the Little

Rock Slack Water Harbor, AR, bank stabilization project; $75,000

to initiate and complete the planning and design analysis and initiate plans and specifications for the Powers Boulevard at East

Fork of Sand Creek, Colorado Springs, CO, project; $260,000 for

construction of the Iowa River, Sac & Fox Settlement, Tama County, IA, project; $40,000 for the planning and design analysis for the

Penobscot River, Brewer, ME, project; $100,000 to continue the

planning and design analysis for the Belle Isle South Shore, Detroit, MI, project; $100,000 to continue the planning and design

analysis of the Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, MI; $700,000 is

provided to continue the I–40, Rio Pierco, Gallup, NM, project;

$150,000 is provided to continue the Paseo Del Norte, NM, project;

$415,000 is provided to continue the Unnamed Arroyo, Hwy 371

near Crown Point, NM, project; $130,000 for construction of the

Heathcott Road, Lauderdale County, TN, project; $146,000 for construction of the Dresden, TN, project; $100,000 to complete the

planning and design analysis and initiate construction of the

Bogachiel River near La Push, Clallam County, WA, project; and

$40,000 for the planning and design analysis of the Kenosha Harbor, Retaining Wall, Kenosha, WI.

Flood Control Projects (Section 205).—The Committee has provided $40,000,000 for the Section 205 Program. Within the amount

provided, the recommendation includes: $100,000 to initiate the

plans and specifications for the Sugar Creek, Piggott, AR, project;

$100,000 to initiate the detailed project report for Galindo Creek,

CA; $100,000 for the feasibility study for the Ocmulgee River

Levee, Macon, GA; $150,000 is for the Corps of Engineers to address flooding problems of the Snake River at Jensen Grove Lake

in Blackfoot, ID; $50,000 to complete feasibility studies for the

Mosquito Creek, Council Bluffs, IA, project; $200,000 for the
49

Banklick Creek, Kenton County, Kentucky flood control project;

$275,000 to initiate the plans and specifications for the Granite

Fall, MN, project; $350,000 to initiate the plans and specifications

for the Montevideo, MN project; $86,000 to complete the feasibility

study and to initiate plans and specification for the Little River Diversion, Dutchtown, MO, project; $100,000 for flood control studies

for Grant Creek, Missouli, Montana; $100,000 to continue the Arroyo de La Manteca, Las Vegas, NM, project; $750,000 to continue

the Little Puerco Wash, Gallup, NM, project; $100,000 to initiate

the Taos, NM, project; $1,500,000 for construction of the Wahpeton,

ND, project; $100,000 to initiate feasibility studies of the Lafayette

Township, OH, project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility study

and to initiate the plans and specifications for the Erwin, TN,

project; $75,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Oliver

Creek, TN, project; $75,000 to complete the feasibility study for the

Covington, TN, project; and $200,000 to initiate studies of the

Jamestown Island Seawall, VA.

FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ARKANSAS, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, AND TENNESSEE

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $350,458,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 280,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 328,011,000

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]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Current year allocation Budget estimate C

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

SURVEYS:

GENERAL STUDIES:

(FDP) ALEXANDRIA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO ........................................................................................... 3,150 810 710 500 (FC) BAYOU METO BASIN .............................................................................................................................. 14,417 11,844 6,158 .......................... (FDP) DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA ...................................................................................................... 4,000 1,543 1,043 700 (SPE) SPRING BAYOU, LA ................................................................................................................................ 2,850 350 150 500 (FDP) COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS .................................................................... 1,350 95 95 200 

HORN LAKE CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, MS ........................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... .......................... ..

(FDP) OLIVE BRANCH, MS ............................................................................................................................... 1,500 200 200 300 (COM) MEMPHIS METRO AREA, TN AND MS ..................................................................................................... 2,075 253 253 394 (FC) MORGANZA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO ............................................................................................ 442,000 2,309 1,895 4,000 (FC) SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR ................................................................................................................... 4,962 38,741 803 .......................... (FC) WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN ................................................................................................................... 6,350 205 205 205 

TENSAS RIVER BASIN, LA ...................................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... .......................... COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA ............................................................................................. ........................ .......................... .......................... 615 

SUBTOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS .............................................................................................. ........................ .......................... .......................... 7,414 

CONSTRUCTION

(FC) CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN .................................................................................... 3,863,000 2,602,600 36,866 43,405 (FC) FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH (EIGHT MILE CREEK), AR ................................................................................ 9,270 5,981 2,000 915 (FC) GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR ................................................................................................................................... 208,000 38,741 19,234 .......................... (FC) HELENA AND VICINITY, AR ....................................................................................................................................... 8,590 6,910 2,321 1,675 (FC) MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN ................................................................................ 2,106,000 936,548 40,911 43,457 (FC) ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO ............................................................................................................................. 401,600 373,335 4,374 3,230 (FC) ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ........................................................................................................ 176,000 91,288 11,475 7,160 (FC) ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ......................................................................................................................................... 1,790,000 890,470 21,635 23,400 (FC) LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE, LA ............................................................................................................ 19,500 14,690 3,712 3,022 (FC) MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, LA AND MS ................................................................................ 71,300 8,035 95 25 (FC) MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA ............................................................................................................................... 99,800 92,720 6,738 1,600 (FC) TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA .......................................................................................................... 169,195 132,342 5,804 2,628 

YAZOO BASIN ........................................................................................................................................................... (1,135,920) (445,080) (17,163) (8,550) 
(FC) BACKWATER PUMP, MS .................................................................................................................................. 195,400 11,912 733 500 (FC) BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS ........................................................................................................................... 110,000 97,236 3,264 1,000 (FC) DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL, MS ..................................................................................................... 288,427 273,427 142,127 .......................... (FC) MAIN STEM, MS .............................................................................................................................................. 205,112 34,629 24 25 (FC) REFORMULATION UNIT, MS ............................................................................................................................. 32,408 29,434 469 25 (FC) TRIBUTARIES, MS ............................................................................................................................................ 250,000 107,713 356 200 (FC) UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS ........................................................................................................................ 343,000 164,156 12,317 6,800 (FC) ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO ............................................................................................ 61,400 9,794 987 150 (FC) NONCONNAH CREEK, FLOOD CONTROL FEATURE, TN AND MS ............................................................................... 17,900 14,736 1,895 1,300 (FC) WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN ........................................................................................................................ 153,300 54,186 224 25 

SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 140,542 

MAINTENANCE

(FC) CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN .................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 61,462 (N) HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 434 (FC) INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 480 (FC) LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR .......................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 419 (FC) LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR ........................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 10 (FC) MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN ................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 7,650 (FC) ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO ............................................................................................................................. ........................ .......................... .......................... 6,678 (FC) TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND LA ...................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 2,000 (FC) WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR ................................................................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 1,102 (FC) INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ................................................................................................................. ........................ .......................... .......................... 43 (FC) INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 29 (FC) ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ........................................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 2,065 (FC) ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ......................................................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 10,661 (N) BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA ............................................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 216 (FC) BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA ............................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 56 (FC) BONNET CARRE, LA ................................................................................................................................................. ........................ .......................... .......................... 1,854 (FC) INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................................................................................. ........................ .......................... .......................... 422 (FC) LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA ........................................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 6,239 (FC) MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA ............................................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 916 (FC) OLD RIVER, LA ......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 6,116 (FC) TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA .......................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 2,500 (N) GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS ....................................................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 645 (FC) INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ................................................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 249 (N) VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS ........................................................................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 494 

YAZOO BASIN ........................................................................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... (21,260) 

(FC) ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ..................................................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 4,500 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Type of

project Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date Current year allocation Budget estimate C

(FC) BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS ........................................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 1,000 (FC) ENID LAKE, MS ............................................................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 3,500 (FC) GREENWOOD, MS ............................................................................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 250 (FC) GRENADA LAKE, MS ........................................................................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 4,500 (FC) MAIN STEM, MS .............................................................................................................................................. ........................ .......................... .......................... 275 (FC) SARDIS LAKE, MS ........................................................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 6,500 (FC) TRIBUTARIES, MS ............................................................................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 350 (FC) WILL M WHITTINGTON AUXILIARY CHANNEL, MS ............................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 55 (FC) YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ....................................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 180 (FC) YAZOO CITY, MS ............................................................................................................................................. ........................ .......................... .......................... 150 (FC) INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ............................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 143 (FC) WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO ........................................................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 8,000 (FC) INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 86 (N) MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN ................................................................................................................ ........................ .......................... .......................... 1,118 (FC) MAPPING .................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ .......................... .......................... 1,097 

SUBTOTAL, MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... 144,444 

REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ......................................................................................... ........................ .......................... .......................... ¥12,400 

TOTAL, FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES .............................................................. ........................ .......................... .......................... 280,000 

TYPE OF PROJECT:

(N) NAVIGATION(FC) FLOOD CONTROL
53

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.

Construction

Grand Prairie Region, AR.—The Committee recommendation includes $16,300,000 to continue construction of the project, including

construction of features designed to withdraw water from the

White River.

Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, & TN.—An

appropriation of $49,457,000 is provided for continued construction

of this vital levee project. While this is an increase over the budget

request of $43,457,000, it is still far below the amount needed to

fund the project at an optimum level.

St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, MO.—The Committee has provided $150,000 to complete preconstruction engineering and design for the St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway

project.

Yazoo Basin, Mississippi Demonstration Erosion Control.—The

Committee has provided $9,500,000 for the Demonstration Erosion

Control Project, a continuation of a joint effort by the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service in the

Yazoo Basin of Mississippi. The work to date has demonstrated

positive results in the reduction of flood damages, decreased erosion and sediments. Funds provided for fiscal year 2002 will continue to design for future work, monitor results for all watersheds

as required for completion of the total program and award continuing contracts.

Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater Area, LA.—The Committee

recommendation includes $3,653,000 to complete construction of

the Sicily Island Area Levee project.

Upper Yazoo Projects, MS.—The Committee has provided

$10,749,000 for the Upper Yazoo Projects, $3,949,000 more than

the Administration’s request for fiscal year 2002.

Maintenance

Atchafalaya Basin, LA.—An appropriation of $12,471,000 is provided. Additional funds provided over the budget request are for

major lock repairs at Berwick Lock.

Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower River, MS.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 to continue the maintenance

project for the Big Sunflower River to restore the project’s flood

control channel capacities.
54

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $1,897,775,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 1,745,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,833,263,000

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

ALABAMA

ALABAMA-COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL ................................. 219 219

ALABAMA-COOSA RIVER, AL .......................................................................... 1,555 4,710

BAYOU CODEN, AL ......................................................................................... ........................ 500

BAYOU LA BATRE, AL ..................................................................................... 50 200

BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ............................................. 21,100 21,100

BON SECOUR RIVER, AL ................................................................................ 20 20

DAUPHIN ISLAND BAY, AL .............................................................................. 250 600

DOG AND FOWL RIVERS, AL ........................................................................... 450 450

FLY CREEK, AL ............................................................................................... 200 200

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL ............................................................. 5,000 5,000

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL ....................................................... 100 1,133

MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ DANNELLY LA ................ 4,900 7,200

MOBILE AREA DIGITAL MAPPING, AL ............................................................. ........................ ........................

MOBILE HARBOR, AL ...................................................................................... 18,900 20,900

PERDIDO PASS CHANNEL, AL ......................................................................... 1,000 1,000

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL ................................................................ 350 350

ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL .......................................................... 5,000 5,600

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL ................................................... 80 80

TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS ......................................... 23,800 23,800

TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL ....................................... ........................ ........................

WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA .......................................... 6,565 6,565

ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK .............................................................................. 1,788 2,788

BETHEL HARBOR, AK ..................................................................................... 416 416

CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK ............................................................................... 1,659 1,659

COOK INLET SHOALS, AK ............................................................................... 2,200 2,200

DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK .............................................................................. 384 384

HOMER HARBOR, AK ...................................................................................... 181 181

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK ....................................................... 35 35

KETCHIKAN HARBOR, BAR POINT, AK ............................................................ 160 160

KODIAK HARBOR, AK ...................................................................................... ........................ 750

NAKNEK RIVER, AK ......................................................................................... ........................ 1,000

NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK .................................................................................. 173 173

NOME HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................ 1,458 1,458

PELICAN HARBOR, AK .................................................................................... ........................ 600

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK ................................................................ 527 527

ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ ............................................................................................ 1,306 1,306

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ ....................................................... 86 86

PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ ................................................................................ 1,310 1,310

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ ................................................... 32 32

WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ ............................................................................. 184 184
55

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR .......................................................................................... 4,343 4,343

BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR ........................................................ 4,734 4,734

BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ............................................................................ 1,148 1,148

BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR ................................................................................. 4,402 4,402

DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR ................................................................. 5,337 5,337

DEGRAY LAKE, AR .......................................................................................... 4,235 4,235

DEQUEEN LAKE, AR ........................................................................................ 947 947

DIERKS LAKE, AR ........................................................................................... 946 946

GILLHAM LAKE, AR ......................................................................................... 841 841

GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR .............................................................................. 4,873 4,873

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ...................................................... ........................ 340

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ...................................................... 308 308

MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR .................... 22,338 21,338

MILLWOOD LAKE, AR ...................................................................................... 1,559 1,559

NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR ............................................................. 3,308 3,308

NIMROD LAKE, AR .......................................................................................... 1,319 1,319

NORFORK LAKE, AR ........................................................................................ 3,255 3,255

OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR ................................................................................... ........................ 610

OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA .................................................. 7,127 7,127

OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR ..................................................... 3,912 3,912

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR ............................................................... 10 10

WHITE RIVER, AR ........................................................................................... 195 195

YELLOW BEND PORT, AR ............................................................................... ........................ 150

CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA ................................................................................. 1,952 1,952

BODEGA BAY, CA ........................................................................................... ........................ 1,800

BUCHANAN DAM, H V EASTMAN LAKE, CA .................................................... 1,725 1,725

CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA .................................................................... 40 40

COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA ............................................... 3,537 3,537

DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA ............................... 4,604 4,604

FARMINGTON DAM, CA ................................................................................... 299 299

HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA ................................................................. 1,687 1,687

HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA ................................................................ 3,516 3,516

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA ...................................................... 1,171 1,171

ISABELLA LAKE, CA ........................................................................................ 836 1,476

LOS ANGELES—LONG BEACH HARBOR MODEL, CA ...................................... 170 170

LOS ANGELES—LONG BEACH HARBORS, CA ................................................ 200 2,200

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA ................................................. 4,691 4,691

MARINA DEL REY, CA .................................................................................... 40 40

MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA .................................................................... 314 314

MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA ................................................................................ 273 273

MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA .............................................................................. 3,860 3,860

MOSS LANDING HARBOR, CA ......................................................................... ........................ 2,000

NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA ................................................................................... 1,922 1,922

NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA ...................................... 1,573 1,573

NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA .......................................................................... 40 40

OAKLAND HARBOR, CA ................................................................................... 10,127 10,127

OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA ............................................................................... 1,270 1,270

PETALUMA RIVER, CA .................................................................................... ........................ 2,500

PILLAR POINT HARBOR, CA ............................................................................ ........................ ........................

PINE FLAT LAKE, CA ....................................................................................... 2,443 2,443

PORT HUENEME, CA ....................................................................................... 40 40
56

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA ............................................................... 1,224 1,224

REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA ......................................................................... ........................ 2,000

RICHMOND HARBOR, CA ................................................................................ 4,389 4,389

SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA ............................................... 1,964 1,964

SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA ................. 1,766 1,766

SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA ................................... 132 132

SAN DIEGO HARBOR, CA ................................................................................ 140 140

SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY, CA ..................................................... 40 40

SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA ................................. 1,700 1,700

SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, CA ................. ........................ 200

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY (DRIFT REMOVAL), CA .......................... 2,366 2,366

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA ....................................................................... 2,501 2,700

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA ................................................................................ 998 3,000

SAN RAFAEL CREEK, CA ................................................................................ ........................ 1,800

SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA ........................................................................ 3,537 3,537

SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ....................................................................... 2,020 2,020

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA ................................................... 1,504 1,504

SUCCESS LAKE, CA ........................................................................................ 1,969 1,969

SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA ............................................................................ 1,635 1,635

TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA .............................................................. 1,747 1,747

VENTURA HARBOR, CA ................................................................................... 2,980 2,980

YUBA RIVER, CA ............................................................................................ 102 102

COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO .................................................................................. 420 420

CHATFIELD LAKE, CO ..................................................................................... 797 1,197

CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO ............................................................................. 525 925

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO ...................................................... 70 70

JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO ....................................................................... 3,454 3,454

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO ................................................... 249 249

TRINIDAD LAKE, CO ........................................................................................ 733 1,133

CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT .................................................................................. 490 490

COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT ......................................................................... 454 454

HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT ........................................................................... 221 221

HOP BROOK LAKE, CT .................................................................................... 979 979

MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT ....................................................................... 424 424

NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT ....................................................................... 294 294

STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT ............................................................ 485 485

THOMASTON DAM, CT .................................................................................... 516 516

WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT ........................................................................... 711 711

DELAWARE

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, D ............. 12,223 13,500

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, D ............ 888 888

MISPILLION RIVER, DE ................................................................................... 140 140

MURDERKILL RIVER, DE ................................................................................. 140 140

WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE ............................................................................. 2,985 2,985

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS (DRIFT REMOVAL), DC ........................... 928 928

WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC ............................................................................ 48 48
57

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

FLORIDA

APALACHICOLA BAY, FL ................................................................................. 300 300

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ............................................................................... 3,966 3,966

CARRABELLA BAY HARBOR, FL ...................................................................... ........................ ........................

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL ......................................................... 11,591 11,591

CLEARWATER PASS, FL .................................................................................. ........................ 500

EAST PASS CHANNEL, FL ............................................................................... 700 700

FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL .............................................................................. 3,037 3,037

FORT PIERCE HARBOR, FL ............................................................................. 49 1,000

HORSESHOE COVE, FL ................................................................................... 520 520

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL ....................................................... 100 100

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL ............................. 2,173 2,173

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ........................................................................... 4,040 4,040

JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA ............... 5,719 5,719

MANATEE HARBOR, FL ................................................................................... 20 20

MIAMI HARBOR, FL ........................................................................................ 3,700 3,700

MIAMI RIVER, FL ............................................................................................ ........................ 2,000

NEW PASS CHANNEL, FL ................................................................................ ........................ ........................

OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL ........................................................................ 2,520 2,520

PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL ............................................................................. 3,253 3,253

PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL ............................................................................ 1,000 1,000

PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL ............................................................................... 500 500

PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL ............................................................................ 2,032 2,032

PORT ST JOE HARBOR, FL ............................................................................. 500 500

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL ................................................................ 600 600

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL .............................................................. 3,634 3,634

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL .................................................... 50 50

SUWANEE RIVER, FL ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................

TAMPA HARBOR, FL ....................................................................................... 4,163 4,163

WITHLACOOCHIE RIVER, FL ............................................................................ 34 34

GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA ..................................................................................... 5,427 5,427

APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL & ................. 1,237 8,173

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA ..................................................... 2,172 2,172

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA .............................................................................. 3,902 3,902

BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA ............................................... 7,525 7,525

CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA ........................................................................ 7,600 7,600

HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC ........................................................................ 11,876 11,876

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA ...................................................... 41 41

J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC ........................................................ 10,325 10,325

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC ....................................... 6,564 6,564

SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA ................................................................................ 12,911 12,911

SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA ........................................................ 215 215

WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL ...................................................... 4,865 4,865

HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI ........................................................................ 344 344

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI ....................................................... 122 122

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI ................................................................ 508 508

IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID .................................................................................. 1,475 1,475

DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID ........................................................... 4,002 4,002
58

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID ....................................................... 75 75

LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID .................................................................................... 1,526 1,526

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID .................................................... 342 342

ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN .................................................... 3,709 3,709

CARLYLE LAKE, IL .......................................................................................... 4,962 4,962

CHICAGO HARBOR, IL .................................................................................... 2,662 2,662

CHICAGO RIVER, IL ........................................................................................ 362 362

FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL ....................................................................... 170 170

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND IN .......................................... 21,881 20,881

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND IN ........................................... 1,610 1,610

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ........................................................ 758 758

KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL ................................................................. 1,159 1,650

LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL ...................................................................... 1,037 1,037

LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL ................................................................................... 6,071 6,071

MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION) ............... 42,431 42,431

MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION) ............... 13,897 13,897

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL ................................................................. 43 43

REND LAKE, IL ............................................................................................... 4,760 4,760

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL ................................ 97 97

WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL ................................................................................. 770 770

INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN .................................................................................... 792 792

BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN .................................................................... 3,977 3,977

CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN ................................................................................... 674 674

CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN ............................................................................ 829 829

INDIANA HARBOR, IN ..................................................................................... 64 64

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN ....................................................... 102 102

J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN ........................................................................... 690 690

MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN .......................................................................... 1,495 1,495

MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN ................................................................................. 803 803

MONROE LAKE, IN .......................................................................................... 819 819

PATOKA LAKE, IN ............................................................................................ 757 757

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN ................................................................ 42 42

SALAMONIE LAKE, IN ...................................................................................... 710 710

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN ................................ 90 90

IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA ..................................................................................... 2,735 2,735

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA ........................................................ 812 812

MISSOURI RIVER—KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA ........................ 148 148

MISSOURI RIVER—RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS AND MO ............................ 3,270 6,880

MISSOURI RIVER—SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA AND NE ................................... 2,263 2,263

RATHBUN LAKE, IA ......................................................................................... 2,195 2,195

RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA .................................................... 3,356 5,182

SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA ................................................................................... 3,887 3,887

KANSAS

CLINTON LAKE, KS ......................................................................................... 2,201 2,201

COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS ............................................................................. 1,116 1,116

EL DORADO LAKE, KS .................................................................................... 478 478

ELK CITY LAKE, KS ......................................................................................... 526 526

FALL RIVER LAKE, KS ..................................................................................... 973 973
59

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

HILLSDALE LAKE, KS ...................................................................................... 1,014 1,014

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS ....................................................... 45 45

JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS ................................................... 1,100 1,100

KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS ..................................................................................... 1,507 1,507

MARION LAKE, KS .......................................................................................... 1,422 1,422

MELVERN LAKE, KS ........................................................................................ 2,006 2,006

MILFORD LAKE, KS ......................................................................................... 1,997 1,997

PEARSON—SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS ....................................................... 898 898

PERRY LAKE, KS ............................................................................................ 2,055 2,055

POMONA LAKE, KS ......................................................................................... 2,130 2,130

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS ................................................... 185 185

TORONTO LAKE, KS ........................................................................................ 456 456

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS ................................................................................ 2,004 2,004

WILSON LAKE, KS ........................................................................................... 2,069 2,069

KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN ........................................... 6,896 6,896

BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................... 1,900 1,900

BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY ................................................................................ 1,099 1,099

BUCKHORN LAKE, KY ..................................................................................... 1,440 1,440

CARR CREEK LAKE, KY .................................................................................. 1,656 1,656

CAVE RUN LAKE, KY ...................................................................................... 834 834

DEWEY LAKE, KY ............................................................................................ 1,371 1,371

ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR ................................................................. ........................ 460

FISHTRAP LAKE, KY ........................................................................................ 2,095 2,095

GRAYSON LAKE, KY ........................................................................................ 1,332 1,332

GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY .................................................................. 1,079 1,079

GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY ................................................................................. 2,107 2,107

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ....................................................... 87 87

KENTUCKY RIVER, KY ..................................................................................... 913 913

LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY ................................................................................ 1,311 1,311

MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY ............................................................................... 617 617

MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY ............................................ 106 106

NOLIN LAKE, KY ............................................................................................. 1,808 1,808

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN AND OH ...................................... 28,572 27,572

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN AND OH ............................... 5,180 5,180

PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY ................................................................................... 1,178 1,178

ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY ................................................................................. 2,069 2,069

TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY ................................................................................ 993 993

WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY ................................................. 5,407 5,407

YATESVILLE LAKE, KY ..................................................................................... 1,136 1,136

LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L .............. 13,181 13,181

BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA .................................................................... ........................ 1,000

BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA ................................................................... 652 652

BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA ........................ 730 730

BAYOU PIERRE, LA ......................................................................................... 28 28

BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA ................................................................. ........................ 740

BAYOU TECHE, LA .......................................................................................... ........................ 1,000

CADDO LAKE, LA ............................................................................................ 92 92

CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA .................................................................. 12,773 12,773

FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA ............................................................................... 1,595 3,595

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA ............................................................. 18,195 19,500
60

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA ..................................................................... 3,343 3,343

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ....................................................... 549 549

J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA ........................................................... 8,477 11,477

LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA .................................................................... ........................ 592

MADISON PARISH PORT, LA ........................................................................... ........................ 120

MERMENTAU RIVER, LA ................................................................................. 933 1,258

MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA ................................................. 1,937 1,937

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, ..................... 55,831 53,331

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA ........................................................... 13,111 15,111

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA ................................................................ 80 80

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA .............................................................. 2,000 2,000

WALLACE LAKE, LA ......................................................................................... 154 154

WATERWAY FROM IWW TO BAYOU DULAC, LA ............................................... ........................ 500

MAINE

PENOBSCOT HARBOR, ME .............................................................................. ........................ 275

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME ............................................................... 1,130 1,130

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME .............................. 17 17

UNION RIVER, ME .......................................................................................... 230 230

MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), MD ................................................. 464 464

BALTIMORE HARBOR (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS), ................ 650 650

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD ................................... 22,568 21,568

CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV ......................................................... 157 157

HERRING BAY AND ROCKHOLD CREEK, MD .................................................. ........................ 500

HONGA RIVER AND TAR BAY—BACK CREEK, MD ......................................... ........................ 300

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD ...................................................... 330 330

JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV ...................................................... 2,074 2,174

NANTICOKE HARBOR, MD ............................................................................... ........................ 700

NANTICOKE RIVER NORTHWEST FORK, MD .................................................... 865 865

NEALE SOUND, CHARLES COUNTY, MD ......................................................... ........................ 677

OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD ...................... 2,798 2,798

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD ............................................................... 459 459

RHODES POINT TO TYLERTON, MD ................................................................ 736 736

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD .................................................. 142 142

TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, MD ........................................................................... 1,901 1,901

TWITCH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE RIVER, MD ........................................... 742 742

WICOMICO RIVER, MD .................................................................................... 450 450

MASSACHUSETTS

ANDREWS RIVER, MA ..................................................................................... ........................ 130

AUNT LYDIA’S COVE, MA ................................................................................ ........................ 300

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA ................................................................................. 489 489

BIRCH HILL DAM, MA ..................................................................................... 511 511

BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA ................................................................................. 427 427

CAPE COD CANAL, MA ................................................................................... 10,150 10,150

CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA ............................... 294 294

CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA ............................................................................. 234 234

EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA ............................................................................ 325 325

GREEN HARBOR, MA ...................................................................................... 378 378

HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA ............................................................................ 416 416

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA ...................................................... 125 125

KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA ................................................................................... 648 648
61

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA .................................................................................... 476 476

NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER, ............. 358 358

PLYMOUTH HARBOR, MA ................................................................................ 3,356 3,356

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA ............................................................... 3,536 3,536

SCITUATE HARBOR, MA .................................................................................. ........................ 1,500

TULLY LAKE, MA ............................................................................................. 665 665

WEST HILL DAM, MA ...................................................................................... 607 607

WESTVILLE LAKE, MA ..................................................................................... 397 397

MICHIGAN

CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI .................................................................. 118 118

CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI .............................................................................. 122 122

DETROIT RIVER, MI ........................................................................................ 3,692 3,692

FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI ............................................................................... 47 47

GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI ........................................................................... 2,239 2,239

GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MI ......................................................................... ........................ 200

GRAND TRAVERSE BAY HARBOR, MI ............................................................. 10 10

HOLLAND HARBOR, MI ................................................................................... 554 554

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI ....................................................... 205 205

KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI ............................................................................ 804 804

LELAND HARBOR, MI ...................................................................................... 191 191

LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI ................................................................................ 103 103

MANISTEE HARBOR, MI .................................................................................. 42 42

MARQUETTE HARBOR, MI ............................................................................... 239 239

MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND WI ................................................................. 104 104

MONROE HARBOR, MI .................................................................................... 52 52

MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI ................................................................................ 451 451

ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI .............................................................................. 1,544 1,544

PENTWATER HARBOR, MI ............................................................................... 185 185

PORTAGE LAKE HARBOR, MI .......................................................................... 2,518 2,518

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI ................................................................ 275 275

ROUGE RIVER, MI .......................................................................................... 87 87

SAGINAW RIVER, MI ....................................................................................... 1,587 1,587

SAUGATUCK HARBOR, MI ............................................................................... 1,231 1,231

SEBEWAING RIVER (ICE JAM REMOVAL), MI .................................................. 10 10

SOUTH HAVEN HARBOR, MI ........................................................................... 1,563 1,563

ST CLAIR RIVER, MI ....................................................................................... 759 759

ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI ................................................................................. 638 638

ST MARYS RIVER, MI ..................................................................................... 17,418 17,418

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI ............................... 3,295 3,295

MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD ......................................... 217 217

DULUTH—SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI .................................................. 2,692 2,692

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN ...................................................... 101 101

LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ............................................ 573 573

MINNESOTA RIVER, MN .................................................................................. 130 130

MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION) ............... 45,329 43,329

ORWELL LAKE, MN ......................................................................................... 337 337

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN ............................................................... 7 7

RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN ............................................................................ 146 146

RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN .......................... 3,552 3,552

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN .............................. 94 94
62

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

MISSISSIPPI

BILOXI HARBOR, MS ...................................................................................... 30 30

CLAIRBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS ................................................................... ........................ 122

EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS .............................................................. 170 170

GULFPORT HARBOR, MS ................................................................................ 2,100 2,100

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ...................................................... 126 126

OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS ..................................................................................... 1,584 1,584

PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ............................................................................ 4,200 4,200

PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA ............................................................................. 250 250

ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS ................................................................................ ........................ 661

YAZOO RIVER, MS .......................................................................................... ........................ 115

MISSOURI

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO ..................................................................... ........................ 240

CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO ................................ 6,196 6,196

CLEARWATER LAKE, MO ................................................................................. 2,184 3,819

HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO .............................................. 8,215 8,215

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ...................................................... 142 142

LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO ..................................................................... 800 800

LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO ............................................................................... 876 876

MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO .............. 13,068 13,068

NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO ........................................................................... ........................ 290

POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO ......................................................................... 2,204 2,204

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO ............................................................... 10 10

SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO .................................................................................... 1,128 1,128

SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER ......................................... ........................ 400

STOCKTON LAKE, MO ..................................................................................... 4,065 4,065

TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO .................................................................................. 6,826 8,826

UNION LAKE, MO ............................................................................................ 10 10

MONTANA

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT ......................................................................... 4,342 4,342

LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT ............................................................... 1,791 1,791

NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE AND SD .......................... 6,495 6,745

HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE ............................................................................ 2,019 2,019

MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE ........................................... ........................ 275

MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL, NE, IA, KS, MO, ................... 500 500

MISSOURI RIVER BASIN COLLABORATIVE WATER PLANNING (NWK ............... 80 80

MISSOURI RIVER BASIN COLLABORATIVE WATER PLANNING (NWO ............... 125 125

PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, NE ........................................... 611 611

SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE .............................................................. 847 847

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NE ................................................... 329 329

NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV ...................................................... 43 43

MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA ................................................................. 576 576

PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV .................................................... 210 210

NEW HAMPSHIRE

BLACKWATER DAM, NH .................................................................................. 607 607

COCHECO RIVER ............................................................................................ ........................ 300

EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH .................................................................... 460 460
63

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH ............................................................................. 1,104 1,104

HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH ................................................................... 1,412 1,412

OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH ................................................................................ 781 781

PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH ................................... 287 287

SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH .......................................................................... 749 749

NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ...................................................................................... 1,400 3,200

COLD SPRING INLET, NJ ................................................................................. 410 410

DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ ................................................................ 19 19

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA AND DE ................... 17,105 19,105

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ ................................ 3,465 3,465

NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ ................................................. 2,800 2,800

NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ ................................ 2,900 2,900

PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ ............................................ 425 425

SHARK RIVER, NJ ........................................................................................... 100 100

SHREWSBURY RIVER, MAIN CHANNEL, NJ ..................................................... ........................ ........................

NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM .......................................................................................... 1,556 3,056

COCHITI LAKE, NM ......................................................................................... 2,209 2,209

CONCHAS LAKE, NM ....................................................................................... 1,932 1,932

GALISTEO DAM, NM ........................................................................................ 368 468

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM ...................................................... 80 80

JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM .............................................................................. 541 541

SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM ................................................................. 1,049 1,229

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM .................................................. 130 130

TWO RIVERS DAM, NM ................................................................................... 328 328

UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL ......................................... ........................ 1,500

NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY ......................................................................................... 463 463

ARKPORT DAM, NY ......................................................................................... 252 252

BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY ............................... 2,795 2,795

BUFFALO HARBOR, NY ................................................................................... 515 515

DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY ................................................................................... 280 280

EAST RIVER, NY ............................................................................................. 600 600

EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY ........................................................................... 250 250

EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY .................................................................................. 513 513

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY ....................................................... 2,300 2,300

FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY ..................................................................... 3,000 3,000

GREAT KILLS HARBOR, NY ............................................................................. ........................ ........................

GREAT SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY ................................................................... 50 50

GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY .................................................................................. 100 100

HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT) .......................................................................... 2,525 2,525

HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C) ............................................................................. 1,340 1,340

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY ...................................................... 509 509

JAMAICA BAY, NY ........................................................................................... 250 250

JONES INLET, NY ............................................................................................ 100 100

LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY ......................................................................... 80 80

LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY ................................................................... 50 50

LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY ............................................... 70 70

MORICHES INLET, NY ..................................................................................... 80 80

MT MORRIS LAKE, NY .................................................................................... 2,616 2,616
64

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY ............................................... 4,250 4,250

NEW YORK HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), NY AND NJ ...................................... 5,030 5,030

NEW YORK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS), ................. 750 750

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY ................................................................................ 5,570 5,570

OSWEGO HARBOR, NY .................................................................................... 20 20

PLATTSBURGH HARBOR, NY ........................................................................... ........................ ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY ............................................................... 2,563 2,563

ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY .............................................................................. 35 35

RONDOUT HARBOR, NY .................................................................................. 475 475

SAG HARBOR, NY ........................................................................................... 925 925

SHINNECOCK INLET, NY ................................................................................. 100 100

SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY ............................... 750 750

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY ............................... 479 479

WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY .............................................................................. 564 564

NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC ..................................................... 2,391 4,000

B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC ....................................................... 3,065 3,065

BEAUFORT HARBOR, NC ................................................................................ 35 35

BOGUE INLET AND CHANNEL, NC .................................................................. 1,267 1,267

CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC ................................................. 486 486

CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC ......................................................................... 1,060 1,060

FALLS LAKE, NC ............................................................................................. 1,516 1,516

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC ...................................................... 22 22

LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC ...................................................................... 895 1,895

MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC .................................................................. 4,863 4,863

MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC ................................. 2,245 2,245

MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC ....................................................................... 4,450 4,450

NEW RIVER INLET, NC ................................................................................... 1,235 1,235

NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC ................................ 940 940

PAMLICO AND TAR RIVERS, NC ..................................................................... 139 139

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC ............................................................... 64 64

ROANOKE RIVER, NC ...................................................................................... 100 100

W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC ................................................... 2,253 2,253

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ............................................................................. 5,105 5,105

NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN-HALEY LAKE, ND ............................................................................. 210 210

GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND ........................................................ 9,111 9,911

HOMME LAKE, ND .......................................................................................... 164 164

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND ...................................................... 52 52

LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND ................................................... 1,264 1,264

PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ....................................................................................... 402 402

SOURIS RIVER, ND ......................................................................................... 385 385

OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH .................................................................................. 799 799

ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH ............................................................................... 2,051 2,051

BERLIN LAKE, OH ........................................................................................... 1,872 1,872

CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH .............................................................................. 1,142 1,142

CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH ...................................................................... 723 723

CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ............................................................................... 3,700 3,700

CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH ................................................................................ 30 30

DEER CREEK LAKE, OH .................................................................................. 903 903
65

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

DELAWARE LAKE, OH ..................................................................................... 642 642

DILLON LAKE, OH ........................................................................................... 527 527

FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH .................................................................................. 1,235 1,235

HURON HARBOR, OH ...................................................................................... 1,040 1,040

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH ...................................................... 166 166

LORAIN HARBOR, OH ..................................................................................... 1,100 1,100

MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH .............................................. 25 25

MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH ............................................. 809 809

MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH .......................................................................... 1,054 1,054

MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH ...................................................................... 6,284 6,284

NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH ................................................ 358 358

PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH ................................................................................. 680 680

PORT CLINTON HARBOR, OH .......................................................................... 1,080 1,080

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH ............................................................... 85 85

ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ............................................... 30 30

SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH ................................................................................ 950 950

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH ............................... 190 190

TOLEDO HARBOR, OH ..................................................................................... 3,211 3,211

TOM JENKINS DAM, OH .................................................................................. 229 229

TOUSSAINT RIVER, OH ................................................................................... 10 10

WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH .......................................................... 476 476

WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH ....................................................................... 816 816

OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK ......................................................................................... 429 429

BIRCH LAKE, OK ............................................................................................. 572 572

BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK ................................................................................. 1,549 1,549

CANDY LAKE, OK ............................................................................................ 18 18

CANTON LAKE, OK .......................................................................................... 3,012 3,012

COPAN LAKE, OK ............................................................................................ 824 824

EUFAULA LAKE, OK ......................................................................................... 6,277 6,277

FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK ................................................................................. 4,144 4,144

FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK ................................................................................. 879 879

GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK ....................................................................... 234 234

HEYBURN LAKE, OK ....................................................................................... 572 572

HUGO LAKE, OK .............................................................................................. 1,670 1,800

HULAH LAKE, OK ............................................................................................ 406 406

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK ...................................................... 91 91

KAW LAKE, OK ................................................................................................ 1,840 1,840

KEYSTONE LAKE, OK ...................................................................................... 5,553 5,553

MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK .................... 3,025 3,025

OOLOGAH LAKE, OK ........................................................................................ 1,843 1,843

OPTIMA LAKE, OK ........................................................................................... 56 56

PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK .............................. 32 32

PINE CREEK LAKE, OK ................................................................................... 1,170 1,170

ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIRS, OK .............................. 5,130 5,130

SARDIS LAKE, OK ........................................................................................... 913 913

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK ................................................... 370 370

SKIATOOK LAKE, OK ....................................................................................... 893 893

TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK .......................................................................... 3,228 3,228

WAURIKA LAKE, OK ........................................................................................ 1,426 1,426

WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK ........................................................... 3,557 3,557

WISTER LAKE, OK ........................................................................................... 602 672
66

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR ..................................................................................... 720 720

BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR ................................................................................... 260 260

BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA .................................................... 5,430 5,880

CHETCO RIVER, OR ........................................................................................ 402 402

COLUMBIA AND LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLA ... 13,042 15,042

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA ............................................ 7,818 8,018

COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, O ............. 352 352

COOS BAY, OR ............................................................................................... 4,692 4,692

COQUILLE RIVER, OR ..................................................................................... 193 193

COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR ............................................................................ 981 981

COUGAR LAKE, OR ......................................................................................... 752 752

DEPOE BAY, OR ............................................................................................. 3 3

DETROIT LAKE, OR ......................................................................................... 584 584

DORENA LAKE, OR ......................................................................................... 649 649

FALL CREEK LAKE, OR ................................................................................... 722 722

FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR ................................................................................... 952 952

GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR ................................................................. 1,196 1,196

HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR .................................................................................. 377 377

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR ...................................................... 176 176

JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ....................................................... 4,056 4,356

LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR ............................................................................. 1,818 1,818

LOST CREEK LAKE, OR ................................................................................... 3,049 3,049

MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA .......................................................... 3,650 3,650

PORT ORFORD, OR ......................................................................................... 631 631

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR ............................................................... 200 200

ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR .............................................................. 674 674

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR ................................................... 69 69

SIUSLAW RIVER, OR ....................................................................................... 781 781

SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR ................................................................................ 161 161

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR ............................... 134 134

TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR ...................................................................... 14 214

UMPQUA RIVER, OR ....................................................................................... 834 834

WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR ............................................ 291 291

WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR .................................................. 68 68

WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR .............................................................................. 830 830

YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR ................................................................... 2,354 2,454

PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA ................................................................................... 6,015 6,015

ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA ................................................................................. 622 622

AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA ...................................................................... 229 229

BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA ..................................................................................... 1,355 1,355

BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA .................................................................................. 2,285 2,285

CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA ........................................................................ 945 945

COWANESQUE LAKE, PA ................................................................................. 1,887 1,887

CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA ............................................................................ 2,001 2,001

CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA ............................................................................... 676 676

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA ...................................................... 1,322 1,322

ERIE HARBOR, PA .......................................................................................... 70 70

FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA ................................................................. 729 729

FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA ......................................................................... 797 1,097

GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA .................................... 365 365

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA ....................................................... 95 95
67

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

JOHNSTOWN, PA ............................................................................................. 1,115 1,115

KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA ............................................. 1,189 1,189

LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA .................................................................................. 977 977

MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA .......................................................................... 1,093 1,093

MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ............................................................................. 14,203 14,203

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH AND WV .......................................... 19,321 19,321

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH AND WV ................................... 58 58

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA ................................................................ 88 88

PROMPTON LAKE, PA ..................................................................................... 482 482

PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA ....................................................................................... 15 15

RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA ...................................................................................... 3,902 3,902

SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA .................................................................................. 1,315 1,315

SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA ........................................................................... 2,252 2,252

STILLWATER LAKE, PA .................................................................................... 350 350

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA ............................... 65 65

TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA .......................................................................... 2,501 2,501

TIONESTA LAKE, PA ........................................................................................ 2,262 2,262

UNION CITY LAKE, PA .................................................................................... 221 221

WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA ......................................................................... 761 761

YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA ......................................................................... 547 547

YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD .................................................... 1,871 1,871

RHODE ISLAND

PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, RI ........................................................... 2,110 2,110

SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC ..................................................... 1,575 2,000

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ............................................................................ 5,171 5,171

COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC .................................................. 3,201 3,201

FOLLY RIVER, SC ........................................................................................... 748 748

GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC ........................................................................... 5,738 5,738

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC ...................................................... 26 26

MURRELLS INLET, SC ..................................................................................... ........................ 200

PORT ROYAL HARBOR, SC ............................................................................. 169 500

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC ............................................................... 45 45

SHIPYARD RIVER, SC ..................................................................................... 486 486

TOWN CREEK, SC ........................................................................................... 305 305

SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD ............................................................... 6,136 6,386

COLD BROOK LAKE, SD .................................................................................. 433 433

COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD ................................................................. 197 197

FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD ............................................. 8,044 8,294

LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN ........................................................................ 531 531

MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND GAVINS PT, SD, MT ............... 625 625

OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND ............................................................. 9,480 9,730

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD ................................................... 306 306

TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN .................................................................................. 4,757 4,757

CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN ..................................................................... 4,217 4,217

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN ............................................................................... 2,315 2,315

CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN .................................................... 3,910 3,910

DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN ................................................................................ 4,217 4,217

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ....................................................... 97 97
68

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN .................................................. 3,222 3,222

OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN ................................................................ 5,981 5,981

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN ................................................................ 19 19

TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ................................................................................... 16,422 16,422

WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN .............................................................................. ........................ 450

TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX .......................................................................................... 708 708

ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL—AREA VI ................... 1,267 1,267

BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX ............................................................... 577 577

BARDWELL LAKE, TX ...................................................................................... 1,499 1,499

BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX ......................................................................... 2,275 2,275

BELTON LAKE, TX ........................................................................................... 2,578 2,578

BENBROOK LAKE, TX ...................................................................................... 2,290 2,290

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX ........................................................................ 1,222 1,222

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX ........................................................ 2,977 2,977

CANYON LAKE, TX .......................................................................................... 2,743 2,743

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................ 5,399 5,399

DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX ................................................................. 5,532 5,532

ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX ........................................ 5 5

FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX ......................................... 2,554 2,554

FREEPORT HARBOR, TX ................................................................................. 6,950 6,950

GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX ....................................................... 130 130

GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX ................................................................. 585 585

GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX ....................................................................... 1,535 1,535

GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX ..................................................................................... 2,478 2,478

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX ............................................................. 19,994 19,994

HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX ................................................................................ 1,190 1,190

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX ........................................................................ 7,555 7,555

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX ....................................................... 452 452

JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX ................................................................................. 1,189 1,189

JOE POOL LAKE, TX ........................................................................................ 784 784

LAKE KEMP, TX .............................................................................................. 143 143

LAVON LAKE, TX ............................................................................................. 2,485 2,485

LEWISVILLE DAM, TX ...................................................................................... 3,253 3,253

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX .................................................................... 1,665 1,665

MOUTH OF THE COLORADO RIVER, TX .......................................................... 2,480 2,480

NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX ............................................................................. 1,596 1,596

NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX .............................. 1,748 1,748

O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX .................................................................... 893 893

PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX ..................................................................................... 976 976

PROCTOR LAKE, TX ........................................................................................ 1,659 1,659

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX ................................................................ 15 15

RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX ................................................................................. 821 821

SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX .................................................................... 14,272 14,272

SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX ..................................................... 4,417 4,417

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX ................................................... 243 243

SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX ................................................................................... 2,555 2,555

STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX ...................................................................... 1,719 1,719

TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX ............................................... 1,500 1,500

TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX ............................................. 1,748 1,748

TRINITY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX ........................................................... 1,000 1,000

WACO LAKE, TX .............................................................................................. 2,412 2,412

WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX ................................................................................... 1,320 1,320
69

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

WHITNEY LAKE, TX ......................................................................................... 4,227 4,800

WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX ............................................................ 2,611 2,611

UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT ....................................................... 75 75

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT ................................................... 390 390

VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT ............................................................................. 743 743

BURLINGTON HARBOR BREAKWATER, VT ....................................................... 250 2,000

NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY ................................................ 95 95

NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT .......................................................................... 635 635

NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT ...................................................................... 700 700

TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT ................................................................................... 764 764

UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT ................................................................................ 506 651

VIRGINIA

APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA ................................................................................ 749 749

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA ........................................... 1,795 1,795

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, VA ........................................... 835 835

CHINCOTEAGUE BAY CHANNEL, VA ................................................................ 430 430

CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA ............................................................................. 898 898

GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA .................................................... 1,535 1,535

HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS HBR, VA (DRIFT REM ........ 1,095 1,095

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA ....................................................... 59 59

JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA ........................................................................... 3,680 3,680

JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA AND NC ................................................................... 10,013 10,013

JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA ............................................ 1,387 1,387

LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA ................................................................................... 916 916

NORFOLK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS), V ................ 215 215

NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ................................................................................... 6,439 6,439

NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA ..................................................... 328 328

PAGAN RIVER, VA ........................................................................................... 145 145

PHILPOTT LAKE, VA ........................................................................................ 3,865 3,865

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA ................................................................ 630 630

RUDEE INLET, VA ........................................................................................... 1,053 1,053

WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA ................................................. 1,190 1,190

WINTER HARBOR, VA ..................................................................................... ........................ 1,000

YORK RIVER, VA ............................................................................................. 155 155

WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA ................................................................................ 848 848

COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA AND OR ............................................. 28 28

COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND SAND ISLAND, WA ..................... 36 36

EDIZ HOOK, WA .............................................................................................. 718 718

EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA ........................................... 1,345 1,345

GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA .................................................. 11,275 15,075

HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA ........................................................................... 1,739 1,739

ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA ................................................................. 3,249 3,249

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA ...................................................... 243 243

LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ............................................................. 7,200 7,200

LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................................... 1,290 1,590

LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA ........................................................... 6,114 6,114

LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA ................................................... 2,230 2,230

MILL CREEK LAKE, WA ................................................................................... 3,016 3,016
70

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ...................................................... 319 319

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA .............................................................................. 2,319 2,819

NEAH BAY, WA ............................................................................................... 30 30

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA ............................................................... 253 253

PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA ............................................... 938 938

QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA ................................................................................. 1,760 1,760

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA .................................................. 427 427

SEATTLE HARBOR, EAST WATERWAY CHANNEL DEEPENING, WA .................. 300 300

SEATTLE HARBOR, WA ................................................................................... 620 620

STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA ............................................................................ 240 240

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA .............................. 58 58

SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA ............................................................................. 515 515

TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA ..................................................................... 123 123

THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR .................................................... 2,961 3,261

WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA ................................................................ 435 885

WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV .................................................................................. 1,074 1,074

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV .................................................................................... 1,231 6,661

BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV ................................................................................... 1,783 1,783

EAST LYNN LAKE, WV ..................................................................................... 1,687 1,687

ELKINS, WV .................................................................................................... 18 18

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV ...................................................... 211 211

KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV ....................................................... 6,799 6,799

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY AND OH .......................................... 16,738 20,053

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY AND OH ................................... 2,407 2,407

R D BAILEY LAKE, WV .................................................................................... 1,582 1,582

STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV .................................................................... 888 888

SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV .............................................................................. 1,458 1,458

SUTTON LAKE, WV .......................................................................................... 2,016 2,016

TYGART LAKE, WV .......................................................................................... 3,223 3,223

WHEELING CREEK, VA .................................................................................... ........................ 2,000

WISCONSIN

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI ........................................................................... 736 736

FOX RIVER, WI ............................................................................................... 4,004 9,004

GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ............................................................................... 1,641 1,641

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI ....................................................... 17 17

KENOSHA HARBOR, WI ................................................................................... 1,122 1,122

KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI ................................................................................ 210 210

LAFARGE LAKE, WI ......................................................................................... 56 56

MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI .............................................................................. 249 249

MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI ............................................................................... 603 603

PENSAUKEE HARBOR, WI ............................................................................... 488 488

PORT WING HARBOR, WI ................................................................................ 260 260

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI ................................................................ 8 8

SHEBOYGAN HARBOR, WI .............................................................................. 46 46

STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI .................. 2,625 2,625

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI ............................... 42 42

TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI .............................................................................. 1,102 1,102

WYOMING

JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY .......................................................................... 1,198 1,198
71

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

MISCELLANEOUS

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH ..................................................... 700 700

COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM ........................................................... 2,750 2,750

CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION) ................................................ 1,500 1,500

DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE ............................................................. 8,000 8,000

DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM .............. 1,000 1,000

DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER) .............. 7,000 7,000

DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (DOTS) PROGRAM ................ 1,500 1,500

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS PROGRAM FOR BUILDINGS AND LIFELINES ............. 500 500

GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELS ............................................. 500 1,000

HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION ............................................ 575 575

INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS ...................................................... ........................ ........................

MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR O&M .................................................................... 500 500

MONITORING OF COASTAL NAVIGATION PROJECTS ........................................ 1,700 1,700

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM ................................................................. 40 40

NATIONAL DAM SECURITY PROGRAM ............................................................. 25 25

NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS (NEPP) ........................ 4,000 4,000

NATIONAL LEWIS AND CLARK COMMEMORATION COORDINATOR .................. 300 300

PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM .............................. 415 415

PROTECTING, CLEARING AND STRAIGHTENING CHANNELS(SEC 3) ................ 50 50

RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM (RMSP) ............................. 1,500 1,500

REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT SEDIMENT DEMO PROGRAM ................ 1,500 1,500

RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHABILITATION ..................... 675 675

REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS ..................................................................... 500 500

WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS) PROGRAM ...................... 700 700

WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS .......................................................... 4,000 4,000

REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ............................... ¥16,457 ¥33,634

TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................... 1,745,000 1,833,263

The Committee continues to believe that it is essential to provide

adequate resources and attention to operation and maintenance requirements in order to protect the large Federal investment. Yet,

current and projected budgetary constraints require the Committee

to limit the amount of work that can be accomplished in the fiscal

year. In order to cope with the current situation, the Corps has had

to defer or delay scheduled maintenance activities.

Maintenance backlogs continue to grow, with much of the backlog being essential maintenance dredging needed to keep the Nation’s ports, harbors, and waterways open and able to efficiently

handle important national and international trade activities. Yet,

the Committee is aware that out-year budget planning guidance for

the Corps of Engineers projects that the current appropriations for

their critical operation and maintenance activities will continue to

decline for the foreseeable future. If additional resources are not

made available, the Committee will be forced to cut back on services, and begin to terminate and close many projects and activities.

The Committee is aware of the Corps’ efforts to stretch the limited resources to cover all of its projects and to effect savings

through a variety of means. With an increasing number of projects

entering the inventory, and budgetary constraints increasing, it is
72

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 Committee agrees that centralized management of project

funds is efficient and is allowed under current guidelines for multiproject-related activities. These activities include, but are not limited to, the program development system known as the Automated

Budget System (WinABS) and certain activities such as the National Recreation Reservation Service; the provision of uniforms for

those required to wear them; Volunteer Clearinghouse; the Water

Safety Program; and the Sign Standards Program. However, the

Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to properly account and

disclose the costs of these activities.

The Committee is concerned about efforts to place the dredge

McFARLAND directly into active ready reserve status. In addition,

the Committee is concerned about efforts preventing the McFARLAND from being scheduled to work outside the Delaware River in

other navigation channels (especially the Mississippi River) as it

has successfully done. Though the private dredging industry has

constructed one new hopper dredge and has another in construction, it is not known if these two vessels can provide sufficient additional private industry equipment capacity to execute an average

year of dredging. Hopper dredging requirements over the last 2

years have been below average. The Committee believes that, given

the policy implications, the future status of the dredge McFARLAND or the recommendation of placing another dredge in ready

reserve should be carefully reviewed and authorized by the appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress.

The inland waterways infrastructure is an investment that tangibly benefits the nation’s economy and all consumers. Based on

analyses by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the use of inland waterway transportation nationally saves an estimated average of $10.69 per ton over alternative modes (based on 1997 waterborne commerce data). This represents a savings to American shippers, consumers and exporters of $7,000,000,000 annually, or a 14

to 1 return on the $500,000,000 investment of Federal dollars in

operating, maintaining and improving the inland waterways.

Inland and intracoastal navigation operates as a system, much

like highways. The Mississippi, Ohio, Illinois, Tennessee and Gulf

Intracoastal Waterway are like interstates—the main arteries that

carry most of the system traffic. Smaller tributary waterways act

as secondary roads, or neighborhood streets, allowing commerce to

feed on and off the main routes, and providing access to more remote communities and regions. These tributary waterways naturally carry far less traffic than the mainstem waterways, but, like

neighborhood streets, they play a vital role in linking communities

to the system as a whole. This allows shippers and consumers in

communities on tributary waterways to take advantage of the huge

economies of scale offered by large barge tows on the mainstem, resulting in lower transportation costs. It also allows millions of tons

of cargo to remain on barges much closer to its final destination,
73

rather than moving longer distances by highway or rail and adding

to existing congestion.

The tributary waterways naturally do not enjoy the same level

of relative efficiencies as the mainstem waterways. The Mississippi

and Ohio 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. But it

is important to recognize that the commerce on the tributaries is

usually only a small part of a total journey between producer and

consumer. Tributary traffic joins the mainstem traffic and becomes

a part of the impressive ton-mile statistics realized by the ‘‘interstates’’ of waterways.

Because of their very nature and function as tributaries, these

waterways have much higher operation and maintenance costs per

ton-mile than the mainstem waterways. However, as a return on

investment, most tributary waterways in fact appear to ‘‘pay their

way’’. Therefore, the Committee has restored funding to most of the

low use waterways and port projects not included in the budget request. The Committee believes that cutting low-use waterway funding does a serious disservice to the public.

Alabama-Coosa River, AL.—The Committee has included

$4,710,000 for the Alabama-Coosa River navigation channel. Funds

provided over the budget request are for annual maintenance

dredging of the waterway.

Naknek River, AK.—The Committee has provided $1,000,000 to

prepare plans and specifications and to initiate a contract to remove obstructive boulders causing hazardous navigation conditions.

Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbors, CA.—$2,200,000 has been provided to perform maintenance activities at the harbor project.

Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Lakes, CO.—An appro- priation of $1,200,000 has been provided above the budget request

of $2,055,000 for these three lakes. Frequent inundation of recreation areas are causing health and safety concerns requiring repair

or replacement of the facilities. It is the Committee’s understanding that the State of Colorado has agreed to cost share in 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.

This action in no way is intended to alter the Corps of Engineers’

lease and property accountability policies.

Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland.—The Committee recommendation is

$13,500,000. A portion of the additional funds provided over the

budget request of $12,223,000, are to be utilized to immediately reimburse the State of Delaware for normal operation and maintenance costs incurred by the State for the SR1 Bridge, from station

58∂00 to station 293∂00, between May 12, 1997, and September

30, 2001. The reimbursable costs include electric lighting and associated late fees, power sweeping, drainage cleaning, snow removal,

surface deicing, and periodic bridge inspections. Further, funds are

provided to reimburse the State for costs associated with normal

operation and maintenance of the SR1 Bridge for the period Octo-
74

ber 1, 2001, through September 30, 2002. Reimbursable costs include electric lighting, power sweeping, drainage cleaning, snow removal, surface deicing, and periodic bridge inspections. The Corps

shall initiate necessary repairs to the SR1 Bridge once repair recommendations from the bridge inspection are received.

Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, GA, FL, & AL.— An appropriation of $8,173,000 is provided. Funds are to be used

as follows: $1,237,000 for operation of the George W. Andrews

Lock; $3,000,000 for system-wide annual maintenance dredging;

$1,000,000 for maintenance of the disposal site; $600,000 to develop and implement a dredge material management plan;

$1,200,000 to dredge spot shoals; $365,000 to perform annual lock

maintenance; $231,000 to reestablish survey control points; and

$540,000 to restore hydrologic connections and habitat values in

three slough/tributary sites within the Apalachicola River System.

Calumet Harbor and River, IL & IN.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,709,000 for the Calumet Harbor and

River, IL & IN.

Missouri River-Rulo to the Mouth, IA, NE, KS, & MO.—The

Committee recommendation includes $6,880,000. In addition to

maintenance activities included in the budget request, additional

funding is provided for restoration of shallow water habitat and

maintenance and repair of dike and revetment structures.

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA.—An appropriation of $19,500,000 is provided. Funds over the budget amount are for

major repairs at Harvey Lock, painting emergency stoplogs at the

INHC, and painting stiffleg derricks at Algiers Lock.

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.—The Committee recommendation includes $11,477,000 to continue operation of the

locks and dams and dredging within the waterway. Further, funds

provided above the budget request are to be used to perform revetment repairs, lock and dam repairs, and to maintain the hydraulic

connections to the oxbow lakes.

Wolf and Jordan River, MS.—The Committee is aware that the

authorized 7 foot deep and 100 foot wide Jordan River Channel is

currently subject to draft restrictions due to shoaling, and has,

therefore, directed the Corps of Enginers, within available funds, to

perform maintenance dredging, or such activity as the Corps determines most effective, to ensure that project depth is maintained.

Honga and Tar Bay-Back Creek, MD.—The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 for dredging the navigation channel.

Missouri River Master Water Control Manual, NE, IA, KS, MO,

MT, & ND.—The Committee recognizes that this continues to be

a very contentious issue among all parties involved. Further, the

Committee understands that the Corps is complying with provisions contained in the National Environmental Policy Act concerning development of reasonable and prudent alternatives to the

biological opinion of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, the

Committee has provided $1,000,000 to accomplish additional measures to complete the final EIS.

Cocheco River, NH.—An appropriation of $300,000 is provided to

continue coordination with the State and Federal agencies for an

upland disposal site.
75

Abiquiu Dam, NM.—The Committee has provided $3,056,000 for

stabilization of the fractured rock walls on the north abutment of

the dam which are threatening facilities and cause a hazard to

project personnel.

Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model, NM.—The Committee has provided $1,500,000 continued development of the

Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model.

Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, ND.—The Committee has provided $9,911,000, an increase of $800,000 over the budget. The additional funds are provided for repair of damaged facilities and

mosquito control activities.

Wister Lake, OK.—The Committee has provided $70,000 above

the budget request for land transfers on the Wister Lake, Oklahoma, project.

Colombia River at the Mouth, OR & WA.—The Committee has

provided $200,000 over the budget request for the Corps to study

the impacts of alternate dredged material disposal methods. Specifically, the Corps is urged to examine the impacts of disposing of

dredged material at Benson Beach. The Corps should report back

to the Committee by September 30, 2002, with its recommendations as to whether this alternative is technically sound, environmentally acceptable and cost effective.

Tillamook Bay and Bar, OR.—The Committee recommendation

contains $200,000 above the budget request for initiation of a major

maintenance report for repairing the north and south jetties.

Providence River and Harbor, RI.—The Committee has provided

$2,110,000, the same as the budget request. These funds will be

used for normal maintenance activities as well as necessary activities to develop both the interim and long-term dredge material disposal areas.

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, SC.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 to continue maintenance activities along the waterway from Little River, South Carolina, to Port

Royal Sound.

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 Operations and Maintenance account.

The Committee has provided $1,000,000 under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program (Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall, and

Gavins Point Dams) for this purpose, 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.

Texas Water Allocation, TX.—The Committee has included

$1,500,000, as proposed in the budget request, for the ongoing

Corps’ effort to determine the optimum allocation of existing water

resources in Federal reservoirs in Texas.

Burlington Harbor Breakwater, VT.—The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for normal O&M activities and to repair the south

breakwater.
76

North Springfield Lake and Union Village Dam, VT.—$145,000

has been provided above the budget request for these two projects

to update the project master plans.

Little Goose Lock and Dam, WA, and The Dalles Lock and Dam,

OR & WA.—$600,000 is provided above the budget request for

these two projects to fund new requirements implementing the

Federal Columbia River Power System biological opinion.

Willapa River and Harbor, WA.—An additional $450,000 is provided to resume the navigation study.

Bluestone Lake, WV.—The Committee recommendation includes

$6,661,000. This is $5,430,000 above the budget request. The additional funds are for continued construction of the multi-level release tower, the public awareness program, and to initiate the

downstream clean-up.

Wheeling Creek, WV.—The Bill includes $2,000,000 to continue

the project.

Fox River, WI.—The Committee has provided $5,000,000 above

the budget request to transfer the navigation portion of the Federal

project to the State of Wisconsin.

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $124,725,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 128,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 128,000,000

An appropriation of $128,000,000 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.

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $139,692,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 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 2002.

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
77

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.INSERT 78A

The Committee notes that significant radiological contamination

has been discovered in the past year that the former nuclear weapons facility at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Middletown,

Iowa, and understands that the Corps is currently conducting a

Preliminary Assessment of the site for inclusion under FUSRAP.

The Committee is disappointed that the Preliminary Assessment is

not yet done. The Committee directs the Corps, in consultation

with the State of Iowa, to report back to the Committee, by December 1, 2001, on their recommendations regarding a radiological survey of the entire plant site and to take all appropriate actions in

accordance with rules and procedures governing the program.

GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $151,666,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 153,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 153,000,000

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.

Executive direction and management.—The Office of the Chief of

Engineers and 8 division offices supervise work in 37 district offices.

Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.—This support center provides administrative services for the Office of the Chief of

Engineers and other separate field operating activities, to include

personnel, logistics, and finance and accounting.

Institute for Water Resources.—This institute performs studies

and analyses for meeting national objectives. It develops planning

techniques for comprehensive management and development of the

Nation’s water resources.

United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.—This

center was established in 1996 in Memphis, Tennessee, to centralize Corps finance and accounting sites.

The Committee is concerned that the Army’s Centralized personnel management system for worldwide military service and

combat operations may not be meeting the Corps of Engineers hiring needs. The Committee urges the Army to evaluate the merits

of extending this centralized system to an organization of distinctly

regional civilian field operating agencies.

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.
78

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $153,000,000.

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.

The bill includes language in Section 102 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.

Language is included in Section 103 that directs that the Secretary of the Army may not accelerate the schedule to finalize the

Record of Decision for the revision of the Missouri River Master

Water Control Manual and any related changes to the Missouri

River Annual Operating Plan. The Corps of Engineers is undergoing an extensive process to revise the Missouri River Master

Water Control Manual and the annual operating plan with regard

to the Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion and other views.

The Corps’ schedule calls for more than a 15 month period between

the Secretary’s release of the Implementation Plan, which has not

yet occurred, and the finalization of the Record of Decision. So,

under this provision and in accordance with this schedule, the

Record of Decision will not occur in fiscal year 2002.
(79)

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $39,862,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 36,228,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 36,228,000

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2002 to carry out

the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act totals

$36,228,000. An appropriation of $24,169,000 has been provided for

Central Utah project construction; $10,749,000 for fish, wildlife,

and recreation, mitigation and conservation. The Committee recommendation provides $1,310,000 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.

The Committee notes that the requirement under the Completion Act to make an annual Federal contribution of $5,000,000 to the

principal of the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account ended in 2001.

It is the intent of the Committee that funds previously appropriated for the Uinta Basin Replacement Project, which was authorized by Section 203 of the Central Utah Project Completion Act

(Public Law 102–575), shall be immediately available to proceed

with construction of the Project as described in the 2001 Feasibility

Study and Environmental Assessment.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $678,953,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 647,997,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 732,496,000

An appropriation of $732,496,000 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
80

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.

The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the

following table along with the budget request.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date

Budget estimate Committee recom

Resource

management

and

development

Facility

operations,

maintenance,

and

rehabilitation

Resource

management

and

development

ARIZONA

AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 6,282 ...................... CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER BASIN ................................................................................................ 4,359,206 3,437,832 31,392 50 31,392 COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I ................................................................................... 449,596 411,038 725 9,355 725 COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM .................................................................................................. 147,873 102,490 3,103 ...................... 3,103 NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .......................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 575 ...................... 575 PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT ....................................................................................................... 20,000 475 250 ...................... 250 SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ................................................................................ 64,983 24,424 4,055 ...................... 4,055 SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 685 ...................... 685 TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION ....................................................................................................................... 6,040 4,788 200 ...................... 200 TUCSON AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE STUDY ............................................................................................ 1,000 759 100 ...................... 100 YUMA AREA PROJECTS .................................................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 1,658 18,037 1,658 

CALIFORNIA

CACHUMA PROJECT ....................................................................................................................................................... 36,605 36,605 640 426 640 CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 1,000 ...................... 1,000 CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PLANT ...................................................................................... 20,000 2,272 1,800 ...................... 1,800 CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:

AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION ................................................................................................................................... 202,014 165,661 2,387 10,996 2,387 AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT ............................................................................................................................. 2,723,655 376,856 1,947 ...................... 1,947 DELTA DIVISION .................................................................................................................................................... 425,681 227,531 12,182 5,053 27,432 EAST SIDE DIVISION .............................................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 604 3,630 604 FRIANT DIVISION ................................................................................................................................................... 519 400 2,103 2,923 4,603 MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................. 745,537 402,932 12,637 879 28,387 REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINT ................................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 11,000 ...................... SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION .............................................................................................................................. 520,329 405,241 4,071 1,682 5,071 SAN FELIPE DIVISION ............................................................................................................................................ 362,463 311,500 447 ...................... 697 SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION ......................................................................................................................................... 530,566 98,531 1,280 ...................... 1,280 SHASTA DIVISION .................................................................................................................................................. 301,019 292,284 2,456 7,025 7,706 
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date

Budget estimate Committee recom

Resource

management

and

development

Facility

operations,

maintenance,

and

rehabilitation

Resource

management

and

development

TRINITY RIVER DIVISION ....................................................................................................................................... 355,515 332,404 7,751 5,380 7,751 WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS ......................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 900 7,322 900 WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT ..................................................................................................... 1,599,810 585,638 4,735 6,417 4,735 YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 1,500 ...................... 1,500 

LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 200 ...................... 2,000 LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT ................................................................................ 15,411 3,396 1,800 ...................... 1,800 LONG BEACH DESALINATION PROJECT .......................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... LOS ANGELES AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT ............................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... MISSION BASIN BRACKISH GROUNDWATER DESALTING DEMO ..................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT ................................................................................. 20,000 6,140 1,800 ...................... 1,800 NORTH SONOMA COUNTY WATER REUSE STUDY .......................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM .................................................................................................................... 20,000 3,396 1,800 ...................... 1,800 ORLAND PROJECT .......................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 410 ...................... SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT ................................................................................................................................. 13,675 8,665 800 ...................... 800 SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVERSION STUDY ........................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM .......................................................................................................... 172,590 57,534 6,000 ...................... 6,000 SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT ....................................................................................................................................... 38,090 26,714 1,800 ...................... 1,800 SAN JOSE WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM .............................................................................................. 109,959 19,117 2,500 ...................... 2,500 SOLANO PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 1,210 1,149 1,210 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 875 ...................... 875 VENTURA RIVER PROJECT, CASITAS DAM ...................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 

COLORADO

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP SECTION 5 AND 8 .................................................................................................. ...................... 79,178 12,000 ...................... 16,000 COLLBRAN PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 127 1,202 127 COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... COLORADO—BIG THOMPSON PROJECT ......................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 49 7,913 49 COLORADO—BIG THOMPSON PROJECT—HORSETOOTH DAM ....................................................................................... 90,606 10,000 ...................... 26,000 ...................... FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 74 17 74 FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT ................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 9 4,472 9 
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ........................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 427 573 427 LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT ....................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 421 1,787 421 LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... LOWER GUNNISON BASIN UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ........................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... 332 ...................... MANCOS PROJECT .......................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 49 23 49 PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II .................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 2,119 ...................... PINE RIVER PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 88 62 88 SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 326 4,021 326 UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 368 27 368 

HAWAII

HAWAII WATER RESOURCES STUDY, HI ......................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 300 

IDAHO

BOISE AREA PROJECTS .................................................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 1,526 6,071 1,526 COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT ....................................................................................... ...................... 53,040 11,000 ...................... 11,000 DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, BOISE PROJECT .................................................................................................. 1,073 723 165 ...................... 165 FORT HALL EROSION CONTROL STUDY .......................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 509 ...................... 509 MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 1,968 3,272 1,968 MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................... 1,830 768 262 ...................... 262 

KANSAS

KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .............................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 594 ...................... 594 WICHITA PROJECT .......................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 269 ...................... 

MONTANA

FORT PECK DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM ........................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 294 ...................... MILK RIVER PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 440 541 440 MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 321 ...................... 321 ROCKY BOYS INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ...................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 8,000 ...................... 8,000 

NEBRASKA

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 23 32 23 NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 

NEVADA

HALFWAY WASH, NV ....................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 120 LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 6,347 2,089 6,347 
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date

Budget estimate Committee recom

Resource

management

and

development

Facility

operations,

maintenance,

and

rehabilitation

Resource

management

and

development

LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM ...................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 1,000 ...................... 1,400 NEWLANDS PROJECT WATER RIGHTS FUND ................................................................................................................... 7,000 3,200 ...................... ...................... 2,000 SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT ........................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 1,500 STEAMBOAT CREEK RENO, NV ....................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 100 WALKER RIVER BASIN PROJECT .................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 200 

NEW MEXICO

ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE ................................................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 7,500 CARLSBAD PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 1,689 742 1,689 EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY ........................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 250 MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 2,684 8,967 14,884 NAVAJO GALLUP WATER SUPPLY ................................................................................................................................... 2,000 909 300 ...................... 500 PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT ........................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 50 ...................... RIO GRANDE PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 1,001 2,591 1,001 RIO JEMEZ (ABOUSELMAN) INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ................................................................................. 1,200 ...................... ...................... ...................... 1,200 SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 214 ...................... 214 SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .............................................................................. ...................... ...................... 200 ...................... 200 TUCUMCARI PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 26 ...................... 26 UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 217 ...................... 217 

NORTH DAKOTA

DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 354 ...................... 354 DAKOTAS TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 250 ...................... 250 GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT ........................................................................................................................................... 1,484,000 675,205 21,011 4,228 24,000 

OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 186 ...................... MCGEE CREEK PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... 569 ...................... MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 276 ...................... NORMAN PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 183 ...................... 
OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 263 ...................... 263 WASHITA BASIN PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 731 ...................... W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 280 ...................... 

OREGON

BEND FEED CANAL PIPELINE PROJECT .......................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 300 CROOKED RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 278 418 278 DESCHUTES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 15,000 2,285 500 ...................... 500 DESCHUTES PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 360 138 360 DESCHUTES PROJECT—WICKUP DAM ........................................................................................................................... 38,279 11,500 ...................... 12,000 ...................... EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS ........................................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 340 267 340 GRANDE RONDE WATER OPTIMIZATION STUDY ............................................................................................................. 1,871 1,271 150 ...................... 150 KLAMATH PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 12,277 483 17,777 OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 457 ...................... 457 ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION ......................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 317 162 317 TUALATIN PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 149 107 149 TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY ................................................................................................. 275 100 100 ...................... 100 UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT, PHASE III STUDY ................................................................................................................ 804 704 50 ...................... 50 UMATILLA PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 409 2,227 409 

SOUTH DAKOTA

CROW CREEK TRIBE RESERVATION WIDE M AND I WATER SUPPLY ............................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 100 LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM ................................................................................................................... 213,888 1,534 ...................... ...................... 2,000 MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT ........................................................................................................................... 136,325 70,424 10,000 40 15,500 MNI WICONI PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................... 372,640 178,923 20,511 7,489 26,000 RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM .................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 30 ...................... 

TEXAS

BALMORHEA PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 30 ...................... 30 CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... 104 ...................... EL PASO WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE ................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... HASKELL STREET RECLAIMED WATER PROJECT, TX ...................................................................................................... 8,328 6,232 ...................... ...................... ...................... NAVAJO GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT .................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 300 ...................... 300 NUECES RIVER ............................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 421 ...................... PALMETTO BEND PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 688 ...................... SAN ANGELO PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 335 ...................... TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 197 ...................... 197 

UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 310 8 310 
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date

Budget estimate Committee recom

Resource

management

and

development

Facility

operations,

maintenance,

and

rehabilitation

Resource

management

and

development

MOON LAKE PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 39 6 39 NAVAJO SANDSTONE AQUIFER RECHARGE STUDY ......................................................................................................... 875 524 250 ...................... 250 NEWTON PROJECT .......................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 46 7 46 NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 305 ...................... 305 OGDEN RIVER PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 111 51 111 PROVO RIVER PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 465 363 465 SCOFIELD PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 56 25 56 SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 300 ...................... 300 STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 82 7 82 WEBER BASIN PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................. 19,639 16,593 1,704 290 1,704 WEBER RIVER PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 356 32 356 

WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 4,044 9,119 4,044 WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 425 ...................... 425 YAKIMA PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 516 6,753 516 YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT ................................................................................................ 194,034 25,234 10,600 ...................... 10,600 

WYOMING

KENDRICK PROJECT ....................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 8 4,654 8 NORTH PLATTE PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 40 1,412 40 SHOSHONE PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 54 925 54 WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 55 ...................... 55 

VARIOUS

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE II: PROGRAM AND COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................... 175,000 46,793 10,929 ...................... 10,929 COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 5 ....................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 5,349 1,821 5,349 COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 8, R&F&WL ....................................................................................... 103,876 55,633 4,677 61 4,677 COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 60,000 40,905 150 ...................... 150 
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:

DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM .................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 1,700 ...................... INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION ...................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 16,400 ...................... SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS ............................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... 17,900 ...................... SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION STUDIES ................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... 624 ...................... 

DEPARTMENTAL IRRIGATION DRAINAGE PROGRAM ....................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 2,620 ...................... 2,620 DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ............................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 582 ...................... 582 EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 3,738 ...................... 3,738 EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM ..................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 330 ...................... ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 13,522 ...................... 13,522 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 1,882 ...................... 1,882 ENVIRONMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 1,661 ...................... 1,661 EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ...................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 32 5,110 32 FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 950 ...................... GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES ........................................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 1,861 ...................... 1,861 LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 7,690 ...................... 7,690 LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM ................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 2,000 ...................... ...................... LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ....................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 13,103 ...................... 13,103 MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 509 ...................... NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION ................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 1,000 ...................... 1,000 NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM .......................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 8,400 ...................... 8,400 NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING ........................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 1,709 ...................... 1,709 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 180 950 180 PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN

—OTHER PROJECTS ....................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 3,183 29,747 3,183 

POWER PROGRAM SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 590 345 590 PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM ....................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 463 ...................... 463 RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 5,130 ...................... 5,130 RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT

—TITLE XXVIII ............................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 1,922 ...................... 1,922 

RECREATION & FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 2,694 ...................... 2,694 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY:

ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT DESALINATION PROGRAM ................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 1,150 ...................... 1,150 APPLIED SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 3,290 ...................... 3,290 DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM .................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 300 ...................... 5,000 HYDROELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION/ENHANCEMEN ......................................................................... ...................... ...................... 660 ...................... 660 TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT ............................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 300 ...................... 300 WATERSHED/RIVER SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 940 ...................... 940 

SITE SECURITY ............................................................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 1,755 ...................... SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION ............................................................................................................................ ...................... ...................... 314 ...................... 314 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES .............................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 1,894 ...................... 1,894 TITLE XVI, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM ............................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 1,650 ...................... 1,650 
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Total Federal cost Allocated to date

Budget estimate Committee recom

Resource

management

and

development

Facility

operations,

maintenance,

and

rehabilitation

Resource

management

and

development

UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES—TECHNICAL SUPPORT ............................................................................... ...................... ...................... 70 ...................... 70 WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 7,507 ...................... 7,507 WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................................. ...................... ...................... 3,836 ...................... 3,836 UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON ANTICIPATED DELAYS .................................................................................... ...................... ...................... ¥33,840 ...................... ¥45,989 

TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... ...................... ...................... 343,599 304,698 427,798 
89

Central Valley Project, CA.—Additional funding for this project is

included over the budget request for activities in support of the

Bay Delta Restoration. These activities are described more fully

under the heading for the California Bay Delta Restoration.

Lake Tahoe Regional Wetlands Development, California.—The

Committee has provided $2,000,000 to continue the environmental

restoration project for the Upper Truckee River in the vicinity of

the airport at South Lake Tahoe, California.

Animas LaPlata Project, Colorado.—The bill contains

$16,000,000 for the Animas LaPlata, Colorado Project. While this

is $4,000,000 over the budget request, the Committee recognizes

that with constrained resources it will be difficult to maintain the

schedule established by the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000.

Halfway Wash, NV.—The Committee recommendation has provided $120,000 for prefeasibility studies of Halfway Wash in Mesquite, County, NV.

Steamboat Creek, Reno, NV.—An appropriation of $100,000 has

been provided for the Bureau to initiate feasibility studies for flood

control and environmental restoration improvements for Steamboat

Creek.

Middle Rio Grande Project, NM.—The Committee recommends

$12,200,000 in additional funding for the Bureau of Reclamation to

continue the efforts of the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program Workgroup and its support activities to water users and species along the Middle Rio Grande. These efforts are intended to

promote long and short term activities to benefit species and water

users along the Middle Rio Grande, pursuant to a Memorandum of

Understanding signed among the relevant agencies and interested

parties. Funded activities will include: $4,700,000 for modifications

to river habitat; $2,180,000 for silvery minnow population management; $1,100,000 for monitoring of stream effects on the silvery

minnow; $120,000 to combat non-native species; $640,000 for Bureau of Reclamation’s repayment obligations; $950,000 for water

quality studies and improvements; and $2,500,000 for the Bureau

of Reclamation’s purchase of water. The Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service on the silvery minnow monitoring and habitat efforts. In

addition, the Bureau of Reclamation is directed to collaborate with

Universities in geographical proximity to the silvery minnow and

possessing established experience and expertise in working with

the silvery minnow. Finally, the Committee has included statutory

language which requires the Bureau to submit a report on the status and results of fiscal year 2001 funding and, to submit to the

Committee for approval, a detailed spending plan for fiscal year

2002 within 60 days of enactment of this Act.

Garrison Diversion Unit, ND.—The Committee recommendation

includes $24,000,000. While this is an increase over the budget request of $21,011,000, it is still far below the amount needed to fund

the project at an optimum level.

Klamath Project, OR.—The Committee recommendation includes

$17,777,000, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request.

The additional funds are for continued construction of the A-Canal.
90

Mni Wiconi Project, SD.—The Committee has provided

$26,000,000 for the Mni Wiconi Project. While this is an increase

over the budget request of $20,511,000, it is still far below the

amount needed to fund the project at an optimal level.

Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.—The Committee supports the WateReuse Research Foundation program to

provide important research into the science and technological aspects of water reclamation. The Committee further notes that the

Foundation has secured its cost shared portion for this program as

directed in last year’s spending bill. Accordingly, the Committee

urges the Bureau of Reclamation, within available funds, to continue support of the Foundation’s research program.

Science and Technology, Desalination Research and Development

Program.—Within the funds provided $500,000 is for research of

brine disposal alternatives in ‘‘land locked’’ areas such as Phoenix,

Arizona, and Las Vegas, Nevada and $1,000,000 to the Bureau of

Reclamation to complete a study to determine the most effective

and efficient manner of, and to develop a technology progress plan

to be used in, the development of a desalination research and development facility in the Tularosa Basin in New Mexico. The Committee recognizes that effective desalination cost reduction is the

key to wider use of desalination for improving the quality of life in

water-scarce regions. The Secretary of the Interior shall consult

with the Secretary of Energy and the Director of the Sandia National Laboratories in the development of the technology and implementation plan and will submit a report by the end of fiscal year

2002 to the Senate Committee on Appropriations outlining the development of desalination technology for the basin.

Within available funds, the Committee directs the Bureau to

work with other Federal and State agencies, including the National

Academy of Sciences, universities, and non-government entities to

act as a national clearinghouse for desalination technologies. The

Bureau shall establish a peer review process to validate the efficacy

of the multitude of desalination techniques available.

BUDGET LIMITATIONS AND REDUCTIONS

Constrained spending limits imposed by the Congressional Budget Resolution have made it difficult for the Committee to formulate

a balanced Energy and Water Development appropriations bill for

fiscal year 2002. In order to adhere to the subcommittee’s allocations, address the critical ongoing activities, correct program imbalances contained in the President’s fiscal year 2002 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 received numerous requests to include project authorizations in the Energy and Water Development appropriations

bill. However, in an effort to support and honor the congressional

authorizing committees’ jurisdiction, the Committee has not included new project authorizations.
91

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $9,348,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 7,495,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,495,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,495,000, the

same as the budget request, for the small reclamation program of

the Bureau of Reclamation.

Under the Small Reclamation Projects Act (43 U.S.C. 422a–422l),

loans and/or grants can be made to non-Federal organizations for

construction or rehabilitation and betterment of small water resource projects.

As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this loan

program account records the subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated in 1992 and beyond, as well as administrative

expenses of this program. The subsidy amounts are estimated on

a present value basis; the administrative expenses are estimated

on a cash basis.

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—LOAN PROGRAM

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Total Federal

cost

Allocated to

date

Budget

estimate

Committee

recommendation

LOAN PROGRAM

CALIFORNIA

CASTROVILLE IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY

PROJECT .......................................................... 14,403 13,164 1,239 1,239

SALINAS VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION .............. 9,401 9,000 401 401

SAN SAVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT ................ 28,100 22,525 5,575 5,575

VARIOUS

LOAN ADMINISTRATION ........................................ .................... .................... 280 280

TOTAL, LOAN PROGRAM ......................... .................... .................... 7,495 7,495

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $38,360,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 55,039,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 55,039,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $55,039,000, 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
92

surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to non-CVP users,

and tiered water prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation and restoration payments.

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. ...........................

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... $20,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ...........................

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.

The Committee has consistently expressed concern regarding the

duplication and overlap of CALFED activities with Central Valley

Project Improvement Act programs and other activities funded

under various other programs within the Bureau of Reclamation.

In addition the Committee believes that the appropriate authorizing committees of Congress should thoroughly review and specifically reauthorize the CALFED program. The committees of jurisdiction in these complicated matters should have the opportunity

to develop legislation to address these issues.

The Committee is aware that legislation has been introduced in

the House and Senate to reauthorize the comprehensive program.

Absent this 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 $40,000,000 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.—$14,250,000 to acquire water

and ground water storage and conduct NEPA analysis.

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

Delta Division Oversight.—$7,500,000 to continue coordination,

administration, planning, performance tracking and science activities in coordination with CALFED Program Implementation Plan.

STORAGE

Shasta Division.—$5,250,000 to continue evaluating the potential

impacts of the proposed Shasta raise.
93

Delta Division.—$250,000 to continue evaluations of the Delta

Wetlands project and other in-delta storage proposals. $1,000,000

for Reclamation to continue participating in planning activities associated with enlarging Los Vaqueros reservoir.

Friant Division.—$2,500,000 to continue developing a plan of

study for a feasibility level investigation for storage in the Upper

San Joaquin Watershed.

Sacramento River Division.—$500,000 to continue planning activities as agreed to in the Sites MOU.

CONVEYANCE

Delta Division.—$250,000 for the DMC Intertie with the California Aqueduct to continue evaluation studies on systems and environmental impacts. $250,000 to evaluate operations alternatives

for the Delta Cross Channel Reoperation.

WATER USE EFFICIENCY

Miscellaneous Project Programs.—$1,000,000 for pilot studies.

WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM

Miscellaneous Project Programs.—$500,000 to conduct NEPA

analysis and operate clearinghouse.

CONVEYANCE

Delta Division.—$6,000,000 to construct the Tracy Test Fish Facility.

Sacramento River Division.—$500,000 to continue engineering

and design work for the Red Bluff Diversion Dam Fish Passage Improvement Project.

San Felipe Division.—$250,000 to provide technical assistance to

Santa Clara Valley Water District in conducting operational appraisal studies.

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $50,114,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 52,968,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 52,968,000

The Committee recommendation for general administrative ex- penses is $52,968,000. This is the same as the budget request.

The policy and administrative expenses program provides for the

executive direction and management of all reclamation activities,

as performed by the Commissioner’s offices in Washington, DC,

Denver, CO, and five regional offices. The Denver office and regional offices charge individual projects or activities for direct beneficial services and related administrative and technical costs. These

charges are covered under other appropriations.

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Section 201 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 202 of the Bill includes language concerning Drought

Emergency Assistance.
94

Section 203 of the Bill includes language concerning refunds of

fees assessed for failure to file certain certification or reporting

forms under the Reclamation Act.
(95)

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Title III provides for the Department of Energy’s defense and

nondefense functions, the power marketing administrations, and

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

CONTRACTOR TRAVEL

The Committee believes that earlier statutory restrictions on contractor travel established new appreciation by contractors for propriety and cost effectiveness in their travel expenditures. For fiscal

year 2002, no statutory travel restrictions are included. Nevertheless, the Committee directs the Department to maintain contractor

travel summaries adequate for periodic reviews of programmatic

relevance and costs of contractor travel.

LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee believes that Laboratory Directed Research and

Development (LDRD) is essential to maintaining scientific and engineering excellence in the technical areas of effort undertaken by

the laboratories in support of the Department’s missions. The Committee therefore directs that no more than 6 percent of funding to

the laboratories be made available for LDRD.

In fiscal year 2001, the Committee established at the nuclear

weapons production plants a program analogous to the LDRD program at the laboratories. This provision for the production plants

is provided to attract and retain the highest quality work force

through investments in new production and design concepts and

the establishment of intern and cooperative student programs. The

Committee recognizes the value derived from this activity and directs the Department to permit similar investment for the future

by the Nevada Test Site. All of these efforts will be critical to maintaining the Department’s most valuable assets—its people.

ENERGY SUPPLY

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $659,918,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 544,245,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 741,139,000

RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $375,785,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 276,653,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 435,600,000

The Committee recommendation provides $435,600,000, for renewable energy resources, an increase of $59,815,000 over the current year appropriation, and $158,947,000 over the administration’s request.
96

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. For that reason, the Committee recommendation includes

substantial investments in renewable energy resources above the

Administration’s request. While the Administration’s Report of the

National Energy Policy Development Group recognized the importance of a clean and diverse portfolio of renewable domestic energy

supplies, the Administration’s budget, even as amended, provides

inadequate resources to accomplish these goals.

The Committee agrees that the Secretaries of Energy and Interior need to re-evaluate access limitations to Federal lands in order

to increase renewable energy production, such as geothermal, solar,

wind, and biomass. The Committee is encouraged by the interdepartmental cooperation demonstrated by these Departments in

facilitating the privately-funded large wind turbine project at the

Nevada Test Site. Our Nation’s vast holdings of public land are, in

many cases, ideally suited to the deployment of renewable technologies. The Administration is encouraged to enhance these opportunities.

The Committee has modified the request for low emission energy

technologies; including hydro, renewable, and nuclear, with the

view toward post 2010 application of new technologies. As a result,

with few exceptions, the Committee recommends basic research

that will provide significant improvements over existing technologies. The Committee is well aware of the proposition that appropriated funds can demonstrate the reliable operation of low

emission technologies before they become commercially attractive.

In a few cases, the Committee has provided funds for just such

demonstrations. However, in general, the Committee expects nonFederal financing to support the final stages of product development and all stages of market development.

Solar building technology research.—The Committee recommends

$7,000,000 to fund solar building technology development.

Photovoltaic energy systems.—The Committee recommends

$70,000,000 for photovoltaic energy systems. The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for continuation of the Million

Solar Roofs program at current year levels and $2,500,000 for the

Southeast and Southwest photovoltaic experiments stations. Additionally, the Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the Navajo

electrification project.

Concentrating solar power.—The Committee recommends

$15,300,000 for concentrating solar power. Within these amounts

the Department is directed to continue with deployment of the 1.0

MW dish engine and to continue activities associated with the 25

kW dish system. Additionally, the Committee directs the Department to develop and scope out an initiative to fulfill the goal of

having 1,000 MW of new solar capacity supplying the Southwestern United States by the year 2006. A report is due to the

House and Senate Committees by March 1, 2002.

Biomass/biofuels—power systems.—The Committee recommends

$53,000,000 for biomass/bio-fuels—power systems.
97

The Iowa switch grass project is funded at $4,000,000 in fiscal

year 2002. The recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the McNeil biomass

plant in Burlington, Vermont, and $1,000,000 for the for methane

energy and agriculture development project in Tillamook Bay, Oregon.

Biomass/biofuels—transportation.—The Committee recommendation includes $50,000,000 for biomass/biofuels transportation. Within available funds, $300,000 is provided for the continuation and

expansion of the on-going demonstration of the oxygenated diesel

fuel particulate matter emission reduction project in Clark County,

Nevada; $3,000,000 for the Michigan Biotechnogy Initiative;

$3,000,000 for the Prime LLC, of South Dakota integrated ethanol

complex, including an ethanol unit, waste treatment system, and

enclosed cattle feed lot; $300,000 for the Biomass Energy Resource

Center project in Vermont; $2,000,000 to continue the Sealaska

ethanol project (subject to a non-federal match) at the fiscal year

2001 level; $3,000,000 for the Biomass Gasification Research Center in Birmingham, Alabama; and $3,000,000 for the Winona, Mississippi, biomass project. Additionally, the Committee directs the

Department to continue funding for the Energy and Environment

Research Center at last year’s level.

Biomass demonstration projects may be funded from within the

totals available under biomass/biofuels energy systems account.

The Committee recommendation includes $18,000,000 to continue

the Integrated Biomass Research and Development Program.

Wind.—The Committee recommendation includes $45,000,000 for

wind. Within this amount, $500,000 is provided for the Turtle

Mountain Community College project in North Dakota; $1,000,000

is provided for the Kotzebue project in Alaska; $250,000 is provided

to the Wind Technology Center for a feasibility study for a wind

power generation facility to serve St. Paul and Unalaska, Alaska.

The Wind Powering America initiative is to be continued at last

year’s funding level. The Committee continues to recognize the

need for a set-aside for small wind programs, such as the one being

developed by the Vermont Department of Public Service and the

Department, in the Federal wind energy research and development

budget. The Committee recommends $500,000 for this project.

Renewable energy production incentive.—The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the renewable energy production incentive.

Renewable program support.—The Committee recommendation

includes $3,000,000 for technical analysis and assistance within renewable program support.

Departmental Energy Management.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for departmental energy management. The Committee directs the Department to provide a report by January 1, 2002, detailing the potential energy savings to

be derived from this program, if fully implemented.

International renewable programs.—The Committee strongly supports the U.S. international joint implementation program funded

in this account and recommends $3,000,000 for that purpose. The

Committee supports efforts to increase international market opportunities for the export and deployment of advanced clean energy
98

technologies—end-use efficiency, fossil, renewable, and nuclear energy technologies.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory.—The Committee recommendation includes $12,000,000, for capital equipment and general plant projects at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Of this amount, $1,000,000 is provided to reduce the maintenance

backlog. The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for

technical analysis, technical assistance, and the harmonization of

multi-program activities that address the resource opportunities

and electric power needs in the Southwest United States. The expertise of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is to

be made available through a site office in Nevada. NREL will provide expertise through a virtual laboratory concept, serving as a

portal for electronic communications, information sharing, data

warehousing, and partnerships among universities, researchers,

technology developers, and those interested in deployment.

Geothermal.—The Committee recommends $32,000,000 for geothermal technology development, including $2,500,000 for

GeoPowering the West. The Committee is concerned that the Department appears to be cutting funds for these important research

efforts prematurely. The Committee has provided a substantial increase and expects the Department to use the additional funds, in

part, to foster university research and public private partnerships.

Within available funds, the Committee provides $1,000,000 for the

UNR Geothermal Energy Center’s demonstration project.

Hydrogen research.—The Committee strongly supports research

and development of hydrogen technology and recognizes it to be a

highly promising and cost effective energy carrier. The Committee

recommends $35,000,000. The recommendation includes $350,000

for the Montana Trade Port Authority in Billings, MT to continue

the ongoing resource inventory, feasibility study, and development

of a Solid Waste Hydrogen Fuel Cell manufacturing capability,

$1,000,000 for the gasification of Iowa switch grass and its use in

fuel cells, $1,500,000 for the ITM Syngas project, $1,500,000 for the

fuel cell installation project at Gallatin County, Montana, and

$2,000,000 for continued demonstration of the hydrogen locomotive

and front-end loader projects.

The Committee continues to encourage demonstration of a dedicated fleet of vehicles, including buses, powered by hydrogen.

Hydropower.—The Committee recommends $9,300,000 for hydropower. The Committee commends the Department of Energy for

recognizing the benefits of and developing advanced ‘‘fish-friendly’’

turbines for hydro-electric generation. The Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000 for that effort. Within available

funds, the Committee recommends $400,000 to plan a hydroelectric

power generation facility at Gustavus, Alaska, subject to a local

match for construction. Additionally, the Committee recommends

$1,900,000 for the completion of the Power Creek hydroelectric

project in Alaska. No additional funds will be made available for

this project.

Renewable Indian energy resources.—The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for Indian renewable energy resource development. The Committee expects these funds to be ad-
99

ministered as competitively awarded grants to federally-recognized

tribes throughout the United States.

Electric energy systems and storage.—The Committee recommendation includes $71,000,000 for electric energy systems and

storage.

This program provides funding for transmission reliability, energy storage systems and high temperature superconductivity research and development.

Within available funds under electric energy systems and storage, the Committee recommends $1,000,000 to initiate development

of a bipolar wafer-cell nickel metal hydride battery storage system;

$2,000,000 for Glenallen power generation upgrades, including extension of electricity to residents of Lake Louise; and $2,000,000 for

the Kachemak Bay Power System to extend and upgrade marine

power cabling to provide power to the villages of Seldovia,

Nanwalek, and Port Graham, Alaska. The Committee also recommends $3,000,000 for the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee electrical

intertie pursuant to the Southeast Alaska intertie authorization enacted into law last year. Additionally, the Committee recommends

$3,000,000 to complete the Prince of Wales Island electrical

intertie. The Committee notes that $20,000,000 has been provided

in State and local funds and this Federal amount represents the

final installment needed to complete the project. The Committee

recommendation also includes $3,000,000, within available funds,

for NREL for research, development, and demonstration of advanced thermal energy storage technology integrated with renewable thermal energy technology.

In view of the Department’s goal of obtaining a minimum of 20

percent of new generation through distributed generation technologies by 2010, the Committee supports the joint effort between

New Mexico Tech and the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii to

integrate, demonstrate, and ultimately deploy distributed energy

systems that make full use of conventional and renewable technologies and recommends $1,000,000 for this purpose.

The Committee urges the Department of expand its partnership

with and funding support to the University of California-Irvine’s

Advanced Power and Energy Program (APEP), the only nationally

university-based public-private collaborative involving major gas

turbine, micro turbine, fuel cell and renewable manufacturers,

California utilities and Federal, regional and State government

agencies. APEP’s energy and information related technology demonstrations are accelerating the deployment of affordable and reliable energy products and systems, essential to helping the nation

and Western States respond to current and future energy requirements.

Renewable program direction.—The Committee recommendation

includes $21,000,000 for program direction within this account.

NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $259,925,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 223,122,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 264,069,000
100

The Committee recommendation provides $264,069,000 for nuclear energy, an increase of $4,144,000 from the current year appropriation.

Nuclear energy presently contributes about 21 percent of our nation’s electrical power and emits no atmospheric pollutants. The

United States has not yet determined how to handle spent nuclear

fuel, and the Committee does not underestimate the technical and

social challenges entailed in this challenge. Although geologic repository characterization activities continue at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada, this ‘‘bury and forget’’ concept for dealing with spent nuclear fuel continues to encounter obstacles to its implementation,

both domestically and internationally. While the Committee supports continued nuclear power research and development activities

as part of a balanced approach to meeting our Nation’s energy

needs, industry and the Department are strongly encouraged to

focus their research efforts on a broader array of disposal options,

including reprocessing, transmutation, and dry cask storage, all of

which reduce or eliminate the need for a geologic repository.

Advanced radioisotope power systems.—The Committee recommends $29,094,000 for advanced radioisotope power systems.

Isotopes.—The Committee recommends $24,683,000 for isotope

support and production. Within this amount, the Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 for medical applications. Additionally, the Committee recommends $2,494,000 for the Isotope

Production Facility at LANSCE. The amount recommended is reduced by offsetting collections of $9,000,000 to be received in fiscal

year 2002, resulting in a net recommended appropriation of

$18,177,000.

University reactor fuel assistance and support.—The Committee

recommends a total of $19,000,000, an increase of $7,206,000 over

the budget request, for university reactor fuel assistance and support. University nuclear engineering programs and university research reactors represent a fundamental and key capability in supporting our national policy goals in health care, materials science

and energy technology.

The Committee strongly supports both the University Reactor

Fuel Assistance and Support program’s efforts to provide fellowships, scholarships, and grants to students enrolled in science and

engineering programs at U.S. universities, as well as efforts to provide fuel assistance and reactor upgrade funding for universityowned research reactors, such as the TRIGA reactor at Oregon

State University.

The Committee is very concerned about the long-term viability of

nuclear engineering programs in the United States and the continued loss of university research reactors. In 1988, the United States

had 40 university reactors. Today, only 27 exist, and of those, several are under consideration for closing. To address this growing

problem, the additional resources shall be used to initiate the establishment of (1) geographically distributed regional university research reactor user facilities, and (2) geographically distributed

training and education reactor facilities in a manner consistent

with the Final Report of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory

Committee University Research Reactor Task Force. The program
101

should also include substantial financial support from the nuclear

industry.

Nuclear energy plant optimization.—The Committee recommends

a total of $9,000,000, an increase of $4,500,000 over the budget request. The Department is encouraged to expand this cost-shared research and development program to improve the reliability, availability, and productivity of existing nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.—The Committee recommends a total of $38,000,000, an increase of $19,921,000 over

the budget request and $3,000,000 over the current year enacted

level. The Department’s budget request would only marginally support existing NERI projects and would not allow for any new

projects in the coming year. The proposed increase is necessary to

grow the scope of the technology and the people for a growing nuclear industry. The recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the

Department to pursue reactor-based transmutation in coordination

with studies of accelerator-based transmutation.

Nuclear Energy Technologies.—The Committee recommends a

total of $14,000,000, an increase of $9,500,000 over the budget request and $6,500,000 over the current year level. The Committee

recommendation includes $4,000,000 for completion of the Generation IV Technology Roadmap; $7,000,000 for advanced reactor development consistent with the longer term recommendations of the

Generation IV Technology Roadmap and to continue research

begun in the current fiscal year on small, modular nuclear reactors;

and $3,000,000 to support, on a cost-shared basis, the generic/industry-wide proposals from the report of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee’s Near-Term Deployment Group.

Infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation includes

$81,279,000 for infrastructure, the amount of the request.

ANL–West Operations.—The Committee recommendation includes $34,107,000, the amount of the request and $5,043,000 less

than the current year, for ANL–West operations.

Fast flux test facility.—The Committee has provided the budget

request of $38,439,000 for the FFTF. Since the FFTF was shut

down in 1992, the Department has spent a total of $473,700,000 to

begin deactivation and then to maintain it in a safe standby condition while seeking other missions. Had this amount of funding been

spent to decontaminate and decommission (D&D) the reactor, the

job would have been finished.

In April, the Secretary of Energy granted a 90-day delay in shutdown for yet another review of possible missions. The Committee

is not optimistic that the results of this review will be any different

than previous reviews. If the review determines that the reactor

should be shut down, the Department is directed to immediately

submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a

plan detailing how the Department intends to shut down and begin

the decommissioning and decontamination of the FFTF. If the review determines that the reactor should be restarted, the Department must submit a detailed project plan with a validated baseline

cost, scope and schedule for restart to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. No funds may be obligated for restart

activities until 60 days after submission of this report and approval

by the Committees on Appropriations.
102

Nuclear facilities management.—The Committee recommendation

includes $30,457,000 for nuclear facilities management, the amount

of the request. Within this amount, the Committee directs that

$4,200,000 be used to complete deactivation of EBR–II.

Program direction.—The Committee recommendation includes

$25,062,000 for program direction, the amount of the request.

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $35,998,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 35,500,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 33,500,000

The Committee recommendation includes $33,500,000 for non-defense environment, safety, and health which includes $19,527,000

for program direction.

ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $8,600,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 8,970,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,970,000

Technical information management.—The Committee recommendation for the technical information management program

is $1,600,000.

Program direction.—The Committee recommendation for pro- gram direction is $6,370,000.

General reduction.—The Committee recommendation includes a

general reduction of $5,000,000, to be applied uniformly across Nuclear Energy.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

(NONDEFENSE)

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $277,200,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 228,553,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 228,553,000

The Committee recommendation provides $228,553,000 for nondefense environmental management.

The non-defense environmental management program is responsible for managing and addressing the environmental legacy resulting from nuclear energy and civilian energy research programs, primarily the Office of Science within the Department of Energy. Research and development activities of DOE and predecessor agencies

generated waste and other contaminants which pose unique problems, including unprecedented volumes of contaminated soils,

water and facilities. The funding requested and provided here supports the Department’s goal of cleaning up as many of its contaminated sites as possible by 2006 in a safe and cost-effective manner.

The Committee is concerned that a growing number of projects

within the closure account will not, in fact, be closed out by 2006.

The closure accounts were created to focus attention and resources

on clean-up projects that were considered the most likely candidates for timely closure. To the extent that several projects now

appear likely to miss the 2006 deadline, the Department should

consider moving them back to the post-2006 list. The Committee directs the Department to provide to the Committee by March 1,
103

2002, a report that aligns projects appropriately among site closure, site completion, and post-2006 completion.

Site Closure.—The Committee recommendation provides $43,000,000 for site closure.

Site completion.—The Committee recommendation provides $64,119,000 for site completion. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $1,800,000 to support accelerating clean-up

along the Columbia River in Hanford’s 300 Area.

Post 2006 completion.—The Committee recommendation provides $120,053,000, the amount of the request.

Excess Facilities.—The Committee recommendation provides $1,381,000 for the transfer of excess facilities at the Brookhaven

National Laboratory and Oak Ridge from other DOE organizations.

URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $392,502,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 363,425,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 408,725,000

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning.— The Committee recommendation provides $286,941,000 for the uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund, an

increase of $45,300,000 above the requested level. Of this amount,

$14,300,000 is provided for continued critical soil remediations at

East Tennessee Technology Park and $30,000,000 is provided for

continued clean-up at Paducah, Kentucky. Within the amount provided to Paducah, the Committee directs that $3,000,000 be set

aside for the purpose of depleted uranium cylinder yard

contruction. Total funding for Paducah under the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account for fiscal year 2002 is

$102,982,000.

The Committee directs the Secretary to provide a detailed ac- counting of the $373,000,000 fund created under Public Law 105– 204 and reserved exclusively for DUF6 activities. The report is due

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on or before January 31, 2002, and should cover all activities since the

fund’s inception in 1998. The uranium enrichment decontamination

and decommissioning fund was established in accordance with title

XI of Public Law 102–486, the National Energy Policy Act of 1992.

The funds provided for the environmental cleanup of the Department’s uranium enrichment plants, two of which are currently

leased to the USEC, and the cleanup of uranium mill tailings and

thorium piles resulting from production and sales to the Federal

Government for the Manhattan Project and other national security

purposes.

The Committee remains concerned by the growing backlog and

gap between the amount of claims approved for payment and the

funding requested by the Department to pay those claims. Since

these payments go to reimburse operating uranium and thorium licensees for their costs of cleanup related to Federal activities, the

Committee continues to believe the Department should be doing

more to ensure additional funds are available to make timely payments for approved claims.

Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends $800,000

for the Secretary to contract with the nation’s sole remaining ura-
104

nium converter for the purpose of performing research and development to improve the environmental and economic performance of

U.S. uranium conversion operations. The Committee is aware of a

December 2000 report to Congress—‘‘Report to Congress on Maintenance of Viable Domestic Uranium, Conversion and Enrichment

Industries’’—that documents the negative impact of the privatization of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation on the U.S. conversion industry. Although the Department recommended a more ambitious

proposal to assist the industry involving price supports, the Committee finds a modest research and development program to be

more appropriate at this time.

Other Uranium Activities.—The Committee recommends

$120,784,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request.

The additional funds reflect the transfer of DUF6 activities from

the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning

Fund subaccount to the Other Uranium Activities subaccount.

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL FUND

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $190,654,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 134,979,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,000,000

The Committee recommendation includes $275,000,000 for nuclear waste disposal. Of that amount, $25,000,000 is derived from

the nuclear waste fund, and $250,000,000 shall be available from

the ‘‘Defense nuclear waste disposal’’ account.

The Committee is concerned about the failure of the Nation’s nuclear waste policy to define an acceptable solution to the problem

of disposing of the growing inventories of spent nuclear fuel and

other high level radioactive waste. More than two decades ago, the

Nation determined that permanent disposal in a geologic repository

was the only acceptable path. That decision was based, in part, on

another policy that prohibited the reprocessing of spent nuclear

fuel into its constituent materials, each of which represents different hazardous properties and raises nuclear non-proliferation

issues. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, further

restricted disposal options by prohibiting the characterization of

any potential repository site other than Yucca Mountain, Nevada,

because the technical investigation was more costly than anticipated.

These efforts to accelerate the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and

high level radioactive waste appear to have accomplished just the

opposite. The decision to prohibit the consideration of any sites

other than Yucca Mountain, Nevada, engendered strong and unified opposition by the State of Nevada and its citizens, with obvious

consequence. The decision to pursue only a ‘‘bury it all and forget

it’’ policy at a single site closed off many avenues of investigation

and research into alternative disposal concepts that might better

serve our Nation’s needs.

Since the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Depart- ment has spent $8,000,000,000 on investigating a geologic repository for the nation’s nuclear waste. However, the Department still

has not demonstrated that the proposed site at Yucca Mountain

will be suitable. There are still many significant unresolved technical and socioeconomic issues that may prevent the site from
105

being developed as a repository. The Committee expects the Department to focus all its resources on resolving the remaining technical issues prior to site recommendation and initiating any actions

on performance confirmation or license application.

The Committee is also concerned with what is apparently unwarranted confidence on the part of the Office of Civilian Radioactive

Waste Management that its current concept for the repository will

stand the tests of time and inquiry. For example, surface water

was assumed to take thousands of years to penetrate to the repository level, assuring a ‘‘dry and non-corrosive’’ environment for repository canisters containing millions of tons of spent nuclear fuel.

The earliest studies making use of the excavated test facility disproved this assumption. Subsequently, it was assumed that radioactivity that escaped the canisters because of the corrosive effects

of water would be ‘‘immobilized’’ within the rock, would not penetrate to the ground water, and even if it did, would move with excruciating slowness through the ground water matrix. Observations

of migration of radioactive contaminants from underground nuclear

test cavities disproved these assumptions.

Until quite recently, the repository operational concept entailed

backfilling and sealing chambers within the repository that had

been filled with waste canisters. The concept relied on the assumption that the heat generated by radioactive decay would prevent

surface water from entering the repository level. Subsequent studies suggested that the repository levels could become wet as the radioactivity (heat) decreased over time. So the latest current concept

is to ventilate the repository to prevent the accumulation of liquid

water as the waste decays. Presently, the repository concept appears to be a ‘‘monitored, retrievable’’ storage site with the possibility of transition to a sealed permanent repository some time in

the future. Such significant variance with founding assumptions of

geologic disposal is damaging to public confidence in site characterization findings, especially when these changes are made so close

to the expected decision on site suitability.

The Department has an ambitious schedule to complete action

this year on the site suitability determination. The Committee is

concerned that work which should be completed as part of the site

characterization of Yucca Mountain is being postponed for the performance confirmation period between site recommendation and

closure. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the Department to

apply for a license within 90 days of the finalization of site recommendation. The expectation is that the Department will have all

necessary science and technical information for the license application. To guide the program, the Department has agreed on nine

Key Technical Issues that must be addressed or planned to be addressed to ensure the completeness of the Department’s license application. To restore confidence in the site characterization process,

the Committee recommends that the Department fulfill commitments pursuant to all Key Technical Issue agreements prior to a

decision about site suitability.

Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that the performance

assessment, the Total System Performance Assessment, used by

the Department suffers from poor quality assurance. An independent review of the program by the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
106

sion found technical errors and/or inconsistencies. Since the performance assessment will provide important information for a decision about site suitability, the Committee recommends the Department place a greater emphasis on identifying and fixing these problems. The Committee recommends the Department review the

Quality Assurance Requirements Description document and its implementing procedures. The Committee recommends including the

results of this review with the material the Secretary prepares for

a decision about site suitability.

The Committee is concerned the Department intends to finalize

proposed changes to the regulations that prescribe the criteria for

a decision about site suitability. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act directs the Department to establish these criteria in the Site Characterization Plan developed pursuant to section 112(a) of the Act. The

proposed rule changes would eliminate the specific factors to qualify or disqualify the site contrary to the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy and replace them with a single performance

evaluation. The Committee is concerned that the Department has

no statutory authority for modifying these regulations. In addition,

these changes would place a greater emphasis on the expected performance of engineered barriers over the natural barriers. The

Committee notes that the existing regulations allow for a performance assessment in addition to the other qualifying and disqualifying factors. With significant site characterization activities remaining to be completed and budget resources limited, the Committee recommends the Department use existing regulations to determine site suitability.

The Committee is concerned that the program suffers from poor

management and as a result has had significant cost overruns and

has postponed necessary site characterization work. The Committee understands the General Accounting Office is investigating

allegations of waste, fraud and abuse in the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management made in an anonymous letter to the

Inspector General. The Committee expects to receive the results of

the GAO investigation later this year and intends to reexamination

the allocation for the Office in light of the findings of that investigation.

The draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Department indicates thousands of shipments of commercial spent nuclear fuel and Department of Defense waste would be made to the

proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. The Committee is concerned that communities in at least 43 States would be near the

transportation routes. The Committee recommends the Department

determine the specific shipment methods and routes, make that information available to the communities along those routes, and

holds hearings in the affected communities. These hearings should

allow a reasonable period for public comment for the affected communities. The comments should be included in the information the

Secretary provides to the President for a decision about site suitability.

The Committee also believes the massive interstate transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste constitutes a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of

the human environment for purposes of the National Environ-
107

mental Policy Act. According to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the

final environmental impact statement and any associated comments must be included with the Secretary’s determination of site

recommendation. The Committee is concerned that the Department

has not dedicated sufficient resources to address this issue. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that a failure to incorporate

this information into a possible decision about site suitability will

lead to additional delays and cost overruns in the Yucca Mountain

site characterization program. The Committee recommends the Department allocate appropriate funds to complete the environment

impact statement on transportation of nuclear waste.

Finally, the Committee is concerned that the costs of the repository, which have clearly escalated, are still not well understood by

the Department. To say the least, it is disturbing that overall costs

have nearly doubled (from $30,000,000,000 to $58,000,000,000)

since the early 1990’s. More troubling is the $12,000,000,000 increase in costs during just the last 3 years. It is difficult, for example, to understand the implications to design, licensing, construction, and operational costs of such dramatic differences in concepts

as represented by the change from a sealed repository to a monitored, retrievable storage facility. The Department is encouraged

to maintain current construction and operational cost assessments

for the proposed repository that provide comparable costs of the design and operational concepts that remain viable options as the site

characterization and performance assessments proceed.

The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the State of Nevada

and $6,000,000 for affected units of local government in accordance

with the statutory restrictions contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

SCIENCE

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $3,180,341,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 3,159,890,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,268,116,000

The Committee recognizes that the relatively small funding increases provided to the Office of Science are inadequate. While

most programs are funded above the Administration’s request, the

severe non-defense spending constraints that the Committee operates under have made it impossible to to do justice to many of

these outstanding programs and initiatives. Unlike the Administration’s request, the Committee recommendation is sufficient to avoid

any staff reductions at labs or universities.

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $726,130,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 716,100,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 725,100,000

The Committee recommendation includes $725,100,000 for high

energy physics, an increase of $9,000,000 over the request. Within

the amounts provided, the Committee recommends $2,000,000 for

materials development of low temperature superconductors to support future high energy physics requirements; and an additional

$7,000,000 for university support. Within available funds, the Com-
108

mittee recommends $1,000,000 for research, development, and initial demonstration in support of an experiment, to be conducted underground at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, to evaluate the mass

of the neutrino through study of double beta decay of xenon-136.

These funds may be used for extraction of the xenon-136 in a Russian nuclear city in coordination with the NNSA/Non-Proliferation

programs.

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $369,890,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 360,510,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 373,000,000

The Committee recommends $373,000,000 for nuclear physics, an

increase of $12,490,000 above the request and an increase of

$3,110,000 above current year levels. The Committee recommends

that the additional funds be used to enhance operation of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility at

the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Virginia.

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $501,260,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 442,970,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 490,000,000

The Committee recommendation includes $490,000,000 for biological and environmental research, including $10,000,000 for construction of the laboratory for Comparative and Functional

Genomics at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The recommendation

includes an additional $16,000,000 above the requested level for

the Genomes to Life program and $10,000,000 in additional funding above the requested level for the low dose effects program.

Within the recommended amount, the Committee also recommends

$7,000,000 in additional funding for computer upgrades and capital

equipment costs at the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL); $11,500,000 to complete the positron emission tomography facility at West Virginia University; and funding to continue

the following on-going projects: the Natural Energy Laboratory in

Hawaii, and the biological effects of exposure to low-level radioactivity. The recommendation also continues the free air carbon dioxide experiments at the current year level.

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $1,013,370,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 1,004,705,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,040,705,000

The Committee recommendation includes $1,040,705,000, an increase of $36,000,000 above the request and an increase of

$27,335,000 over current year levels. For purposes of reprogramming in fiscal year 2002, the Department may allocate funding

among all operating accounts within basic energy sciences upon

written notice to the appropriate Congressional Committees.

The Committee recommendation includes $12,000,000 for the Department’s Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Re-
109

search and $4,000,000 for programmatic activities at the National

Center of Excellence in Photonics and Microsystems. The Committee’s recommendation also includes $8,300,000 for the SPEAR 3 upgrade at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory.

Additionally, the Committee recommends that the additional

funds be used to support the following important activities: facility

operations user support; completion of the Nanoscience Research

Center project engineering and design; and additional work in computational sciences in materials and chemistry.

Nanoscale Science Research Centers.—The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for project engineering design

work for three of five planned user centers for nanoscale science,

engineering, and technology research. The Committee strongly supports this new initiative.

Construction.—The Committee recommendation includes

$291,000,000 to continue the Spallation Neutron Source, including

$276,300,000 for construction (under Project 99–E–334) and

$15,100,000 for other activities related to the project. The amount

represents a $23,000,000 increase over current year funding. The

Committee recommends $4,000,000 in project engineering and design funding at various locations (under Project 02–SC–002). The

Committee also authorizes construction of the Nanoscience Research Center upon completion of the project engineering and design.

The Committee recognizes the importance the SNS offers in advancing the frontiers of science and technology and the opportunities it will provide for future scientific and industrial research and

development for the United States. The design and construction of

this next-generation, accelerator-based, neutron scattering facility,

located at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is a collaborative effort involving six DOE national laboratories (Argonne, Brookhaven,

Jefferson, Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge).

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommendation provides $49,818,000 for safeguards and security. This is the amount of the current year level

and $5,594,000 less than the Administration’s request. The Committee remains unconvinced that such a large 1-year increase is

warranted.

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation provides $142,385,000 for

science program direction, the amount of the request and

$3,140,000 above the current year.

OTHER ENERGY RESEARCH PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $171,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 164,050,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 163,050,000

The Committee recommendation provides $163,050,000 for other

energy research programs, an increase of $18,050,000 over the current year appropriation.
110

Advanced Scientific Computing Research.—The Committee recommendation provides $163,050,000 for advanced scientific computing research. This amount is the amount of the request. The

Committee directs that $15,000,000 of available funds be used to

support the Scientific Discovery Through Advanced Computing

(SciDAC) program and that $10,000,000 of available funds be used

for terascale operating systems development.

MULTI-PROGRAM ENERGY LABORATORIES FACILITIES SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $30,175,000, the amount of the request, for multi-program energy laboratories facilities support. The

amount recommended is $3,755,000 less than the current year. The

program supports infrastructure activities at the five national labs

under the direction of the Office of Science.

The recommendation includes construction funding for two

projects, 02–SC–001 and MEL–001, at the level of the request.

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $255,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 248,495,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 248,495,000

The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is $248,495,000, the amount of the request.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $225,942,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 221,618,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 208,948,000

(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. ¥$151,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... ¥137,810,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥137,810,000

The Department recommends $208,948,000 for departmental administration, a decrease of $12,670,000 from the Administration’s

request.

INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $31,430,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 31,430,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,000,000

The Committee has provided $30,000,000 for the Office of the Inspector General.

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

Details of the Committee’s recommendations are included in the

table at the end of this title.

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy are

provided for in two categories—the National Nuclear Security Ad-
111

ministration and Other Defense Related Activities. Appropriation

accounts under the National Nuclear Security Administration

(NNSA) are weapons activities, defense nuclear non-proliferation,

naval reactors, and the Office of the Administrator. Other defense

related activities include appropriation accounts for defense environmental restoration and waste management, defense facilities

closure projects, defense environmental management privatization,

other defense activities and defense nuclear waste disposal.

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $5,006,153,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 5,300,025,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,062,891,000

Weapons activities provide for the continuing assurance of safety,

reliability, and security of the nuclear weapons in our enduring nuclear weapons stockpile while adhering to the terms of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Necessary ingredients for success in

this important mission include a highly skilled and motivated

workforce, advanced experimental and computational facilities and

equipment, adequately invested and maintained physical plants

and supporting infrastructure, and exceptionally focused and dedicated management.

The Committee is concerned about several of these necessary ingredients for success. Whereas significant progress can be cited

with respect to the development of advanced experimental and

computational capabilities, the Committee notes that the capability

to certify the safety and reliability of new components for our aging

nuclear weapons stockpile is still many years in the future. Moreover, the initial emphasis on developing these new computational

and experimental capabilities has contributed to an unacceptable

decline in the physical plants and supporting infrastructure of the

nuclear weapons enterprise. Finally, the Committee is deeply concerned with the lack of progress toward the definition and establishment of an enduring production complex capable of providing

cost-effective, scalable production of all necessary nuclear weapon

components. In response to the Committee’s concerns, recommended appropriations in many categories exceed the amounts

requested by the President.

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

An appropriation of $1,081,337,000 is recommended for directed

stockpile work of the NNSA, an increase of $37,546,000 over the

budget request.

Directed stockpile work encompasses all activities that directly

support specific weapons in the nuclear stockpile as directed by the

Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan. These activities include current

maintenance and day-to-day care of the stockpile as well as

planned refurbishments as outlined by the stockpile life extension

program (SLEP). This category also includes research, development

and certification activities in direct support of each weapon system,

and long-term future-oriented research and development to solve

either current or projected stockpile problems.
112

Stockpile research and development.—The Committee recommends $365,145,000, an increase of $59,685,000 over the request, providing for assessment, certification, surveillance and

maintenance research and development for systems comprising our

enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. The increased appropriation

above the requested amount is meant to support acceleration in

stockpile life extension research and development activities for the

W80 and W76 weapons systems, and necessary additional sub-critical experiments at the Nevada Test Site.

Stockpile maintenance.—The Committee recommends

$367,223,000, an increase of $4,730,000 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.

Stockpile evaluation.—The Committee recommends $178,589,000,

a reduction of $2,245,000 over the request, to support the implementation of changes recommended by the 150-day study, reduction of the surveillance backlogs at the Savannah River Site and

the Y–12 Plant, and reinstatement of the shelf life program at the

Pantex and Y–12 Plants.

Dismantlement/disposal.—The Committee recommends

$29,066,000, a decrease of $6,348,000 below the request. From the

funds provided, a single combined line at the Pantex Plant servicing dismantlement of the W56 and W79 weapons systems will be

expanded to one full line for the W56 and two full lines for the

W79.

Production Support.—The Committee recommends $134,896,000,

a decrease of $17,994,000 from the request, for production support.

CAMPAIGNS

An appropriation of $2,259,505,000 is recommended for the cam- paigns of the NNSA, an increase of $263,092,000 over the budget

request.

The stockpile stewardship campaigns program establishes and

applies a number of highly focused and integrated scientific and

technical capabilities to maintain indefinitely the safety, security,

and reliability of the Nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile without

nuclear testing. The present structure of the campaigns program

reflects the current investment in developing advanced facilities

and capabilities while simultaneously applying existing and developing capabilities to important stewardship tasks.

Primary certification.—The Committee recommends $52,661,000,

a decrease of $2,869,000 from the request, to support sub-critical

experiments and other activities necessary to support the required

delivery date for a certified pit.

Dynamic materials properties.—The Committee recommends

$93,644,000, a decrease of $4,166,000 above the request. Within the

available funds, the Administration is directed to make full use of

existing and developing capabilities for materials properties studies, including the Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research facility at the Nevada Test Site, and the High Pressure Collaborative Access Team facility at the synchrotron light source at

Argonne National Laboratory.
113

Advanced radiography.—The Committee recommends

$85,803,000, an increase of $25,293,000 over the request. The recommendation includes $25,000,000 to continue research, development, and conceptual design for an advanced hydrodynamic test facility, including further development and evaluation of proton radiography techniques. It is the intent of the Committee to continue

this important effort even though any decision on whether to proceed to construction is still several years away. Additional funds

are provided to fund other experiments that might be conducted in

the Contained Firing Facility, the U1–A tunnel complex, or other

appropriate experimental facilities.

Secondary certification and nuclear systems margins.—The Committee recommends $44,524,000, a decrease of $2,746,000 over the

budget request for radiation source development, radiation case dynamics studies, radiation transport and the effects of aging and refurbishment on secondary performance. From the funds available,

the Administration is encouraged to continue, and expand as appropriate, its investments in high energy density physics research

through university grants and partnerships.

Enhanced surety.—The Committee recommends $39,298,000, an

increase of $4,501,000 over the request, 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 $26,665,000, an increase of $2,622,000 over the request,

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 $23,694,000,

an increase of $4,644,000 over the request, to develop and validate

tools to simulate nuclear environments for survivability assessments and certification; restore the capability to provide nuclearhardened microelectronics and microsystem components for the enduring stockpile; and accelerate the qualification and certification

of the neutron generator and the arming, fusing and firing system

for the refurbished W76.

ICF ignition and high yield, Project 96–D–111 National Ignition

Facility.—The Committee recommends $492,443,000, an increase of

$24,500,000 over the budget request.

Within the available funds, the Committee provides $59,259,000

for ICF/NIF Experimental Support Activities, an increase of

$24,500,000 over the budget request. Of this increase, $10,000,000

is provided to enhance NIF diagnostics and cryogenic target activities; and $7,000,000 is provided to supplement the base program.

The Committee understands that a ‘‘National Petawatt Laser

Strategic Plan’’ has been commissioned by the Administration. The

Administrator is encouraged to pursue this initiative, including,

within the strategic planning, the research and development of

supporting technologies necessary to ensure that the Nation retains

and maintains its leadership in ultra-short pulse laser technology.

Guided by the strategic plan, and from available funds within the

ICF/NIF Experimental Support Activities, $3,000,000 is provided

for conceptual and preliminary engineering design studies for the
114

realization of a petawatt-class laser at the Sandia National Laboratory’s Z-Machine, and $2,000,000 is provided to initiate development of critical short-pulse laser technologies, like damage resistant gratings. The Committee recommendation provides $7,886,000 for Univer- sity Grants/Other ICF Support, an increase of $2,500,000 above the

budget request, to complete the transfer and initiate operations of

a petawatt laser or high-power, short-pulse laser at the University

of Nevada-Reno. The Committee believes that early access to an operating petawatt-class laser will provide valuable opportunities for

exploring technology options for incorporation in the next generation of petawatt lasers. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department to complete this primary activity before undertaking

next-generation petawatt laser development at other universities.

The Committee is aware of interest in next-generation shortpulse laser technology expresssed by the University of Rochester

and the University of Texas. Within available funds, the Committee recommends the support of conceptual and engineering design studies of the capabilities proposed by the University of Rochester and the University of Texas. Finally, the Administrator is encouraged to promote and facilitate access by university scientists

and others to short-pulse laser facilities for research and exploration of high density physics phenomena. The Committee recommendation includes $33,450,000, the

amount of the budget request, for the Omega laser at the University of Rochester and $10,000,000 for the Naval Research Laboratory. The Committee recommendation provides $245,000,000 for NIF

construction, Project 96–D–111, the same as the budget request.

While the Administrator has certified continued fidelity with the

re-structured cost and deliverable schedule, the Committee notes

that a high level of vigilance and extraordinary management attention is warranted to maintain confidence in satisfactory progress of

this important project. The Committee agrees with a recent General Accounting Office review that highlighted, among other things,

persistent DOE oversight problems. The Committee continues to be

concerned that the same individuals who have performed oversight

of NIF since 1999, when costs and schedules grew unnoticed, continue to have that role.

Advanced simulation and computing.—The Committee recommends $711,185,000, the amount of the budget request. The

Committee recommends the following amounts for ASCI construction projects:

Project 01–D–101 Distributed information systems laboratory,

SNL, Livermore, CA.—The Committee recommends $12,400,000, an

increase of $7,000,000 over the request.

Project 00–D–103 Terascale simulation facility, LLNL, Livermore,

CA.—The Committee recommends $22,000,000, an increase of

$17,000,000 over the request.

Project 00–D–107 Joint computational engineering laboratory,

SNL, Albuquerque, NM.—The Committee recommends $15,377,000,

an increase of $10,000,000 over the request.

Pit manufacturing and certification.—The Committee recommends $237,713,000, an increase of $109,168,000 over the budg-
115

et request, to fully fund all activities necessary for engineering certification and subcritical experiments that maintain the revised

certification schedule.

The Committee notes that the Administration’s schedule of accomplishments proposed under the recommended increase would

delay the availability of a certified pit until fiscal year 2009. Circumstances make such a delay unacceptable. The Administrator

shall carefully reconsider his pit-manufacturing plan to reestablish

the full capability to manufacture all pit types before successful

certification of a manufactured pit validates the manufacturing

process.

The Committee notes that in spite of repeated encouragement to

accelerate the acquisition of essential certification data by making

use of subcritical experiments at the Nevada Test Site, the originally promised average of 4 subcritical experiments per year has

never been achieved. The Administrator shall direct his new pit

manufacturing and certification oversight office to ensure that the

most productive and cost effective means are emphasized as the

program attempts to reduce the intervening period between pit

manufacturing capability and pit certification.

High explosives manufacturing and weapons assembly/disassembly readiness.—The Committee recommends $6,846,000, an

increase of $2,886,000 above the request, to establish productionscale 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

$18,187,000, an increase of $5,983,000 above the request, to deploy

commercial products and processes for components supporting the

B61, W80, and W76 stockpile life extension programs; to modify existing tritium loading and cleaning facilities to support stockpile

life extension programs; and, to support neutron target loading and

detonator production.

Materials readiness.—The Committee recommends $1,209,000,

the same as the budget request.

Secondary Readiness.—The Committee recommends $68,445,000,

an increase of $45,276,000 over the request, to support modernization of secondary manufacturing facilities and infrastructure at Y–

12 and to ensure readiness to meet near-term stockpile life extension requirements.

Tritium readiness.—The Committee recommends $138,475,000,

an increase of $14,000,000 above the request, to provide funding required for establishing commercial light water reactor production of

tritium, construction of the Tritium Extraction Facility at Savannah River Site, and to complete the APT demonstration and design

preparatory to its close out. The Committee recommends

$42,350,000 for tritium readiness and $81,125,000 for construction

of the tritium extraction facility at Savannah River.

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 recruit-
116

ing the future workforce in technical areas that are critical to the

continuing stewardship enterprise. The Committee understands

that the NNSA is establishing a new office to be responsible for administering university partnerships, cooperative agreements and/or

other long-term university relationships. The Committee applauds

this initiative and encourages the Administrator to review the benefits to the program and the Department of delegating much of the

day-to-day management and administration to offices in the regions containing the participating universities.

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

An appropriation of $1,607,716,000 is recommended for readiness

in technical base and facilities, an increase of $160,728,000 over

the original budget request. Readiness in technical base and facilities encompasses efforts to provide for the physical infrastructure

and operational readiness required to conduct the directed stockpile work and campaign activities at the laboratories, the test site

and the production plants.

Operations of facilities.—The Committee recommends

$939,479,000, an increase of $109,052,000 over the budget request,

to maintain warm standby readiness for all RTBF facilities with

some allowance for inflation. The recommendation includes an additional $10,000,000 for the operation of pulsed-power facilities at

Sandia National Laboratory and an additional $10,000,000 for the

Z machine refurbishment.

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 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 follow this successful public/

private partnership model at the other NNSA laboratories and the

Nevada Test Site.

Uranium 233.—The Committee commends the Department for

issuing a draft Request for Proposal to process Uranium 233 stored

in building 3019 in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to obtain Thorium-229

needed for cancer treatment and recommends a total program

funding of $21,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. This should fully support the scope necessary to meet the quality, cost, and schedule requirements associated with providing for the medical use of the extremely short half-life Actinium-225 and includes $6,000,000 to address necessary security at building 3019. The Department should

limit the scope of the Request for Proposal to the processing of U–

233 already in Oak Ridge, or provide additional resources for expanded scope. The Committee recommends that the Department

assign responsibility as soon as possible for Actinium-25 production

to a contractor clearly capable of achieving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required Good Manufacturers Practice (GMP).

The Committee further recommends that the expanded scope of the
117

Request for Proposal include the shutdown of building 3019 making

it read for decontamination by the Department.

Program readiness.—The Committee recommends $197,220,000,

an increase of $9,094,000 above the budget request, to enhance Nevada Test Site readiness and maintain materials processing and

component manufacturing readiness.

Special projects.—The Committee recommends $60,385,000, a decrease of $4,108,000 over the request.

Within funds available from the appropriation: $2,000,000 is provided to the Remote Sensing Laboratory to enhance pilot proficiency, aircraft safety, and to enhance aviation support elements

that have experienced greater operational demands than earlier expected; $1,000,000 is provided for improvements to the Tumor Registry in the State of Nevada to improve the accuracy and completeness of health records of a population with significant potential radiation exposure; $2,500,000 to implement Departmental strategy

to preserve the history of the Manhattan Project at sites to be determined by the Secretary in consultation with the Federal Preservation Office within the Department; and, $2,000,000 for the installation of exhibits at the Atomic Testing History Institute.

Material recycle and recovery.—The Committee recommends

$90,310,000, a decrease of $11,001,000 below the budget request.

Nuclear weapons incident response.—The Committee recommends $88,923,000, a decrease of $202,000 below the request, to

enhance the state of response readiness at various locations. Within the available funds, the Administrator is directed to conduct a

study and report to the Committee by March 1, 2002, on the status

of planning for remediation and disposition of a weapon in various

states of disrepair that could result from credible accidents or incidents.

Construction projects.—The Committee recommends an appropriation of $212,557,000, an increase of $57,893,000, for construction projects under Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities.

The following list details changes in appropriations for construction projects under Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities:

Project 02–D–101 Microsystems and engineering science applications, SNL.—The Committee recommends $67,000,000, an increase

of $65,000,000 above the budget request.

Project 02–D–103 Project engineering and design, various locations.—The Committee recommends $31,130,000, an increase of

$21,950,000 above the budget request. Of this amount, $4,000,000

is provided for architecture and engineering services (Title I and

Title II) for modernization of the surface support facilities for the

U1A complex.

Project 02–D–105 Engineering technology complex upgrade,

LLNL.—The Committee recommends $4,750,000, an increase of

$4,750,000 above the budget request.

Project 02–D–107 Electrical power systems safety, communications, and bus upgrades, NV.—The Committee recommends

$6,200,000, and increase of $2,693,000 above the budget request.

Project 01–D–103 Preliminary project engineering and design,

various locations.—The Committee recommends $16,379,000, a decrease of $29,000,000 below the budget request.
118

Project 99–D–108 Renovate existing roadways, Nevada Test

Site.—The Committee recommends $2,000,000, an increase of

$2,000,000 above the budget request.

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $300,000,000, an increase of

$300,000,000 above the request, to establish a new program line

dedicated to re-capitalization of existing operational facilities to

halt their deterioration and restore the robust and enduring mission readiness that relies on them.

The Committee is aware of the need for funding a facilities and

infrastructure program, but is concerned the Administration has

not established a facilities management structure adequate to ensure the funds are used to address those items that will be most

effective in reducing long-term costs and risk. The Committee directs the Administrator to provide a semi-annual report to the

Committee on the status of the facilities and infrastructure program. The report should include the current priority list of proposed facilities and infrastructure projects, including cost and

schedule requirements. For each site, the report should include: a

current 10-year site plan that demonstrates the reconfiguration of

its facilities and infrastructure to meet its missions and to address

its long-term operational costs and return on investment; the current budget for all facilities and infrastructure funding in this program as well as all funding for maintenance and infrastructure upgrades funded through other parts of the budget; and the current

status of each facilities and infrastructure project compared to the

original baseline cost, schedule, and scope.

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

The Committee recommends $123,300,000, an increase of

$1,500,000 over the budget request. Of the amount appropriated,

$79,071,000 is provided for operations and equipment, and

$44,229,000 is provided for program direction.

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $448,881,000,

an increase of $71,285,000 over the current year enacted level.

The security budget request has increased dramatically over the

last several years and again this year. The Committee recommendation includes $364,323,000 for physical security, an increase of $33,783,000 over the current year enacted level;

$58,000,000 for cyber security, an increase of $29,156,000 over the

current year enacted level; and $16,958,000 for personnel security,

an increase of $2,338,00 over the current year enacted level.

The Committee has provided the full budget request but remains

very concerned about the safeguards and security operations at the

NNSA and the relevant imbalance of physical verses cyber security.

The Committee strongly urges the Administrator to find more efficient and effective ways to conduct physical security operations in

order to free-up resources to address the evolving cyber security

threats.
119

The Congress provided $20,000,000 in supplemental appropriations in fiscal year 2000 for the NNSA to perform planning, analysis, testing and evaluation necessary to develop the highest value

alternatives for improving cyber security throughout the nuclear

weapons complex. Congress further directed that NNSA should

submit to Congress by January 15, 2001, a detailed plan with an

estimated cost and schedules for a reasonable program that defends the highest value targets. On February 22, the Integrated

Cyber Security Initiative plan was submitted to Congress. The plan

did not have an estimated cost but indicated that the cost estimates for each of the 4 years in the implementation phase would

be developed and validated by a panel of cyber security and network experts. The Committee looks forward to receiving this information and considering a request in the future for resources to support the initiative.

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $271,137,000 for

program direction, the amount of the budget request.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $872,273,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 773,700,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 880,500,000

The Committee recommendation provides $880,500,000, an increase of $106,800,000 over the original budget request.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities of the NNSA are directed to reducing the serious global danger of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The NNSA utilizes the highly specialized scientific, technical, analytical, and operational capabilities of the

NNSA and its national laboratories as well as other Department of

Energy laboratories. Its mission is to prevent the spread of WMD

materials, technology and expertise; detect the proliferation of

WMD worldwide; reverse the proliferation of nuclear weapons capabilities; dispose of surplus materials in accordance with terms set

forth in agreements between the United States and Russia; and

store surplus fissile materials in a safe manner pending disposition. The Committee continues to strongly support these important

national security programs.

The Committee is concerned that the proposed budget would seriously erode progress made at great expense to assure the Nation’s

capability to detect and mitigate global proliferation activities. Accordingly, the Committee recommends restoration of much of the

funds, especially in the accounts supporting research and development, arms control activities, and materials protection and accountability. The Committee supports the proposed increases in

surplus nuclear materials disposition and safe storage.

Nonproliferation and verification research and development.—The

Committee recommends $222,355,000, an increase of $52,059,000

over the original budget request.

The recommended increase is provided to continue the important

remote sensing and verification technology research, development

and deployment, and to continue to invest in the development of
120

essential technologies for responding to the growing threat of chemical or biological terrorism.

The Nonproliferation and Verification, Research and Development program is essential for stable long-term research and the development of unique science and technology competencies needed

for the increasing demands of arms control, nonproliferation, domestic nuclear safeguards and security, energy security, and emergency management. Within available funds, $5,000,000 is provided

to establish the Remote Systems Test and Engineering Center at

the Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) to provide Department-wide

support for prototype engineering design, development, test, and

evaluation of remote sensing and data acquisition missions of the

Department. The Committee recommends $2,500,000 in support for

the 3-year research effort by the Caucasus Seismic Information

Network. The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for

the Incorporate Research Institutions for Seismology PASSCAL Instrument Center.

Project 00–D–192 Nonproliferation and international security center (NISC), Los Alamos National laboratory.—The Committee recommends $35,806,000, the same as the budget request.

Arms Control.—The Committee recommends $138,000,000 for

arms control and nonproliferation, an increase of $36,500,000 over

the original budget request.

The Arms Control and Nonproliferation program is the focal

point within the Department of Energy which supports the U.S.

arms control and nonproliferation policies, and provides leadership

and representation within the Department in the international

arms control and nonproliferation community. The goal is to reduce

the threat of nuclear proliferation by integrating the Department’s

assets and efforts, including those of the national laboratories and

contractors, to provide technical support to the U.S. Government’s

foreign policy and national security objectives.

The increase recommended by the Committee is meant to continue important activities that would be curtailed or significantly

reduced under the budget request. From within the additional

funds recommended, the Committee restores $14,500,000 for the

Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI), $15,000,000 for Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), $7,000,000 for continuing the efforts for

disposition of spent nuclear fuel in Kazakhstan, and $1,000,000 to

continue activities in support of spent nuclear fuel storage and a

geologic repository in Russia. The Committee directs that a portion

of the additional resources recommended for IPP be expended in

projects within the Russian nuclear cities in coordination with the

Nuclear Cities Initiative.

International materials protection, control, and accounting.—The

recommendation provides $143,800,000 for international material

protection, control, and accounting [MPC&A] activities, an increase

of $5,000,000 over the original budget request. The Committee continues to consider these activities extremely important to reducing

the threat created by the breakup of the former Soviet Union. The

increased funding will allow for additional material consolidation

and control work, an expanded program of MPC&A at several Russian Navy sites, and expanded MPC&A efforts within defense-related and important civilian and regulatory sites in Russia. The
121

Committee continues to believe that these activities are critical elements of the United States non-proliferation efforts.

HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) Transparency Implementation.—The Committee recommendation includes $13,950,000, the

amount of the budget request for the HEU Transparency Implementation program of the Department of Energy. This program is

responsible for ensuring that the non-proliferation aspects of the

February 1993 agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation are met. This Agreement covers the purchase over

20 years of low enriched uranium [LEU] derived from at least 500

metric tons of HEU removed from dismantled Russian nuclear

weapons. Under the Agreement, conversion of the HEU components into LEU is performed in Russian facilities. The purpose of

this program is to put into place those measures agreed to by both

sides, that permit the United States to have confidence that the

Russian side is abiding by the Agreement.

International nuclear safety.—The Committee recommends

$19,500,000, and increase of $5,700,000 above the budget request,

to implement permanent improvements in Russian nuclear safety

culture as well as improvements in the regulatory framework for

Soviet-design reactor operations in nine former Soviet Union countries.

Fissile materials disposition.—The Committee recommends

$299,089,000, an increase of $9,000,000 above the budget request,

to maintain operations in the United States and in Russia according to the plan under the budget request. Planned construction

projects are slowed to accommodate the shortfall in the disposition

account.

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 $130,089,000 for U.S.

surplus materials disposition, the same as the original budget request.

The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 to support

the joint United States-Russian program to develop an advanced

reactor to consume large quantities of excess weapons plutonium.

The primary purpose of the joint United States-Russian program

for the development of an advanced reactor is the design and eventual construction of a demonstration reactor in Russia for the purpose of surplus weapons plutonium disposition. However, the

United States must take full advantage of the development of this

attractive technology for a possible next generation nuclear power

reactor for United States and foreign markets. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to explore opportunities to develop

and exploit this technology for commercial purposes.
122

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation includes $50,000,000 for program direction within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, a decrease

of $1,459,000 below the budget request

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $688,645,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... $688,045,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $688,045,000

1 Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106–251 for Safeguards and Security.

The Naval Reactors Program within the NNSA provides for the

design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores having long fuel life, high

reliability, improved performances, and simplified operating and

maintenance requirements. The nuclear propulsion plants and

cores cover a wide range of configurations and power ratings suitable for installation in naval combat vessels varying in size from

small submarines to large surface ships. The Committee recommendation is $688,045,000, the amount of the budget request.

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $9,978,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 15,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,000,000

The Committee has included $15,000,000 to cover the expenses

of the Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security

Administration (NNSA).

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES

Details of the Committee’s recommendations are included in the

table at the end of this title.

OTHER DEFENSE RELATED ACTIVITIES

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $4,963,533,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 4,548,708,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,389,868,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,389,868,000

for Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

programs for fiscal year 2002. This is $841,160,000 over the budget

request.

The Department’s environmental management program is responsible for identifying and reducing health and safety risks, and

managing waste at sites where the Department carried out 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. The ‘‘De-
123

fense environmental restoration and waste management’’ appropriation is organized into two program accounts, site/project completion and post-2006 completion to reflect the emphasis on project

completion and site closures.

Fiscal year 1999 budget request was the first fiscal year that the

environmental management program structure was aligned with

DOE’s 2006 plan. All activities have been organized into projects,

which have more defined scopes, schedules, and costs that support

a defined end state at each specific site. In addition, the environmental management budget is organized into program decision

units that focus on the end-date of the project. Those decision units

are site closure, site/project completion, post-2006 completion;

science and technology; and program direction.

The Committee believes that the environmental management

program of the Department of Energy is beginning to turn the corner in the cleanup effort. Leadership within the Department has

put in place initiatives which have produced greater efficiencies, reduced cost growth on many projects, and resulted in moving the

program from the study phase to the cleanup of facilities. The Committee believes that the program recommended for fiscal year 2002

is within the acceptable range and will meet all legal requirements

and other agreements.

Budget constraints will check future large increases and additional efficiencies will be required. However, even with these constraints, tremendous progress continues to be made both in tangible, on-the-ground results and in the business practices within

the program. The Committee expects the Department to continue

to seek every opportunity to bring about more efficiencies and

tough businesslike approaches to program execution. The Department should continue the critical review of the need and requirement for each individual support service contract, and duplicative

and overlapping organizational arrangements and functions.

While it is imperative that the Department’s cleanup costs be

brought down, there are instances where relatively small amounts

of additional funding invested in the near-term offer the potential

for significant reductions in long-term budgetary requirements. The

Committee continues to be concerned with growing landlord costs

required to maintain buildings and facilities that are ready for

demolition, and the high costs associated with temporarily storing

and monitoring wastes that are ready for permanent disposal. In

order to reduce these costs in the future, it is important that the

Department expedite demolition work, waste shipments, and permanent storage whenever possible.

Finally, the Committee notes that the Department’s budget request is not sufficient to satisfy both the existing State-imposed

legal requirements in place at several sites and maintain prompt

and efficient cleanup at other sites not subject to such requirements. The effect of these budget shortcomings will be to force

States to seek legally binding agreements with the Department.

The Department should recognize that these legal agreements,

while negotiated with the best information available to all parties

at the time of their finalization, may lock the Department into

cleanup paths that are not optimized as further information and

technologies become available. For this reason, it is strongly in the
124

Government’s interest to avoid imposition of additional legal requirements by States. The Committee strongly urges the Department to request budget levels that maintain significant annual

progress at each site and thus avoid the need for States to seek

new legal requirements to ensure that sites within their borders

are adequately considered in budget requests.

SITE AND PROJECT COMPLETION

An appropriation of $1,003,646,000 is recommended for site and project completion activities, including $979,480,000 for operation

and maintenance, and $24,166,000 for construction.

This account will provide funding for projects that will be completed by fiscal year 2006 at sites or facilities where a DOE mission

(for example, environmental management, nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship, or scientific research) will continue beyond 2006.

These activities are focused on completing projects by 2006 and distinguishes these projects from the long-term projects or activities at

the sites, such as high level waste vitrification or the Department’s

other enduring missions. The largest amount of funding requested

is for activities at the Hanford, WA, Savannah River, SC, and

Idaho sites. A significant amount of work is expected to be completed at these sites by 2006, although environmental management

and other stewardship activities will continue beyond 2006.

For construction, the Committee recommendation includes all requested projects except for Project 92–D–140, the F and H canyon

exhaust upgrades at Savannah River. The Committee reduces the

recommendation for this project by $15,790,000 due to the Department’s decision to eliminate some activities and defer others.

The Committee recommendation includes additional funding for

the following activities above the level of the Administration’s request: $34,300,000 for clean-up activities at Hanford; $20,000,000

in additional funding at Idaho to ensure Settlement Agreement and

legal requirements for the shipping of waste out-of-state are met;

$28,500,000 in additional funding for clean-up activities at Savannah River; $10,000,000 in enhanced funding for remediation at

South Valley, Kansas City, Pantex, and Sandia; and $5,100,000 in

enhanced funding for remediation at ETEC and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

The Committee is aware that the Department provides approxi- mately $500,000 per year to the State of Oregon each year to cover

costs of its clean-up effort, including emergency drills, planning activities, technical review of DOE’s waste management and clean-up

plans, participation in the Hanford Advisory Board meetings and

other meetings at Hanford. The Committee recommends that this

DOE contribution be increased to $1,000,000 to pay for increased

costs.

The Committee is aware of a pending MOU between the University of Georgia and the University of South Carolina with respect

to the Savannah River Ecology Lab and expects the Department of

Energy to provide adequate funding to support this long-term partnership. Within available funds, the Committee also recommends

that the Department’s on-going relationship with the University of

South Carolina’s Center for Water Resources be continued at

$800,000, an increase of $50,000 over last year’s level.
125

The Committee understands the Department is prepared to

transfer up to 2,000 acres for the use of Pueble of San Ildefonso

and approximately 100 acres to the County of Los Alamos. The

Committee recommendation includes an additional $9,000,000 to

expedite the remediation and conveyance of the land consistent

with the direction of section 632 of Public Law 105–119.

POST-2006 COMPLETION

The Committee recommendation for post-2006 completion activities is $3,574,001,000, which includes $2,133,779,000 in operating

expenses for post-2006 completion, $1,033,468,000 in operating expenses for the Office of River Protection, a $420,000,000 contribution to the UED&D fund, and $705,317,000 for construction.

The Post-2006 completion request supports projects that are projected to continue well beyond 2006. As cleanup is completed, it

will be necessary for environmental management to maintain a

presence at most sites to monitor, maintain, and provide information on the continued residual contamination. These activities are

required to ensure the reduction in risk to human health is maintained.

Post-2006 construction.—The Committee recommends the

amount of the Administration’s request.

Post-2006 operation and maintenance.—The Committee recommendation includes additional funding for the following activities above the level of the Administration’s request: $125,200,000

for clean-up activities at Hanford; $146,500,000 for clean-up activities at Savannah River; $100,000,000 for clean-up activities at

Idaho; $4,400,000 in restored funding for the Nevada Test Site;

$4,000,000 to continue the Underground Test Area groundwater

flow characterization drilling program at an accelerated pace;

$14,300,000 to continue remediation, waste management, and nuclear materials stewardship activities at Los Alamos National Lab

in New Mexico; $14,000,000 to continue remediation, waste management, and nuclear materials stewardship at Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California. Within available funds, the Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program and the HAMMER program are to be funded at current year levels.

The Committee expects that portions of the additional

$105,200,000 for Hanford will support the River Corridor Initiative,

including the continued cocooning of the four former plutonium

production reactors and the removal and disposal of hazardous and

radiologically contaminated soil along the shoreline of the Hanford

Reach portion of the Columbia River.

Additionally, the Committee expects that, within the additional

$100,000,000 provided for Idaho, $15,000,000 will be used to initiate activities associated with the demonstration of waste retrieval

at the subsurface disposal area at the Idaho National Engineering

and Environmental Laboratory.

The Committee recommends that the current cooperative agreement with the Waste-management Education and Research Consortium be extended for a 5 year period at a level of $2,500,000 annually to continue its support for environmental education and

technology development.
126

Carlsbad Field Office.—The Committee recommendation includes

$201,170,000, an increase of $36,600,000 above the budget request

and $10,284,000 above the current year level. The recommendation

includes and additional $21,600,000 for operations of the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The additional resources are required

in order increase the transportation capabilities required to meet

the Department’s commitments at the Rocky Flats Environmental

Technology Site and to correct for unjustified regulatory assumptions used in the development of the Department’s budget request.

The recommendation includes an additional $5,000,000 to continue

the U.S. Mexico Border Health Commission/Materials Corridor

Partnership Initiative. The Committee recommendation includes

$10,000,000 to begin implementing program-wide best practices to

optimize waste processing, developing new technology solutions,

and developing a mobile/modular approach for small quantity sites.

Regulatory requirements dictate that characterization data for

each drum of waste shipped to WIPP must be reviewed multiple

times to insure compliance. The Committee recognizes that the

process could be streamlined and improved with more comprehensive and timely data review and reporting. The Committee encourages the Department to work through the Carlsbad Field Office to

implement a standardized, automated program for TRU waste

characterization throughout the DOE complex using a secure webbased system that allows user access and regulatory transparency

without regard to the location of the user, and includes interfaces

between all existing site operation databases.

Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommendation includes additional funding for the following activities above the level

of the President’s request: $165,000,000 for the Hanford Waste

Treatment Plant and $56,000,000 for tank farm operations. Total

recommended fiscal year 2002 funding for the waste treatment

plant construction is $665,000,000. The Department is expected to

continue making PILT payments to counties that have the Hanford

reservation within their boundaries at last year’s level.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

An appropriation of $271,700,000 is recommended for science and

technology activities related to the environmental waste cleanup

program, an increase of $75,700,000 over the original budget request.

The Science and Technology Program provides new or improved

technologies and research results that reduce risks to workers, the

public and the environment; reduce cleanup costs; and/or provide

solutions to environmental problems that currently have no solutions. New and improved technologies have the potential to reduce

environmental restoration and cleanup costs by an estimated several billion dollars. The Committee continues to be impressed with

the ability of the Department’s Deactivation and Decommisioning

Focus Area Program to deploy cost effective new technologies that

both help to reduce the overall D&D mortgage and protect workers,

communities, and the environment. The Committee provides

$27,100,000 in total funding to the D&D focus area program, the

same as the current year. The Committee also provides total fund-
127

ing of $33,800,000 for the Industry and University programs managed by the National Energy Technology Laboratory.

The Committee recommendation includes additional funding for

the following activities above the level of the Administration’s request: $20,000,000 for Idaho Environmental Systems research and

analysis; $5,000,000 for work within the University Involvement in

Science and Technology program; $7,000,000 for the Western Environmental Technology Office; $4,000,000 for new basic science

awards; and $6,000,000 for new research and development projects;

$6,000,000 to continue evaluation, development, and demonstration

of the Advanced Vitrification System; $3,000,000 to continue the

engineering, development, and deployment of prototypical monitoring systems and microsensor systems for the remote monitoring

of the Underground Test Area; $5,000,000 for the Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory (DIAL); and $4,350,000 for

the university robotics research program. Within available funds, $4,000,000 is provided for the Subsurface

Science Research Institute, operated by the Inland Northwest Research Alliance and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Within available funds, $350,000 above the

level of the Administration’s request is provided to complete the

conceptual design of the Subsurface Geosciences Laboratory in

Idaho.

EXCESS FACILITIES

The Committee recommendation for excess facilities is

$1,300,000, which is the same as the budget request. These funds

are provided to manage the transfer for the final disposition of excess contaminated physical facilities leading to significant risk and

cost reductions. In fiscal year 2002 these funds are to be used for

the transfer of excess facilities at the Pantex Plant, Savannah

River Site, and the Y–12 Plant from other DOE organizations.

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommendation for safeguards and security is

$205,621,000, which is the same as the budget request.

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation for program direction totals

$355,761,000, which is the same as the budget request.

Program direction provides the overall direction and administrative support for the environmental management programs of the

Department of Energy.

DEFENSE FACILITY CLOSURE PROJECTS

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $1,080,331,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 1,050,538,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,080,538,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,080,538,000

for the site closure program, an increase of $30,000,000 over the request.

The ‘‘Site closure’’ account includes funding for sites where the

environmental management program has established a goal of com-
128

pleting the cleanup mission by the end of fiscal year 2006. After

the cleanup mission is complete at a site, no further DOE mission

is envisioned, except for limited long-term surveillance and maintenance. This account provides funding to cleanup the Rocky Flats,

Fernald, Mound, Ashtabula, and Battelle Columbus sites. The additional $30,000,000 is provided for clean-up activities at the

Fernald, Ashtabula, and Columbus sites.

The Committee continues to believe that a closure fund, which

targets funding at specific facilities whose accelerated closure in

the near-term results in significantly reduced out-year costs, is important in freeing up budgetary resources in the longer term. However, the Committee remains concerned that several projects in

both the defense and non-defense closure accounts are in danger of

not meeting 2006 closure goals. Once it becomes clear that a closure deadline cannot be met prior to 2006, the Department should

propose moving the project into a post-2006 account. Such a move

would ensure adequate attention and resources for the projects

that remain in the closure account.

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $65,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 141,537,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 157,537,000

An appropriation of $157,537,000 is recommended for the environmental management privatization initiative. The Committee

recommendation includes $10,826,000 for a construction contingency fund for the Transuranic Waste Treatment Facility at Oak

Ridge in Tennessee; $49,332,000 for Spent Nuclear Fuel Dry Storage in Idaho; $26,050,000 for environmental/waste management at

Oak Ridge in Tennessee; $13,329,000 for the privatization of the

Paducah Disposal Facility in Kentucky; and $2,000,000 for the onsite disposal cell at Portsmouth, Ohio.

The Committee recommendation also includes $56,000,000 for

the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project, an increase of

$16,000,000 over the budget request. This recommended amount,

together with the expected fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriation of $29,600,000, is sufficient to cover the Department’s obligations on this project in fiscal year 2002. The Committee notes the

existence of an ongoing Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)

audit to review the project contractor’s cost management to date

and whether the Department is meeting its obligation requirements. If the DCAA audit indicates the Department is not meeting

its obligation responsibilities, the Committee will expect an appropriate supplemental appropriation request in fiscal year 2002.

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES

Details of the Committee’s recommendations are included in the

table at the end of this title.

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $582,466,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 527,614,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 564,168,000
129

INTELLIGENCE

The Committee recommendation totals $40,844,000, an increase

of $4,785,000 over the current year appropriation.

The Office of Intelligence provides information and technical

analysis on international arms proliferation, foreign nuclear programs, and other energy-related matters to policymakers in the

NNSA, the Department and other U.S. Government agencies. The

focus of the Department’s intelligence analysis and reporting is on

emerging proliferant nations, nuclear technology transfers, foreign

nuclear materials production, and proliferation implications of the

breakup of the former Soviet Union.

SECURITY AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS

The Committee recommendation for security and emergency operations is $247,565,000, a decrease of $21,685,000 from the current year appropriation.

Nuclear Safeguards.—The Committee recommendation provides

$121,188,000 for nuclear safeguards, an increase of $4,779,000

from the current year appropriation.

Security Investigations.—The Committee recommendation provides $44,927,000, the amount of the budget request.

Corporate Management Information Program.—The Committee

recommendation includes no funding for the corporate management

information program. If the Department wishes to undertake the

activities envisioned for this program in fiscal year 2002, the Committee directs that they be paid for using available funds within

the Departmental Administration account or from program direction accounts of beneficiary programs. The Committee sees no apparent connection to the specific mission of the Security and Emergency Operations program or even the broader mission of Other

Defense Activities. The Committee is concerned that the Department is attempting to disguise large increases in departmental administration costs by dispersing department-wide activities to individual program offices.

Self-Protecting Data.—The Committee is aware of self-protecting

data software that allows for the encryption, control and management of any electronic document, web page or e-mail message even

after distribution. The Committee strongly urges the Department

to use available funds in fiscal year 2002 to review such capabilities and incorporate them into the Department’s cyber security activities.

Program Direction.—The Committee recommendation provides

$81,450,000 for program direction, a decrease of $1,685,000 from

the budget request.

INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

The Committee recommendation provides $14,904,000 for independent oversight and performance assurance, the amount of the

budget request.

The independent oversight and performance assurance program

provides independent evaluation and oversight of safeguards, security, emergency management and cyber security for the Department at the Secretary’s direction.
130

COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

An appropriation of $46,389,000, the amount of the request, is

provided for the counterintelligence activities of the Department of

Energy. This is an increase of $1,189,000 over the current years

appropriation.

The Counterintelligence program has the mission of enhancing

the protection of sensitive technologies, information, and expertise

against foreign intelligence, industrial intelligence, and terrorist attempts to acquire nuclear weapons information or advanced technologies from the National Laboratories.

ADVANCED ACCELERATOR APPLICATIONS

The Committee recommendation includes a total of $70,000,000

for Advanced Accelerator Applications, including $15,000,000 provided in Project 98–D–126 Accelerator Production of Tritium. The

recommended amount includes $6,000,000 for research and development of technologies for economic and environmentally-sound refinement of spent nuclear fuel at the University of Nevada-Las

Vegas; and $2,000,000 for the Idaho Accelerator Center.

The Department provided the Report to Congress: The Advanced

Accelerator Applications Program Plan as required by House Report 106–988 accompanying the Fiscal Year 2001 Energy and

Water Development Appropriations Act. This Report outlined a

program plan to build an Accelerator-Driven Test Facility (ADTF)

as part of achieving four central objectives: (1) providing proof-ofprinciple demonstration of an accelerator-driven sub-critical multiplier; (2) conducting research on the viability of transmutation for

waste and spent fuel management; (3) enhancing the Nation’s nuclear science and technology education infrastructure; and (4) providing a more robust back-up tritium production capability for national security. The cost estimate for the ADTF, plus additional information now available to the Committee, leads to the Committee’s recommendation that the Advanced Accelerator Applications

program should not move towards construction of the ADTF in the

near future.

The Committee directs the Department to instead broaden the

program’s research efforts into optimized waste management strategies leading towards combination of reprocessing with transmutation and energy extraction involving both a new generation of reactors (either liquid-metal or helium cooled) with safety features comparable to Generation IV reactors and an accelerator-based system.

The Department is directed to explore research and development

for comprehensive spent fuel management strategies, which emphasize avoidance of proliferation issues and have minimal environmental impact, along with reasonable economic projections that

include efficient utilization of the energy resource of the spent fuel.

The Department should develop goals for the overall program that

combine these attributes with final waste forms that significantly

decrease the long-term toxicity to levels far below that of spent

fuel. As part of the program, the Department should evaluate the

benefits and costs realized from only reprocessing as well as each

additional treatment step. Finally, the Department is directed to

close-out the Accelerator Production of Tritium project in fiscal
131

year 2002 and document all information pertinent to its utility as

a back-up source of tritium for the stockpile.

The Department is directed to utilize existing facilities to accomplish short-term research and demonstrations. The Committee anticipates that test facilities added to the LANSCE facility and/or

the Fast Flux Test Facility may provide opportunities for the most

rapid progress, and is encouraged to consider such facilities. In addition, the Department is directed to seek out and utilize cooperation with international partners who share common goals. Utilization of international research facilities is encouraged where it advances program goals.

The Department is directed to prepare a report for Congress by

March 1, 2003, outlining a long-term program plan which may include construction of new facilities required by the program.

The Committee is encouraged by the possibilities for leveraging

the work accomplished thus far in the accelerator production of

tritium (APT) program to accomplish a wide range of science and

technology missions. Importantly, advanced, high-energy accelerators could be central to a future strategy to transmute spent nuclear fuel into less toxic, shorter-lived materials, thereby ensuring

greater public confidence in a national strategy to manage spent

nuclear fuel of a nuclear waste repository.

In order to pursue these important technology opportunities

while still completing necessary design work for a facility capable

of producing tritium to meet possible future defense requirements,

the Committee directs the Department to establish an Office of Advanced Accelerator Applications (AAA) within the Office of Nuclear

Energy, Science and Technology. The mission of the AAA program

shall include conducting scientific, engineering research, development and demonstrations on: (1) accelerator production of tritium

as a back-up technology; (2) transmutation of spent nuclear fuel

and waste; (3) material science; and (4) other advanced accelerator

applications. The Committee further directs that the Department

transfer the APT program from the Office of Defense Programs

within the NNSA to the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and

Technology for integration into the AAA office. The AAA program

shall assure the accelerator-based back-up capability of producing

tritium for the Nation’s nuclear stockpile, based on requirements

defined by the Office of Defense Programs. The Committee encourages the participation of international collaborators, industrial

partners, and support for new graduate engineering and science

students and professors at U.S. universities.

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

The Committee recommendation provided $122,285,000 for Environmental, Safety and Health activities including $23,293,000 for

program direction. The mission of the Office of Environmental,

Safety and Health is to protect the health and safety of Department of Energy workers, the public, and the environment and is to

be the Department’s independent advocate for safety, health and

the environment.

The Committee notes that the effective management, storage, retrieval, and integration of environmental, scientific and medical

records is important to ensuring public health and safety through-
132

out the Department of Energy complex. Current Department record

keeping is managed at local offices using a variety of methods and

formats. Furthermore, current approaches to digitization contain

overlapping functions, are not standardized, and may result in

records with a very short useful life. Integrated management of

these records would ensure data preservation and access, and may

result in substantial savings through reduced information technology operations and maintenance costs. Therefore, the Committee

recommendation includes $6,000,000 to establish a program at the

University of Nevada-Las Vegas for Department-wide management

of electronic records.

The Committee is concerned that the Department’s current program of medical screening and education at the gaseous diffusion

plants will not be sufficient to complete all necessary screening and

evaluation under the current contract period. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to ensure that all necessary screening and evaluation of workers, both current and former, is adequate and that those workers with an elevated risk of lung cancer

will receive a lung scan. The Committee recommendation also provides $2,500,000 for the University of Louisville and the University

of Kentucky to undertake epidemiological studies of workers to

identify exposure pathways; and $1,000,000 to provide medical

screening for workers employed at the Amchitka Nuclear Weapons

Test Site; and not less than $1,000,000 for health studies of workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant.

Energy Employees Compensation Initiative.—The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000, 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.

WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION

The Committee has provided an appropriation of $20,000,000 for

these activities for fiscal year 2002. This is the same as the budget

request.

The Worker and Community Transition budget provides funding

for activities associated with enhanced benefits beyond those required by contract, existing company policy or collective bargaining

agreements at defense nuclear facilities. The goals of the program

are to mitigate the impacts on workers and communities from contractor work force restructuring, and to assist community planning

for all site conversions, while managing the transition to the reduced work force that will better meet ongoing mission requirements through the application of best business practices.

The Committee urges the Department to improve the manner in

which it deals with the communities the Worker and Community

Transition program serves. The Committee reminds the Department that the communities and community re-use organizations

that rely on these funds are generally small. Slow release of funds
133

or, worse, reneging on previously promised funding, can be devastating to these communities and organizations.

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 for national security programs administrative support. This is the

amount of the request and the same as the current year. This fund

pays for departmental services that are provided in support of the

National Nuclear Security Administration.

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

An appropriation of $2,893,000 is recommended for the Office of

Hearings and Appeals. The Office of Hearings and Appeals conduct

all of the Department’s adjudicative process and provides various

administrative remedies as may be required. The goal is to promote

successful and uninterrupted DOE operations through the deliberate, expeditious and equitable resolution of all claims of adverse

impact emanating from the operations of the Department.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $200,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 310,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 250,000,000

The Committee recommends $250,000,000 for defense nuclear

waste disposal.

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES

Details of the Committee’s recommendations are included in the

table at the end of this title.

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

Public Law 95–91 transferred to the Department of Energy the

power marketing functions under section 5 of the Flood Control Act

of 1944 and all other functions of the Department of the Interior

with respect to the Bonneville Power Administration, Southeastern

Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and

the power marketing functions of the Bureau of Reclamation, now

included in the Western Area Power Administration.

All power marketing administrations except Bonneville are funded annually with appropriations, and related receipts are deposited

in the Treasury. Bonneville operations are self-financed under authority of Public Law 93–454, the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974, which authorizes Bonneville to use its

revenues to finance operating costs, maintenance and capital construction, and sell bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance

any remaining capital program requirements.

The fiscal year 2002 budget request provides authority for the

use of offsetting collections from the sale of electricity to finance

purchase of power and wheeling expenses previously funded by direct appropriations.
134

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 Western

States in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville markets

hydroelectric power from 31 Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation projects, as well as thermal energy from non-Federal generating facilities in the region. Bonneville also markets and exchanges surplus electric power interregionally over the Pacific

Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie with California, and in Canada over interconnections with utilities in British Columbia.

Bonneville constructs, operates, and maintains the Nation’s largest high-voltage transmission system, consisting of over 15,000 circuit-miles of transmission line and 324 substations with an installed capacity of 21,500 megawatts. BPA is the largest power

wholesaler in the northwest and provides about 46 percent of the

region’s electric energy supply and about three-fourths of the region’s electric power transmission capacity.

Public Law 93–454, the Federal Columbia River Transmission

System Act of 1974, placed Bonneville on a self-financed basis.

With the passage in 1980 of Public Law 96–501, the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, Bonneville’s

responsibilities were expanded to include meeting the net firm load

growth of the region, investing in cost-effective, regionwide energy

conservation, and acquiring generating resources to meet these requirements.

The Committee is aware that BPA and many of its transmission

customers have agreed to form a technical review committee to assure that BPA’s transmission investments are prioritized to ensure

cost-effective and reliable service for the consumers of the Northwest. The Committee fully supports the formation of this committee.

Borrowing authority.—A total of $3,750,000,000 has been made

available to Bonneville as permanent borrowing authority. Each

year the Committee reviews the budgeted amounts Bonneville

plans to use of this total and reports a recommendation on these

borrowing requirements. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends an additional increment of $374,500,000 in new borrowing authority, the same as the budget request, for transmission

system construction, system replacement, energy resources, fish

and wildlife, and capital equipment programs.

The Committee recommendation includes language that provides

Bonneville with a $2,000,000,000 increase in borrowing authority

to address critical infrastructure needs arising from anticipated increases in generation within Bonneville’s service area. Bonneville is

not permitted to obligate any funds from this additional obligation

authority in fiscal year 2002 and, as previously noted, may not obligate more than $374,500,000 of its permanent borrowing authority

in fiscal year 2002.

Limitation on direct loans.—The Committee recommends that no

new direct loans be made in fiscal year 2002.
135

Budget revisions and notification.—The Committee expects Bonneville to adhere to the borrowing authority estimates recommended by the Congress and promptly inform the Committee of

any exceptional circumstances which would necessitate the need for

Bonneville to obligate borrowing authority in excess of such

amounts.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $3,891,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 4,891,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,891,000

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 concurs with the financing of purchased power

and wheeling costs as proposed in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $28,038,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 28,038,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,038,000

The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing agent

for the power generated at Corps of Engineers’ hydroelectric plants

in the six-State area of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana with a total installed capacity of 2,158

megawatts. It operates and maintains some 1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating projects, and 24 substations, and sells

its power at wholesale primarily to publicly and cooperatively

owned electric distribution utilities.

The Committee concurs with the financing of purchased power

and wheeling costs as proposed in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $165,465,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 169,465,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 169,465,000

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
136

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 258 substations. Western distributes power generated by 55 plants with a maximum operating capacity of 10,576

megawatts.

Western, through its power marketing program, must secure revenues sufficient to meet the annual costs of operation and maintenance of the generating and transmission facilities, purchased

power, wheeling, and other expenses, in order to repay all of the

power investment with interest, and to repay that portion of the

Government’s irrigation and other nonpower investments which are

beyond the water users’ repayment capability. Under the Colorado

River Basin power marketing fund, which encompasses the Colorado River Basin, Fort Peck, and Colorado River storage facilities,

all operation and maintenance and power marketing expenses are

financed from revenues.

Of the total resources available to the Western Power Administration, $6,092,000 shall be transferred to the Utah Reclamation

Mitigation and Conservation Commission.

The Committee concurs with the financing of purchased power

and wheeling costs as proposed in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Creation of the Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance

fund was directed by the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal years 1994–95. This legislation also directed that the fund be

administered by the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration for use by the Commissioner of the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission to defray operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams in Texas.

The Committee recommendation is $2,663,000, the same as the

budget request.

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES

Details of the Committee’s recommendations are included in the

table at the end of this title.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $175,200,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 181,155,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 181,155,000

SALARIES AND EXPENSES—REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. ¥$175,200,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... ¥181,155,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥181,155,000

The Committee recommendation provides $181,155,000, the

amount of the budget request, for the Federal Energy Regulatory
137

Commission (FERC). Revenues are established at a rate equal to

the amount provided for program activities, resulting in a net appropriation of zero.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates key interstate aspects of the electric power, natural gas, oil pipeline, and hydroelectric industries.

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 Current year enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Committee recommen

pared to—

Current year

enacted

ENERGY SUPPLY

RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Renewable energy technologies:

Biomass/biofuels energy systems:

Power systems .............................................................................................................................................................. 40,800 37,754 53,000 ∂12,200 Transportation .............................................................................................................................................................. 46,160 44,201 50,000 ∂3,840 

Subtotal, Biomass/biofuels energy systems ............................................................................................................ 86,960 81,955 103,000 ∂16,040 

Geothermal technology development ..................................................................................................................................... 27,000 13,900 32,000 ∂5,000 Hydrogen research ................................................................................................................................................................. 27,000 26,881 35,000 ∂8,000 Hydropower ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5,000 4,989 9,300 ∂4,300 Solar energy:

Concentrating solar power ........................................................................................................................................... 13,800 1,932 15,300 ∂1,500 Photovoltaic energy systems ........................................................................................................................................ 75,775 39,000 70,000 ¥5,775 Solar building technology research .............................................................................................................................. 3,950 2,000 7,000 ∂3,050 

Subtotal, Solar energy ............................................................................................................................................. 93,525 42,932 92,300 ¥1,225 

Wind energy systems ............................................................................................................................................................. 40,000 20,500 45,000 ∂5,000 

Total, Renewable energy technologies .............................................................................................................................. 279,485 191,157 316,600 ∂37,115 

Electric energy systems and storage:

High temperature superconducting R&D .............................................................................................................................. 37,000 36,819 43,000 ∂6,000 Energy storage systems ........................................................................................................................................................ 6,000 5,987 12,000 ∂6,000 Transmission reliability ......................................................................................................................................................... 9,000 8,940 16,000 ∂7,000 

Total, Electric energy systems and storage ..................................................................................................................... 52,000 51,746 71,000 ∂19,000 
Renewable support and implementation:

Departmental energy management ....................................................................................................................................... 2,000 1,000 1,000 ¥1,000 ..International renewable energy program .............................................................................................................................. 5,000 2,500 3,000 ¥2,000 Renewable energy production incentive program ................................................................................................................. 4,000 3,991 4,000 ........................ Renewable Indian energy resources ...................................................................................................................................... 6,600 ........................ 4,000 ¥2,600 Renewable program support ................................................................................................................................................. 4,000 2,059 3,000 ¥1,000 

Total, Renewable support and implementation ............................................................................................................... 21,600 9,550 15,000 ¥6,600 

National renewable energy laboratory ............................................................................................................................................ 4,000 5,000 12,000 ∂8,000 Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 18,700 19,200 21,000 ∂2,300 

TOTAL, RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................ 375,785 276,653 435,600 ∂59,815 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Advanced radioisotope power system ............................................................................................................................................ 32,200 29,094 29,094 ¥3,106 ..Isotopes: Isotope support and production ..................................................................................................................................... 24,715 24,683 24,683 ¥32 ..

Construction: 99–E–201 Isotope production facility (LANL) ................................................................................................ 2,500 2,494 2,494 ¥6 ..

Subtotal, Isotope support and production ........................................................................................................................ 27,215 27,177 27,177 ¥38 ..

Offsetting collections ............................................................................................................................................................ ¥8,000 ¥9,000 ¥9,000 ¥1,000 ..

Total, Isotopes ................................................................................................................................................................... 19,215 18,177 18,177 ¥1,038 ..

University reactor fuel assistance and support ............................................................................................................................ 12,000 11,974 19,000 ∂7,000 Research and development:

Nuclear energy plant optimization ........................................................................................................................................ 5,000 4,500 9,000 ∂4,000 Nuclear energy research initiative ........................................................................................................................................ 35,000 18,079 38,000 ∂3,000 Nuclear energy technologies ................................................................................................................................................. 7,500 4,500 14,000 ∂6,500 

Total, Research and development .................................................................................................................................... 47,500 27,079 61,000 ∂13,500 

Infrastructure:

ANL-West operations ............................................................................................................................................................. 39,150 34,107 34,107 ¥5,043 ..Fast flux test facility (FFTF) .................................................................................................................................................. 44,010 38,439 38,439 ¥5,571 ..Test reactor area landlord .................................................................................................................................................... 7,575 7,283 7,283 ¥292 ..
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Current year enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Committee recommen

pared to—

Current year

enacted

Construction:

99–E–200 Test reactor area electrical utility upgrade, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, ID ................ 925 950 950 ∂25 ..95–E–201 Test reactor area fire and life safety improvements, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,

ID ..................................................................................................................................................................... 500 500 500 ........................ ..

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................ 1,425 1,450 1,450 ∂25 ..Subtotal, Test reactor area landlord .......................................................................................................... 9,000 8,733 8,733 ¥267 ..Total, Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... 92,160 81,279 81,279 ¥10,881 ..

Nuclear facilities management:

EBR-II shutdown .................................................................................................................................................................... 8,800 4,200 4,200 ¥4,600 ..Disposition of spent fuel and legacy materials ................................................................................................................... 16,200 16,267 16,267 ∂67 ..Disposition technology activities ........................................................................................................................................... 9,850 9,990 9,990 ∂140 ..

Total, Nuclear facilities management .............................................................................................................................. 34,850 30,457 30,457 ¥4,393 ..

Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 22,000 25,062 25,062 ∂3,062 ..

TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY ................................................................................................................................................. 259,925 223,122 264,069 ∂4,144 

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense) ............................................................................................................. 16,000 14,973 13,973 ¥2,027 Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 19,998 20,527 19,527 ¥471 

TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH .................................................................................................................... 35,998 35,500 33,500 ¥2,498 

ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Technical information management program ................................................................................................................................ 1,600 1,600 1,600 ........................ ..
Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7,000 7,370 6,370 ¥630 

TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................... 8,600 8,970 7,970 ¥630 Subtotal, Energy supply .................................................................................................................................................... 680,308 544,245 741,139 ∂60,831 

Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106–554) .......................................................................................................... ¥1,456 ........................ ........................ ∂1,456 ..General reduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥5,000 ¥5,000 Offset from nuclear energy royalties ............................................................................................................................................. ¥2,352 ........................ ........................ ∂2,352 ..Reduction for safeguards and security ......................................................................................................................................... ¥16,582 ........................ ........................ ∂16,582 ..

TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY .................................................................................................................................................... 659,918 544,245 736,139 ∂76,221 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Site closure ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 81,636 43,000 43,000 ¥38,636 ..Site/project completion ................................................................................................................................................................... 61,621 64,119 64,119 ∂2,498 ..Post 2006 completion .................................................................................................................................................................... 137,744 120,053 120,053 ¥17,691 ..Excess facilities .............................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 1,381 1,381 ∂1,381 ..Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106–554) .......................................................................................................... ¥612 ........................ ........................ ∂612 ..Reduction for safeguards and security ......................................................................................................................................... ¥3,189 ........................ ........................ ∂3,189 ..

TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................... 277,200 228,553 228,553 ¥48,647 ..

URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund:

Decontamination and decommissioning ............................................................................................................................... 273,038 241,641 286,941 ∂13,903 Uranium/thorium reimbursement .......................................................................................................................................... 72,000 1,000 1,000 ¥71,000 ..Depleted UF6 conversion project ........................................................................................................................................... ........................ 10,000 ........................ ........................ 

Total, Uranium enrichment D&D fund .............................................................................................................................. 345,038 252,641 287,941 ¥57,097 

Other Uranium Activities:

Maintenance of facilities and inventories ............................................................................................................................ 29,193 99,000 99,000 ∂69,807 ..Pre-existing liabilities ........................................................................................................................................................... 11,330 11,784 11,784 ∂454 ..Depleted UF6 conversion project ........................................................................................................................................... 21,877 ........................ 10,000 ¥11,877 
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Current year enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Committee recommen

pared to—

Current year

enacted

Total, Other uranium activities ........................................................................................................................................ 62,400 110,784 120,784 ∂58,384 

Reduction for safeguards and security ......................................................................................................................................... ¥14,071 ........................ ........................ ∂14,071 ..Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106–554) .......................................................................................................... ¥865 ........................ ........................ ∂865 ..

TOTAL, URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION ...................................................................................... 392,502 363,425 408,725 ∂16,223 

SCIENCE

High energy physics:

Research and technology ...................................................................................................................................................... 234,720 247,870 256,870 ∂22,150 Facility operations ................................................................................................................................................................. 459,010 456,830 456,830 ¥2,180 ..Construction:

00–G–307 SLAC office building .................................................................................................................................. 5,200 ........................ ........................ ¥5,200 ..99–G–306 Wilson hall safety improvements, Fermilab .............................................................................................. 4,200 ........................ ........................ ¥4,200 ..98–G–304 Neutrinos at the main injector, Fermilab .................................................................................................. 23,000 11,400 11,400 ¥11,600 ..

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................. 32,400 11,400 11,400 ¥21,000 ..Subtotal, Facility operations .................................................................................................................................... 491,410 468,230 468,230 ¥23,180 ..Total, High energy physics ...................................................................................................................................... 726,130 716,100 725,100 ¥1,030 

Nuclear physics .............................................................................................................................................................................. 369,890 360,510 373,000 ∂3,110 Biological and environmental research ......................................................................................................................................... 498,760 432,970 480,000 ¥18,760 

Construction: 01–E–300 Laboratory for Comparative and Functional Genomics, ORNL ..................................................... 2,500 10,000 10,000 ∂7,500 ..

Total, Biological and environmental research .................................................................................................................. 501,260 442,970 490,000 ¥11,260 
Basic energy sciences program:

Materials sciences ................................................................................................................................................................. 456,111 434,353 454,353 ¥1,758 Chemical sciences ................................................................................................................................................................. 223,229 218,714 228,714 ∂5,485 Engineering and geosciences ................................................................................................................................................ 40,816 38,938 42,938 ∂2,122 Energy biosciences ................................................................................................................................................................ 33,714 32,400 34,400 ∂686 Construction:

02–SC–002 Project engineering and design (VL) ....................................................................................................... ........................ 4,000 4,000 ∂4,000 ..99–E–334 Spallation neutron source (ORNL) .............................................................................................................. 259,500 276,300 276,300 ∂16,800 ..

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................. 259,500 280,300 280,300 ∂20,800 ..Total, Basic energy sciences ................................................................................................................................... 1,013,370 1,004,705 1,040,705 ∂27,335 

Advanced scientific computing research ....................................................................................................................................... 170,000 163,050 163,050 ¥6,950 ..Energy research analyses ............................................................................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 ........................ ..Multiprogram energy labs—facility support:

Infrastructure support ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,160 1,020 1,020 ¥140 ..Oak Ridge landlord ............................................................................................................................................................... 10,711 7,359 7,359 ¥3,352 ..Construction:

MEL–001 Multiprogram energy laboratory infrastructure projects, various locations ................................................ 22,059 18,613 18,613 ¥3,446 ..02–SC–001 Multiprogram energy laboratories, project engineering design, various locations ................................. ........................ 3,183 3,183 ∂3,183 ..

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................. 22,059 21,796 21,796 ¥263 ..Total, Multiprogram energy labs—fac. support ..................................................................................................... 33,930 30,175 30,175 ¥3,755 ..

Fusion energy sciences program .................................................................................................................................................... 255,000 248,495 248,495 ¥6,505 ..Facilities and infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 10,000 ∂10,000 Safeguards and security ................................................................................................................................................................ 49,818 55,412 49,818 ........................ Program direction:

Field offices ........................................................................................................................................................................... 83,307 64,400 63,000 ¥20,307 Headquarters ......................................................................................................................................................................... 51,438 73,525 74,385 ∂22,947 Science education ................................................................................................................................................................. 4,500 4,460 5,000 ∂500 

Total, Program direction ................................................................................................................................................... 139,245 142,385 142,385 ∂3,140 ..Subtotal, Science .............................................................................................................................................................. 3,259,643 3,164,802 3,273,728 ∂14,085 
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Current year enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Committee recommen

pared to—

Current year

enacted

Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106–554) .......................................................................................................... ¥7,011 ........................ ........................ ∂7,011 ..General reduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... ¥34,047 ........................ ........................ ∂34,047 ..Reduction for safeguards and security ......................................................................................................................................... ¥38,244 ........................ ........................ ∂38,244 ..Less security charge for reimbursable work .................................................................................................................................. ........................ ¥4,912 ¥4,912 ¥4,912 ..

TOTAL, SCIENCE ................................................................................................................................................................ 3,180,341 3,159,890 3,268,816 ∂88,475 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Repository program ........................................................................................................................................................................ 135,200 70,577 15,000 ¥120,200 Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 62,800 64,402 10,000 ¥52,800 Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106–554) .......................................................................................................... ¥420 ........................ ........................ ∂420 ..Reduction for safeguards and security ......................................................................................................................................... ¥6,926 ........................ ........................ ∂6,926 ..

TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL .................................................................................................................................. 190,654 134,979 25,000 ¥165,654 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations:

Salaries and expenses:

Office of the Secretary ................................................................................................................................................. 5,000 4,700 4,700 ¥300 ..Board of Contract Appeals ........................................................................................................................................... 878 911 911 ∂33 ..Chief financial officer .................................................................................................................................................. 32,148 36,464 34,000 ∂1,852 Contract reform and privatization ............................................................................................................................... 2,500 ........................ ........................ ¥2,500 ..Engineering and project management ......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ..Congressional and intergovernmental affairs ............................................................................................................. 5,000 5,478 4,500 ¥500 Economic impact and diversity .................................................................................................................................... 5,126 5,230 5,000 ¥126 General counsel ............................................................................................................................................................ 22,724 23,058 22,000 ¥724 International affairs ..................................................................................................................................................... 8,500 8,481 8,500 ........................ Management and administration ................................................................................................................................. 77,800 76,392 69,000 ¥8,800 Policy office .................................................................................................................................................................. 6,600 6,649 6,600 ........................ 
Public affairs ................................................................................................................................................................ 3,900 4,581 4,000 ∂100 

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................. 170,176 171,944 159,211 ¥10,965 

Program support:

Minority economic impact ............................................................................................................................................ 1,500 1,498 1,500 ........................ Policy analysis and system studies ............................................................................................................................. 422 420 400 ¥22 Environmental policy studies ....................................................................................................................................... 1,000 919 1,000 ........................ Corporate management information program ............................................................................................................. 12,000 ........................ ........................ ¥12,000 ..

Subtotal, Program support ...................................................................................................................................... 14,922 2,837 2,900 ¥12,022 Total, Administrative operations .............................................................................................................................. 185,098 174,781 162,111 ¥22,987 

Cost of work for others .................................................................................................................................................................. 74,027 71,837 71,837 ¥2,190 ..

Subtotal, Departmental Administration ............................................................................................................................ 259,125 246,618 233,948 ¥25,177 

Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106–554) .......................................................................................................... ¥165 ........................ ........................ ∂165 ..Use of prior year balances and other adjustments ...................................................................................................................... ¥8,000 ........................ ........................ ∂8,000 ..Funding from other defense activities ........................................................................................................................................... ¥25,000 ¥25,000 ¥25,000 ........................ ..Reduction for safeguards and security ......................................................................................................................................... ¥18 ........................ ........................ ∂18 ..

Total, Departmental administration (gross) ..................................................................................................................... 225,942 221,618 208,948 ¥16,994 

Miscellaneous revenues .................................................................................................................................................................. ¥151,000 ¥137,810 ¥137,810 ∂13,190 ..

TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net) ................................................................................................................ 74,942 83,808 71,138 ¥3,804 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Office of Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................................ 31,500 31,430 30,000 ¥1,500 Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106–554) .......................................................................................................... ¥70 ........................ ........................ ∂70 ..

TOTAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL .......................................................................................................................... 31,430 31,430 30,000 ¥1,430 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Directed stockpile work:

Stockpile research and development .................................................................................................................................... 272,300 305,460 365,145 ∂92,845 
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Current year enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Committee recommen

pared to—

Current year

enacted

Stockpile maintenance .......................................................................................................................................................... 279,994 362,493 367,223 ∂87,229 Stockpile evaluation .............................................................................................................................................................. 174,710 180,834 178,589 ∂3,879 Dismantlement/disposal ........................................................................................................................................................ 29,260 35,414 29,066 ¥194 Production support ................................................................................................................................................................ 149,939 152,890 134,896 ¥15,043 Field engineering, training and manuals ............................................................................................................................. 4,400 6,700 6,418 ∂2,018 

Total, Directed stockpile work .......................................................................................................................................... 910,603 1,043,791 1,081,337 ∂170,734 

Campaigns:

Primary certification .............................................................................................................................................................. 41,400 55,530 52,661 ∂11,261 Dynamic materials properties ............................................................................................................................................... 74,408 97,810 93,644 ∂19,236 Advanced radiography ........................................................................................................................................................... 58,000 60,510 85,803 ∂27,803 

Construction: 97–D–102 Dual-axis radiographic hydrotest facility (LANL), Los Alamos, NM .................................... 35,232 ........................ ........................ ¥35,232 ..

Subtotal, Advanced radiography .............................................................................................................................. 93,232 60,510 85,803 ¥7,429 

Secondary certification and nuclear systems margins ........................................................................................................ 52,964 47,270 44,524 ¥8,440 Enhanced surety .................................................................................................................................................................... 40,600 34,797 39,298 ¥1,302 Weapons system engineering certification ........................................................................................................................... 16,300 24,043 26,665 ∂10,365 Nuclear survivability .............................................................................................................................................................. 15,400 19,050 23,694 ∂8,294 Enhanced surveillance .......................................................................................................................................................... 106,651 82,333 82,333 ¥24,318 ..Advanced design and production technologies .................................................................................................................... 75,735 75,533 75,533 ¥202 ..Inertial confinement fusion and high yield .......................................................................................................................... 250,500 222,943 247,443 ¥3,057 

Construction: 96–D–111 National ignition facility, LLNL ............................................................................................ 199,100 245,000 245,000 ∂45,900 ..

Subtotal, Inertial confinement fusion ...................................................................................................................... 449,600 467,943 492,443 ∂42,843 

Advanced simulation and computing ................................................................................................................................... 716,175 711,185 711,185 ¥4,990 ..

Construction:

01–D–101 Distributed information systems laboratory, SNL, Livermore, CA .................................................... 2,300 5,400 12,400 ∂10,100 00–D–103, Terascale simulation facility, LLNL, Livermore, CA ......................................................................... 5,000 5,000 22,000 ∂17,000 00–D–105 Strategic computing complex, LANL, Los Alamos, NM ..................................................................... 56,000 11,070 11,070 ¥44,930 ..
00–D–107 Joint computational engineering laboratory, SNL, Albuquerque, NM ............................................... 6,700 5,377 15,377 ∂8,677 

Subtotal, Construction .................................................................................................................................... 70,000 26,847 60,847 ¥9,153 Subtotal, Advanced simulation and computing ............................................................................................. 786,175 738,032 772,032 ¥14,143 

Pit manufacturing and certification ..................................................................................................................................... 125,038 128,545 237,713 ∂112,675 Secondary readiness .............................................................................................................................................................. 20,000 23,169 68,445 ∂48,445 High explosives manufacturing and weapons assembly/disassembly readiness ................................................................ ........................ 3,960 6,846 ∂6,846 Non-nuclear readiness .......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 12,204 18,187 ∂18,187 Materials readiness ............................................................................................................................................................... 40,511 1,209 1,209 ¥39,302 ..Tritium readiness .................................................................................................................................................................. 77,000 43,350 42,350 ¥34,650 

Construction:

98–D–125 Tritium extraction facility, SR ........................................................................................................... 75,000 81,125 81,125 ∂6,125 ..98–D–126 Accelerator production of Tritium, various locations ....................................................................... 15,000 ........................ 15,000 ........................ 

Subtotal, Construction .................................................................................................................................... 90,000 81,125 96,125 ∂6,125 Subtotal, Tritium readiness ............................................................................................................................ 167,000 124,475 138,475 ¥28,525 Total, Campaigns ............................................................................................................................................ 2,105,014 1,996,413 2,259,505 ∂154,491 

Readiness in technical base and facilities:

Operations of facilities .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,252,232 830,427 939,479 ¥312,753 Program readiness ................................................................................................................................................................ 74,500 188,126 197,220 ∂122,720 Special projects ..................................................................................................................................................................... 48,297 64,493 60,385 ∂12,088 Material recycle and recovery ............................................................................................................................................... 30,018 101,311 90,310 ∂60,292 Containers ............................................................................................................................................................................. 11,876 8,199 8,199 ¥3,677 ..Storage .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9,075 10,643 10,643 ∂1,568 ..Nuclear weapons incident response ..................................................................................................................................... 56,289 89,125 88,923 ∂32,634 

Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and fac .............................................................................................................. 1,482,287 1,292,324 1,395,159 ¥87,128 

Construction:

02–D–101 Microsystem and engineering science applications (MESA), SNL ............................................................. ........................ 2,000 67,000 ∂67,000 02–D–103 Project engineering and design, various locations ................................................................................... ........................ 9,180 31,130 ∂31,130 02–D–105 ETCU upgrade, LLNL .................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 4,750 ∂4,750 02–D–107 Electrical power systems safety communications and bus upgrades, NV ............................................... ........................ 3,507 6,200 ∂6,200 01–D–103 Preliminary project engineering and design (PE&D), various locations ................................................... 35,500 45,379 16,379 ¥19,121 01–D–124 HEU storage facility, Y–12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN ..................................................................................... 17,800 9,500 ........................ ¥17,800 01–D–126 Weapons Evaluation Test Laboratory Pantex Plant, Amarillo, TX ............................................................. 3,000 7,700 7,700 ∂4,700 ..
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Current year enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Committee recommen

pared to—

Current year

enacted

01–D–800 Sensitive compartmented information facility, LLNL ................................................................................. 2,000 12,993 12,993 ∂10,993 ..99–D–103 Isotope sciences facilities, LLNL, Livermore, CA ....................................................................................... 5,000 4,400 4,400 ¥600 ..99–D–104 Protection of real property (roof reconstruction-Phase II), LLNL, Livermore, CA ...................................... 2,800 2,800 2,800 ........................ ..99–D–106 Model validation and system certification center, SNL, Albuquerque, NM ............................................... 5,200 4,955 4,955 ¥245 ..99–D–108 Renovate existing roadways, Nevada Test Site, NV .................................................................................. 2,000 ........................ 2,000 ........................ 99–D–125 Replace boilers and controls, Kansas City plant, Kansas City, MO ......................................................... 13,000 300 300 ¥12,700 ..99–D–127 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Kansas City plant, Kansas City, MO ............................. 23,765 22,200 22,200 ¥1,565 ..99–D–128 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Pantex consolidation, Amarillo, TX ................................ 4,998 3,300 3,300 ¥1,698 ..98–D–123 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Tritium factory modernization and consolidation, Savannah River, SC ..................................................................................................................................................... 30,767 13,700 13,700 ¥17,067 ..98–D–124 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Y–12 consolidation, Oak Ridge, TN .............................. ........................ 6,850 6,850 ∂6,850 ..97–D–123 Structural upgrades, Kansas City plant, Kansas City, KS ........................................................................ 2,918 3,000 3,000 ∂82 ..96–D–102 Stockpile stewardship facilities revitalization (Phase VI), various locations ........................................... ........................ 2,900 2,900 ∂2,900 ..95–D–102 Chemistry and metallurgy research (CMR) upgrades project (LANL) ....................................................... 13,337 ........................ ........................ ¥13,337 ..93–d–122 Life saftey upgrades, Y–12 ........................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ..88–D–125 HE Machining facility, Panter .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ..88–D–122 FCAP ........................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ..

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................. 162,085 154,664 212,557 ∂50,472 Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities .................................................................................................. 1,644,372 1,446,988 1,607,716 ¥36,656 

Facilities and infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 300,000 ∂300,000 Secure transportation asset:

Operations and equipment .................................................................................................................................................... 79,357 77,571 79,071 ¥286 Program direction .................................................................................................................................................................. 36,316 44,229 44,229 ∂7,913 ..

Total, Secure transportation asset ................................................................................................................................... 115,673 121,800 123,300 ∂7,627 

Safeguards and security ................................................................................................................................................................ 356,840 439,281 439,281 ∂82,441 ..
Construction:

99–D–132 SMRI nuclear material safeguards and security upgrade project (LANL), Los Alamos, NM .................... 18,043 9,600 9,600 ¥8,443 ..88–D–123 Security enhancements, Pantex plant, Amarillo, TX .................................................................................. 2,713 ........................ ........................ ¥2,713 ..

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................. 20,756 9,600 9,600 ¥11,156 ..Total, Safeguards and security ............................................................................................................................... 377,596 448,881 448,881 ∂71,285 ..

Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 224,071 271,137 271,137 ∂47,066 ..

Subtotal, Weapons activities ............................................................................................................................................ 5,377,329 5,329,010 6,091,876 ∂714,547 

Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) Public Law 106–554) ........................................................................................................... ¥11,033 ........................ ........................ ∂11,033 ..Use of prior year balances ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥13,647 ........................ ........................ ∂13,647 ..General reduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... ¥35,700 ........................ ........................ ∂35,700 ..Reduction for safeguards and security ......................................................................................................................................... ¥310,796 ........................ ........................ ∂310,796 ..Less security charge for reimbursable work .................................................................................................................................. ........................ ¥28,985 ¥28,985 ¥28,985 ..

TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................ 5,006,153 5,300,025 6,062,891 ∂1,056,738 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Nonproliferation and verification, R&D .......................................................................................................................................... 235,990 170,296 222,355 ¥13,635 

Construction: 00–D–192 Nonproliferation and international security center (NISC), LANL ................................................ 17,000 35,806 35,806 ∂18,806 ..

Total, Nonproliferation and verification, R&D .................................................................................................................. 252,990 206,102 258,161 ∂5,171 

Arms control ................................................................................................................................................................................... 152,014 101,500 138,000 ¥14,014 Nonproliferation programs with Russia:

International materials protection, control, and accounting ................................................................................................ 173,856 138,800 143,800 ¥30,056 Russian transition assistance .............................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ..HEU transparency implementation ........................................................................................................................................ 15,190 13,950 13,950 ¥1,240 ..International nuclear safety .................................................................................................................................................. 20,000 13,800 19,500 ¥500 Fissile materials disposition:

U.S. surplus materials disposition ............................................................................................................................... 139,517 130,089 130,089 ¥9,428 ..Russian surplus materials disposition ........................................................................................................................ 40,000 57,000 66,000 ∂26,000 Construction:

01–D–407 Highly enriched uranium (HEU) blend dow Savannah River, SC ..................................................... 20,932 24,000 24,000 ∂3,068 ..01–D–142 Immobilization and associated processin facility, various locations .............................................. 3,000 ........................ ........................ ¥3,000 ..
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Current year enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Committee recommen

pared to—

Current year

enacted

99–D–141 Pit disassembly and conversion facility various locations .............................................................. 20,000 16,000 16,000 ¥4,000 ..99–D–143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility various locations .................................................................... 26,000 63,000 63,000 ∂37,000 ..

Subtotal, Construction .................................................................................................................................... 69,932 103,000 103,000 ∂33,068 ..Subtotal, Fissile materials disposition ........................................................................................................... 249,449 290,089 299,089 ∂49,640 Total, Nonproliferation programs with Russia ............................................................................................... 458,495 456,639 476,339 ∂17,844 

Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 51,468 51,459 50,000 ¥1,468 

Subtotal, Defense nuclear nonproliferation ...................................................................................................................... 914,967 815,700 922,500 ∂7,533 

Use of prior year balances ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥526 ¥42,000 ¥42,000 ¥41,474 ..Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) Public Law 106–554) ........................................................................................................... ¥1,923 ........................ ........................ ∂1,923 ..Reduction for safeguards and security ......................................................................................................................................... ¥40,245 ........................ ........................ ∂40,245 ..

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ............................................................................................................... 872,273 773,700 880,500 ∂8,227 

NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development ........................................................................................................................................................... 644,500 652,245 652,245 ∂7,745 ..

Construction:

GPN–101 General plant projects, various locations .................................................................................................... 11,400 ........................ ........................ ¥11,400 ..01–D–200 Major office replacement building, Schenectady, NY ................................................................................ 1,300 9,000 9,000 ∂7,700 ..90–N–102 Expended core facility dry cell project, Naval Reactors Facility, ID ......................................................... 16,000 4,200 4,200 ¥11,800 ..

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................. 28,700 13,200 13,200 ¥15,500 ..Total, Naval reactors development .......................................................................................................................... 673,200 665,445 665,445 ¥7,755 ..
Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 21,400 22,600 22,600 ∂1,200 ..Reduction for safeguards and security ......................................................................................................................................... ¥4,437 ........................ ........................ ∂4,437 ..Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106–554) .......................................................................................................... ¥1,518 ........................ ........................ ∂1,518 ..

TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS .................................................................................................................................................. 688,645 688,045 688,045 ¥600 ..

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Office of the Administrator ............................................................................................................................................................ 10,000 15,000 15,000 ∂5,000 ..Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106–554) .......................................................................................................... ¥22 ........................ ........................ ∂22 ..

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ........................................................................................................................... 9,978 15,000 15,000 ∂5,022 ..TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................................. 6,577,049 6,776,770 7,646,436 ∂1,069,387 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT.

Site/project completion:

Operation and maintenance .................................................................................................................................................. 919,167 872,030 979,480 ∂60,313 Construction:

02–D–402 Intec cathodic protection system expansion project, INEEL, Idaho Falls, ID ............................................ ........................ 3,256 3,256 ∂3,256 ..01–D–414 Preliminary project, engineering and design (PE&D), various locations .................................................. 17,300 6,254 6,254 ¥11,046 ..01–D–415 235–F packaging and stabilization project, Savannah River, SC ............................................................ 4,000 ........................ ........................ ¥4,000 ..99–D–402 Tank farm support services, F&H area, Savannah River site, Aiken, SC ................................................. 7,714 5,040 5,040 ¥2,674 ..99–D–404 Health physics instrumentation laboratory (INEL), ID ............................................................................... 4,300 2,700 2,700 ¥1,600 ..98–D–453 Plutonium stabilization and handling system for PFP, Richland, WA ...................................................... 1,690 1,910 1,910 ∂220 ..97–D–470 Regulatory monitoring and bioassay laboratory, Savannah River site, Aiken, SC ................................... 3,949 ........................ ........................ ¥3,949 ..96–D–471 CFC HVAC/chiller retrofit, Savannah River site, Aiken, SC ....................................................................... 12,512 4,244 4,244 ¥8,268 ..92–D–140 F&H canyon exhaust upgrades, Savannah River, SC ................................................................................ 8,879 15,790 ........................ ¥8,879 86–D–103 Decontamination and waste treatment facility (LLNL), Livermore, CA ..................................................... 2,000 762 762 ¥1,238 ..

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................. 62,344 39,956 24,166 ¥38,178 Total, Site/project completion .................................................................................................................................. 981,511 911,986 1,003,646 ∂22,135 

Post 2006 completion:

Operation and maintenance .................................................................................................................................................. 2,251,514 1,680,979 2,133,779 ¥117,735 Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution ........................................................................................................................ 420,000 420,000 420,000 ........................ ..Construction: 93–D–187 High-level waste removal from filled waste tanks, Savannah River, SC ................................... 27,212 6,754 6,754 ¥20,458 ..Office of River Protection:

Operation and maintenance ......................................................................................................................................... 309,619 272,151 328,151 ∂18,532 
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Current year enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Committee recommen

pared to—

Current year

enacted

Construction:

01–D–416 Hanford waste treatment plant, Richland, WA ................................................................................ 377,000 500,000 665,000 ∂288,000 99–D–403 Infrastructure support, Richland, WA ............................................................................................... 7,812 ........................ ........................ ¥7,812 ..97–D–402 Tank farm restoration and safe operations, Richland, WA and 94–D–407 Initial tank retrieval

systems ........................................................................................................................................................... 46,023 33,473 33,473 ¥12,550 ..

94–D–407 Initial tank retrieval systems, Richland, WA .................................................................................... 17,385 6,844 6,844 ¥10,541 ..

Subtotal, Construction .................................................................................................................................... 448,220 540,317 705,317 ∂257,097 Subtotal, Office of River Protection ................................................................................................................ 757,839 812,468 1,033,468 ∂275,629 Total, Post 2006 completion ........................................................................................................................... 3,456,565 2,920,201 3,594,001 ∂137,436 

Science and technology .................................................................................................................................................................. 256,898 196,000 271,700 ∂14,802 Excess facilities .............................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 1,300 1,300 ∂1,300 ..Safeguards and security ................................................................................................................................................................ 203,748 205,621 205,621 ∂1,873 ..Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 363,988 355,761 355,761 ¥8,227 ..

Subtotal, Defense environmental management ............................................................................................................... 5,262,710 4,590,869 5,432,029 ∂169,319 

Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106–554) .......................................................................................................... ¥10,943 ........................ ........................ ∂10,943 ..Use of prior year balances ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥34,317 ¥36,770 ¥36,770 ¥2,453 ..Pension refund ............................................................................................................................................................................... ¥50,000 ........................ ........................ ∂50,000 ..General reduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... ¥10,700 ........................ ........................ ∂10,700 ..Reduction for safeguards and security ......................................................................................................................................... ¥193,217 ........................ ........................ ∂193,217 ..Less security charge for reimbursable work .................................................................................................................................. ........................ ¥5,391 ¥5,391 ¥5,391 ..

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRON. RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT ......................................................................................... 4,963,533 4,548,708 5,389,868 ∂426,335 
DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS

Site closure ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,027,942 1,004,636 1,034,636 ∂6,694 Safeguards and security ................................................................................................................................................................ 54,772 45,902 45,902 ¥8,870 ..Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106–554) .......................................................................................................... ¥2,383 ........................ ........................ ∂2,383 ..

TOTAL, DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS ............................................................................................................ 1,080,331 1,050,538 1,080,538 ∂207 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION

Privatization initiatives, various locations ..................................................................................................................................... 90,092 141,537 157,537 ∂67,445 Use of prior year balances ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥25,092 ........................ ........................ ∂25,092 ..

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. PRIVATIZATION ............................................................................................... 65,000 141,537 157,537 ∂92,537 TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 6,108,864 5,740,783 6,627,943 ∂519,079 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Other national security programs:

Security and emergency operations:

Nuclear safeguards and security ................................................................................................................................. 116,409 121,188 121,188 ∂4,779 ..Security investigations ................................................................................................................................................. 33,000 44,927 44,927 ∂11,927 ..Corporate management information program ............................................................................................................. ........................ 20,000 ........................ ........................ Emergency management .............................................................................................................................................. 33,711 ........................ ........................ ¥33,711 ..Program direction ......................................................................................................................................................... 92,967 83,135 81,450 ¥11,517 

Subtotal, Security and emergency operations ......................................................................................................... 276,087 269,250 247,565 ¥28,522 

Intelligence ............................................................................................................................................................................ 36,059 40,844 40,844 ∂4,785 ..Counterintelligence ................................................................................................................................................................ 45,200 46,389 46,389 ∂1,189 ..Advanced accelerator applications ....................................................................................................................................... 34,000 ........................ 55,000 ∂21,000 Independent oversight and performance assurance Program direction .............................................................................. 14,937 14,904 14,904 ¥33 ..Environment, safety and health (Defense) ........................................................................................................................... 102,963 91,307 98,992 ¥3,971 

Program direction—EH ................................................................................................................................................ 22,604 23,293 23,293 ∂689 ..

Subtotal, Environment, safety and health (Defense) .............................................................................................. 125,567 114,600 122,285 ¥3,282 

Worker and community transition ......................................................................................................................................... 21,500 21,246 18,000 ¥3,500 

Program direction—WT ................................................................................................................................................ 3,000 3,200 2,000 ¥1,000 

Subtotal, Worker and community transition ............................................................................................................ 24,500 24,446 20,000 ¥4,500 
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Current year enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Committee recommen

pared to—

Current year

enacted

National Security programs administrative support ............................................................................................................. 25,000 25,000 25,000 ........................ ..Office of Hearings and Appeals ............................................................................................................................................ 3,000 2,893 2,893 ¥107 ..

Subtotal, Other defense activities .................................................................................................................................... 584,350 538,326 574,880 ¥9,470 

Use of prior year balances ............................................................................................................................................................. ........................ ¥10,000 ¥10,000 ¥10,000 ..Reduction for safeguards and security ......................................................................................................................................... ¥595 ........................ ........................ ∂595 ..Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106–554) .......................................................................................................... ¥1,289 ........................ ........................ ∂1,289 ..Less security charge for reimbursable work .................................................................................................................................. ........................ ¥712 ¥712 ¥712 ..

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................. 582,466 527,614 564,168 ¥18,298 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Defense nuclear waste disposal .................................................................................................................................................... 200,000 310,000 250,000 ∂50,000 Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106–554) .......................................................................................................... ¥275 ........................ ........................ ∂275 ..

TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................. 13,468,104 13,355,167 15,088,547 ∂1,620,443 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:

Purchase power and wheeling .............................................................................................................................................. 34,463 34,463 34,463 ........................ ..Program direction .................................................................................................................................................................. 5,000 4,891 4,891 ¥109 ..

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ............................................................................................................................. 39,463 39,354 39,354 ¥109 ..

Offsetting collections ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥34,463 ¥34,463 ¥34,463 ........................ ..Offsetting collections (Public Law 106–377) ................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ..Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106–554) .......................................................................................................... ¥9 ........................ ........................ ∂9 ..
Use of prior year balances ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥1,100 ........................ ........................ ∂1,100 ..

TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................ 3,891 4,891 4,891 ∂1,000 ..

SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:

Operating expenses ............................................................................................................................................................... 3,795 3,339 3,339 ¥456 ..Purchase power and wheeling .............................................................................................................................................. 288 1,800 1,800 ∂1,512 ..Program direction .................................................................................................................................................................. 18,388 18,668 18,668 ∂280 ..Construction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6,817 6,031 6,031 ¥786 ..

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ............................................................................................................................. 29,288 29,838 29,838 ∂550 ..

Offsetting collections ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥288 ¥1,800 ¥1,800 ¥1,512 ..Offsetting collections (Public Law 106–377) ................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ..Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106–554) .......................................................................................................... ¥62 ........................ ........................ ∂62 ..Use of prior year balances ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥900 ........................ ........................ ∂900 ..

TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................ 28,038 28,038 28,038 ........................ ..

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:

Construction and rehabilitation ............................................................................................................................................ 23,115 16,064 16,064 ¥7,051 ..System operation and maintenance ..................................................................................................................................... 36,104 37,796 37,796 ∂1,692 ..Purchase power and wheeling .............................................................................................................................................. 65,224 186,124 186,124 ∂120,900 ..Program direction .................................................................................................................................................................. 106,644 114,378 114,378 ∂7,734 ..Utah mitigation and conservation ........................................................................................................................................ 5,950 1,227 6,092 ∂142 

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ............................................................................................................................. 237,037 355,589 360,454 ∂123,417 

Offsetting collections ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥65,224 ¥186,124 ¥190,989 ¥125,765 Offsetting collections (Public Law 106–377) ................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ..Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) Public Law 106–554) ........................................................................................................... ¥365 ........................ ........................ ∂365 ..Use of prior year balances ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥5,983 ........................ ........................ ∂5,983 ..

TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................ 165,465 169,465 169,465 ∂4,000 ..

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Operation and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,670 2,663 2,663 ¥7 ..
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Current year enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Committee recommen

pared to—

Current year

enacted

Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106–554) .......................................................................................................... ¥7 ........................ ........................ ∂7 ..

TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING FUND ............................................................................................................. 2,663 2,663 2,663 ........................ ..TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS ................................................................................................................. 200,057 205,057 205,057 ∂5,000 ..

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ......................................................................................................................................... 175,200 181,155 181,155 ∂5,955 ..FERC revenues ................................................................................................................................................................................ ¥175,200 ¥181,155 ¥181,155 ¥5,955 ..

TOTAL, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ..

Defense nuclear waste disposal (rescission) ................................................................................................................................ ¥75,000 ........................ ........................ ∂75,000 ..Defense environmental privatization (rescission) .......................................................................................................................... ¥97,000 ........................ ........................ ∂97,000 ..

GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ......................................................................................................................... 18,303,148 18,106,554 20,061,975 ∂1,758,827 
157

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 or the Administrator

of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Similar language

was contained in last year’s Energy and Water Development Act,

Public Law 106–377. The recommendation contained herein, provides waiver authority for Atomic Energy Defense Activities of the

National Nuclear Security Administration to the Administrator.

Waiver authority for all other programs shall be provided by the

Secretary of Energy.

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, 2000, Public Law 106–377.

Language is included under section 303 which prohibits the use

of funds for severance payments under the worker and community

transition program.

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, 2000, Public

Law 106–377.

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, 2000,

Public Law 106–377.

Language is included under section 306 which provides that up

to 6 percent of funds appropriated in this Act, including Environmental Management programs, may be used for Laboratory Directed Research and Development. A similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2000, Public

Law 106–377.

Language is included under section 307 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, 2001, Public Law 106–

377.
158

Language is included under section 308 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,

2001, Public Law 106–377.

Language is included under section 309 which allows the Power

Marketing Administrations to engage in activities and solicit, undertake and review studies and proposals relating to the formation

and operation of a regional transmission organization.

Language is included under section 310 which provides that the

Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration

may authorize 2 percent of the amount allocated for national security operations at the Nevada Test Site for investment in innovative research, development, and demonstration activities with respect to the development, test, and evaluation capabilities necessary for operations and readiness of the Nevada Test Site.

Language is included under section 311 to extend the authorization for withdrawals from the United States Enrichment Corporation Fund from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2005.
(159)

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $66,254,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 66,290,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 66,290,000

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed of

the Governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a Federal cochairman who is appointed by the President.

The Committee recommendation for the Appalachian Regional

Commission totals $66,290,000, the amount of the request.

Consistent with the administration’s budget request, the Committee recommendation does not include funding for ARC highways. Funding for ARC development highways will be provided

through the highway trust fund beginning in fiscal year 1999

through 2004 consistent with provision contained in the Intermodal

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.

The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and investment opportunities to the Appalachian region, and is encouraged

by a preliminary trade report determining that Appalachian firms

might find significant trade and investment opportunities, particularly in the energy, high technology, and transportation sectors, in

the Republic of Turkey and the surrounding region. In this regard,

the Committee supports the Appalachian-Turkish Trade Project

(ATTP), a project to promote opportunities to expand trade, encourage business interests, stimulate foreign studies, and to build a

lasting and mutually meaningful relationship between the Appalachian States and the Republic of Turkey, as well as the neighboring regions, such as Greece. The Committee commends the ARC

for its leadership role in helping to implement the mission of the

ATTP, and for the expertise it provided in implementing the ATTP

Conference that was held in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, on

March 23, 2001. The Committee expects the ARC to continue to be

a prominent ATTP sponsor.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $18,459,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 18,500,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 18,500,000

An appropriation of $18,500,000, the amount of the request, is

recommended for fiscal year 2002. This is the same as the budget

request.

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by the

Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The Board,
160

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, 2001 ............................................................................. $19,956,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 19,992,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000

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.

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,000,000 for

the Delta Regional Authority. The recommended appropriations

will be used to carry out the activities of Authority during fiscal

year 2002.

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $29,934,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 29,939,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,000,000

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 $40,000,000 for the

Denali Commission. The Committee has provided $10,000,000

above the President’s request for the Denali Commission. Within

this amount, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 to improve

basic infrastructure and community facilities for community residents without running water or sewer systems.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $481,825,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 506,900,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 506,900,000
161

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. ¥$447,958,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... ¥463,248,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥463,248,000

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $33,867,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 43,652,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 43,652,000

The Committee recommendation includes $506,900,000, the same

amount as the request, for the Commission, and includes a single

year extension of the NRC’s user fee collection authority.

The Committee directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission not

to expend any funds to implement or enforce the revisions to 10

C.F.R. Part 35 which contains regulations concerning the medical

use of isotopes that were adopted by the Commission on October

23, 2000. The Committee has taken this action becuase it believes

that the Commission has failed to adequately consider, as it has repeatedly promised, adopting regulations which properly reflect the

very low risk posed by the use of diagnostic nuclear medicine procedures.

The Committee agrees with the Administration’s National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by the Vice President, in

its recommendation supporting the expansion of nuclear energy in

the United States. The Committee has strongly supported nuclear

power in the past and believes that new nuclear plants offer emission-free power sources, help maintain diversity of fuel supply, enhance energy security, meet growing electricity demand, and protect consumers against volatility in the electricity and natural gas

markets. As such, the Committee recognizes the possibility that

several entities are considering possible applications to the Commission for an Early Site Permit, a Combined Operating License,

and/or a Design Certificate for new nuclear power plants. Should

this occur, the Committee would expect that the Commission’s consideration would be both thorough and adhere to a predictable

schedule. Because this is the first time 10 CFR 52, which was enacted in 1992, may be used by the Commission, the Committee recommends that the cost of the activities for these initial reviews

should be shared between the Federal Government and the nuclear

industry. To achieve this type of cost sharing, a reduction in fees

payable by the nuclear industry to the Commission is appropriate.

To this end, the Committee recommendation includes an appropriation for an additional $10,000,000, of which $5,000,000 will be appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and $5,000,000

will be recovered through fees assessed to NRC licensees and applicants. Of the amount appropriated, $3,000,000 may be available for

supporting studies at national laboratories for fuel testing, code

verification and validation, and materials testing.
162

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $5,500,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 6,180,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,500,000

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. ¥$5,390,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... ¥5,432,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥5,432,000

This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector General of

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee recommends

an appropriation of $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2002.

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $2,894,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 3,100,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,500,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,500,000 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.
(163)

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.
(164)

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 2001, is currently being

considered by the Senate.

Also, contained in title III, Department of Energy, in connection

with the appropriation under the heading ‘‘Nuclear Waste Disposal

Fund,’’ the recommended item of appropriation is brought to the attention of the Senate.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee ordered

reported, en bloc, S. 1171, an original fiscal year 2002 Energy and

Water Development appropriations bill, S. 1172, an original fiscal

year 2002 Legislative Branch appropriations bill, and an original

fiscal year 2002 Transportation and related agencies appropriations

bill, each subject to amendment and each subject to its budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 29–0, a quorum being present. The

vote was as follows:

Yeas Nays

Chairman 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
165

Mrs. Landrieu

Mr. Reed

Mr. 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

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.

RECLAMATION STATES EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF

ACT OF 1991, PUBLIC LAW 102–250

* * * * * * *

TITLE III—GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Except as otherwise provided in section 303 of this Act (relating

to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam, California), there is

authorized to be appropriated not more the $90,000,000 in total for

fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, øand

2001¿ 2001, and 2002.

* * * * * * *
166

PUBLIC LAW 105–204

AN ACT

To require the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a plan to ensure that all

amounts accrued on the books of the United States Enrichment Corporation for

the disposition of depleted uranium hexafluoride will be used to treat and recycle

depleted uranium hexafluoride.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1. UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION.

(a) * * *

(b) LIMITATION.—Notwithstanding the privatization of the

United Sates Enrichment Corporation and notwithstanding any

other provision of law (including the repeal of chapters 22 through

26 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297 et seq.) made

by section 3116(a)(1) of the United States Enrichment Corporation

Privatization Act (104 Stat. 1321–349), except as provided in subsection (c), no amounts described in subsection (a) shall be withdrawn from the United States Enrichment Corporation Fund established by section 1308 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.

2297b–7) or the Working Capital Account established under section

1316 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297b–15) until

the date that is 1 year after the date on which the President submits to Congress the budget request for øfiscal year 2002¿ fiscal

year 2005.

* * * * * * *
167

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC.

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED

[In millions of dollars]

Budget authority Outlays

Committee

allocation

Amount

of bill

Committee

allocation

Amount

of bill

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to its subcommittees of

amounts in the First Concurrent Resolution

for 2002: Subcommittee on Energy and Water

Development:

General purpose, defense ............................ 15,247 15,247 NA NA

General purpose, non-defense ..................... 9,713 .................... NA NA

General purpose, total ................................. 24,960 15,247 24,916 1 24,690

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:

2002 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 2 16,182

2003 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 7,577

2004 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 1,159

2005 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 30

2006 and future years ................................ .................... .................... .................... 19

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2002 ................................................ NA 109 NA 34

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.
(168)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG

NUCLEAR WASTE FUND

I am providing additional views with respect to both the funding

level for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management and

the Committee report recommendations regarding the Yucca Mountain project. The funding level of $275,000,000 represents an unwarranted cut from the Department of Energy’s request of

$445,000,000 and jeopardizes the ultimate success of the project.

Furthermore, this blow to the Yucca Mountain project comes just

months before the President is expected to make a decision about

whether to move forward with Yucca Mountain’s development as a

geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste from

commercial reactors and defense activities. His decision will be

based on the many volumes of data compiled during over two decades of scientific study of the site.

A central repository for spent nuclear fuel is vital to maintain

nuclear energy’s role as our Nation’s largest source of non-emitting

electricity generation. Although spent nuclear fuel and high-level

waste is currently being safely stored at approximately 150 locations around the country, those sites were never intended to be permanent storage facilities. The Department of Energy has a legal

obligation to begin managing the fuel as of January 31, 1998. The

urgent need for a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel is

why the Yucca Mountain site has been subjected to extensive scientific study over a period of years.

The Committee report, in my view, misrepresents the ongoing

process of scientific investigation at Yucca Mountain and adds redundant and contradictory processes to those already in place to

determine if the site is suitable.

The Committee report asserts that our Nation’s reluctance to reprocess used nuclear fuel made a geologic repository our only option. Such an assertion ignores the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and ignores the international consensus

for deep geologic disposal. The fact is that reprocessing does not

eliminate the need for a repository. Every time spent fuel is reprocessed, there are radioactive byproducts that require disposal. In

fact, 16 nations are studying geologic repositories, including every

nation that currently reprocesses its spent nuclear fuel.

The cost of continued technical investigation of other potential

sites did not make Yucca Mountain the designated repository site

by default. A total of nine sites were studied between 1982 and

1987. A comparison of the sites pointed clearly to Yucca Mountain

as the best repository site, which is why scientific attention has

been focused on Yucca Mountain since then.

Opponents of Yucca Mountain have also mischaracterized national policy toward used nuclear fuel as ‘‘bury it all and forget it.’’
169

The fact is that provisions are in place for continual study of Yucca

Mountain for 50 to 300 years after spent fuel disposal commences,

and future generations have the freedom to opt for further study.

The report mischaracterizes the ongoing, scientific studies of

Yucca Mountain by stating that the Department of Energy ‘‘has not

demonstrated that the proposed site at Yucca Mountain is suitable.’’ This assertion contradicts the numerous scientific studies

that have already been released nearly all of which indicate that

Yucca Mountain will be suitable, based on the evidence to date.

The Committee report decries changes in the repository’s operational concept from a sealed and backfilled approach to a monitored and retrievable approach by saying the changes undermine

public confidence in the safety of the repository. Precisely the opposite is true. Having a repository that is more easily monitored can

only strengthen public confidence in Yucca Mountain, because the

public can have more assurance that rigorous scientific inquiry can

easily and regularly be applied to the site.

The Committee report recommendations place an onerous burden

on Yucca Mountain by upholding contradictory positions and mandating redundant processes on top of those already in place. The

report language calls upon the Department of Energy to ‘‘use existing regulations to determine site suitability,’’ even though those

regulations are contradictory to the recommendation of scientific

experts at the National Academy of Sciences. Those same regulations are, in fact, being revised to reflect the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently issued radiation protection standard.

Additionally, the comments call for mandating an extensive process of public hearings in each of the 43 States through which spent

fuel could be transported to Yucca Mountain. An extensive process

for public hearings already exists, whereby States, local communities, and emergency response authorities can express concerns,

have questions answered, and receive appropriate training. It is

not useful to conduct the training and hearings now, when this program is at least a decade away from transporting spent fuel to

Yucca Mountain and the Department of Energy has not yet selected transportation routes. These routes must also be selected in

accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Department

of Transportation regulations.

Proponents and opponents of the Yucca Mountain project alike

agree that the decision about the site’s suitability as a geologic repository should be based on sound and thorough science. Unfortunately, both the funding level of $275,000,000 and the report language regarding this program frustrate a scientifically-based approach to the decision in favor of an attempt to starve the program

with a lack of resources and delay it with unnecessary or duplicative processes. Our Nation’s energy future, however, demands that

we evaluate Yucca Mountain on its scientific merits alone.

LARRY E. CRAIG.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recom

compared with (∂ 

2001

appropriation Bu

TITLE I

—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

—CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers

—Civil

General investigations .......................................................................................................................................................... 160,584 130,000 152,402 ¥8,182 Construction, general ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,716,165 1,324,000 1,570,798 ¥145,367 Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and

Tennessee ......................................................................................................................................................................... 350,458 280,000 328,011 ¥22,447 

Operation and maintenance, general .................................................................................................................................. 1,897,775 1,745,000 1,833,263 ¥64,512 Regulatory program .............................................................................................................................................................. 124,725 128,000 128,000 ∂3,275 ....FUSRAP ................................................................................................................................................................................. 139,692 140,000 140,000 ∂308 ....General expenses .................................................................................................................................................................. 151,666 153,000 153,000 ∂1,334 ....

Total, title I, Department of Defense

—Civil .......................................................................................................... 4,541,065 3,900,000 4,305,474 ¥235,591 

TITLE II

—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Central Utah Project Completion Account

Central Utah project construction ........................................................................................................................................ 19,524 24,169 24,169 ∂4,645 ....Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation ................................................................................................ 14,136 10,749 10,749 ¥3,387 ....Utah reclamation mitigation and conservation account ..................................................................................................... 4,989 .......................... .......................... ¥4,989 ....

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 38,649 34,918 34,918 ¥3,731 ....

Program oversight and administration ................................................................................................................................ 1,213 1,310 1,310 ∂97 ....

Total, Central Utah project completion account .................................................................................................... 39,862 36,228 36,228 ¥3,634 ....

Bureau of Reclamation

Water and related resources ................................................................................................................................................ 678,953 647,997 732,496 ∂53,543 
Loan program ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9,348 7,495 7,495 ¥1,853 ....

(Limitation on direct loans) ........................................................................................................................................ (26,941) (26,000) (26,000) (¥941) ....

Central Valley project restoration fund ................................................................................................................................ 38,360 55,039 55,039 ∂16,679 ....California Bay-Delta restoration .......................................................................................................................................... .......................... 20,000 .......................... .......................... Policy and administration .................................................................................................................................................... 50,114 52,968 52,968 ∂2,854 ....

Total, Bureau of Reclamation ................................................................................................................................. 776,775 783,499 847,998 ∂71,223 Total, title II, Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................... 816,637 819,727 884,226 ∂67,589 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy supply ....................................................................................................................................................................... 659,918 544,245 736,139 ∂76,221 Non-defense environmental management ........................................................................................................................... 277,200 228,553 228,553 ¥48,647 ....Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation ............................................................................................................... 392,502 363,425 408,725 ∂16,223 Science ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,180,341 3,159,890 3,268,816 ∂88,475 Nuclear Waste Disposal ....................................................................................................................................................... 190,654 134,979 25,000 ¥165,654 Departmental administration ............................................................................................................................................... 225,942 221,618 208,948 ¥16,994 

Miscellaneous revenues ............................................................................................................................................... ¥151,000 ¥137,810 ¥137,810 ∂13,190 ....

Net appropriation 74,942 83,808 71,138 ¥3,804 

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................ 31,430 31,430 30,000 ¥1,430 Environmental restoration and waste management:

Defense function ......................................................................................................................................................... (6,108,864) (5,740,783) (6,638,539) (∂529,675) Non-defense function .................................................................................................................................................. (669,702) (591,978) (637,278) (¥32,424) 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................................ (6,778,566) (6,332,761) (7,275,817) (∂497,251) 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities

National Nuclear Security Administration:

Weapons activities ...................................................................................................................................................... 5,006,153 5,300,025 6,062,891 ∂1,056,738 Defense nuclear nonproliferation ................................................................................................................................ 872,273 773,700 880,500 ∂8,227 Naval reactors ............................................................................................................................................................. 688,645 688,045 688,045 ¥600 ....Office of the Administrator ......................................................................................................................................... 9,978 15,000 15,000 ∂5,022 ....

Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration ............................................................................................... 6,577,049 6,776,770 7,646,436 ∂1,069,387 

Defense environmental restoration and waste management .............................................................................................. 4,963,533 4,548,708 5,389,868 ∂426,335 Defense facilities closure projects ....................................................................................................................................... 1,080,331 1,050,538 1,080,538 ∂207 
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recom

compared with (∂ 

2001

appropriation Bu

Defense environmental management privatization ............................................................................................................. 65,000 141,537 157,537 ∂92,537 

Subtotal, Defense environmental management ..................................................................................................... 6,108,864 5,740,783 6,627,943 ∂519,079 

Other defense activities ....................................................................................................................................................... 582,466 527,614 564,168 ¥18,298 Defense nuclear waste disposal .......................................................................................................................................... 199,725 310,000 250,000 ∂50,275 

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................................................................................. 13,468,104 13,355,167 15,088,547 ∂1,620,443 

Power Marketing Administrations

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ...................................................................................... 3,891 4,891 4,891 ∂1,000 ....Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ..................................................................................... 28,038 28,038 29,838 ∂1,800 Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western Area Power Administration ........................................ 165,465 169,465 169,465 ∂4,000 ....Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ...................................................................................................... 2,663 2,663 2,663 .......................... ....

Total, Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................................................. 200,057 205,057 206,857 ∂6,800 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 175,200 181,155 181,155 ∂5,955 ....

Revenues applied ........................................................................................................................................................ ¥175,200 ¥181,155 ¥181,155 ¥5,955 ....

Defense nuclear waste disposal (rescission) ...................................................................................................................... ¥75,000 .......................... .......................... ∂75,000 ....Defense environmental privatization (rescission) ................................................................................................................ ¥97,000 .......................... .......................... ∂97,000 ....

Total, title III, Department of Energy ..................................................................................................................... 18,303,148 18,106,554 20,063,775 ∂1,760,627 

TITLE IV

—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission ...................................................................................................................................... 66,254 66,290 66,290 ∂36 ....Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board .............................................................................................................................. 18,459 18,500 18,500 ∂41 ....Delta Regional Authority ...................................................................................................................................................... 19,956 19,992 20,000 ∂44 
Denali Commission ............................................................................................................................................................... 29,934 29,939 40,000 ∂10,066 Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 481,825 506,900 516,900 ∂35,075 Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥447,958 ¥463,248 ¥468,248 ¥20,290 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 33,867 43,652 48,652 ∂14,785 

Office of Inspector General ......................................................................................................................................... 5,500 6,180 5,500 .......................... Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥5,390 ¥5,932 ¥5,432 ¥42 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 110 248 68 ¥42 Total ........................................................................................................................................................................ 33,977 43,900 48,720 ∂14,743 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ............................................................................................................................... 2,894 3,100 3,500 ∂606 

Total, title IV, Independent agencies ..................................................................................................................... 171,474 181,721 197,010 ∂25,536 

TITLE V—EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Cerro Grande fire activities (contingent emergency appropriations) .................................................................................. 203,012 .......................... .......................... ¥203,012 ....Appalachian Regional Commission (contingent emergency appropriations) ...................................................................... 10,976 .......................... .......................... ¥10,976 ....

Total, title V, Emergency Supplemental ................................................................................................................. 213,988 .......................... .......................... ¥213,988 ....Grand total:

New budget (obligational) authority .............................................................................................................. 24,046,312 23,008,002 25,450,485 ∂1,404,173 

Appropriations ....................................................................................................................................... (24,004,324) (23,008,002) (25,450,485) (∂1,446,161) (Contingent emergency appropriations .................................................................................................. (213,988) .......................... .......................... (¥213,988) ....Rescissions ........................................................................................................................................... (¥172,000) .......................... .......................... (∂172,000) ....

(By transfer) ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ....

Æ