80–912 PDF

Calendar No. 514

107TH CONGRESS REPORT

2d Session " ! SENATE 107–220

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATION

BILL, 2003

JULY 24, 2002.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. REID, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 2784]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2784) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes, favorably

thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2003

Budget estimates considered by Senate ................. $25,797,357,000

Amount of bill as reported to the Senate ............... 26,785,991,000

The bill as reported to the Senate—

Above the budget estimate, 2003 ..................... 988,634,000

Over enacted bill, 2002 ..................................... 1,126,032,000
(2)

CONTENTS

TITLE I

Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army:

Corps of Engineers—Civil: Page

General investigations .............................................................................. 10

Construction, general ................................................................................ 24

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

Operation and maintenance, general ....................................................... 42

Regulatory program .................................................................................. 63

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ................................ 64

General expenses ....................................................................................... 64

TITLE II

Department of the Interior:

Central Utah project completion account ....................................................... 67

Bureau of Reclamation: Water and related resources ................................... 67

Central Valley project restoration fund .......................................................... 76

California bay-delta restoration ...................................................................... 76

Policy and administration ................................................................................ 77

TITLE III

Department of Energy:

Energy Supply .................................................................................................. 79

Renewable energy resources ..................................................................... 79

Nuclear energy programs ......................................................................... 83

Environment, safety, and health .............................................................. 86

Energy support activities .......................................................................... 86

Energy supply infrastructure ................................................................... 86

Environmental management (nondefense) ..................................................... 87

Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation ......................................... 88

Nuclear waste fund .......................................................................................... 88

Science ............................................................................................................... 89

High energy physics .................................................................................. 90

Nuclear physics ......................................................................................... 90

Biological and environmental research ................................................... 90

Basic energy sciences ................................................................................ 91

Fusion energy sciences .............................................................................. 92

Departmental administration .......................................................................... 92

Miscellaneous revenues ............................................................................ 92

Inspector General ............................................................................................. 92

Atomic energy defense activities:

National Nuclear Security Administration:

Weapon activities ............................................................................... 93

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ...................................................... 102

Naval reactors .................................................................................... 106

Office of the Administrator ............................................................... 106

Other defense related activities:

Defense environmental restoration and waste management ......... 107

Defense facilities closure projects ..................................................... 114

Defense environmental management privatization ........................ 114

Other defense activities ..................................................................... 114

Defense nuclear waste disposal ........................................................ 118

Power marketing administrations:

Operations and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ..... 120
Page

3

Department of Energy—Continued

Power marketing administrations—Continued

Operations and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration .... 120

Construction, rehabilitation, operations and maintenance, Western

Area Power Administration .................................................................. 120

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................................ 121

General provisions ............................................................................................ 132

TITLE IV

Independent Agencies:

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................................. 134

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................................ 134

Delta Regional Authority ................................................................................. 135

Denali Commission ........................................................................................... 135

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ..................................................................... 136

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

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ......................................................... 137

TITLE V

General provisions ................................................................................................... 138

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budgetary impact statement .................................................................................. 141
(4)

PURPOSE

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

year 2003 beginning October 1, 2002, and ending September 30,

2003, 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 2003 budget estimates for the bill total

$25,510,881,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The recommendation of the Committee totals $26,299,915,000. This is

$788,634,000 above the budget estimates and $1,129,556,000 over

the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.

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

the Congressional Record on June 28, 2002.

BILL HIGHLIGHTS

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

The amount recommended in the bill includes $15,775,217,000

for atomic energy defense activities. Major programs and activities

include:

Weapon activities ................................................................................... $6,108,959,000

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ......................................................... 1,115,630,000

Naval reactors ........................................................................................ 706,790,000

Other defense activities ......................................................................... 537,664,000

Defense waste management and environmental restoration ............. 5,406,532,000

Defense facilities closure projects ......................................................... 1,125,314,000

Defense environmental privatization ................................................... 158,399,000

ENERGY SUPPLY

The bill recommended by the Committee provides a total of

$815,306,000 for energy research programs including:

Renewable energy resources ................................................................. $448,062,000

Nuclear energy ....................................................................................... 323,608,000
5

NONDEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

An appropriation of $176,000,000 is recommended for nondefense

environmental management activities of the Department of Energy.

SCIENCE

The Committee recommendation also provides a net appropriation of $3,329,456,000 for general science and research activities in

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

High energy physics research ............................................................... $729,980,000

Nuclear physics ...................................................................................... 387,370,000

Basic energy sciences ............................................................................ 1,044,600,000

Biological and environmental R&D ...................................................... 531,215,000

Fusion energy sciences .......................................................................... 259,310,000

REGULATORY AND OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Also recommended in the bill is $909,584,000 for various regulatory and independent agencies of the Federal Government. Major

programs include:

Appalachian Regional Commission ...................................................... $74,400,000

Delta Regional Authority ...................................................................... 15,000,000

Denali Commission ................................................................................ 50,000,000

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ............................................. 192,000,000

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .......................................................... 578,184,000

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Corps of Engineers:

General Investigations ................................................................... $148,304,000

Construction, General .................................................................... 1,745,102,000

Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries ........................ 337,937,000

Operation and Maintenance, General ........................................... 1,956,182,000

Regulatory Program ....................................................................... 144,252,000

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ..................... 140,298,000

General Expenses ........................................................................... 155,651,000

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

Bureau of Reclamation:

Water and Related resources ......................................................... 919,921,000

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ..................................... 48,904,000

Policy and Administration ............................................................. 54,870,000

The Committee has recommended appropriations totaling approximately $5,640,330,000 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.

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the

Committee on Appropriations held four sessions in connection with

the fiscal year 2003 appropriation bill. Witnesses included officials

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

Although it is the policy of the subcommittee to receive oral and

written testimony from representatives of all of the major Department and Agencies within its jurisdiction, the Army Corps of Engineers provided written testimony only. The administration fired

Mike Parker, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,

early in the week in which the Army Corps of Engineers hearing

was scheduled to take place. Given the confusion and controversy

surrounding Mr. Parker’s dismissal, the subcommittee elected to

accept written testimony in lieu of an oral statement from a lower

level appointee in an acting capacity.

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 2003 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 24, 2002, recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the Senate.
7

ACCRUAL FUNDING OF RETIREMENT COSTS AND POSTRETIREMENT HEALTH BENEFITS

The President’s Budget included a legislative proposal under the

jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs to

charge to individual agencies, starting in fiscal year 2003, the fully

accrued costs related to retirement benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and retiree health benefits for all civilian

employees. The Budget also requested an additional dollar amount

in each affected discretionary account to cover these accrued costs.

The authorizing committee has not acted on this legislation,

therefore the Senate Appropriations Committee has reduced the

dollar amounts of the President’s request shown in the ‘‘Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority Request and Amounts

Recommended in the Bill’’, as well as in other tables in this report,

to exclude the accrual funding proposal.

The Committee further notes that administration proposals requiring legislative action by the authorizing committees of Congress are customarily submitted in the budget as separate schedules apart from the regular appropriations requests. Should such

a proposal be enacted, a budget amendment formally modifying the

President’s appropriation request for discretionary funding is subsequently transmitted to the Congress.

The Senate Appropriations Committee joins with the House Appropriations Committee in raising concern that this practice, which

has always worked effectively for both Congress and past administrations, was not followed for the accrual funding proposal. In this

case, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) decided to include accrual amounts in the original discretionary appropriations

language request. These amounts are based on legislation that has

yet to be considered and approved by the appropriate committees

of Congress. This led to numerous misunderstandings both inside

and outside of Congress of what was the ‘‘true’’ President’s budget

request. The Committee believes that, in the future, OMB should

follow long-established procedures with respect to discretionary

spending proposals that require legislative action.
(8)

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The Committee remains concerned about the level of the budget

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

of Engineers. The budget request for fiscal year 2003 is about

$600,000,000 less when comparably compared to the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002. The budget request is extraordinarily

unbalanced. Four projects account for 30 percent of the proposed

Construction, General budget with the remainder of the projects severely underfunded. The proposed General Investigations budget,

which provides funding for studies of water resources needs, is

decimated. Only studies in their final year were adequately funded,

the remainder were severely underfunded. The proposed Operations and Maintenance budget appears to show an increase, however, when accounting for inflation and a proposed funding transfer

that is unlikely to be enacted, the final total is less than the

amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002. The budget proposed for

the Mississippi River and Tributaries project, is equally inadequate.

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

forced to terminate on-going construction contracts costing the government some $200,000,000 in termination fees. One of the many

examples from the proposed budget involves the Southeast Louisiana project. The budget request proposed $20,083,000 for this

project, yet approximately $20,000,000 in additional funding is required in fiscal year 2003 just to keep from terminating work started in fiscal year 2002. If approximately $41,000,000 were appropriated, contract terminations could be avoided, however, no new

construction work could be started, and tens of thousands of peoples lives would be at risk from flooding for an additional year.

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

proposal contained no new discretionary study or construction

‘‘starts’’. The budget proposal stated that this was done in order to

only fund the backlog of on-going work (estimated at

$21,000,000,000 in the budget proposal) and that within 10 years,

this backlog would be reduced to zero. Followed to conclusion, that

would mean that within 10 years the Corps would only be an operation and maintenance agency to oversee past constructed work.

Since there are no other nationwide agencies that address water

resource problems and needs, one can only assume that all water

resource problems will be solved in the next 10 years or that the

Federal Government intends to no longer fund water resource development.
9

The Committee does not share the views in the budget proposal

and remains concerned about the huge and increasing backlog of

infrastructure development, maintenance, and repair over which

the Corps has jurisdiction. The proposed budget causes the backlog

of unconstructed projects to increase from $40,000,000,000 to

$44,000,000,000 and ignores an accelerating critical maintenance

backlog which increases from $702,000,000 to $884,000,000. This

maintenance backlog will soon become entirely unmanageable

under the weight of an aging and crumbling inventory. Proposing

no new study or discretionary construction starts, underfunding ongoing projects, and providing minimal O&M funding for completed

projects leads the Committee to believe that the budget preparation

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

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

but to step forward in support of these vital projects.

The Committee recommendation for the Corps of Engineers totals $4,647,953,000. This is $474,999,000 above the budget request

for fiscal year 2003, and is $22,857,000 above the appropriation for

the current year.

BUILDING AND SITE SECURITY

Given the events of September 11, 2001, there has been a recognition for the need of improved security at the nation’s infrastructure. The Committee is aware of the increased costs all Federal agencies are beginning to realize. Therefore, the Committee

encourages the Corps of Engineers to utilize technology that is

presently available in both the private and public sector as it evaluates its future infrastructure security needs.

BUDGET CONSTRAINTS

The budget allocation for non-Defense discretionary programs

contained in the Energy and Water Development bill for fiscal year

2003 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 2003. However, while the budget resources for

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

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

Works program. Many supported the funding level in the budget

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

sought increases over the budgeted amounts or items not contained

in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2003.

BASIS OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

In development of the fiscal year 2003 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
10

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, 2002 ............................................................................. $154,350,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 102,483,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 148,304,000

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

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

work, data collection, and interagency coordination and research

activities.

The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance

are shown on the following table:

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

ALABAMA

ALABAMA RIVER BELOW CLAIBORNE LOCK AND DAM, AL ........... 300 .................... 300 ....................

BALDWIN COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION, AL ................................. 100 .................... 100 ....................

BALDWIN COUNTY WATERSHEDS, AL ............................................ 100 .................... 100 ....................

BAYOU LA BATRE, AL .................................................................... 50 .................... 50 ....................

BREWTON AND EAST BREWTON, AL .............................................. 150 .................... 150 ....................

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

DOG RIVER, AL .............................................................................. 150 .................... 150 ....................

TUSCALOOSA COUNTY, AL ............................................................. 50 .................... 50 ....................

VILLAGE CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM WATERSHED) ....................................................................................... 250 .................... 250 ....................

ALASKA

AKUTAN HARBOR, AK .................................................................... .................... 200 .................... 350

ALASKA REGION PORTS, AK .......................................................... .................... .................... 100 ....................

ANCHOR POINT HARBOR, AK ........................................................ 50 .................... 50 ....................

ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK ......................................... 50 .................... 100 ....................

ANIAK HARBOR, AK ....................................................................... 50 .................... 100 ....................

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

CHENA RIVER WATERSHED, AK ..................................................... 50 .................... 50 ....................

COFFMAN COVE, AK ...................................................................... .................... .................... 100 ....................

DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR, AK .................................................. 150 .................... 500 ....................

EKLUTNA WATERSHEAD, AK .......................................................... .................... .................... 100 ....................

FALSE PASS HARBOR, AK ............................................................. .................... 25 .................... 25

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

HAINES HARBOR, AK ..................................................................... .................... 115 .................... 400

HOMER HARBOR, AK ..................................................................... .................... .................... 200 ....................

KAKTOVIK BEACH EROSION, AK .................................................... .................... .................... 100 ....................
11

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION STUDY, AK .................................... .................... .................... 185 ....................

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

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

LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK ...................................................... 115 .................... 115 ....................

MATANUSKA EROSION STUDY, AK ................................................. .................... .................... 100 ....................

MCGRATH BANK STABLIZATION ..................................................... .................... .................... 100 ....................

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

PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK ............................................................. 50 .................... 50 ....................

QUINHAGAK HARBOR, AK .............................................................. .................... .................... 200 ....................

SAINT GEORGE NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, AK ......................... 75 .................... 500 ....................

SAND POINT HARBOR, AK ............................................................. .................... 50 .................... 50

SHIP CREEK WATERSHED, AK ....................................................... 50 .................... 50 ....................

SITKA HARBOR, AK ........................................................................ 50 .................... 100 ....................

SKAGWAY HARBOR MODIFICATION, AK ......................................... 45 .................... 45 ....................

SKAGWAY RIVER FLOOD CONTROL, AK ......................................... 50 .................... 50 ....................

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

UNALASKA HARBOR, AK ................................................................ 144 .................... 400 ....................

VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK ................................................. .................... 150 .................... 250

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

AMERICA SOMOA

TUTUILA HARBOR, AS .................................................................... 100 .................... 100 ....................

ARIZONA

AGUA FRIA RIVER, AZ ................................................................... 100 .................... 100 ....................

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

PIMA COUNTY, AZ ......................................................................... 200 .................... 500 ....................

RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ ................................................ 150 .................... 150 ....................

RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ ....................................................... .................... 150 .................... 880

RIO SALADO OESTE, SALT RIVER, AZ ........................................... 150 .................... 150 ....................

SANTA CRUZ RIVER, GRANT RD TO FT LOWELL RD, AZ ............... 50 .................... 50 ....................

SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, AZ ....................... 200 .................... 575 ....................

TRES RIOS, AZ .............................................................................. .................... 350 .................... 1,500

TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ ....................................................... .................... 100 .................... 200

VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT, AZ ..... 200 .................... 400 ....................

ARKANSAS

ARKANSAS RIVER LEVEES, AR ...................................................... .................... 50 .................... 150

ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, AR AND OK ...................... 910 .................... 1,500 ....................

HOT SPRINGS CREEK STUDY, AR .................................................. .................... .................... 100 ....................

MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR .................................................... .................... 100 .................... 100

NORTH LITTLE ROCK, DARK HOLLOW, AR ..................................... .................... 200 .................... 400

PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ............................................................ .................... 150 .................... 650

RED RIVER NAVIGATION, SW ARKANSAS, AR ................................ .................... .................... 583 ....................

SOUTHWEST ARK, LITTLE RIVER BASIN, AR .................................. .................... .................... 200 ....................

WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR AND MO .................... 400 .................... 800 ....................

WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS, AR .............................................. 150 .................... 300 ....................

CALIFORNIA

ALISO CREEK MAINSTEM, CA ........................................................ 250 .................... 250 ....................

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA ............................................... .................... 1,275 .................... 2,600

ARANA GULCH WATERSHED, CA ................................................... 50 .................... 50 ....................

ARROYO SECO WATERSHED RESTORATION, CA ............................ 100 .................... 100 ....................

BALLONA CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA ......................... 100 .................... 150 ....................

BOLINAS LAGOON ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA ....................... .................... 200 .................... 400

CALIFORNIA COSTAL SEDIMONT MASTER PLAN ............................ .................... .................... 100 ....................

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA ........................................................ 100 .................... 100 ....................

COAST OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTH COAST REGION, LA COUNTY,

CA ............................................................................................. .................... .................... 400 ....................

COYOTE DAM, CA .......................................................................... 50 .................... 150 ....................

FOLSOM DAM, CA .......................................................................... .................... .................... 100 ....................
12

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

GRAYSON AND MURDERER’S CREEKS, CA ................................... 200 .................... 200 ....................

HUNTINGTON HARBOR DREDGING, CA .......................................... .................... .................... 100 ....................

LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA ....................................................... 200 .................... 200 ....................

LAKE ELSINORE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA ................... 100 .................... 100 ....................

LLAGAS CREEK, CA ....................................................................... .................... 225 .................... 225

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA ........................................................... 150 .................... 300 ....................

LOWER CACHE CREEK, YOLO COUNTY, WOODLAND AND VICINITY ............................................................................................ .................... 200 .................... 200

LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA ......................................................... .................... 200 .................... 600

MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA .................................................. 200 .................... 200 ....................

MARIN COUNTY SHORELINE, SAN CLEMENTE CREEK, CA ............ 25 .................... 25 ....................

MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA CREEK, CA ................................ 170 .................... 250 ....................

MATILIJA DAM, CA ......................................................................... 150 .................... 150 ....................

MIDDLE CREEK, CA ....................................................................... .................... 50 .................... 50

MORRO BAY ESTUARY, CA ............................................................ 200 .................... 200 ....................

MUGU LAGOON, CA ....................................................................... 100 .................... 100 ....................

N CA STREAMS, DRY CREEK, MIDDLETOWN, CA .......................... 200 .................... 200 ....................

N CA STREAMS, LOWER SACRAMENTO RVR RIPARIAN

REVEGETATI .............................................................................. 100 .................... 100 ....................

NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA .............................. 100 .................... 1,000 ....................

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

NEWPORT BAY (LA–3 SITE DESIGNATION), CA ............................. .................... .................... 350 ....................

NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA ......................................................... .................... 100 .................... 100

NEWPORT BAY/SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED, CA .................... 200 .................... 200 ....................

OCEAN BEACH, CA ........................................................................ 50 .................... 50 ....................

ORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA ......................... 200 .................... 200 ....................

ORANGE COUNTY SAMP, CA ......................................................... .................... .................... 200 ....................

PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE, CA ............................................ .................... 275 .................... 400

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

PINE FLAT DAM, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION ...... .................... 200 .................... 200

PORT OF STOCKTON, CA ............................................................... 100 .................... .................... ....................

POSO CREEK, CA .......................................................................... 100 .................... 100 ....................

PRADO BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA ...................... 50 .................... 50 ....................

RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAMP, CA ...................................................... .................... .................... 1,000 ....................

ROCK CREEK AND KEEFER SLOUGH, CA ...................................... .................... 25 .................... 25

RUSSIAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA .......................... 200 .................... 200 ....................

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

SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN

STUDY ....................................................................................... 2,973 .................... 3,173 ....................

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA .................................................... 50 .................... 50 ....................

SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CA ................................................... 100 .................... 398 ....................

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SAMP, CA ..................................................... .................... .................... 500 ....................

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHORELINE, CA ............................................ .................... .................... 500 ....................

SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CA ............................................................. 225 .................... 225 ....................

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

SAN JOAQUIN RB, W STANISLAUS, DEL PUERTO AND SALADO

CREE ......................................................................................... 100 .................... 200 ....................

SAN JOAQUIN RB, WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, ORESTIMBA

CREE ......................................................................................... .................... 100 .................... 100

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, ARROYO PASAJERO, CA ................... 100 .................... 100 ....................

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, CONSUMNES AND MOKELUMNE RIVERS ........................................................................................... 100 .................... 100 ....................

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

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA,

C ............................................................................................... 100 .................... 100 ....................

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, TUOLUMNE RIVER, CA ..................... 100 .................... 100 ....................

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

SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA ................................................ 240 .................... 240 ....................

SANTA ANA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BIG BEAR LAKE, CA ......... 100 .................... 100 ....................

SANTA CLARA RIVER, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA ..................... 100 .................... 100 ....................

SANTA CRUZ PORT, CA ................................................................. 50 .................... 50 ....................
13

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

SANTA ROSA CREEK WATERSHED, CA .......................................... 260 .................... 260 ....................

SANTA YNEZ RIVER, CA ................................................................ 50 .................... 50 ....................

SOLANA BEACH, CA ...................................................................... .................... .................... 500 ....................

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

STRONG AND CHICKEN RANCH SLOUGHS, CA .............................. 100 .................... 100 ....................

SUTTER COUNTY, CA ..................................................................... 677 .................... 677 ....................

TAHOE BASIN, CA AND NV ............................................................ 690 .................... 1,500 ....................

TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY, CA .......................................................... 200 .................... 200 ....................

UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA .................................................... 559 .................... 559 ....................

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

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

VENTURA HARBOR SAND BYPASS, CA .......................................... 150 .................... 150 ....................

WESTMINSTER, COYOTE AND CARBON CANYON CREEK WATERSHEDS ....................................................................................... 50 .................... 50 ....................

WESTMINSTER, EAST GARDEN GROVE, CA ................................... 200 .................... 200 ....................

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

WILDCAT AND SAN PABLO CREEKS, CA ........................................ 50 .................... 50 ....................

YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA ................................................................ .................... 250 .................... 250

COLORADO

ADAMS COUNTY, CO ..................................................................... .................... .................... 100 ....................

ARAPAHO COUNTY, CO .................................................................. .................... .................... 100 ....................

CACHE-LAPOUDRE RIVER FLOODWAY IMPROVEMENT ................... .................... .................... 100 ....................

CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS,

CO ............................................................................................. 200 .................... 200 ....................

FOUNTAIN CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CO ..................................... 330 .................... 330 ....................

ZUNI AND SUN VALLEY REACHES, SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, CO ..... .................... 200 .................... 200

COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

ROTA HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI .......................................... 25 .................... 25 ....................

TINIAN HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI ........................................ 50 .................... 50 ....................

DELAWARE

DELAWARE COAST, CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, DE ... .................... 100 .................... 314

FLORIDA

HILLSBOROUGH RIVER, FL ............................................................ 280 .................... 280 ....................

LAKE WORTH INLET, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL ........................... 126 .................... 126 ....................

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

ST JOHNS COUNTY BEACHES, FL .................................................. .................... .................... 100 ....................

ST PETERSBURG HARBOR, FL ....................................................... .................... 100 .................... 100

WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER, FL .......................................................... 271 .................... 271 ....................

GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA .................................................................... 186 .................... 186 ....................

ARABIA MOUNTAIN, GA ................................................................. 50 .................... 100 ....................

AUGUSTA, GA ................................................................................ 230 .................... 230 ....................

DEEP AND CAMP CREEKS WATERSHED STUDY ............................ .................... .................... 100 ....................

INDIAN, SUGAR, ENTRENCHMENT AND FEDERAL PRISON

CREEKS ..................................................................................... 100 .................... 100 ....................

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

METRO ATLANTA WATERSHED, GA ................................................ 50 .................... 50 ....................

NEW SAVANNAH BLUFF LOCK AND DAM, GA AND SC .................. .................... 50 .................... 276

SAVANNAH HARBOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, GA .................... 100 .................... 100 ....................

SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA ............................................ .................... 428 .................... 428

SAVANNAH HARBOR SEDIMENT CONTROL WORKS, GA AND SC ... 50 .................... 50 ....................

SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, GA AND SC .............. 120 .................... 120 ....................

UTOY, SANDY AND PROCTOR CREEKS, GA ................................... 150 .................... 150 ....................

HAWAII

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI ............................................................ 135 .................... 135 ....................
14

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI .................... .................... 50 .................... 50

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

KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, HAWAII, HI .... 142 .................... 142 ....................

KIHEI AREA EROSION, HI .............................................................. 50 .................... 100 ....................

NAWILIWILI HARBOR MODIFICATION, KAUAI, HI ............................ 50 .................... 300 ....................

WAIKIKI EROSION CONTROL, HI .................................................... .................... 48 .................... 250

WAILUPE STREAM FLOOD CONTROL STUDY, OAHU, HI ................. .................... 50 .................... 50

IDAHO

BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID ............................................................... 50 .................... 50 ....................

LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, ID ............................................... 145 .................... .................... 145

ILLINOIS

ALEXANDER AND PULASKI COUNTIES, IL ...................................... 147 .................... 147 ....................

DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II) ............................................... 335 .................... 500 ....................

ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL ...................................... 1,051 .................... 1,500 ....................

ILLINOIS RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, IL ............................. 365 .................... 600 ....................

PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL ....................................... .................... 237 .................... 237

ROCK RIVER, IL AND WI ............................................................... 182 .................... 182 ....................

UPPER MISS AND ILLINOIS NAV STUDY, IL, IA, MN, MO AND

WI ............................................................................................. 1,000 .................... 3,685 ....................

UPPER MISS RVR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IL, IA, MO, MN AND

WI ............................................................................................. 1,814 .................... 1,814 ....................

UPPER MISS RVR SYS FLOW FREQUENCY STUDY, IL, IA, MN,

M .............................................................................................. 463 .................... 463 ....................

WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL ................................................................ .................... 200 .................... 200

WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL ................................................................. .................... 130 .................... 130

INDIANA

COLUMBUS WATERFRONT STUDY, IN ............................................ .................... .................... 100 ....................

INDIANA HARBOR, IN .................................................................... 248 .................... 500 ....................

JOHN T MYERS LOCKS AND DAM, IN AND KY .............................. .................... 1,346 .................... 2,100

VINCENNES WATERFROUNT STUDY, IN ......................................... .................... .................... 100 ....................

IOWA

DAVENPORT, IA ............................................................................. .................... 61 .................... 125

DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA ...................................... 51 .................... 400 ....................

FORT DODGE, IA ............................................................................ 87 .................... 100 ....................

LOWER DES MOINES, IA AND MO ................................................. 89 .................... 150 ....................

KANSAS

GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER BASIN STUDY ........................................ .................... .................... 100 ....................

MANHATTAN, KS ............................................................................ .................... .................... 100 ....................

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

TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO ............................................. .................... 250 .................... 434

UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS ........................................................... 125 .................... 125 ....................

WALNUT AND WHITEWATER RIVER WATERSHEDS, KS ................... 110 .................... 110 ....................

KENTUCKY

COVINGTON WATERFROUNT STUDY, KY ........................................ .................... .................... 100 ....................

GREENUP LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND OH ................. .................... 1,302 .................... 1,302

METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY .................. 225 .................... 225 ....................

METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, MILL CREEK BASIN, KY ................... 187 .................... 187 ....................

METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, SOUTHWEST, KY .............................. 140 .................... 140 ....................

OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM SYSTEMS STUDY, KY, IL, IN, PA, WV .... 3,000 .................... 3,000 ....................

LOUISIANA

AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,

LA ............................................................................................. 150 .................... 300 ....................

AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BAYOU MANCHAC, LA .............. 100 .................... 200 ....................
15

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK,

L ............................................................................................... 100 .................... 540 ....................

BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LA ......... .................... 100 .................... 200

BARATARIA BASIN MARSH CREATION AND RESTORATION, LA ...... .................... 100 .................... 200

BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA ............................................................. .................... 110 .................... 300

CALCASIEU LOCK, LA .................................................................... 150 .................... 480 ....................

CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA ........................................................ 150 .................... 350 ....................

CALCASIEU RIVER PASS SHIP CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT, LA ........ .................... .................... 100 ....................

GIWW ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA ........................................... 100 .................... 250 ....................

HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA ........................................................ 125 .................... 300 ....................

JEFFERSON PARISH, LA ................................................................. .................... 25 .................... 25

LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA ................................................................. .................... 125 .................... 400

LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA .......... 585 .................... 1,500 ....................

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

OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, LA AND AR ................................. 37 .................... 37 ....................

PLAQUEMINES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA .................... 100 .................... 300 ....................

PORT OF IBERIA, LA ...................................................................... 185 .................... 540 ....................

ST BERNARD PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA ..................... 150 .................... 325 ....................

ST CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA ...................... 100 .................... 275 ....................

ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA .............................................. 100 .................... 200 ....................

WEST SHORE, LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA ..................................... .................... 100 200 ....................

MARYLAND

ANACOSTIA RIVER, PG COUNTY LEVEE, MD AND DC ................... 248 .................... 248 ....................

BALTIMORE METRO, GWYNNS FALLS, MD ..................................... .................... 50 .................... 250

CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE EROSION, MD, VA AND DE ........... 350 .................... 350 ....................

EASTERN SHORE, MD .................................................................... 350 .................... 1,070 ....................

LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, ST MARY’S, MD .......... 100 .................... 100 ....................

MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN, MD ........................................... 350 .................... 350 ....................

SMITH ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, MD .................... .................... 249 .................... 249

MASSACHUSETTS

BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, MA AND RI ...... 140 .................... 140 ....................

BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA ................................. 362 .................... 362 ....................

COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MA ........ 80 .................... 80 ....................

MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOSTON, MA ............................. .................... 322 .................... 322

SOMERSET AND SEARSBURG DAMS, DEERFIELD RIVER, MA AND

VT. ............................................................................................ 62 .................... 62 ....................

MICHIGAN

DETROIT RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, MI ......................... .................... .................... 100 ....................

DETROIT RIVER MASTER PLAN, MI ............................................... .................... .................... 100 ....................

DETROIT RIVER SEAWALLS, MI ..................................................... .................... .................... 100 ....................

GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION .............. .................... .................... 174 ....................

GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA ...... 375 .................... 750 ....................

JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES STRATEGIC PLAN .............................. .................... .................... 500 ....................

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

ROUGE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, MI ........................... .................... .................... 100 ....................

MUSKEGON LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING ............................. .................... .................... 100 ....................

ST CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST CLAIR, MI ..................................... .................... .................... 124 ....................

WHITE LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, MI .............................. .................... .................... 100 ....................

MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA DAM SAFETY, MN ...................................................... 222 .................... 222 ....................

RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN, ND, SD AND MANITOBA,

C ............................................................................................... 1,078 .................... 2,078 ....................

UPPER MISS RIVER WATERSHED MGMT, LAKE ITASCA TO

L/D 2 ........................................................................................ 400 .................... 400 ....................

MISSISSIPPI

PEARL RIVER WATERSHED, MS ..................................................... 363 .................... 363 ....................
16

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

MISSOURI

CHESTERFIELD, MO ....................................................................... .................... 385 .................... 550

KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS .......................................................... 400 .................... 575 ....................

MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 AND R460–471,

MO ............................................................................................ 100 .................... 331 ....................

RIVER DES PERES, MO ................................................................. .................... 130 .................... 130

SPRINGFIELD, MO .......................................................................... 140 .................... 400 ....................

ST. LOUIS AREA MISSISSIPPI RIVERFRONT, MO AND IL ............... 185 .................... 185 ....................

ST. LOUIS HARBOR, MO AND IL .................................................... .................... 73 .................... 73

ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO .............................................. .................... 150 .................... 150

SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO .................... .................... 100 .................... 200

WEARS CREEK, JEFFERSON CITY, MO ........................................... 57 .................... 57 ....................

MONTANA

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT ........................................... 300 .................... 300 ....................

NEBRASKA

LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE .............................. 139 .................... 139 ....................

SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NE ........................................ .................... 130 .................... 130

WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NE .................................... .................... 180 .................... 180

NEVADA

LAS VEGAS WASH, NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV ................................... 100 .................... 500 ....................

LOWER LAS VEGAS WASH WETLANDS, NV .................................... 100 .................... 400 ....................

TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV ............................................................... .................... 650 .................... 1,000

WALKER RIVER BASIN, NV ............................................................ 25 .................... 25 ....................

NEW HAMPSHIRE

CONNECTICUT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, NH AND VT .... 25 .................... 25 ....................

MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN, NH ..................................................... 350 .................... 500 ....................

PORTSMITH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER TURNING BASIN .. .................... .................... 100 ....................

NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT BAY, NJ ....................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 200

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, NJ, NY, DE AND

PA ............................................................................................. 100 .................... 325 ....................

GREAT EGG INLET TO TOWNSEND INLET, NJ ................................ .................... 300 .................... 300

HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS,

NJ .............................................................................................. .................... .................... 100 ....................

HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ ......... 206 .................... 300 ....................

LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ ........................................................... 30 .................... 30 ....................

MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ................................ .................... 200 .................... 400

NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY

INLE .......................................................................................... 100 .................... 100 ....................

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

PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ ..................................................... .................... 270 .................... 270

PECKMAN RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ ....................................... 50 .................... 50 ....................

RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ ............................................................ 100 .................... 200 ....................

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ ................ 100 .................... 200 ....................

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, KEYPORT, NJ .................... 100 .................... 200 ....................

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ ................. 200 .................... 300 ....................

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, PORT MONMOUTH, NJ ...... .................... 100 .................... 250

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

SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ ................................. 100 .................... 200 ....................

SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ .................................... .................... 100 .................... 200

STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ ............................... 100 .................... 200 ....................

UPPER PASSAIC RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ ............................. .................... 30 .................... 30

UPPER ROCKAWAY RIVER, NJ ....................................................... 300 .................... 300 ....................

WOODBRIDGE RIVER BASIN, NJ .................................................... 100 .................... 200 ....................
17

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

NEW MEXICO

EAST MESA, LAS CRUCES, NM ..................................................... .................... .................... 100 ....................

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

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BOSQUE, NM .............................................. 100 .................... 400 ....................

NAVAJO NATION, NM ..................................................................... .................... .................... 100 ....................

RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO AND TX ........................................... 300 .................... 300 ....................

SANTA FE, NM ............................................................................... 205 .................... 205 ....................

SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY, ALBUQUERQUE,

N ............................................................................................... .................... 250 .................... 450

NEW YORK

AUSABLE RIVER BASIN, ESSEX AND CLINTON COUNTIES, NY ...... 50 .................... 50 ....................

BOQUET RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ESSEX COUNTY, NY .............. 50 .................... 50 ....................

BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY .............................................................. 30 .................... 30 ....................

BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, NY ........................ .................... .................... 100 ....................

FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY .................................................... 258 .................... 258 ....................

FREEPORT CREEK, VILLAGE OF FREEPORT, NY ............................ 100 .................... 100 ....................

HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS CANAL, NY AND NJ ..... 360 .................... 500 ....................

HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ ................................... 676 .................... 1,800 ....................

HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NY ................................. .................... 50 .................... 50

JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, ARVERNE,

NY ............................................................................................. 50 .................... 50 ....................

JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY ................. 200 .................... 200 ....................

LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY ........................................................ 30 .................... 30 ....................

LINDENHURST, NY ......................................................................... 50 .................... 50 ....................

NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE AREAS, NY .............................. 364 .................... 364 ....................

NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, NY ...................... 200 .................... 200 ....................

NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY .......................... 250 .................... 250 ....................

ONONDAGA COUNTY WATERSHED, NY .......................................... .................... .................... 500 ....................

ONONDAGA LAKE, NY .................................................................... 300 .................... 300 ....................

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

SOUTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, NY ............................................ 50 .................... 50 ....................

SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY ......................................... 200 .................... 200 ....................

UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NY .................................. 146 .................... 146 ....................

UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN ENVIRON RESTORATION,

NY ............................................................................................. 161 .................... 161 ....................

NORTH CAROLINA

BOGUE BANKS, NC ........................................................................ 300 .................... 450 ....................

CURRITUCK SOUND, NC ................................................................ 200 .................... 300 ....................

DARE COUNTY BEACHES, HATTERAS AND ORACOKE ISLANDS,

NC ............................................................................................. 150 .................... 525 ....................

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

SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC ............................... 173 .................... 300 ....................

OHIO

ASHTABULA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH ................... .................... 160 .................... 480

BELPRE, OH .................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... 350

BUTLER COUNTY, OH .................................................................... 243 .................... 243 ....................

OHIO RIVERFRONT STUDY, CINCINNATI, OH ................................. .................... .................... 200 ....................

COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN AREA, OH .......................................... 100 .................... 100 ....................

HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, MONDAY CREEK,

OH ............................................................................................. 205 .................... 205 ....................

HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, SUNDAY CREEK,

OH ............................................................................................. 225 .................... 225 ....................

MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH AND PA ....... 40 .................... 750 ....................

MUSKINGUM BASIN SYSTEM STUDY, OH ...................................... 225 .................... 225 ....................

POLK RUN CREEK, OH .................................................................. .................... .................... 100 ....................

OKLAHOMA

MIAMI AND VICINITY, OK ............................................................... 380 .................... 380 ....................
18

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

MOUNTAIN FORK WATERSHEAD STUDY, OK .................................. .................... .................... 100 ....................

OOLOGAH LAKE WATERSHED, OK AND KS .................................... 310 .................... 450 ....................

RED RIVER WATERWAY, OK, TX AND AR ...................................... 50 .................... 50 ....................

SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE STUDY, OK ............... 100 .................... 100 ....................

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

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

WISTER LAKE WATERSHED, OK ..................................................... 50 .................... 200 ....................

OREGON

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

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND

WA ............................................................................................ 300 .................... 300 ....................

TILLAMOOK BAY AND ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR .. 266 .................... 266 ....................

WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR AND WA ........................... 390 .................... 800 ....................

WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR ........................................ 100 .................... 100 ....................

WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR .................. 249 .................... 249 ....................

WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR .................... 150 .................... 150 ....................

PENNSYLVANIA

BLOOMSBURG, PA ......................................................................... 204 .................... 204 ....................

CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, PA, DE AND MD ......................... 100 .................... 300 ....................

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

SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN ESTAURINE, PA ................................... .................... .................... 250 ....................

UPPER OHIO RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM STUDY, PA .................. .................... .................... 400 ....................

PUERTO RICO

RIO NIGUA AT SALINAS, PR .......................................................... .................... 147 .................... 147

RHODE ISLAND

QUONSET DAVISVILLE PORT, RI .................................................... 25 .................... .................... ....................

RHODE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, RI ............................ 25 .................... 25 ....................

SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC .................................... 475 .................... 625 ....................

BROAD RIVER BASIN, SC .............................................................. 103 .................... 250 ....................

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ........................................................... 135 .................... 135 ....................

PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC .................................................................... .................... 100 .................... 100

REEDY RIVER, SC ......................................................................... 50 .................... 50 ....................

SANTEE DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, SC .................... 50 .................... 50 ....................

WACCAMAW RIVER, SC ................................................................. 25 .................... 25 ....................

SOUTH DAKOTA

JAMES RIVER, SD .......................................................................... .................... .................... 1,000 ....................

NIOBRARA RIVER AND MISSOURI RIVER, SD ................................ 100 .................... 100 ....................

WATERTOWN, SD ........................................................................... .................... .................... 750 ....................

TENNESSEE

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER,TN ................................ .................... 252 .................... 4,000

DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN ................................................................. 240 .................... 240 ....................

FRENCH BROAD WATERSHED, TN ................................................. 205 .................... 264 ....................

LICK BRANCH WATERSHED, TN ..................................................... .................... .................... 100 ....................

WASHINGTON DEE CEE BASIN, TN ................................................ .................... .................... 100 ....................

TEXAS

BOIS D’ARC CREEK, BONHAM, TX ................................................ 100 .................... 100 ....................

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, WHITE OAK BAYOU, TX ....... 160 .................... 160 ....................

CEDAR BAYOU, TX ........................................................................ .................... 310 .................... 310

COLONIAS-LWR RIO GRANDE BASIN ALONG TX AND MEXICO

BORDER .................................................................................... .................... 100 .................... 100

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ........................................... 410 .................... 410 ....................

FREEPORT HARBOR, TX ................................................................ 200 .................... 500 ....................
19

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

FREEPORT HURRICANE PROTECTION LEVEE, TX ........................... 100 .................... 100 ....................

GIWW MODIFICATIONS, TX ............................................................. 225 .................... 225 ....................

GIWW, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT O’CONNOR, TX ........................... 225 .................... 225 ....................

GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX ................................. .................... 275 .................... 275

GIWW, MATAGORDA BAY, TX ......................................................... .................... 480 .................... 480

GIWW, PORT O’CONNOR TO CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TX ................ 228 .................... 228 ....................

GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX ..................................................... .................... 150 .................... 150

GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX ...................... 300 .................... 800 ....................

HARRIS GULLY, TX ........................................................................ .................... .................... 100 ....................

LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX ............................................ 600 .................... 2,000 ....................

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL (PORT LAVACA), TX ......................... .................... .................... 150 ....................

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

MUSTANG BAYOU, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TX ................................... 137 .................... 137 ....................

NORTH BOSQUE RIVER, TX ........................................................... .................... 50 .................... 50

NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX ............................................................. 228 .................... 228 ....................

NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX .......................................... 87 .................... 87 ....................

RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX ............................................................ .................... 250 .................... 250

RESACAS AT BROWNSVILLE, TX .................................................... 200 .................... 200 ....................

SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX ................................................... 400 .................... 400 ....................

SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX ......................................... 250 .................... 250 ....................

SOUTH MAIN CHANNEL, TX ........................................................... .................... 200 .................... 200

SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS ................. 137 .................... 137 ....................

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

TEXAS CITY CHANNEL (50-FOOT PROJECT), TX ............................ .................... 200 .................... 750

UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX ................................................. 433 .................... 1,200 ....................

UTAH

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

PROVO AND VICINITY, UT .............................................................. 25 .................... 25 ....................

VIRGINIA

AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA ........................................... .................... 275 .................... 275

CLINCH RIVER WATER PROJECT ................................................... .................... .................... 100 ....................

ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA ..................................... .................... 471 .................... 471

FOURMILE RUN, VA ....................................................................... 37 .................... 37 ....................

JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA .......................................................... .................... 109 .................... 109

JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (SECTION

216) .......................................................................................... 300 .................... 400 ....................

LOWER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN, VA ................................... 157 .................... 157 ....................

LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA ...................................................... 37 .................... 237 ....................

NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA ............ 350 .................... 350 ....................

POWELL RIVER WATERSHED, VA ................................................... 100 .................... 100 ....................

WASHINGTON

BELLINGHAM BAY, WA .................................................................. 50 .................... 50 ....................

CENTRALIA, WA ............................................................................. .................... 500 .................... 1,500

CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA ......................................................... 250 .................... 250 ....................

COMMENCEMENT BAY AND HYLEBOS WATERWAY, PIERCE

COUNTY .................................................................................... 200 .................... 500 ....................

DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA ................................... .................... 265 .................... 265

LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ............................................ 450 .................... 450 ....................

PUGET SOUND CONFINED DISPOSAL SITES, WA ........................... 50 .................... 50 ....................

PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA 250 .................... 900 ....................

SKAGIT RIVER, WA ........................................................................ 450 .................... 1,000 ....................

STILLAGUAMISH RIVER BASIN, WA ................................................ .................... 100 .................... 100

WHITE RIVER FLOOD CONTROL AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,

W .............................................................................................. 200 .................... 200 ....................

WEST VIRGINIA

ISLAND CREEK AT LOGAN, WV ...................................................... .................... 697 .................... 697

LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV ......................................................... .................... .................... 100 ....................
20

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Investigations Planning Investigations Planning

NEW RIVER BASIN, WV, NC AND VA ............................................. 235 .................... 235 ....................

WISCONSIN

BARABOO RIVER, WI ..................................................................... 350 .................... 350 ....................

FOX RIVER, WI .............................................................................. 40 .................... 40 ....................

FOX RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, WI ................................ .................... .................... 200 ....................

WYOMING

JACKSON HOLE RESTORATION, WY ............................................... .................... 108 .................... 108

MISCELLANEOUS

COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION ............................................... 2,500 .................... 4,500 ....................

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

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

FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES ........................................ 7,500 .................... 9,000 ....................

GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (SECTION 401) ....... .................... .................... 2,000 ....................

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

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

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

OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS ............................................... 4,850 .................... 5,250 ....................

PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES ............................................... 6,000 .................... 8,300 ....................

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

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

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT .................................................... 22,000 .................... 25,000 ....................

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

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

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

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

REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .............. ¥21,430 .................... ¥44,061 ....................

ADJUSTMENT FOR ACTUAL RETIREMENT ACCRUALS .................... ¥517 .................... .................... ....................

TOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS ................................... 83,488 18,995 113,657 34,647

Hot Springs, AR.—The Committee has provided $100,000 for a

reconnaissance study to identify and evaluate alternatives for flood

damage prevention.

Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, AR and LA.—The

Committee recommendation includes $583,000 to complete the costshared navigation study. The Committee understands that navigation in the Shreveport, LA, to Index, AR 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 all

study and project documents.

Southwest Arkansas Study, AR.—The Committee has provided

$200,000 to initiate and complete an expanded reconnaissance

study to address flooding, environmental restoration, water quality

and other water resource needs in the Red River and Little Red

River basins.

Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, AZ.—The Committee recommendation includes $880,000 for preconstruction engineering and design phase

for Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, AZ.
21

American River Watershed, CA.—The Committee has provided $2,600,000 for continuing analyses on the American River Watershed Long-Term Study, which recommends authorization of the socalled Folsom Dam Mini-Raise. In the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Congress directed the Corps of Engineers to

study a potential increase in flood storage at the Folsom reservoir.

The Corps has completed its review and has concluded that raising

the existing dam by 7 feet would provide substantially increased

flood control benefits, and is technically feasible, economically justified and environmentally preferable, to other flood control options

for the Sacramento region. The Congress has methodically authorized and funded improvements in the Sacramento region to reduce

flooding and these efforts should continue without further delay.

The Mini-Raise is widely supported by virtually all of the congressional delegation as well as State and local officials and the environmental community. However, the project continues to have narrow but persistent opposition. The Committee believes it is time to

provide Sacramento with much needed and deserved flood protection. It is the Committee’s understanding that the Chief’s report for

this project is currently under review. The longer the review drags

on, the longer tens of thousands of citizens in the Sacramento,

California, region will remain in jeopardy from catastrophic flooding. The Committee directs that this review be expedited such that

the project will be eligible for authorization in 2002. The Committee also strongly urges the congressional authorizing committees to authorize the Folsom Mini-Raise in the next Water Resources Development Act.

Coast of California, Los Angeles County, CA.—The Committee

has provided $400,000 to continue data collection and surveys.

Huntington Harbor Dredging, CA.—The Committee recommendation includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance study for ecosystem

restoration of Huntington Harbor, CA.

Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, CA.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 to complete the feasibility study

and to initiate preconstruction engineering and design activities for

Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, CA.

Sacramento and San Joaquin Comprehensive Basin Study, CA.—

The Committee recommendation includes $3,173,000 to complete

the feasibility study and to initiate preconstruction engineering and

design.

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

$1,500,000 to continue the comprehensive watershed study of the

Lake Tahoe Basin Watershed.

Adams County, CO.—The Committee recommendation includes

$100,000 for a reconnaissance study for ecosystem restoration

study for Adams County, CO.

New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, GA & SC.—The Committee

has provided $276,000 to complete the preconstruction engineering

and design phase of the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, GA

& SC.

Savannah Harbor Estuary Restoration Study, GA.—The Committee recommendation includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance

study for ecosystem restoration study for the Savannah Harbor Estuary Restoration Study, GA.
22

Waikiki Erosion Control, HI.—The Committee has provided $250,000 to continue preconstruction engineering and design for

the Waikiki Erosion Control, HI, project.

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

& WI.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,685,000 to

continue the system feasibility phase of this study to ensure timely

completion in fiscal year 2004. The Committee understands that

the Corps has submitted an Interim Report in compliance with direction in the fiscal year 2003 Senate Energy and Water Development bill.

Columbus Waterfront Development Project, Columbus, IN.—The

Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate and complete a reconnaissance study of the Columbus, IN waterfront area.

Vincennes Waterfront Development Project, Vincennes, IN.—The

Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate and complete a reconnaissance study of the Vincennes, IN waterfront area.

Covington Waterfront Development Project, Covington, KY.—The

Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate and complete a reconnaissance study of the Covington, KY waterfront area.

Muddy River, Boston, MA.—The Committee recommendation includes $322,000 to complete the preconstruction engineering and

design phase of the flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration for the Muddy River in Boston and Brookline, MA.

Detroit River Environmental Dredging, MI.—The Committee has

provided $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study of dredging and

disposal requirements of contaminated sediments in the Detroit

River.

Detroit River Master Plan, Detroit, MI.—The Committee has pro- vided $100,000 to continue the Detroit River Master Plan study.

Detroit River Seawalls, Detroit, MI.—The Committee recommendation includes $100,000 for continued studies of the Detroit

River Seawalls.

Rouge River Environmental Dredging, MI.—The Committee has

provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study on remediation of

contaminated sediments in the Rouge River.

Red River of the North Basin, MN, ND, SD, & Manitoba, Canada.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,078,000 to continue feasibility studies and incorporate the Fargo Southside, ND,

formerly being studied under the Continuing Authorities Program.

The Committee is aware that several stakeholder groups in the

Red River Basin are coordinating water resource management efforts across State and international borders by forming the Red

River Basin Commission (RRBC). The Committee recognizes this

Commission, which includes local, provincial, State, and Federal interests, as a non-profit entity registered in the States of Minnesota,

North Dakota, South Dakota, and the Canadian Province of Manitoba.

Missouri River Levee System, Units L455 & R 460–471, MO &

KS.—The Committee has provided $331,000 to complete the feasibility study.

Portsmouth Harbor & Piscataqua River, Upper Turning Basin,

NH & ME.—The Committee recommendation includes $100,000 for

a reconnaissance study of navigation improvements at Portsmouth

Harbor.
23

Hudson Raritan Estuary — Hackensack Meadowlands Ecosystem

Restoration, NJ.—The Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate

the feasibility study.

Onondaga County Watershed Management Study, NY.—The

Committee recommendation includes $500,000 to initiate comprehensive watershed studies for the Onondaga County Watershed.

Ohio Riverfront Study, Cincinnati, OH.—The Committee has pro- vided $200,000 to initiate a feasibility study.

James River, SD.—The Committee recommendation provides $1,000,000 to complete reconnaissance studies and to initiate feasibility studies for flood damage reduction in the James River basin.

Watertown, SD.—The Committee recommendation provides $750,000 for initiation of a general reevaluation report for a flood

protection project at Watertown, SD.

Guadalupe and San Antonio River Basins, TX.—The Committee

has provided $800,000 to continue basinwide environmental restoration studies and for basin hydrologic studies to update flood

plain mapping in Goliad, Karnes, and Wilson Counties.

Harris Gully, Houston, TX.—The Committee has provided $100,000 for studies to determine the feasibility of alternative

measures relating to flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and other allied purposes for Harris Gully, Houston, TX.

Matagorda Ship Channel (Port Lavaca), TX.—The Committee

has provided $150,000 for studies of navigation improvements of

the Matagorda Ship Channel.

Duwamish and Green River Basin, WA.—The Committee recommendation includes $265,000 to complete the preconstruction

engineering and design phase for ecosystem restoration of the

Duwamish and Green River Basin.

Coastal Field Data Collection.—Within the funds provided, the Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Southern California

Beach Processes Study and $1,000,000 for Hurricane Evaluation

Studies in the State of Hawaii and U.S. Territories.

Flood Plain Management Services.—Within the amount provided

for the Flood Plain Management Services Program, the Committee

urges the Corps to develop information and decision-support tools

for hurricane preparedness in the State of Hawaii and U.S. Territories and to conduct a flood plain management study for Dexter,

MO, and a flood plain management study for Cumberland County,

TN.

Planning Assistance to States.—The Committee has provided

$8,300,000 for the Planning Assistance to States Program. Within

the funds provided, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to

assist in the development of a watershed management assessment

plan for Lamar County, Alabama, initiate studies for Cross Lake,

LA, and a drought watershed management plan for Big Hole, MT.

The Committee acknowledges the serious impacts of coastal erosion due to continued climate change and other factors in the following communities in Alaska: Bethel, Dillingham, Shishmaref,

Kakatovik, Kivalina, Unalakleet, and Newtok. The Committee directs the Corps to perform an analysis of the costs associated with

continued erosion of these communities, potential costs associated

with moving the affected communities to new locations (including

collocation with existing communities), and to identify the expected
24

time line for a complete failure of the useable land associated with

each community. An additional $2,000,000 above the President’s

request has been provided for this work, of which $1,000,000 is for

Shishmaref, AK.

Due to rapid erosion occurring at Shishmaref, AK, the Committee directs the Corps to expedite all necessary environmental

studies to document the impacts of this severe and continuing erosion.

Other Coordination Programs.—Within the funds provided, the Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for activities related

to the Environmental Improvement Program for the Lake Tahoe

Basin, CA & NV, $200,000 for the American Heritage Rivers Program, $500,000 for international waters studies, and $600,000 for

the Tri-Service CADD/GIS Technology Center.

Research and Development.—Within the funds provided for the Corps of Engineers R&D Program, $2,000,000 is provided for innovative technology demonstrations for urban flooding and channel

restoration. These demonstrations shall be conducted in close coordination and cooperation with the Urban Water Research Program of the Desert Research Institute of Nevada. $500,000 is provided to conduct investigations, assessment, and demonstrations on

large-scale submerged aquatic vegetation restoration techniques

and technologies. Appropriate demonstration activities should be

considered within the Chesapeake Bay, MD.

The Committee is aware that WRDA 1999, Sec. 503 authorized

the test and demonstration of innovative technologies for environmentally sound management of contaminated sediments. The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to continue its work in

this matter in cooperation with the University of New Hampshire.

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $1,715,951,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 1,415,612,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,745,102,000

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

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

the Nation. The construction and major rehabilitation projects for

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

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

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will be applied to cover the

Federal share of the Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program.

The appropriation provides funds for the Continuing Authorities

Program (projects which do not require specific 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:
25

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

ALABAMA

MOBILE HARBOR, AL ............................................................................................................... 200 200

WALTER F GEORGE POWERHOUSE AND DAM, AL AND GA (MAJOR REH ................................ 16,473 16,473

WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA (MAJOR REHAB) ............................................ 2,852 2,852

ALASKA

BETHEL BANK STABILIZATION, AK ........................................................................................... ........................ 3,000

BUCKLAND ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, AK ............................................................... ........................ 4,000

CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK .............................................................................................................. 3,120 3,120

DILLINGHAM BANK STABILIZATION .......................................................................................... ........................ 3,000

GALENA, AK ............................................................................................................................. ........................ 3,000

NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK ....................................................................................... 4,500 4,500

ST PAUL HARBOR, AK .............................................................................................................. 5,880 5,880

SEWARD HARBOR, AK .............................................................................................................. ........................ 3,500

WRANGELL HARBOR, AK .......................................................................................................... 5,000 2,000

ARIZONA

RIO SALADO, PHOENIX AND TEMPE REACHES, AZ .................................................................. 14,300 17,000

ARKANSAS

FOURCHE BAYOU BASIN, AR ................................................................................................... ........................ 500

MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR ............................................. 3,360 3,360

MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR .............................................................................. 20,000 24,000

RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, AR, LA, TX ....................................................................... ........................ 5,000

RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR, LA ............................................................. ........................ 7,500

CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), C ........................................ 4,900 4,900

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA ......................................................................................... 22,280 22,280

CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA .................................................................................................... 100 100

GUADALUPE RIVER, CA ............................................................................................................ 5,000 9,000

HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA ................................................................ 3,900 5,000

HARBOR/SOUTH BAYWATER RECYCLING, CA .......................................................................... ........................ 7,000

IMPERIAL BEACH, SILVER STRAND SHORELINE, CA ............................................................... 200 600

KAWEAH RIVER, CA ................................................................................................................. 10,151 11,000

LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CA ..................................................................................................... ........................ 10,300

LOWER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA .................................................... 1,680 1,680

MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA .......................................................... 5,900 5,900

MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA ............................................................................................. 500 500

MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA ................................................................... 5,172 5,172

NAPA RIVER, CA ...................................................................................................................... 5,000 8,000

OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA ........................................................................... 5,000 5,000

PETALUMA RIVER, CA .............................................................................................................. 4,000 10,700

SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA .......................................................... 2,600 2,600

SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL, CA ........................................................... 250 400

SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA .......................................... 806 806

SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA ................................................................................ ........................ 1,150

SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA ........................................................................................................ 2,751 2,751

SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER PROJECT, CA ........................................................... ........................ 500

SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA ........................................................................................... 29,700 32,000

SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................ 100 100

SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA ......................................................................... 2,000 7,000

STOCKTON METROPOLITIAN FLOOD CONTROL REIMBURSEMENT, CA ..................................... 1,000 ........................

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

SURFSIDE-SUNSET-NEWPORT BEACH, CA ............................................................................... 4,300 4,300

TULE RIVER, CA ....................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,500

UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA .................................................... 3,510 3,510

DELAWARE

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TO LEWES BEACH ........................................ 500 1,200

DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE ....................................................................................... 294 294
26

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

DELAWARE COAST, REHOBOTH BEACH TO DEWEY BEACH, DE .............................................. 1,000 3,000

FLORIDA

BREVARD COUNTY, FL ............................................................................................................. ........................ 1,500

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ......................................................................................................... 3,600 3,600

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL .................................................................................. 108,202 98,202

DADE COUNTY, FL ................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,000

EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL ....................................... 19,526 19,526

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ..................................................................................................... 4,028 4,028

JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, FL AND GA (MAJOR R ................................. 1,742 1,742

KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL .............................................................................................................. 23,727 23,727

MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL .................................................................................................. 13,100 13,100

PALM BEACH COUNTY (REIMBURSEMENT), FL ....................................................................... ........................ 1,500

PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL ...................................................................................................... 1,645 1,645

ST JOHNS COUNTY, FL ............................................................................................................. ........................ 300

GEORGIA

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA ....................................................................................................... 11,116 11,116

BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB) .......................................................................... 3,374 3,374

HARTWELL LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB) ............................................... 2,493 2,493

LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA AND SC ........................................................................ 250 250

OATES CREEK, RICHMOND COUNTY, GA (DEF CORR) ............................................................. 850 850

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC ................................................................ 1,000 1,000

THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB) .............................................. 3,500 3,500

HAWAII

HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................. ........................ 2,000

IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF CORR) ............................................................ 419 419

KAUMALAPAU HARBOR, HI ....................................................................................................... ........................ 2,000

KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI ............................................................................ 4,303 4,303

MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI ................................................................................................... 2,262 2,262

ILLINOIS

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR) ............................................... 2,037 2,037

CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL ......................................................................................................... 19,000 21,000

COOK COUNTY, IL .................................................................................................................... ........................ 400

DES PLAINES RIVER, IL ........................................................................................................... ........................ 2,500

EAST ST LOUIS, IL ................................................................................................................... 800 800

LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH ........................................ 10,000 10,000

LOVES PARK, IL ....................................................................................................................... 2,973 2,973

MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL ............................................................................. 10,000 12,000

MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL AND MO ........................................................................... 1,200 1,200

NUTWOOD LEVEE, IL ................................................................................................................ ........................ 200

OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY ............................................................. 77,000 68,000

UPPER MISS RVR SYSTEM ENV MGMT PROGRAM, IL, IA, MN, MO ........................................ 12,200 15,000

INDIANA

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS (ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE) ................................................ ........................ 500

INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY), IN ........................................................... 6,800 6,800

INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN .............................................................................. 2,000 2,000

LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN ..................................................................................................... 3,562 3,562

MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB) ............................................................................... 7,094 7,094

OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ACCESS, IN ......................................................................... 732 732

IOWA

DES MOINES RECREATIONAL RIVER AND GREENBELT, IA ...................................................... ........................ 1,400

LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB) ................................................. 1,366 2,250

LOCK AND DAM 12, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB) ................................................. 5,404 5,404

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION, IA, NE, K ................................................. 17,500 18,600

MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS AND MO ........................................................... 6,978 9,000

PERRY CREEK, IA .................................................................................................................... 4,000 4,500
27

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

KANSAS

ARKANSAS CITY, KS ................................................................................................................. 3,000 3,000

KENTUCKY

DEWEY LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY) ............................................................................................. 600 600

KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY ............................................................... 27,400 31,000

MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND IN ........................................................... 6,192 13,000

METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, BEARGRASS CREEK, KY ............................................................. 3,838 3,838

METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY ....................................................................... 2,000 2,000

LOUISIANA

ASCENSION PARISH (ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE), LA ............................................... ........................ 300

COMITE RIVER, LA ................................................................................................................... 3,000 3,000

EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH (ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE) ....................................... ........................ 300

GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LA ................................................................................................ ........................ 213

INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA ....................................................................... 9,000 15,000

J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA .................................................................................... 11,016 20,000

LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE PROTECT .......................................... 4,900 7,000

LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) .............................................. 410 410

LIVINGSTON PARISH (ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE), LA .............................................. ........................ 300

MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET, LA ..................................................................................... ........................ 500

MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, L ............................................ 200 200

NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) .................................................... 900 1,500

OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES ........................................................................................................ ........................ 1,500

SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA ...................................................................................................... 20,083 55,000

WEST BANK AND VICINITY, NEW ORLEANS, LA ....................................................................... 5,000 10,000

MARYLAND

ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD ........................................................................................................ 6,900 6,900

ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD ...................................................................................... 200 200

BALTIMORE HARBOR ANCHORAGES AND CHANNELS, MD AND VA ......................................... 10,590 10,590

CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTOR AND PROTECTION, MD ..................................... ........................ 2,000

CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA .............................................................. 2,000 3,000

CUMBERLAND, MD ................................................................................................................... ........................ 5,000

POPLAR ISLAND, MD ................................................................................................................ 10,600 10,600

MASSACHUSETTS

CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, MA (MAJOR REHAB) ................................................... 8,500 8,500

WEST HILL DAM, MA (MAJOR REHAB) ..................................................................................... 2,800 2,800

MICHIGAN

GENESEE COUNTY (ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE), MI ................................................. ........................ 200

NEGAUNEE, MI ......................................................................................................................... ........................ 575

SAULT STE MARIE LOCK REPLACEMENT, MI ........................................................................... ........................ 3,000

TWELVE TOWNS DRAIN RETENTION FACILITY .......................................................................... ........................ 300

MINNESOTA

BRECKENRIDGE, MN ................................................................................................................ ........................ 3,000

CROOKSTON, MN ..................................................................................................................... 3,202 3,202

LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN (MAJOR REHAB) ................................................. 3,000 3,000

MILLE LACS REGIONAL WASTEWATER, MN .............................................................................. ........................ 1,000

MISSISSIPPI

DESOTO COUNTY, MS .............................................................................................................. ........................ 4,000

GULFPORT HARBOR, MS .......................................................................................................... ........................ 800

MISSISSIPPI (SECTION 592) .................................................................................................... ........................ 12,000

PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ..................................................................................................... 2,476 5,834

MISSOURI

BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO ................................................................................... 200 200

BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO .............................................................................. 6,676 11,000
28

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, MO ................................................................ ........................ 200

MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO ............................................................... 600 4,000

MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO ........................................ 1,700 3,500

STE GENEVIEVE, MO ................................................................................................................ 300 300

TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR (DAM SAFETY) ..................................................................... 10,000 12,000

MONTANA

FORT PECK FISH HATCHERY, MT ............................................................................................ ........................ 8,000

RURAL MONTANA ..................................................................................................................... ........................ 3,500

NEBRASKA

ANTELOPE CREEK, NE ............................................................................................................. ........................ 2,000

MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE AND SD ....................................................... 750 750

WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE .......................................................................................... 3,536 3,536

NEVADA

RURAL NEVADA, NV ................................................................................................................. ........................ 13,000

TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV ............................................................................... 33,900 45,000

NEW JERSEY

BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG INLET (ABSECON ISLAND) ............................................... 500 1,000

CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ ........................................................................... 82 82

DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA AND DE ................................................................ 12,000 10,000

GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ ................................................................. 460 460

LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ .............................................................. 2,000 2,000

PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, N ......................................... 3,000 3,000

RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, MAHWAH, NJ AND SUFFERN, NY ......................................... 500 500

RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ ............................................................................................ 5,241 5,241

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ ............................................................................... 1,000 1,000

RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ .......................................................... 5,000 7,000

SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ................................................................................... 4,434 4,434

TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ .......................................................................... 7,000 8,000

NEW MEXICO

ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM ....................................................................................... 1,500 5,200

ALAMOGORDO, NM ................................................................................................................... 5,400 5,400

CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM .................................................................................................... ........................ 8,000

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELE ......................................... 800 800

RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE .......................................... 800 800

NEW YORK

ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT ........................................... 450 450

EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET AND JAMAICA BAY .......................................... 1,000 1,000

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY ................................................................................ 500 500

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY .......................................................................... 2,750 2,750

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ ............................................................... 120,000 110,000

NORTH CAROLINA

BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC ....................................................................................... 700 700

STANLEY COUNTY WASTEWATER, NC ...................................................................................... ........................ 1,000

WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET, NC ................................................................ 1,200 1,200

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ...................................................................................................... 24,650 41,000

NORTH DAKOTA

BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION ................................................ 1,000 2,500

DEVILS LAKE, ND ..................................................................................................................... ........................ 5,000

GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB) ..................................................... 6,500 6,500

GRAFTON, PARK RIVER, ND ..................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000

GRAND FORKS, ND—EAST GRAND FORKS, MN ...................................................................... 30,000 40,000

HOMME LAKE, ND (DAM SAFETY) ............................................................................................ 2,272 2,272

SHEYENNE RIVER, ND ............................................................................................................. 2,417 2,417
29

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

OHIO

HOLES CREEK, WEST CARROLLTON, OH ................................................................................. ........................ 2,000

METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH ................................................... 3,270 4,000

MILL CREEK, OH ...................................................................................................................... 1,100 4,500

WEST COLUMBUS, OH ............................................................................................................. 2,000 3,000

OKLAHOMA

SKIATOOK LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) ......................................................................................... 3,000 3,000

TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) ........................................................................... 4,600 4,600

OREGON

BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR AND WA (MAJOR REHAB) ...................................... 8,913 8,913

COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, OR AND WA .................................................... ........................ 5,000

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA ............................................ 5,800 5,800

ELK CREEK LAKE, OR .............................................................................................................. 1,000 1,000

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN BANK PROTECTION, OR AND WA ........................................ 100 100

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA ....................................... 2,000 ........................

WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR .................................................................. 6,000 8,000

PENNSYLVANIA

LACKAWANNA RIVER, OLYPHANT, PA ...................................................................................... 1,161 1,161

LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA .................................................... 36,017 42,000

PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT) ........................................................................ 580 1,080

SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA ........................................................................................... 4,103 4,103

SCHUYLKILL RIVER PARK, PA .................................................................................................. ........................ 1,000

WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING) ................................................................................. 9,439 9,439

PUERTO RICO

ARECIBO RIVER, PR ................................................................................................................ 5,000 5,000

PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR ................................................................................... 5,500 5,500

RIO DE LA PLATA, PR .............................................................................................................. 500 500

RIO GRANDE DE MANATI, PR .................................................................................................. 4,981 4,981

RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR .......................................................................................................... 8,778 8,778

SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR ........................................................................................................... 1,457 1,457

SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (DEEPENING AND WIDENING) ...................................................... 4,539 6,500

HARTWELL LK,CLEMSON UPPER AND LOWER DIVERSION, SC (DAM S ................................... 5,791 5,791

MYRTLE BEACH STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, SC ................................................................. ........................ 400

SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD ....................................................................................... 3,964 3,964

CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD ................................................... 1,700 9,500

MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SD ........................................................................................ 750 750

PIERRE, SD .............................................................................................................................. 1,426 6,000

TENNESSEE

BLACK FOX, OAKLANDS AND MURFREE SPRINGS WETLANDS, TN .......................................... ........................ 2,300

TEXAS

BOSQUE AND LEON RIVERS, TX .............................................................................................. ........................ 1,000

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX .................................................................................................. 3,798 3,798

CLEAR CREEK, TX .................................................................................................................... 1,200 1,200

DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TX ........................................................................................ ........................ 9,744

EL PASO, TX ............................................................................................................................ 1,000 1,000

HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX ................................................................ 19,487 36,000

JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX ..................................................... 3,636 3,636

NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER BARRIER, TX ................................................. 7,000 7,000

NORTH PADRE ISLAND, PACKERY CHANNEL, TX ..................................................................... ........................ 4,000

RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX ........................................................................... ........................ 2,000

SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX ........................................................................... 3,219 3,219
30

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX .................................................................................................... 9,000 9,000

UTAH

UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UT ...................................................................................................... 500 500

VERMONT

VERMONT DAMS REMEDIATION, VT ......................................................................................... ........................ 500

VIRGINIA

AIWW BRIDGE AT GREAT BRIDGE, VA ..................................................................................... 3,401 3,401

EMBREY DAM, VA .................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,500

JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (MAJOR REHAB) ....................................... 6,600 6,600

LYNCHBURG (COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW), VA .................................................................. ........................ 500

NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (DEEPENING), VA ............................................................ 477 ........................

RICHMOND (COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW), VA .................................................................... ........................ 500

ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA ....................................................... 850 850

SANDBRIDGE BEACH, VA ......................................................................................................... ........................ 1,400

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) .................................................................... 120 120

WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR AND ID ............................................................. 98,000 87,000

GRAYS HARBOR, WA ................................................................................................................ 50 50

HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, WA ........................................................ 5,776 7,500

LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR ..................................... 4,600 4,600

MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ............................................................................... 281 281

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY) ............................................................................... 1,200 2,500

SHOALWATER BAY SHORELINE EROSION, WA ......................................................................... ........................ 1,000

THE DALLES POWERHOUSE (UNITS 1–14), WA AND OR (MAJOR REH .................................... 3,000 3,000

WEST VIRGINIA

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY) ..................................................................................... 8,500 13,100

LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V ....................................... 10,400 16,900

LONDON LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV (MAJOR REHAB) ........................................ 11,934 11,934

LOWER MUD RIVER, WV .......................................................................................................... ........................ 750

MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV ..................................................................................... 10,978 58,500

ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV AND OH .............................................. 1,500 1,500

WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV ................................................................. 200 200

WISCONSIN

LAFARGE LAKE, WI ................................................................................................................... 4,361 4,361

MISCELLANEOUS

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206) .............................................................. 10,000 20,000

AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 3,000 5,000

BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204) .................................................... 1,500 1,500

DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM ............................................ 5,000 10,000

DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM ............................................................ 9,000 9,000

EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SEC 14) ..................................... 7,000 9,000

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION .................................................................................................. 20,000 20,000

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) ........................................................................... 30,000 45,000

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—BOARD EXPENSE ........................................................ 45 45

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—CORPS EXPENSE ........................................................ 185 185

NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111) ................................................................. 500 2,000

NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107) ................................................................................... 7,000 9,100

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONME ....................................... 16,000 23,000

SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATIO .................................... 8,000 8,000

SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 103) ............................................................... 5,000 5,000

SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECT (SECTION 208) .............................................................. 1,000 1,000

REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ......................................................... ¥103,454 ¥228,360

ADJUSTMENT FOR ACTUAL RETIREMENT ACCRUALS ............................................................... ¥2,388 ........................

TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL .............................................................................. 1,415,612 1,745,102
31

Bethel Emergency Bank Stabilization Project, Bethel, Alaska.—

The Committee is aware that extenuating circumstances and the

dire situation with regard to the Bethel Emergency Bank Stabilization project. Therefore, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to take all steps necessary to address the rapidly deteriorating seawall in order to prevent its imminent collapse.

Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, AR.—The Committee recommendation includes $24,000,000. The Committee understands

that this is far less than the Corps capability for this important

navigation project that contributes to the Nation’s economic security, but in a constrained budget environment, is an increase over

the budget amount.

Red River Below Denison Dam, AR, LA, OK & TX.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue the levee

rehabilitation and bank stabilization project in Arkansas.

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

Committee recommendation includes $7,500,000 to continue the

project.

Harbor/South Bay Water Recycling, CA.—The Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000 to continue construction of the

project.

Los Angeles Harbor Main Channel Deepening, CA.—The Committee has provided $10,300,000 to continue construction of the

channel deepening project.

Petaluma River, CA.—The Committee recommendation includes

$10,700,000 for completion of this project.

San Francisco Bay to Stockton, CA.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,150,000 for continuation of the General

Reevaluation Reports on the Avon Turning Basin and for the minimal deepening of the San Francisco Bay to the Port of Stockton.

South Sacramento County Streams, CA.—The Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000. The Committee understands

that this is far less than the Corps capability for this project that

will provide flood protection for more than 100,000 people and

41,000 structures, but in a constrained budget environment, it is

a significant increase over the budget amount.

Central and Southern Florida, FL.—The Committee recommendation includes $98,202,000 to continue Everglades Restoration projects. This is a $10,000,000 reduction from the budget request. This should in no way be considered any diminution of interest or support for these vitally important ecosystem restoration

projects by the Committee. Rather, this cut is due to recent questions raised concerning implementation of the restoration project.

The Committee is concerned that the project may be too heavily

weighted in favor of commercial development of water supplies

rather than the restoration of historic water flow characteristics

and water quality needed to save the Everglades. The Committee

believes that the Corps should respond to these concerns and provide written notification to the Committee that addresses these

concerns.

Hawaii Water Management, HI.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for continued construction of the Hawaii

Water Management Project.
32

Kaumalapau Harbor, HI.—The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for continued construction of the harbor project.

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

MO.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,100,000 above

the budget amount for habitat acquisition. Additional funding

should be focused on acquisition of lands at the confluence of the

Missouri and Mississippi Rivers near St. Louis, MO.

Des Plaines River, IL (Phase I).—The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 to continue construction of the project.

Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IL & KY.—The Committee

recommendation includes $68,000,000 to continue construction of

the replacement navigation structure. This is a $9,000,000 reduction from the budget request, but should in no way be considered

any diminution of interest in this critically important portion of the

Nation’s inland waterway system by the Committee. Rather it reflects the extraordinarily unbalanced nature of the budget request

and the Committee’s attempt to restore some balance to this account. None of the funds provided for the Olmsted Locks and Dam

Project are to be used to reimburse the Claims and Judgement

Fund.

Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, KY.—The Committee

recommendation includes $31,000,000. The Committee understands

that this is considerably less than the Corps capability for this important navigation project that contributes to the Nation’s economic

security, but in a constrained budget environment, it is an increase

over the budget request.

McAlpine Lock and Dam, IN & KY.—The Committee recommendation includes $13,000,000. The Committee understands

that this is considerably less than the Corps capability for this important navigation project that contributes to the Nation’s economic

security, but in a constrained budget environment, it is an increase

over the budget request.

Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, LA.—The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000. The Committee understands

that this is considerably less than the Corps capability for this important navigation project, but in a constrained budget environment, it is an increase over the budget request.

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.—The Committee recommendation includes $20,000,000 to continue construction of necessary navigation channel refinements, land purchases and development for mitigation of project impacts, and construction of

project recreation and appurtenant features.

Ouachita River Levees, LA.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 to continue construction of the project.

Southeast Louisiana, LA.—The Committee recommendation includes $55,000,000. While this is a significant increase over the

budget request, it is still far below the amount needed to fund the

project at an optimum level.

Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection, MD,

PA, and VA.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000

for continuation of the Taylor’s Island Marsh Creation Project, and

the Baltimore Harbor Middle Branch Wetland Creation Project.

Cumberland, MD.—The Committee has provided $5,000,000 to

continue this flood control project.
33

Sault Ste. Marie (Replacement Lock), MI.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 to continue construction of the

replacement lock.

Breckenridge, MN.—$3,000,000 is included to continue construction of this vital flood control project.

Mississippi Environmental Infrastructure, MS.—The Committee

recommendation includes $12,000,000. Within the funds provided

the Corps should continue on-going work at Pearlington, Hancock

County, MS; Jefferson County, MS; Picayune, Pearl River County,

MS; Gulfport, Harrison County, MS and is directed to give priority

for initiation of assistance to Helena, Jackson County, MS; Town

of Decatur, MS; and City of Newton, MS.

Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, MT.—The Committee recommendation

includes $8,000,000 for continuation of construction.

Rural Montana, MT.—The Committee recommendation includes

$3,500,000 to continue the Rural Montana Project. Within the

funds provided, the Corps should give consideration to Grant

Creek, Missoula County, and the cities of Belgrade, Helena, and

Conrad.

Stanly County Wastewater, NC.—The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for continued construction of this project.

Wilmington Harbor, NC.—The Committee recommendation includes $41,000,000. The Committee understands that this is considerably less than the Corps capability for this important harbor

project that contributes to the Nation’s economic security, but in a

constrained budget environment, it is an increase over the budget

request.

Devils Lake, ND.—The Committee recommendation includes

$5,000,000 for construction of the Devils Lake outlet subject to certain conditions. The Committee also recognizes that the Corps has

authority to use up to an additional $10,000,000 of previously appropriated funds for construction if the conditions mandated by

Congress are met.

Grafton, Park River, ND.—The Committee recommendation has

included $1,000,000 to continue construction of this flood control

project.

Grand Forks, ND.—East Grand Forks, MN.—The Committee recommendation includes $40,000,000. While this is an increase over

the budget request, it is still far below the amount needed to fund

the project at an optimum level.

Antelope Creek, NE.—The Committee recommendation includes

$2,000,000 to continue construction of the project.

Delaware Main Channel Deepening, NJ, PA, & DE.—The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for construction of

this project. However, the Committee has serious concerns about

the project due to concerns raised in the General Accounting Office’s review of the project’s economic analysis. It is the Committee’s understanding that the Corps is currently conducting an entirely new economic analysis to address the concerns that were

raised in the GAO report and that this analysis will be subject to

two independent peer reviews. The Committee believes this is a

prudent action, however, until the project is shown to be technically sound, environmentally sustainable, and economically viable, the Committee directs that none of the funds provided should
34

be used to award construction contracts. Further, the Secretary is

required to provide written notification to the Committee that

these requirements have been met before funds can be used for this

purpose.

Rural Nevada, NV.—The Committee recommendation includes

$13,000,000 to continue the Rural Nevada project. Within the

funds provided, the Corps is directed to give consideration to

projects at Boulder City, Lyon County (Carson River Regional

Water System), Gerlach, Incline Village, Round Hill, Mesquite,

Moapa, Spanish Springs, Battle Mountain, Virgin Valley, LawtonVerdi, and Esmeralda County.

Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV.—The Committee has provided $45,000,000 to continue construction of the project. The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for reimbursement of

work performed by the project non-Federal sponsor in accordance

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

Holes Creek, West Carrollton, OH.—The Committee recommendation has included $2,000,000 to continue construction of the project.

Columbia River Channel Improvements, OR & WA.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for continuation of the

project.

Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration, OR & WA.—In

keeping with the Committee’s decision to not initiate any construction ‘‘new starts’’ in the fiscal year 2003 Committee recommendation, no funding has been provided.

Locks and Dams 2, 3 and 4, Monongahela River, PA.—The Committee recommendation includes $42,000,000. The Committee understands that this is considerably less than the Corps capability

for this important navigation project that contributes to the Nation’s economic security, but in a constrained budget environment,

it is an increase over the budget request.

Presque Isle Peninsula, PA.—The Committee has provided

$1,080,000 for the beach nourishment project at Presque Isle for

both annual periodic nourishment and for construction of modifications to the North Pier to facilitate the stockpiling of sand.

Charleston Harbor (Deepening/Widening), SC.—The Committee

recommendation includes $6,500,000 for continued construction of

the project.

Myrtle Beach, SC.—The Committee has provided $400,000 for

dune restoration work at Surfside Beach/Garden City authorized as

a part of the Myrtle Beach Project but not constructed at the time

of sand placement due to funding constraints.

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.—The Committee notes that Title VI of the Water Resources Development Act

of 1999, as amended, authorizes funding to pay administrative expenses, implementation of terrestrial wildlife plans, activities associated with land transferred or to be transferred, and annual expenses for operating recreational areas. Within the funds provided,

the Committee directs that not more than $1,000,000 shall be provided for administrative expenses, and that the Corps is to distribute remaining funds as directed by Title VI to the State of

South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule

Sioux Tribe.
35

Dallas Floodway Extension, Texas.—The Committee has provided $9,744,000 to continue the overall project, including the Cadillac

Heights feature, generally in accordance with the Chief of Engineers Report dated December 7, 1999.

North Padre Island, Packery Channel, Texas.—The Committee is

aware that design and environmental studies have been completed

and construction initiated to ensure the project meets provisions of

Section 556 of WRDA 99. To that end, the Committee has provided

$4,000,000 to continue construction of the project.

Red River Basin Chloride Control Project, TX, OK, AR, & LA.— The Committee has provided $2,000,000 to complete the reevaluation effort, initiate plans and specifications, and continue monitoring for the Wichita River Basin portion of the project. Further,

the Committee urges budgeting for this critical project that improves Red River water quality in four States.

Sandbridge Beach, VA.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,400,000 to continue the project. The Committee is aware

of questions concerning property ownership in the project area and

directs that the funding provided shall not be used for construction

contracts until these questions are resolved and the Committee notified of the resolution.

Columbia River Fish Mitigation, WA, OR, and ID.—The Committee recommendation includes $87,000,000 to continue efforts associated with Columbia River Fish Mitigation. This is an

$11,000,000 reduction from the budget request, but should in no

way be considered any diminution of interest or support for these

vitally important mitigation projects by the Committee. Rather it

reflects the fiscal constraints with which the Committee is faced

with. The Committee recommendation is $6,000,000 above fiscal

year 2002 funding enacted for this project.

Within the funds provided, the Committee recommendation in- cludes $300,000 for a reconnaissance level investigation of Columbia River flood control operations to determine what changes, if

any, would benefit endangered species, particularly salmon. Evaluation beyond the reconnaissance phase is subject to agency review

and congressional notification.

Mud Mountain Dam, WA.—The Committee has provided

$2,500,000 to continue work on dam safety measures and the fish

passage facility.

Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, WV, KY, & VA.—The Committee has provided

$16,900,000 for continuation of the project. Within the funds provided, the Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for Buchanan County, VA; $500,000 for Dickenson County, VA; and

$10,400,000 for Grundy, VA. Further, the Committee recommendation includes $800,000 for Kermit, Lower Mingo County, WV;

$3,800,000 for McDowell County, WV; $700,000 for Upper Mingo

County, WV; and $200,000 for Wayne County, WV.

Aquatic Plant Control Program.—The Committee has provided

$5,000,000 for the Aquatic Plant Control Program, the Nation’s

only Federally authorized research program for technology that focuses on the management of non-indigenous aquatic species. The

Committee is aware of the growing problem of invasive plant infestation around the country and supports the Corps’ and industries
36

efforts to develop new management and control technologies. The

Committee believes that success in management of these invasive

species is dependent upon the research and development activities

of this program. In an effort to maximize limited funding for eradication and harvesting, the Committee strongly recommends that

these efforts be undertaken only where a local sponsor agrees to

provide 50 percent of the cost of the work. Within the funds provided, $300,000 is for a cost shared effort with the State of South

Carolina and $400,000 is for a cost shared effort with the State of

Vermont.

Dam Safety and Seepage Stability Correction Program.—The

Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for the program.

Within the funds provided, $5,000,000 is provided for the Corps to

continue work on Waterbury Dam in Vermont.

Idaho Dam Safety, Idaho.—The Committee encourages the Corps

to provide assistance, within the authorities available to it, to the

State of Idaho as it evaluates the need for maintenance of these deteriorating structures as well as the need for increased security.

Ability to pay.—Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended, requires that all project cooperation

agreements for flood damage reduction projects, to which non-Federal cost sharing applies, will be subject to the ability of non-Federal sponsors to pay their shares. Congress included this section in

the landmark 1986 Act to ensure that as many communities as

possible would qualify for Federal flood damage reduction projects,

based more on needs and less on financial capabilities. The Secretary published eligibility criteria in 33 CFR 241, which requires

a non-Federal sponsor to meet an ability-to-pay test. However, the

Committee believes that the Secretary’s test is too restrictive and

operates to exclude most communities from qualifying for relief

under the ability-to-pay provision. For example, 33 CFR 241.4(f)

specifies that the test should be structured so that reductions in

the level of cost-sharing will be granted in ‘‘only a limited number

of cases of severe economic hardship,’’ and should depend not only

on the economic circumstances within a project area, but also on

the conditions of the state in which the project area is located.

While within the letter of the law, the Secretary’s policies do not

appear to be keeping the spirit of the law. The Secretary is directed

to report to the Appropriations Committees within 90 days on a

proposal intended to be published in the Federal Register to revise

33 CFR 241 eligibility criteria to allow a more reasonable and balanced application of the ability-to pay provision.

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

The continuing project authorities listed below, allow the Corps

great flexibility to respond to various, limited-scope, water resource

problems facing communities throughout the Nation. This program

has proven to be remarkably successful in providing a quick response to serious local problems. These problems range from flood

control and navigation to bank stabilization and environmental restoration. The Committee has provided funds in excess of the budget

request for virtually all of these accounts. As a general rule, once

a project has received funds for the initial phases of any of these

authorities, the project will continue to be funded as long as it
37

proves to be environmentally sound, technically feasible, and economically justified, as applicable. With this in mind, the Committee

has chosen to limit explicit direction of these project authorities.

The Committee is aware that there are funding requirements for

ongoing, continuing authorities projects that may not be accommodated within the funds provided for each program. It is not the

Committee’s intent that ongoing projects be terminated. If additional funds are needed to keep ongoing work in any program on

schedule, the Committee urges the Corps to reprogram the necessary funds.

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).—The Committee

has provided $20,000,000 for the Section 206 Program. Within the

amount provided, the recommendation includes:

$250,000 for the Arroyo Mocho, Ecosystem Restoration, CA, for

the preliminary restoration plan; $185,000 for the Sweetwater Ecosystem Restoration, CA, for the preliminary restoration plan;

$100,000 for a preliminary restoration plan and planning and design analysis for the St. Joseph River, South Bend, IN; $400,000

for the Chariton River/Rathbun Lake Watershed, IA, to continue

feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications; $114,000 for

the Duck Creek-Fairmont Park Wetland Restoration, IA for planning and design analysis; $250,000 for developing the plans and

specifications for the Squaw Creek, IL, Ecosystem Restoration

project; $285,000 to complete feasibility studies for the Lake Killarney, LA, restoration; $150,000 to complete the feasibility study

for the Mill Creek, Littleton Pond, MA, restoration; $161,000 for

plans and specifications and construction of the Belle Isle Piers, MI

restoration; $100,000 for feasibility studies for controlling Eurasian

watermilfoil in Clearwater Lake, MI; $250,000 to conduct a feasibility study of alternatives to control Eurasian watermilfoil in

Houghton Lake, MI; $40,000 for the Little Sugar Creek, NC, restoration; $200,000 to prepare a preliminary restoration plan for the

West Cary Stream Restoration, NC; $100,000 for the preliminary

restoration plan and planning and design analysis for the Mason’s

Point Dike, NJ; $380,000 for Bottomless Lakes, NM; $233,000 for

Jemez River, NM; $1,600,000 to initiate planning, design, and implementation of various restoration projects for Tillamook Bay, OR;

$50,000 for the preliminary restoration plan for Roaring Branch,

VT; $240,000 to complete plans and specifications and to initiate

construction for the Lake Poygan, WI restoration; $140,000 to complete feasibility studies and initiate plans and specifications for the

Menomonee River Watershed, WI; and $100,000 to initiate the

planning and design analysis for the Trinity Creek, Mequon, WI,

restoration.

Navigation Projects (Section 107).—The Committee has provided

$9,100,000 for the Section 107 Program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes:

$40,000 to complete the detailed project report for the Oyster

Point Marina, CA, project; $300,000 to complete the feasibility

study for the Short Cut Canal project in Terrebonne Parish, LA;

$125,000 to complete feasibility studies for the Rouge River, MI,

navigation project; $100,000 to complete the feasibility study for

the Tri State Commerce Park navigation Project in Iuka, MS; and
38

$100,000 to initiate studies for the navigation project at Charlestown Breachway and Ninigret Pond, RI.

Tatilik Harbor, Alaska.—Given concerns over the safety and security of port and maritime harbors in the wake of terrorist attacks

on the United States, the Committee recognizes the importance of

ensuring there is an adequate response in the case of a major oil

spill near the Valdez terminal facility in Valdez, Alaska. The Committee also recognizes that nearly 20 percent of the domestic oil

supply of the United States flows via tanker from Valdez terminal

to the Lower 48 States, and that a terrorist attack on the facility,

or a natural or man-made disaster around the terminal could temporarily suspend the flow of Alaska oil to the Lower 48 market.

Further the Committee acknowledges that Tatitlik, Alaska is strategically located and designated as the primary alternate response

site to stage an oil spill clean up effort if the port of Valdez is inaccessible. To this end, the Committee authorizes and directs the

Corps of Engineers to take whatever steps necessary with existing

funds authorized and appropriated under section 107 to begin and

finalize construction of a small boat harbor at Tatitlik, Alaska.

Navigation Mitigation Projects (Section 111).—The Committee

has provided $2,000,000 for the Section 111 Program. Within the

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $1,220,000 to initiate construction of the Saco River and Camp

Ellis Beach, ME project to mitigate shoreline damages caused by

the Federal navigation project.

Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment (Section 1135).—The Committee has provided $23,000,000 for the Section 1135 Program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes:

$130,000 for feasibility studies for restoration of Ditch 28, Mis- sissippi County, AR; $25,000 for feasibility studies for modifications

to Big Creek Spilllway, IA; $90,000 to complete the planning design

analysis for the Honey Creek Wetlands project in IA; $25,000 for

the Trail Creek, IN, for the planning and design analysis for a sea

lamprey barrier; $30,000 for the Black Mallard Creek, MI, for the

planning and design analysis for a sea lamprey barrier; $100,000

to complete the feasibility studies for the project at Hennepin

Marsh, MI; $70,000 for the planning and design analysis for a sea

lamprey barrier at Rapid River, Delta County, MI; $451,000 to

complete the analysis and for construction of the Lemay Wetlands

Restoration, MO; $740,000 to complete feasibility studies and plans

and specifications for the Pine Mountain Creek, (Cohansey River),

NJ; project; $150,000 to complete feasibility studies of the Middle

Harbor Restoration at East Harbor State Park, Marblehead, OH;

$450,000 for construction of the Boyd’s Marsh restoration project in

Portsmouth, RI; and $1,351,000 for construction of Phase I of

Drakes Creek, Hendersonville, TN project and initiation of Phase

II.

Emergency Streambank & Shoreline Protection Projects (Section

14).—The Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the Section 14

Program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes:

$185,000 for construction of the Baker Canal, East Baton Rouge,

LA project; $100,000 for the planning and design analysis for the
39

Bell Isle South Shore, Detroit, MI project; $800,000 for completion

of design and construction of the Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit,

MI, project; $500,000 to initiate construction on the St. Cloud, MN

project; $687,000 for I–40 Rio Puerco, NM; $167,000 Paseo del

Norte, NM; $415,000 for Unamed Arroy, NM; and $600,000 for construction of the Cincinnati Waterworks, Hamilton County, OH

project.

Flood Control Projects (Section 205).—The Committee has provided $45,000,000 for the Section 205 Program. Within the amount

provided, the recommendation includes:

$100,000 for feasibility studies of flooding problems at Grubbs,

AR; $200,000 for feasibility studies of flood protection measures for

the Santa Venetia Flood Control Zone 7, CA; $4,500,000 to continue construction of the project for Van Bibber Creek at Arvada,

CO; $100,000 to complete feasibility studies and initiate plans and

specifications for Mosquito Creek at Council Bluffs, IA; $100,000 to

initiate feasibility studies of flooding problems along the Cedar

River in Waverly, IA; $1,000,000 to investigate flooding problems

along Bayou Choupique in the vicinity of the Chitimacha Reservation in St. Mary Parish, LA; $1,000,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate construction for the Braithwaite Park,

Plaquemines Parish, LA, project; $300,000 to complete plans and

specifications and initiate construction for the Dawson, MN,

project; $100,000 to continue feasibility studies of flooding problems

at Jordan, MN; $100,000 to initiate feasibility studies for Tchula

Lake in Tchula, MS; $2,000,000 for continued construction of the

Wahpeton, ND, flood control project. The Committee is aware of

the close hydraulic connection between this project and the

Breckenridge, NM, project and encourages the Corps to coordinate

these projects closely; $1,600,000 for Little Puerco Wash, Gallup,

NM; $3,000,000 to complete plans and specifications for the nonstructural flood damage reduction project for Little Duck Creek,

Cincinnati and Fairfax, OH; $100,000 for plans and specifications

for the Beaver Creek, Bristol TN and VA, project; and $100,000 for

feasibility studies for a flood damage reduction project along Richland Creek, Nashville, TN.

Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material (Section 204).—The Committee has provided $1,500,000 for the Section 204 Program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes $25,000 to

initiate the feasibility phase for the Blackhawk Bottoms, Des

Moines County, IA, project.

Shoreline Protection Projects (Section 103).—The Committee has

provided $5,000,000 for the Section 103 Program. Within the

amount provided, the recommendation includes $100,000 to complete feasibility and initiate plans and specifications for the Luna

Pier, MI, project and $250,000 to complete design and plans and

specifications for the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Hampton, VA,

project.
40

FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ARKANSAS, IL- LINOIS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, AND TEN- NESSEE

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $345,992,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 280,671,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 337,937,000

This appropriation funds planning, construction, and operation

and maintenance activities associated with water resource projects

located in the lower Mississippi River Valley from Cape Girardeau,

Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico.

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA ............................................................................................ 420 420

BAYOU METO BASIN, AR ..................................................................................................... .......................... 1,633

SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR ................................................................................................. .......................... 900

DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA ................................................................................... 780 780

SPRING BAYOU, LA .............................................................................................................. 505 505

COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS .................................................. 180 180

GERMANTOWN, TN ............................................................................................................... 345 345

MEMPHIS METRO AREA, TN AND MS .................................................................................. 25 ..........................

MILLINGTON AND VICINITY, TN ............................................................................................ 150 150

MORGANZA TO THE GULF, LA ............................................................................................. 2,880 2,880

WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN ................................................................................................. 123 123

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA ........................................................................... 600 600

SUBTOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................. 6,008 7,936

CONSTRUCTION

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN ................................................ 36,690 36,690

FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH (EIGHT MILE CREEK), AR ............................................ 750 750

HELENA AND VICINITY, AR .................................................................................................. 660 660

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN ............................................ 42,360 49,885

ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO ......................................................................................... 1,970 4,200

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ................................................................... 7,010 7,010

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ..................................................................................................... 18,873 19,173

LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE, LA ....................................................................... 2,449 2,449

MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, LA AND MS ............................................ 25 25

MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA .......................................................................................... 3,500 3,500

HORN LAKE CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES (INCL COW PEN CREEK), MS ................................. 300 300

YAZOO BASIN ....................................................................................................................... (10,550) (44,000)

BACKWATER PUMP, MS .............................................................................................. 250 11,000

BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS ...................................................................................... 200 1,200

DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL, MS ................................................................. .......................... 19,500

MAIN STEM, MS .......................................................................................................... 25 25

REFORMULATION UNIT, MS ........................................................................................ 25 25

TRIBUTARIES, MS ....................................................................................................... 200 200

UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS .................................................................................... 9,850 12,050

ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO ........................................................ 100 1,000

NONCONNAH CREEK, TN AND MS ....................................................................................... 605 1,605

WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN ................................................................................... 100 100

SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................... 125,942 171,347

MAINTENANCE

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN ................................................ 66,465 66,465

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ............................................................................ 490 490
41

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ............................................................................ 441 441

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR ...................................................................... 105 105

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR ...................................................................... 135 135

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN ............................................ 7,185 8,130

ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO ......................................................................................... 10,580 11,180

TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND LA ................................................. 2,463 3,713

WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR ............................................................................................ 1,250 1,250

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ............................................................................. 50 50

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ............................................................................ 35 35

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ................................................................... 2,095 2,095

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ..................................................................................................... 12,512 14,320

BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA ....................................................................... 210 210

BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA ........................................................................... 75 75

BONNET CARRE, LA ............................................................................................................. 3,105 3,105

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ............................................................................ 510 510

LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA ................................................................... 125 2,375

MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA .......................................................................................... 860 860

OLD RIVER, LA .................................................................................................................... 11,520 11,520

TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA ...................................................................... 3,145 3,145

GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS ................................................................................................... 340 340

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ........................................................................... 286 286

VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS .................................................................................................... 330 330

YAZOO BASIN ....................................................................................................................... (26,910) (37,470)

ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ................................................................................................ 5,380 8,380

BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS ...................................................................................... 115 3,115

ENID LAKE, MS ........................................................................................................... 4,920 5,660

GREENWOOD, MS ....................................................................................................... 825 825

GRENADA LAKE, MS ................................................................................................... 5,700 6,120

MAIN STEM, MS .......................................................................................................... 1,265 1,265

SARDIS LAKE, MS ....................................................................................................... 5,905 8,905

TRIBUTARIES, MS ....................................................................................................... 1,265 1,265

WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS ....................................................................... 450 450

YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ................................................................................... 280 680

YAZOO CITY, MS ......................................................................................................... 805 805

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ........................................................................... 167 167

WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO ....................................................................................................... 6,730 6,730

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ............................................................................ 96 96

MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN ........................................................................... 1,750 1,750

FACILITY PROTECTION ......................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000

MAPPING .............................................................................................................................. 1,170 1,170

SUBTOTAL, MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................... 162,135 179,548

REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ..................................................... ¥13,085 ¥21,474

ADJUSTMENT FOR ACTUAL RETIREMENT ACCRUALS ........................................................... ¥329 ..........................

TOTAL, FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES .......................... 280,671 337,937

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
42

work in order to maximize the public benefit within the Mississippi

River and Tributaries program.

Construction

Bayou Meto Basin, AR.—The Committee has included $1,633,000

to complete preconstruction engineering and design.

Channel Improvement, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, & TN.—The

Committee recommendation includes $36,690,000 for continuation

of construction of various bank stabilization and river training

measures to ensure an efficient flood control channel as well as to

provide a safe and reliable navigation alignment.

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

The Committee has provided $49,885,000 for continued construction of the various elements of the Mississippi River Levee Project.

Within the funds provided, $500,000 is provided to continue engineering and design of the Lower Mississippi River Museum and Interpretive Site.

Yazoo Basin, Demonstration Erosion Control, MS.—The Committee recommendation includes $19,500,000 to continue construction of the Demonstration Erosion Control Project, a joint effort of

the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation

Service. The Committee expects the Corps to continue design work,

acquire real estate, monitor results for all watersheds, and initiate

continuing contracts as required for completion of the total program.

Yazoo Basin, Yazoo Backwater Pumping Plant, MS.—The Committee recommendation includes $11,000,000 to complete design,

continue real estate activities and to initiate the pump supply contract.

Maintenance

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

The Committee recommendation includes $8,130,000 and includes

$945,000 to provide gravel surfacing to selected locations on levee

roads in Mississippi.

St. Francis River and Tributaries, AR & MO.—An additional

$600,000 has been provided above the budget request for maintenance items in Missouri.

Atchafalaya Basin, LA.—An additional $1,808,000 has been provided above the budget request for dewatering and major lock repairs to Berwick Lock.

Lower Red River, South Bank Levees, LA.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,375,000 for completion of the Bayou

Rapides Pumping Plant and to continue routine operation and

maintenance activities of the project.

Yazoo Basin, (Bogue Phalia), Big Sunflower River, MS.—The

Committee has provided $3,000,000 above the budget request to

continue channel maintenance items.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $1,874,803,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 1,913,760,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,956,182,000
43

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 .......................................................... 500 500

ALABAMA-COOSA RIVER, AL .................................................................................................... 2,974 3,174

BAYOU LA BATRE, AL .............................................................................................................. 2,000 2,000

BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ...................................................................... 24,201 24,201

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL ...................................................................................... 4,963 4,963

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL ................................................................................ 100 100

MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ DANNELLY LA .......................................... 7,094 7,644

MOBILE HARBOR, AL ............................................................................................................... 18,610 20,110

PERIDO PASS CHANNEL, AL .................................................................................................... ........................ 1,200

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL ......................................................................................... 350 350

ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL ................................................................................... 5,558 5,858

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL ............................................................................. 100 100

TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS .................................................................. 23,083 26,800

WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA ................................................................... 6,912 6,912

ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK ....................................................................................................... 3,616 4,200

CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK ......................................................................................................... 2,889 2,889

COOK INLET NAVIGATION CHANNEL, AK .................................................................................. ........................ 1,000

DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK ....................................................................................................... 459 684

HOMER HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................... 363 488

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK ................................................................................ 40 40

KETCHIKAN HARBOR, BAR POINT, AK ..................................................................................... 500 500

ST HERMAN (KODIAK) HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................ ........................ 750

NAKNEK RIVER, AK .................................................................................................................. 215 215

NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................................... 232 232

NOME HARBOR, AK .................................................................................................................. 410 410

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK ......................................................................................... 543 543

ST PAUL HARBOR, AK .............................................................................................................. 75 75

ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ ...................................................................................................................... 1,282 1,282

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ ................................................................................ 79 79

PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ .......................................................................................................... 1,269 1,269

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ ............................................................................ 32 32

WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ ...................................................................................................... 168 168

ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR .................................................................................................................... 5,064 5,064

BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR ................................................................................. 9,444 9,444

BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ...................................................................................................... 1,162 1,162

BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR .......................................................................................................... 5,675 5,675

DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR .......................................................................................... 5,699 5,699

DEGRAY LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................... 4,620 4,620

DEQUEEN LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................. 931 931

DIERKS LAKE, AR ..................................................................................................................... 959 959

GILLHAM LAKE, AR .................................................................................................................. 861 861

GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR ........................................................................................................ 5,445 5,445

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................................................ 23 340

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................................................ 147 147

MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR ............................................. 23,925 25,925

MILLWOOD LAKE, AR ............................................................................................................... 1,257 1,257

NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR ...................................................................................... 7,440 7,440

NIMROD LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................... 1,409 1,409

NORFORK LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................. 4,368 4,368

OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR ............................................................................................................ 21 610

OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA ........................................................................... 6,491 8,325
44

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR .............................................................................. 4,152 4,152

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR ......................................................................................... 6 6

WHITE RIVER, AR ..................................................................................................................... 195 2,200

YELLOW BEND PORT, AR ......................................................................................................... 10 147

CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA .......................................................................................................... 2,034 2,034

BODEGA BAY, CA ..................................................................................................................... 1,750 1,750

BUCHANAN DAM, H V EASTMAN LAKE, CA ............................................................................. 1,796 1,796

CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA ............................................................................................. 3,622 3,622

COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA ........................................................................ 3,334 3,334

DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA ........................................................ 4,338 4,338

FARMINGTON DAM, CA ............................................................................................................ 308 308

HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA ........................................................................................... 1,751 1,751

HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA ......................................................................................... 3,426 4,926

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA ................................................................................ 1,130 1,130

ISABELLA LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................. 1,227 1,227

LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBOR MODEL, CA .................................................................. 170 170

LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBORS, CA ............................................................................ 320 320

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA .......................................................................... 4,424 7,584

MARINA DEL REY, CA .............................................................................................................. 60 60

MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA ............................................................................................. 313 313

MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA .......................................................................................................... 259 259

MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA ....................................................................................................... 1,280 1,280

MOSS LANDING HARBOR, CA .................................................................................................. ........................ 1,125

NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA ............................................................................................................. 2,006 2,006

NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA ............................................................... 1,651 1,651

NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................... 120 120

OAKLAND HARBOR, CA ............................................................................................................ 11,204 11,204

OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA ......................................................................................................... 1,240 1,240

PETALUMA RIVER, CA .............................................................................................................. ........................ 1,000

PINE FLAT LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................ 2,500 2,500

PORT HUENEME, CA ................................................................................................................ 60 60

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA ......................................................................................... 1,148 1,148

RICHMOND HARBOR, CA ......................................................................................................... 4,381 4,381

SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA ........................................................................ 2,189 2,189

SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA ........................................... 1,271 1,271

SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA ............................................................. 145 145

SAN DIEGO HARBOR, CA ......................................................................................................... 150 150

SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY, CA .............................................................................. 60 60

SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA ........................................................... 1,181 1,181

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY (DRIFT REMOVAL), CA ................................................... 2,072 2,072

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................. 1,920 1,920

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA ......................................................................................................... 2,122 2,872

SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA .................................................................................................. 3,395 3,395

SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................ 1,800 1,800

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA ............................................................................ 1,415 1,415

SUCCESS LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................. 1,992 1,992

SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA ...................................................................................................... 2,815 4,000

TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA ........................................................................................ 1,770 1,770

VENTURA HARBOR, CA ............................................................................................................ 2,590 2,590

YUBA RIVER, CA ...................................................................................................................... 63 63

COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO ........................................................................................................... 315 315

CHATFIELD LAKE, CO ............................................................................................................... 1,225 1,725

CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO ....................................................................................................... 894 1,394

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO ............................................................................... 136 136

JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO ................................................................................................ 2,148 2,148

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO ............................................................................ 242 242

TRINIDAD LAKE, CO ................................................................................................................. 1,309 1,809
45

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT ............................................................................................................ 364 364

COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT .................................................................................................. 506 506

HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT ..................................................................................................... 284 284

HOP BROOK LAKE, CT ............................................................................................................. 906 906

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT ................................................................................ 35 35

MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT ................................................................................................ 447 447

NEW HAVEN HARBOR, CT ........................................................................................................ 4,546 4,546

NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT ................................................................................................ 337 337

NORWALK HARBOR, CT ............................................................................................................ ........................ 200

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT ......................................................................................... 1,185 1,185

STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT ..................................................................................... 349 349

THOMASTON DAM, CT .............................................................................................................. 565 565

TREATMENT OF MATERIAL FROM LONG ISLAND SOUND ......................................................... ........................ 250

WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT ..................................................................................................... 506 506

DELAWARE

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, D ...................................... 12,853 12,853

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, D ...................................... 45 45

MISPILLION RIVER, DE ............................................................................................................. 275 275

MURDERKILL RIVER, DE .......................................................................................................... 310 310

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE ......................................................................................... 50 50

WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE ...................................................................................................... 4,966 4,966

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC ............................................................................... 7 7

POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS (DRIFT REMOVAL), DC .................................................... 1,110 1,110

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC ........................................................................................ 33 33

WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC ..................................................................................................... 50 50

FLORIDA

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ......................................................................................................... 3,960 3,960

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL .................................................................................. 9,347 9,347

FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL ....................................................................................................... 3,030 3,030

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL ................................................................................ 200 200

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL ...................................................... 322 2,500

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ..................................................................................................... 4,040 4,040

JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA ........................................ 6,050 6,050

MANATEE HARBOR, FL ............................................................................................................. 2,780 2,780

MIAMI HARBOR, FL .................................................................................................................. 1,508 1,508

MIAMI RIVER, FL ...................................................................................................................... 5,550 5,550

OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL .................................................................................................. 2,695 2,695

PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL ...................................................................................................... 2,018 2,018

PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL ...................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000

PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL ............................................................................................. 2,350 2,350

PORT ST JOE HARBOR, FL ....................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL ......................................................................................... 780 780

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL ....................................................................................... 3,911 3,911

TAMPA HARBOR, FL ................................................................................................................. 8,559 8,559

GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA .............................................................................................................. 6,456 6,456

APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL & ........................................... 1,444 4,709

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA ............................................................................... 178 2,500

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA ....................................................................................................... 3,993 3,993

BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA ......................................................................... 8,060 8,060

CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA ................................................................................................. 9,958 9,958

HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC .................................................................................................. 12,896 12,896

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA ................................................................................ 41 41

J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC ................................................................................. 13,553 13,553

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC ................................................................ 7,548 7,548
46

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA .......................................................................................................... 12,540 12,540

SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA ................................................................................. 134 134

WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL ............................................................................... 5,587 5,587

HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI .................................................................................................. 354 354

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI ................................................................................. 275 275

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI .......................................................................................... 544 544

IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID ............................................................................................................ 1,677 1,677

DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID .................................................................................... 3,951 3,951

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID ................................................................................. 81 81

LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID ............................................................................................................. 1,488 1,488

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID ............................................................................. 371 371

ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN ............................................................................. 3,190 3,190

CARLYLE LAKE, IL .................................................................................................................... 4,856 4,856

CHICAGO HARBOR, IL .............................................................................................................. 2,616 2,616

CHICAGO RIVER, IL .................................................................................................................. 362 362

FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL ................................................................................................. 204 204

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND IN .................................................................... 25,154 25,154

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND IN .................................................................... 1,683 1,683

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ................................................................................. 428 428

KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL ........................................................................................... 1,386 1,386

LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL ............................................................................................... 1,037 1,037

LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL ............................................................................................................. 5,073 5,073

MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION) ........................................ 41,820 42,320

MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION) ........................................ 15,443 15,443

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL .......................................................................................... 30 30

REND LAKE, IL ......................................................................................................................... 4,520 4,520

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL .......................................................... 111 111

WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL ........................................................................................................... 1,270 1,270

INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN .............................................................................................................. 732 732

BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN ............................................................................................. 3,427 3,427

BURNS WATERWAY SMALL BOAT HARBOR, IN ........................................................................ 1,606 1,606

CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN ............................................................................................................ 634 634

CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN ..................................................................................................... 704 704

INDIANA HARBOR, IN ............................................................................................................... 64 64

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN ................................................................................. 168 168

J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN .................................................................................................... 1,108 1,108

MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN ................................................................................................... 1,132 1,132

MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN .......................................................................................................... 853 853

MONROE LAKE, IN ................................................................................................................... 759 759

PATOKA LAKE, IN ..................................................................................................................... 727 727

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN .......................................................................................... 55 55

SALAMONIE LAKE, IN ............................................................................................................... 649 649

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN ......................................................... 130 130

IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA .............................................................................................................. 3,097 3,097

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA ................................................................................. 78 78

MISSOURI RIVER-KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA .................................................... 147 147

MISSOURI RIVER-RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS AND MO ........................................................ 5,613 6,113

MISSOURI RIVER-SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA AND NE ............................................................... 3,075 3,075

RATHBUN LAKE, IA .................................................................................................................. 2,189 2,189

RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA .............................................................................. 3,609 4,409

SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA ............................................................................................................. 4,088 4,088
47

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

KANSAS

CLINTON LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................... 1,934 2,300

COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS ...................................................................................................... 1,491 1,991

EL DORADO LAKE, KS .............................................................................................................. 460 460

ELK CITY LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................. 552 552

FALL RIVER LAKE, KS .............................................................................................................. 1,204 1,204

HILLSDALE LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................ 752 752

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS ................................................................................ 48 48

JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS ............................................................................ 1,144 1,144

KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS ............................................................................................................... 1,521 1,521

MARION LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................... 1,621 1,621

MELVERN LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................. 2,034 2,034

MILFORD LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................. 1,997 1,997

PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS ................................................................................... 1,052 1,052

PERRY LAKE, KS ...................................................................................................................... 2,111 2,111

POMONA LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................... 1,897 1,897

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS ............................................................................ 194 194

TORONTO LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................. 424 424

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS ......................................................................................................... 2,106 2,106

WILSON LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................... 1,846 1,846

KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN .................................................................... 8,171 8,171

BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY ........................................................................................................ 2,074 2,074

BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY ......................................................................................................... 35 1,135

BUCKHORN LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................... 1,703 1,703

CARR CREEK LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................ 1,343 1,343

CAVE RUN LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................ 833 833

DEWEY LAKE, KY ..................................................................................................................... 1,555 1,555

ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY .................................................................................... 19 19

FISHTRAP LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................. 1,927 1,927

GRAYSON LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................. 1,259 1,259

GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY ........................................................................................... 1,081 1,081

GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY ........................................................................................................... 1,769 1,769

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................................................ 181 181

KENTUCKY RIVER, KY .............................................................................................................. 400 400

LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY ......................................................................................................... 1,542 1,542

LICKING RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY ............................................................................. 28 28

MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY ......................................................................................................... 623 623

MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY ..................................................................... 52 52

NOLIN LAKE, KY ....................................................................................................................... 1,992 1,992

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN AND OH ............................................................... 30,969 30,969

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN AND OH ......................................................... 5,577 5,577

PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................. 982 982

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY ......................................................................................... 6 6

ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY .......................................................................................................... 2,120 2,120

TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY .......................................................................................................... 913 913

WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY ........................................................................... 7,162 8,362

YATESVILLE LAKE, KY .............................................................................................................. 1,156 1,156

LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L ........................................ 14,681 15,681

BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA ............................................................................................. ........................ 2,000

BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA ............................................................................................. 794 794

BAYOU LACOMBE, LA .............................................................................................................. ........................ 315

BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA .................................................. 1,085 1,085

BAYOU PIERRE, LA .................................................................................................................. 40 40

BAYOU SEGNETTE, LA .............................................................................................................. ........................ 740

BAYOU TECHE, LA ................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,000

CADDO LAKE, LA ...................................................................................................................... 166 166

CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ............................................................................................ 15,852 15,852
48

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA ......................................................................................................... 1,443 1,443

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA ...................................................................................... 19,129 19,500

HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA .............................................................................................. 3,223 3,223

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................................................ 772 772

J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA .................................................................................... 7,297 12,224

LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA ............................................................................................. 20 441

MADISON PARISH PORT, LA ..................................................................................................... 5 105

MERMENTAU RIVER, LA ........................................................................................................... 1,280 1,280

MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA .......................................................................... 80 80

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO ............................................... 57,482 57,482

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA .................................................................................... 13,061 13,061

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA ......................................................................................... 80 80

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA ....................................................................................... 2,000 2,000

WALLACE LAKE, LA .................................................................................................................. 180 180

WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA .......................................................................... ........................ 280

MAINE

BELFAST HARBOR, ME ............................................................................................................. 1,305 1,505

CAMDEN HARBOR MAINTENANCE DREDGING .......................................................................... ........................ 470

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME ............................................................................... 16 16

NARRAGUAGUS RIVER, ME ...................................................................................................... ........................ 50

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME ........................................................................................ 1,720 1,720

ROCKLAND HARBOR, ME ......................................................................................................... 1,110 1,110

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME ........................................................ 17 17

MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), MD .......................................................................... 500 500

BALTIMORE HARBOR (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) .......................................... 663 663

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD ............................................................ 18,444 18,444

CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV .................................................................................. 168 168

FISHING CREEK, MD ................................................................................................................ ........................ 492

HONGA RIVER AND TAR BAY, MD ........................................................................................... 930 1,330

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD ............................................................................... 34 34

JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV ............................................................................... 1,653 1,653

OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD ............................................... 1,627 1,627

POCOMOKE RIVER, MD ............................................................................................................ 619 619

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD ........................................................................................ 323 323

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD ........................................................................... 91 91

TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, MD .................................................................................................... 180 180

TWICH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE RIVER, MD ...................................................................... ........................ 950

WICOMICO RIVER, MD ............................................................................................................. 604 2,000

MASSACHUSETTS

AUNT LYDIA’S COVE, CHATHAM, MA ....................................................................................... 418 418

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA ........................................................................................................... 533 533

BIRCH HILL DAM, MA .............................................................................................................. 498 498

BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA .......................................................................................................... 431 431

CAPE COD CANAL, MA ............................................................................................................. 7,659 7,659

CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA ......................................................... 260 260

CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA ...................................................................................................... 174 174

CUTTYHUNK HARBOR, MA ....................................................................................................... 174 174

EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA ..................................................................................................... 313 313

GREEN HARBOR, MA ............................................................................................................... 418 418

HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA ..................................................................................................... 416 416

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA ............................................................................... 112 112

KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA ............................................................................................................ 483 483

LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................................................. 441 441

NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER ........................................ 322 322

PLYMOUTH HARBOR, MA ......................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA ........................................................................................ 1,197 1,197

SCITUATE HARBOR, MA ........................................................................................................... 2,950 2,950

TULLY LAKE, MA ...................................................................................................................... 486 486
49

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

WEST HILL DAM, MA ................................................................................................................ 657 657

WESTVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................................................... 406 406

MICHIGAN

ALPENA HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................... 222 222

ARCADIA HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................. 107 107

BAY PORT HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................... 299 299

BLACK RIVER HARBOR, MI ...................................................................................................... 12 12

BLACK RIVER, PORT HURON, MI ............................................................................................. 14 500

CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI ........................................................................................... 128 128

CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI ....................................................................................................... 124 124

CHEBOYGAN HARBOR, MI ....................................................................................................... 12 12

CLINTON RIVER, MI ................................................................................................................. 10 10

DETROIT RIVER, MI .................................................................................................................. 3,192 3,192

FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI ......................................................................................................... 177 177

GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI .................................................................................................... 1,250 1,250

GRAND TRAVERSE BAY HARBOR, MI ...................................................................................... 227 227

HOLLAND HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................. 505 505

INLAND ROUTE, MI .................................................................................................................. 33 33

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI ................................................................................ 154 154

KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI ..................................................................................................... 450 450

LAC LA BELLE, MI ................................................................................................................... 102 102

LELAND HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................... 174 174

LEXINGTON HARBOR, MI .......................................................................................................... 704 704

LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................ 462 462

LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI ......................................................................................................... 95 95

MANISTEE HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................... 247 247

MANISTIQUE HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................ 50 50

MARQUETTE HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................ 193 193

MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND WI .......................................................................................... 281 281

MONROE HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................. 792 792

MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI ......................................................................................................... 387 387

NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI ..................................................................................................... 156 156

ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI ....................................................................................................... 1,745 1,745

PENTWATER HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................ 25 25

PORT SANILAC HARBOR, MI .................................................................................................... 501 501

PORTAGE LAKE HARBOR, MI ................................................................................................... 21 21

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI ......................................................................................... 234 234

ROUGE RIVER, MI .................................................................................................................... 933 933

SAGINAW RIVER, MI ................................................................................................................. 2,351 2,351

SAUGATUCK HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................ 2,803 2,803

SEBEWAING RIVER (ICE JAM REMOVAL), MI ........................................................................... 12 12

SOUTH HAVEN HARBOR, MI ..................................................................................................... 54 54

ST CLAIR RIVER, MI ................................................................................................................ 694 694

ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI .......................................................................................................... 996 996

ST MARYS RIVER, MI ............................................................................................................... 18,181 18,181

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI ......................................................... 2,507 2,507

WHITE LAKE HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................ 67 67

MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD .................................................................. 274 274

DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI .............................................................................. 4,506 4,506

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN ............................................................................... 207 207

LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ..................................................................... 1,031 1,031

MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ........................................................................................................... 130 130

MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION) ........................................ 45,405 45,405

ORWELL LAKE, MN ................................................................................................................... 481 481

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN ........................................................................................ 72 72

RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN ..................................................................................................... 126 126

RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN .................................................... 4,513 4,513

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN ....................................................... 306 306

TWO HARBORS, MN ................................................................................................................. 167 167
50

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

MISSISSIPPI

BILOXI HARBOR ....................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,500

CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS ............................................................................................... 8 113

EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS ....................................................................................... 170 170

GULFPORT HARBOR, MS .......................................................................................................... 2,002 3,402

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ............................................................................... 7 7

MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS ................................................................................................. 25 106

OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS .............................................................................................................. 1,618 1,618

PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ..................................................................................................... 3,401 5,001

PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA ....................................................................................................... 288 288

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS ........................................................................................ 5 5

ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS .......................................................................................................... 15 613

WOLF AND JORDAN RIVERS ..................................................................................................... ........................ 1,500

YAZOO RIVER, MS ................................................................................................................... 15 105

MISSOURI

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO .............................................................................................. 21 240

CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO ......................................................... 5,959 5,959

CLEARWATER LAKE, MO .......................................................................................................... 1,860 1,860

HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO ....................................................................... 10,253 10,253

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ............................................................................... 1,043 1,043

LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO ............................................................................................... 935 935

LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO ........................................................................................................ 980 980

MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO ........................................ 13,878 14,378

NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO ..................................................................................................... 16 290

POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO .................................................................................................. 2,168 2,168

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO ........................................................................................ 6 6

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO ........................................................................... 296 296

SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MO ........................................................................................... ........................ 400

SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO ............................................................................................................. 1,070 1,070

STOCKTON LAKE, MO ............................................................................................................... 4,268 4,268

TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO ........................................................................................................... 6,261 6,261

UNION LAKE, MO ..................................................................................................................... 10 10

MONTANA

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT .................................................................................................. 7,354 7,354

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT ............................................................................... 40 40

LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT ........................................................................................ 1,505 1,505

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT ............................................................................ 100 100

NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE AND SD .................................................... 7,199 7,199

HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE ..................................................................................................... 2,025 2,025

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE ................................................................................ 78 78

MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL, NE, IA, KS, MO ............................................. 500 500

MISSOURI RIVER BASIN COLLABORATIVE WATER PLANNING (NWO ........................................ 45 45

PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, NE .................................................................... 669 669

SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE ........................................................................................ 925 925

NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV ................................................................................ 39 39

MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA ........................................................................................... 556 556

PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV ............................................................................. 194 194

NEW HAMPSHIRE

BLACKWATER DAM, NH ............................................................................................................ 454 454

COCHECO RIVER, NH ............................................................................................................... 50 500

EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH ............................................................................................. 490 490

FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH ...................................................................................................... 496 496

HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH ............................................................................................. 1,074 1,074

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH ............................................................................... 11 11
51

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

LITTLE HARBOR, NH ................................................................................................................ 200 200

OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH ......................................................................................................... 577 577

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH ........................................................................................ 273 273

SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH ................................................................................................... 575 575

NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ............................................................................................................... 1,750 1,750

COLD SPRING INLET, NJ .......................................................................................................... 425 425

DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ .......................................................................................... 20 20

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA AND DE ............................................ 19,245 19,745

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ ......................................................... 3,470 3,470

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ ................................................................................ 65 65

NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ .......................................................................... 2,586 2,586

NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ .......................................................... 75 75

PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ ...................................................................... 425 425

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ ......................................................................................... 782 782

RARITAN RIVER, NJ .................................................................................................................. 80 80

SHARK RIVER, NJ ..................................................................................................................... 590 590

NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM ................................................................................................................... 1,949 3,449

COCHITI LAKE, NM ................................................................................................................... 2,124 2,124

CONCHAS LAKE, NM ................................................................................................................ 2,032 2,032

GALISTEO DAM, NM ................................................................................................................. 510 510

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM ............................................................................... 175 175

JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM ....................................................................................................... 497 1,000

SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM ........................................................................................... 1,400 1,400

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM ........................................................................... 112 112

TWO RIVERS DAM, NM ............................................................................................................ 369 369

UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL, NM .......................................................... 55 55

NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY ................................................................................................................... 457 457

ARKPORT DAM, NY .................................................................................................................. 246 246

BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY ......................................................... 1,041 1,041

BUFFALO HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................................. 643 643

BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY ..................................................................................................... 300 300

CAPE VINCENT HARBOR, NY ................................................................................................... 11 11

CATTARAUGUS CREEK HARBOR, NY ........................................................................................ 50 50

DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................................. 480 480

EAST RIVER, NY ....................................................................................................................... 80 80

EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY .................................................................................................... 2,100 2,100

EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY ........................................................................................................... 501 501

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY ................................................................................ 175 175

FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY .............................................................................................. 80 80

GLEN COVE CREEK, NY ........................................................................................................... 80 80

GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY ........................................................................................................... 80 80

HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY ................................................................................................. 80 80

HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT) ................................................................................................... 2,245 2,245

HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C) ...................................................................................................... 3,170 3,170

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY ................................................................................ 639 639

IRONDEQUOIT BAY HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................. 10 10

JAMAICA BAY, NY .................................................................................................................... 1,420 1,420

JONES INLET, NY ..................................................................................................................... 100 100

LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY .................................................................................................. 80 80

LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY ........................................................................ 1,284 1,284

MATTITUCK HARBOR, NY ......................................................................................................... 80 80

MORICHES INLET, NY .............................................................................................................. 600 600

MT MORRIS LAKE, NY .............................................................................................................. 2,040 2,040

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY ........................................................................ 3,835 3,835

NEW YORK HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), NY AND NJ ............................................................... 5,300 5,300

NEW YORK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) ........................................... 750 750
52

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY .......................................................................................................... 3,720 3,720

OAK ORCHARD HARBOR, NY ................................................................................................... 15 15

OLCOTT HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................................... 10 10

PLATTSBURGH HARBOR, NY .................................................................................................... 590 590

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY ......................................................................................... 2,595 2,595

ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY ....................................................................................................... 35 35

SAG HARBOR, NY .................................................................................................................... 2,500 2,500

SHINNECOCK INLET, NY ........................................................................................................... 1,346 1,346

SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY ........................................................ 760 760

STURGEON POINT HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................... 20 20

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY ........................................................ 595 595

WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY ....................................................................................................... 705 705

WILSON HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................................... 20 20

NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC .............................................................................. 806 4,000

B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC ................................................................................ 1,829 1,829

BEAUFORT HARBOR, NC .......................................................................................................... 400 400

BOGUE INLET AND CHANNEL, NC ........................................................................................... 867 867

CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC ........................................................................... 587 587

CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC ................................................................................................... 1,060 1,060

FALLS LAKE, NC ....................................................................................................................... 2,281 2,281

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC ............................................................................... 32 32

LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC ............................................................................................... 455 455

MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC ........................................................................................... 4,732 4,732

MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC .......................................................... 45 45

MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC ................................................................................................ 5,100 5,400

NEW RIVER INLET, NC ............................................................................................................. 815 815

NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC ......................................................... 640 640

PAMLICO AND TAR RIVERS, NC ............................................................................................... 139 139

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC ........................................................................................ 73 73

ROANOKE RIVER, NC ............................................................................................................... 100 100

W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC ............................................................................. 3,480 3,480

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ...................................................................................................... 8,213 8,213

NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN-HALEY LAKE, ND ...................................................................................................... 177 177

GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND .................................................................................. 11,939 12,239

HOMME LAKE, ND .................................................................................................................... 281 281

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND ............................................................................... 15 15

LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND ............................................................................ 1,354 1,354

PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ................................................................................................................ 395 395

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND ............................................................................ 68 68

SOURIS RIVER, ND .................................................................................................................. 370 370

OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................... 775 775

ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................ 1,915 1,915

BERLIN LAKE, OH .................................................................................................................... 1,857 1,857

CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH ....................................................................................................... 1,234 1,234

CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH ................................................................................................ 773 773

CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................ 3,520 3,520

CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH ......................................................................................................... 585 585

DEER CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................... 711 711

DELAWARE LAKE, OH ............................................................................................................... 932 932

DILLON LAKE, OH ..................................................................................................................... 576 576

FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................... 1,090 1,090

HURON HARBOR, OH ............................................................................................................... 860 860

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH ............................................................................... 233 233

LORAIN HARBOR, OH ............................................................................................................... 3,400 3,400

MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ....................................................................... 25 25

MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH ...................................................................... 789 789
53

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH ................................................................................................... 1,036 1,036

MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH ............................................................................................... 6,133 6,133

NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH .......................................................................... 319 319

PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................... 778 778

PORT CLINTON HARBOR, OH ................................................................................................... 1,275 1,275

PORTSMOUTH HARBOR, OH ..................................................................................................... 150 150

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH ........................................................................................ 90 90

ROCKY RIVER, OH ................................................................................................................... 30 30

ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ........................................................................ 30 30

SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH .......................................................................................................... 1,010 1,010

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH ........................................................ 175 175

TOLEDO HARBOR, OH .............................................................................................................. 3,525 3,525

TOM JENKINS DAM, OH ............................................................................................................ 240 240

TOUSSAINT RIVER, OH ............................................................................................................. 520 520

VERMILION HARBOR, OH ......................................................................................................... 205 205

WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH ................................................................................... 461 461

WEST HARBOR, OH .................................................................................................................. 30 30

WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH ................................................................................................. 992 992

OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................. 451 451

BIRCH LAKE, OK ...................................................................................................................... 602 602

BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK .......................................................................................................... 1,627 1,627

CANDY LAKE, OK ..................................................................................................................... 19 399

CANTON LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................... 1,620 1,620

COPAN LAKE, OK ..................................................................................................................... 821 1,521

EUFAULA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................. 5,546 5,546

FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................... 4,352 4,352

FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................... 924 924

GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK ................................................................................................ 209 209

HEYBURN LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................. 600 600

HUGO LAKE, OK ....................................................................................................................... 1,732 1,732

HULAH LAKE, OK ...................................................................................................................... 426 1,076

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK ................................................................................ 94 94

KAW LAKE, OK ......................................................................................................................... 1,931 1,931

KEYSTONE LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................ 4,647 4,647

MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK ............................................. 3,923 3,923

OOLOGAH LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................. 2,360 2,360

OPTIMA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................... 59 59

PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK ....................................................... 34 34

PINE CREEK LAKE, OK ............................................................................................................. 1,187 1,187

ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIRS, OK ....................................................... 4,648 4,648

SARDIS LAKE, OK ..................................................................................................................... 912 912

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK ............................................................................ 389 389

SKIATOOK LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................. 1,488 1,488

TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK .................................................................................................... 3,690 3,690

WAURIKA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................. 1,498 1,498

WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK ..................................................................................... 4,178 4,178

WISTER LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................... 580 580

OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR .............................................................................................................. 729 729

BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................. 220 220

BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ............................................................................. 5,043 5,443

CHETCO RIVER, OR ................................................................................................................. ........................ 390

COLUMBIA AND LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLA ............................. 14,770 17,770

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA ...................................................................... 6,632 10,702

COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, O ...................................... 526 526

COOS BAY, OR ......................................................................................................................... 5,494 5,494

COQUILLE RIVER, OR ............................................................................................................... ........................ 330

COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR ..................................................................................................... 842 842

COUGAR LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................... 732 732
54

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

DEPOT BAY, OR ....................................................................................................................... ........................ 3,200

DETROIT LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................... 588 588

DORENA LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................... 635 635

FALL CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................. 419 419

FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................ 989 989

GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR .......................................................................................... 1,122 1,122

HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR ........................................................................................................... 401 401

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR ............................................................................... 172 172

JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ................................................................................. 3,416 5,000

LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR ...................................................................................................... 1,613 1,613

LOST CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................ 3,028 3,028

MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ................................................................................... 4,626 4,626

PORT ORFORD, OR .................................................................................................................. 606 606

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR ........................................................................................ 200 200

ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR ....................................................................................... ........................ 450

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR ............................................................................ 71 71

SIUSLAW RIVER, OR ................................................................................................................ 466 466

SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR ......................................................................................................... 5 325

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR ........................................................ 134 134

TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR ................................................................................................ 15 315

UMPQUA RIVER, OR ................................................................................................................. 963 963

WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR ..................................................................... 344 344

WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR ........................................................................... 67 67

WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR ....................................................................................................... 714 714

YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR ............................................................................................. ........................ 1,450

YAQUINA RIVER, DEPOT SLOUGH, OR ..................................................................................... ........................ 100

PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA ............................................................................................................ 4,070 4,070

ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA .......................................................................................................... 630 630

AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA ............................................................................................... 270 270

BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA .............................................................................................................. 1,171 1,171

BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA ........................................................................................................... 2,513 2,513

CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA ................................................................................................. 898 898

COWANESQUE LAKE, PA .......................................................................................................... 1,915 1,915

CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA ..................................................................................................... 1,746 1,746

CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA ........................................................................................................ 722 722

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA ............................................................................... 1,318 1,318

ERIE HARBOR, PA .................................................................................................................... 60 60

FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA .......................................................................................... 775 775

FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA .................................................................................................. 782 4,282

GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA .............................................................. 341 341

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA ................................................................................ 170 170

JOHNSTOWN, PA ....................................................................................................................... 1,243 1,243

KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA ...................................................................... 1,231 1,231

LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................ 957 957

MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA ................................................................................................... 848 848

MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ....................................................................................................... 14,357 14,357

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH AND WV ................................................................... 18,589 18,589

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH AND WV ............................................................ 488 488

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA ......................................................................................... 18 18

PROMPTON LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................... 506 506

PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA ................................................................................................................ 13 13

RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................... 3,941 3,941

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA ............................................................................ 60 60

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

SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA .................................................................................................... 2,734 2,734

STILLWATER LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................. 392 392

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA ........................................................ 72 72

TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA ................................................................................................... 2,542 2,542

TIONESTA LAKE, PA ................................................................................................................. 2,032 2,032

UNION CITY LAKE, PA .............................................................................................................. 245 245
55

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA .................................................................................................. 761 761

YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA .................................................................................................. 543 543

YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD .............................................................................. 1,895 1,895

RHODE ISLAND

BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI ................................................................................. 502 502

POINT JUDITH POND AND HARBOR OF REFUGE ...................................................................... ........................ 120

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI ................................................................................. 6 6

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI .......................................................................................... 2,330 2,330

PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, RI .................................................................................... 8,220 30,000

SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC ............................................................................... 264 3,598

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ...................................................................................................... 10,516 10,516

COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ........................................................................... 3,140 7,050

FOLLY RIVER ............................................................................................................................ ........................ 257

GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC ..................................................................................................... 3,073 4,373

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC ................................................................................ 26 26

PORT ROYAL HARBOR, SC ...................................................................................................... ........................ 2,222

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC ......................................................................................... 69 69

SHIPYARD RIVER, SC ............................................................................................................... 816 816

TOWN CREEK, SC .................................................................................................................... ........................ 396

SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD ......................................................................................... 9,137 9,137

CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD ................................................... ........................ 5,000

COLD BROOK LAKE, SD ........................................................................................................... 211 211

COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD ........................................................................................... 184 184

FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD ...................................................................... 9,016 9,016

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD ................................................................................ 24 24

LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN ................................................................................................. 504 504

MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND GAVINS PT, SD, MT ........................................ 500 500

OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND ...................................................................................... 12,885 12,885

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD ............................................................................ 69 69

TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN ............................................................................................................ 6,031 6,031

CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN .............................................................................................. 6,257 6,257

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN ......................................................................................................... 1,025 1,025

CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ............................................................................. 6,407 6,407

DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN .......................................................................................................... 5,720 5,720

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................................................ 129 129

J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ............................................................................ 2,954 2,954

OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN ......................................................................................... 6,598 6,598

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN ......................................................................................... 6 6

TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ............................................................................................................ 15,794 15,794

WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN ....................................................................................................... 19 440

TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................... 743 743

ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL—AREA VI ............................................ 1,373 1,373

BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX ......................................................................................... 606 606

BARDWELL LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................ 1,574 1,574

BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX .................................................................................................. 2,389 2,389

BELTON LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................... 2,707 2,707

BENBROOK LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................... 2,011 2,011

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX .................................................................................................. 2,143 2,143

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX ................................................................................. 3,126 3,126

CANYON LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................... 2,498 2,498

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ...................................................................................... 5,669 5,669

DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX ........................................................................................... 6,132 6,732

ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX ................................................................. 5 5
56

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX ................................................................... 2,682 2,682

FREEPORT HARBOR, TX ........................................................................................................... 7,298 7,298

GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX ................................................................................ 4,887 4,887

GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX ................................................................................................. 1,612 1,612

GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................... 2,602 2,602

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX ...................................................................................... 20,829 20,829

HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX .......................................................................................................... 1,250 1,250

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX .................................................................................................. 8,254 13,300

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX ................................................................................ 498 498

JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX ........................................................................................................... 1,248 1,248

JOE POOL LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................. 823 823

LAKE KEMP, TX ........................................................................................................................ 150 150

LAVON LAKE, TX ...................................................................................................................... 2,609 2,609

LEWISVILLE DAM, TX ............................................................................................................... 3,134 3,134

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................. 1,748 1,748

MOUTH OF THE COLORADO RIVER, TX .................................................................................... 2,604 2,604

NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX ....................................................................................................... 1,676 1,676

NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX ....................................................... 1,835 1,835

O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX ............................................................................................. 872 872

PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................... 1,116 1,116

PROCTOR LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................. 1,623 1,623

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX ......................................................................................... 50 50

RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX .......................................................................................................... 862 862

SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX ............................................................................................. 14,986 14,986

SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX .............................................................................. 4,559 4,559

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX ............................................................................. 255 255

SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................. 2,683 2,683

STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX ................................................................................................ 1,805 1,805

TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX ......................................................................... 300 500

TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX ...................................................................... 2,135 2,135

WACO LAKE, TX ....................................................................................................................... 2,270 2,270

WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................. 999 999

WHITNEY LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................... 5,205 5,205

WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX ..................................................................................... 2,742 2,742

UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT ................................................................................ 81 81

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT ............................................................................ 364 364

VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT ....................................................................................................... 705 780

BURLINGTON HARBOR BREAKWATER, VT ................................................................................ 2,150 800

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT ................................................................................ 26 26

NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY .......................................................................... 95 95

NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT .................................................................................................... 576 576

NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT ................................................................................................ 647 722

TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT ............................................................................................................. 687 762

UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT ......................................................................................................... 538 613

VIRGINIA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA .................................................................... 2,035 2,035

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, VA .................................................................... 1,159 1,159

CHINCOTEAGUE HARBOR OF REFUGE, VA ............................................................................... 155 155

CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA ....................................................................................................... 1,124 1,124

DAVIS CREEK, VA .................................................................................................................... 350 350

DEEP CREEK, NEWPORT NEW, VA ........................................................................................... ........................ 1,300

GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA .............................................................................. 1,612 1,612

HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS HBR (DRIFT REMOVAL ................................ 1,200 1,200

HORN HARBOR, VA .................................................................................................................. 270 270

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA ................................................................................ 111 111

JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA .................................................................................................... 3,801 4,800

JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA AND NC ............................................................................................ 9,890 9,890
57

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA ..................................................................... 1,334 1,334

LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA ............................................................................................................. 225 225

NORFOLK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS), V ......................................... 200 200

NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ............................................................................................................ 8,679 8,679

NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA ............................................................................... 297 297

PHILPOTT LAKE, VA .................................................................................................................. 4,377 4,377

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA ......................................................................................... 749 749

QUINBY CREEK, VA .................................................................................................................. 400 400

RUDEE INLET, VA ..................................................................................................................... 1,030 1,030

WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA .......................................................................... 1,150 1,150

WHITINGS CREEK, MIDDLESEX CO, VA .................................................................................... 350 350

WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA .......................................................................................................... 853 853

COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA .................................................................................... ........................ 764

EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA ..................................................................... 1,355 1,355

GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA ........................................................................... 8,781 12,281

HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA .................................................................................................... 1,777 1,777

ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA .......................................................................................... 5,065 5,065

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA ............................................................................... 257 257

LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ...................................................................................... 7,479 7,479

LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA ........................................................................................ 1,268 1,268

LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA .................................................................................... 5,244 5,244

LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................................................ 3,291 3,291

MILL CREEK LAKE, WA ............................................................................................................ 947 947

MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ............................................................................... 321 321

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA ....................................................................................................... 2,075 2,075

NEAH BAY, WA ......................................................................................................................... ........................ 750

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA ........................................................................................ 253 253

PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA ......................................................................... 999 999

QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA ........................................................................................................... 975 975

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA ............................................................................ 439 439

SEATTLE HARBOR, WA ............................................................................................................. 640 640

STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA ..................................................................................................... 247 247

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA ........................................................ 60 60

TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA .............................................................................................. 127 127

THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR ............................................................................. 2,264 2,514

WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA .......................................................................................... 492 492

WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV ........................................................................................................... 1,167 1,167

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................. 1,149 1,149

BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................ 1,555 1,555

EAST LYNN LAKE, WV .............................................................................................................. 1,832 1,832

ELK RIVER HARBOR, WV ......................................................................................................... 440 440

ELKINS, WV .............................................................................................................................. 16 16

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV ............................................................................... 131 131

KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV ................................................................................ 7,544 13,394

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY AND OH ................................................................... 18,991 18,991

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY AND OH ............................................................ 3,260 3,260

R D BAILEY LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................. 1,431 1,431

STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV ............................................................................................. 905 905

SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV ....................................................................................................... 1,603 1,603

SUTTON LAKE, WV ................................................................................................................... 1,777 1,777

TYGART LAKE, WV .................................................................................................................... 5,546 5,546

WISCONSIN

ASHLAND HARBOR, WI ............................................................................................................. 180 180

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI .................................................................................................... 820 820

FOX RIVER, WI ......................................................................................................................... 1,372 1,372

GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ......................................................................................................... 1,924 2,424

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI ................................................................................ 31 31
58

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

KENOSHA HARBOR, WI ............................................................................................................ 1,315 1,315

KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI .......................................................................................................... 75 75

MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI ........................................................................................................ 278 278

MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI ......................................................................................................... 789 789

OCONTO HARBOR, WI .............................................................................................................. 13 13

PORT WASHINGTON HARBOR, WI ............................................................................................ 261 261

PORT WING HARBOR, WI ......................................................................................................... 6 6

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI ......................................................................................... 56 56

SAXON HARBOR, WI ................................................................................................................. 45 45

SHEBOYGAN HARBOR, WI ........................................................................................................ 1,603 1,603

STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI ........................................... 1,578 1,578

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI ......................................................... 498 498

TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI ....................................................................................................... 471 471

WYOMING

JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY .................................................................................................... 1,233 1,233

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY ............................................................................ 101 101

MISCELLANEOUS

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH .............................................................................. 725 725

AUTOMATED BUDGET SYSTEM (WINABS) ................................................................................ 285 285

COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM .................................................................................... 2,750 2,750

CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION) ......................................................................... 1,545 1,545

DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE ...................................................................................... 8,000 8,000

DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM ....................................... 1,180 1,180

DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER) ....................................... 6,755 6,755

DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (DOTS) PROGRAM .......................................... 1,545 1,545

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS PROGRAM FOR BUILDINGS AND LIFELINES ...................................... 300 300

FACILITY PROTECTION ............................................................................................................. 64,000 35,000

GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELS ...................................................................... 1,000 1,000

HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION ..................................................................... 675 675

INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION PROJECTS ............................................................................ 4,120 4,120

MONITORING OF COASTAL NAVIGATION PROJECTS ................................................................. 1,750 1,750

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM .......................................................................................... 45 45

NATIONAL DAM SECURITY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 30 30

NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS (NEPP) ................................................. 4,120 4,120

NATIONAL LEWIS AND CLARK COMMEMORATION COORDINATOR ............................................ 310 310

PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM ....................................................... 815 815

PROTECTING, CLEARING AND STRAIGHTENING CHANNELS(SEC 3 .......................................... 50 50

RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM (RMSP) ...................................................... 1,545 1,545

REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM .......................................... 1,545 1,545

RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHABILITATION ............................................... 675 675

REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS .............................................................................................. 500 500

WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS) PROGRAM ............................................... 725 725

WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS ................................................................................... 4,745 4,745

HYDROPOWER MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................. ........................ ¥49,000

REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ......................................................... ¥19,091 ¥47,778

ADJUSTMENT FOR ACTUAL RETIREMENT ACCRUALS ............................................................... ¥240 ........................

TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ..................................................................... 1,912,310 1,956,182

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 Na-
59

tion’s ports, harbors, and waterways open and able to efficiently

handle important national and international trade activities. Yet,

the Committee is aware that out-year budget planning guidance for

the Corps of Engineers projects that the current appropriations for

their critical operation and maintenance activities will continue to

decline for the foreseeable future. If additional resources are not

made available, the Committee will be forced to cut back on services, and begin to terminate and close many projects and activities.

The Committee is aware of the Corps’ efforts to stretch the limited resources to cover all of its projects and to effect savings

through a variety of means. With an increasing number of projects

entering the inventory, and budgetary constraints increasing, it is

clear that the Corps will have to find innovative ways of accomplishing required maintenance work, while reducing operational

and other costs. Adjustments in lower-priority programs and noncritical work should optimize limited resources while maximizing

the public benefit.

The budget request has proposed that no navigation project with

less than one billion ton-miles of cargo be eligible for maintenance

dredging. The Committee believes that this is in direct conflict with

the way projects are analyzed. Project analysis is based upon Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and

Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (1983), the Corps

of Engineers Planning Guidance Notebook (2000), and other polices

and procedures. For navigation studies, the analysis centers on

transportation savings to the Nation considering the ultimate origins and destinations of commodities to be moved. Operation and

maintenance costs are considered as a part of this analysis and are

figured into the benefit to cost ratio utilized to make the investment decision. By applying an arbitrary ton-mile figure to determine O&M funding decisions, the budget request has essentially

obviated the need for any of the previous studies undertaken to determine the investment decision.

The Committee is concerned about the annual proposals for reductions of maintenance funding for ‘‘low use waterways and

ports’’. These tributary waterways naturally do not enjoy the same

level of relative efficiencies as mainstem waterways. The Mississippi and Ohio Rivers handle tremendous volumes of traffic over

long distances and so generate impressive ton-mile statistics. Tributaries, by nature, provide generally short, smaller channels with

lower traffic densities. Consequently, ‘‘ton-mile’’ statistics for tributary waterways are dwarfed by statistics for the mainstem waterways. It is important to recognize that the commerce on the tributaries is usually only a small part of the total journey between producer and consumer. When these statistics are compared on a system basis, nearly all of these waterways appear to ‘‘pay their way’’

and are performing as the economic analysis indicated when they

were originally authorized.

Uncertainties in maintenance funding for lower use projects, seriously impact their abilities to compete and become higher use facilities. Without funding to provide a stable channel and authorized

depths and widths, industries and shippers are reluctant to make

the necessary investments in using these projects. The Committee

believes that proposed elimination of maintenance funding for au-
60

thorized projects is not only a serious disservice to the public, but

is demonstrates a profound lack of respect for the congressional

oversight committees that have jurisdiction for authorization and

deauthorization of such projects.

The Committee is not in favor of funding projects that are no

longer economically viable or environmentally sustainable however,

we believe that they should be proposed for deauthorization

through the proper congressional oversight committees. Therefore,

the Committee has restored funding to most of the low use waterways and port projects not included in the budget request and encourages the administration to budget accordingly.

Alabama Coosa River, AL.—The Committee has provided $200,000 above the budgeted amount for implementation of a systemwide geographic information system for the Alabama-Coosa

River.

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, AL & MS.—The Committee recommendation includes $26,800,000. Within the funds provided,

$2,000,000 is provided for to maintain mitigation on State managed

lands and $1,717,000 is provided to accomplish additional dredging

of navigation channels.

McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, AR.—The

Committee has provided $2,000,000 above the budget request to

perform advance maintenance dredging to assure the authorized

depth of 9 feet is maintained.

Ouachita/Black Rivers Navigation Project, AR & LA.—The Committee recommendation includes $8,325,000. Funds provided above

the budget request are for yearly maintenance dredging, and backlog maintenance.

White River, AR.—The Committee has provided $2,200,000 for

routine operation and maintenance activities and for minimum expected dredging and snagging requirements.

Humbolt Harbor, CA.—The Committee has provided an addi- tional $1,500,000 to the administration’s budget request of

$3,426,000 for Humboldt Bay, California, for advanced maintenance dredging to remove the source of shoaling that has impeded

navigational safety in the entry channel to the harbor. The

shoaling has caused loss of life, property, oil spills and interruptions in the flow of commerce to and from Humboldt Bay.

Los Angeles County Drainage Area, CA.—Within the funds provided, $3,160,000 is for the Hansen Dam unit of the project. The

funds are to be used for restoration of the swim/recreation lake facility, and initiation of a design for a playfield and campground

site. The Committee urges the Corps to work with the Santa

Monica Mountains Conservancy concerning development and management of the natural areas within the Hansen Dam Recreation

Area.

Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Lakes, CO.—An appropriations request of $1,500,000 over the budget for these three

lakes has been provided. Frequent inundation of recreation areas

are causing health and safety concerns requiring repair or replacement of the facilities. A total of $1,500,000 above the budget request has been provided for these three lakes. This action in no

way is intended to alter the Corps of Engineers’ lease and property

accountability policies. It is the Committee’s understanding that
61

the State of Colorado has agreed to cost share this project on a 50–

50 basis. It is also the understanding of the Committee that the

Secretary is not to assume, nor share in the future cost of the operation and maintenance of these recreation facilities.

Treatment of Dredged Material from Long Island Sound.— $250,000 is provided to initiate a demonstration program for the

use of innovative technologies for the treatment of dredged materials from Long Island Sound.

Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, DE &

MD.—The Committee recommendation is $12,853,000. Funds are

provided for routine operation and maintenance activities and for

immediate reimbursement to the State of Delaware for normal operation and maintenance costs incurred by the State for the SR–

1 Bridge, from station 58+00 to station 293+00, between October

1, 2002 and September 30, 2003. The reimbursable costs include

electric lighting and associated late fees, power sweeping, drainage

cleaning, snow removal, surface deicing, and periodic bridge inspections. The Corps shall initiate necessary repairs to the SR–1 bridge

once repair recommendations from the bridge inspections are received.

Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, FL.—The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for maintenance activities along the

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.

Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, GA, FL, & AL.— The Committee recommendation includes $4,709,000 which includes annual dredging of the river channel, annual operations and

maintenance of the George W. Andrews Lock, spot dredging of

shoals continue slough mouth restorations, continue restoration efforts at Corley Slough, and routine operations and maintenance of

the project.

Missouri River—Sioux City to Rulo, IA & NE.—The Committee

recommendation includes $500,000 above the budget request to

continue implementation of actions related to the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service biological opinion.

Red Rock Dam, Lake Red Rock, IA.—The Committee has provided $800,000 above the budget request to complete repairs to the

SE Des Moines Remedial Works Levee.

Mississippi River between Missouri River and Minneapolis, IL,

IA, MN, MO, & WI.—The Committee has provided $500,000 above

the budget request for ongoing major maintenance items and initiation of major maintenance activities at Lock and Dam 11.

Clinton Lake, KS.—An additional $366,000 has been provided

above the budget request for Lewis and Clark Commemoration

events.

Big Sandy Harbor, KY.—$1,135,000 has been provided by the

Committee for annual dredging requirements.

Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland, KY.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,200,000 above the budget request for the

Corps to make safety and other necessary improvements to the

boat ramps at Old Fall Creek, Tate Access, Camp Attrahunt and

Ramsey Point.

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.—The Committee recommendation includes $12,224,000. Within the funds provided,

$1,000,000 is provided for bank stabilization repairs, $408,000 is
62

provided for dredging entrances to oxbow lakes, with the remainder

provided for routine operation and maintenance activities, annual

dredging requirements, and backlog maintenance items.

Narraguagus River, Milbridge, ME.—The Committee has pro- vided $50,000 for the Corps to complete necessary environmental

documentation and plans and specifications for restoring the

project to authorized widths and depths.

Black River, Port Huron, MI.—The Committee recommendation

includes $500,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate

maintenance dredging of the project.

Morehead City Harbor, NC.—$300,000 has been provided above

the budget request to complete the Section 933 study concerning

placement of maintenance material on the beaches of Bogue Banks.

Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, ND.—The Committee has pro- vided $300,000 above the budget request for mosquito control and

continued improvements to low water lake accessibility.

Cocheco River, NH.—$500,000 has been provided for needed

maintenance dredging of the authorized project.

Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model, New Mexico.—The

Committee is aware of the importance and need for the daily water

operations model for the Upper Rio Grande Basin.

Cochiti Partnering Initiative, Cochiti Pueblo, New Mexico.—The

Committee is aware of the joint efforts made by both the Corps of

Engineers and the Cochiti pueblo in an attempt to resolve residual

differences regarding the construction of the Cochiti dam and encourages both sides to continue to build further on this relationship.

Delaware River, Philadelphia to the Sea, NJ, PA, & DE.—The

Committee has provided $500,000 above the budget request to continue restoration work at Pea Patch Island.

Copan Lake, OK.—The Committee is aware of the need to complete a study of the need to determine the feasibility of reallocating

available storage at Copan Lake, OK to meet the future water supply needs for the city of Bartlesville, OK. Therefore the Committee

has provided $1,521,000 for routine operations and maintenance

and the reallocation study.

Bonneville Lock and Dam, OR & WA.—The Committee has provided $400,000 above the budget request for continue actions to implement the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological

Opinion.

Columbia River at the Mouth, OR & WA.—The Committee recommendation includes $10,702,000. Funds provided are for routine

operations and maintenance, increased dredging costs, jetty evaluation, studies of alternate dredged material disposal and a dredged

material disposal demonstration project at Benson Beach.

John Day Lock and Dam, OR & WA.—The Committee has provided $1,584,000 above the budget request for significant safety repairs to the navigation lock, to continue the major rehabilitation

evaluation report to address significant foundation problems, and

to continue actions to implement the Federal Columbia River

Power System Biological Opinion.

Francis E. Walter Dam, PA.—The Committee has provided

$3,500,000 above the budget request to complete the relocation of

the frequently inundated access road.
63

Point Judith Pond and Harbor of Refuge, RI.—The Committee

recommendation includes $120,000 to survey the breakwaters and

determine if repairs are warranted.

Providence River and Harbor, RI.—The Committee recommendation includes $30,000,000 to initiate dredging of the authorized

project.

Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, SC.—The Committee has pro- vided $7,050,000 for the Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, SC

project. Within the funds provided, $3,750,000 is provided to make

a lump sum payment to the South Carolina Department of Natural

Resources to perform all future operation of the fish lift at St. Stephen, South Carolina.

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.—The Committee notes that Title VI of the Water Resources Development Act

of 1999, as amended, requires that funding to inventory and stabilize cultural and historic sites along the Missouri River in South

Dakota, and to carry out the terrestrial wildlife habitat programs,

shall be provided from the Operation and Maintenance account.

The Committee has provided $5,000,000 to protect cultural resource sites and provide funding to the State and Tribes for approved restoration and stewardship plans and in compliance with

the requirements of Title VI, directs the Corps to contract with or

reimburse the State of South Dakota and affected Tribes to carry

out these duties.

Texas Water Allocation Assessment, TX.—The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for the Texas Water Allocation Assessment for the Corps to work with the Texas regional planning

groups in the evaluation of technologies and the exploration of

water supply opportunities in the State including (where appropriate) water reuse, aquifer storage and recovery, and development

of new multi-purpose facilities.

Burlington Harbor Breakwater, VT.—The Committee recommendation includes $800,000 to complete repairs to the south

breakwater.

Connecticut River Basin Master Plans, VT.—The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 to complete master plans for Ball

Mountain, North Springfield, Townshend, and Union Village Reservoirs in Vermont.

Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, WA.—The Committee recommendation includes $12,281,000 for routine operation and maintenance, to complete the North Jetty rehabilitation contract, to continue entrance channel study, for maintenance of the South Jetty.

Facility Protection.—The Committee has provided $35,000,000.

The Committee has been informed that this is the average annual

cost for guards at critical facilities.

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $127,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 144,252,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 144,252,000

An appropriation of $144,252,000 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
64

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, 2002 ............................................................................. $140,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 140,298,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 140,298,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,298,000 to

continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial

Action Program (FUSRAP) in fiscal year 2003.

The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites under

the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Public Law 105–

62.

FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program was

established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the Department

of Energy through existing appropriation accounts. In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the Committee

intended to transfer only the responsibility for administration and

execution of cleanup activities at eligible sites where remediation

had not been completed. It did not intend to transfer ownership of

and accountability for real property interests that remain with the

Department of Energy.

The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the cleanup

of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its work for the

Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. The Committee

always intended for the Corps’ expertise be used in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under FUSRAP. The

Committee expects the Corps to continue programming and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers—Civil program.

The Committee notes that portions of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Middleton, Iowa, has recently been deemed eligible for

inclusion into the FUSRAP program. The Committee encourages

the Corps to reprogram available FUSRAP funds to initiate work

on this site as soon as practicable and to budget for this site in future budget submissions.

GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $153,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 155,651,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 155,651,000

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.
65

Executive direction and management.—The Office of the Chief of

Engineers and eight division offices supervise work in 38 district

offices.

Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.—This support center provides administrative services (such as personnel, logistics,

informatino management, and finance and accounting) for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate field operating activities.

Institute for Water Resources.—This institute performs studies

and analyses amd develops planning techniques for the management and development of the Nation’s water resources.

United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.—This

center provides centralizes support for all Corps finance and accounting sites.

The Committee has included statutory language for the past several years prohibiting any funds from being used to fund an Office

of Congressional Affairs within the executive office of the Chief of

Engineers. The Committee believes that an Office of Congressional

Affairs for the Civil Works Program would hamper the efficient and

effective coordination of issues with the Committee staff and Members of Congress. The Committee believes that the technical knowledge and managerial expertise needed for the Corps headquarters

to effectively address Civil Works authorization, appropriation, and

Headquarters policy matters resides in the Civil Works organization. Therefore the Committee strongly recommends that the office

of Congressional Affairs not be a part of the process by which information on Civil Works projects, programs, and activities is provided to Congress.

The Committee reminds the Corps that the General Expenses

Account is to be used exclusively for executive oversight and management of the Civil Works Program. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $155,651,000.

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. ...........................

Recissions ........................................................................................ ¥$25,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 20,227,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,227,000

This account provides funds for preparedness activities for natural and other disasters, response, and emergency flood fighting

and rescue operations, hurricane response, and emergency shore

protection work. It also provides for emergency supplies of clean

water where the source has been contaminated or where adequate

supplies of water are needed for consumption.

The Committee is aware of the successful testing of the Rapid

Deployment Flood Wall at the Engineering Research and Development Center in Vicksburg, Mississippi. This technology has proven

to be promising in the effort to fight floods, cost-effective, quick to

deploy and successful in protecting property from flood damage,

damages which total millions each year.

The Committee is aware that the Corps of Engineers intends to

revise 33 CFR 203.82 and implement cost-sharing conditions for

emergency response and recovery activities funded by the Flood

Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) account. Public Law 8499
66

provides the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, with broad discretionary authority to respond to disasters,

preserve human life, and protect critical infrastructure. Appropriations to the FCCE account allow the Corps to provide assistance to

distressed areas before, during and after natural disasters—events

that usually require rapid response and extract heavy tolls on community resources. Under such urgent and extreme circumstances,

Federal cost-sharing should not impose delay and unreasonable financial burdens on state and local governments trying to rebuild

their communities. The Committee expects the Secretary to administer the FCCE program in accordance with the terms and conditions of Public Law 84–99 in a fair, reasonable and balanced manner, and to inform the Appropriations Committees of any specific

cost sharing required in law for the FCCE program and to modify

33 CFR 203.82 accordingly. Further, the Appropriations Committees shall be informed of any Corps of Engineers proposal intended

to be published in the Federal Register.

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.

SEC. 103. The Committee has included language to make changes

to Sec. 595(h)(1) of Public Law 106–53.

SEC. 104. The Committee has included language concerning private sector contracting percentages.

SEC. 105. The Committee has included language making technical corrections to the St. Paul Harbor, Alaska project.

SEC. 106. The Committee has included language making technical corrections to the Abiquiu Dam Emergency gate project.

SEC. 107. The Committee has included language concerning relocations credit for the Tropicana Flamingo project.

SEC. 108. The Committee has included language concerning rehabilitation of the dredge McFARLAND. The Committee believes that

a determination for how the dredge is to be utilized following this

rehabilitation should be deferred until after the GAO report requested in Public Law 107–66 has been received and has undergone a thorough review by the appropriate Committees.
(67)

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $36,228,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 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 $23,643,000 has been provided for

Central Utah project construction; $11,259,000 for fish, wildlife,

and recreation, mitigation and conservation. The Committee recommendation provides $1,326,000 for program administration and

oversight.

The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II–VI of Public

Law 102–575) provides for the completion of the central Utah

project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act

also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes an account in the

Treasury for the deposit of these funds and of other contributions

for mitigation and conservation activities; and establishes a Utah

Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities

for carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $762,531,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 726,147,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 816,147,000

An appropriation of $816,147,000 is recommended by the Committee for general investigations of the Bureau of Reclamation. The

water and related resources account supports the development,

management, and restoration of water and related natural resources in the 17 Western States. The account includes funds for

operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest

overall level of benefits, to protect public safety, and to conduct

studies on ways to improve the use of water and related natural

resources. Work will be done in partnership and cooperation with

non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies.

The Committee is aware the Bureau has undertaken an investigation into the extent to which alkali silica reactivity effects

projects within the Bureau’s domain. The Committee commends

the Bureau for this initiative. The Committee requests that information from the investigations be provided to the relevant Senate
68

and House authorizing and appropriating Subcommittees within 6

months of enactment, along with recommendations for a course of

action to prevent and mitigate ASR in the future’s.

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

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

ARIZONA

AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ................... .................... 6,200 .................... 6,200

CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER BASIN ............... 34,709 74 34,709 74

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I .. 731 10,240 731 10,240

COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM .................. 3,450 .................... 4,450 ....................

FORT MCDOWELL SETTLEMENT ACT ............................................. 500 .................... 500 ....................

NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................... 422 .................... 422 ....................

PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT ....................... 250 .................... 250 ....................

SALT RIVER PROJECT .................................................................... 39 .................... 39 ....................

SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ........................................................................................... 4,825 .................... 4,825 ....................

SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................ 797 .................... 797 ....................

TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION ...................................... 200 .................... 500 ....................

TUCSON AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE STUDY ........... 100 .................... 100 ....................

YUMA AREA PROJECTS .................................................................. 1,658 19,107 1,658 19,107

CALIFORNIA ....................

CACHUMA AREA PROJECTS ........................................................... 778 557 778 557

CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ....................................... 417 .................... 417 ....................

CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PLANT ...... 1,000 .................... 1,000 ....................

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:

AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION .................................................. 2,043 9,658 2,043 9,658

AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT ............................................ 7,707 44 7,707 44

DELTA DIVISION .................................................................... 11,095 5,323 18,845 5,323

EAST SIDE DIVISION ............................................................. 1,230 3,855 1,230 3,855

FRIANT DIVISION .................................................................. 2,276 3,024 4,026 3,024

MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS ................................ 12,726 1,027 27,726 1,027

REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY

MAINT .............................................................................. .................... 16,000 .................... 16,000

SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION ............................................. 4,921 1,780 5,821 1,780

SAN FELIPE DIVISION ........................................................... 519 .................... 519 ....................

SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION ........................................................ 249 .................... 249 ....................

SHASTA DIVISION ................................................................. 1,543 8,042 4,543 8,042

TRINITY RIVER DIVISION ...................................................... 7,727 5,572 7,727 5,572

WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS ........................................ 1,791 7,614 1,791 7,614

WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT .................... 5,989 6,018 5,989 6,018

YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION ....................................... 1,000 .................... 1,000 ....................

LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT ...................... 200 .................... 3,000 ....................

LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT ........................................................................................... 1,500 .................... 1,800 ....................

LONG BEACH DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT ................................................................................... .................... .................... 1,000 ....................

MISSION BASIN BRACKISH GROUNDWATER DESALTING DEMO ..... .................... .................... 300 ....................

NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT ........................................................................................... 1,800 .................... 2,500 ....................

ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT,

PHAS ......................................................................................... 1,800 .................... 1,800 ....................

ORLAND PROJECT .......................................................................... 39 430 39 430

SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT ................................................ 1,000 .................... 1,000 ....................

SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM ..................... 6,000 .................... 6,000 ....................

SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT ...................................................... 1,800 .................... 1,800 ....................

SAN JOSE WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM ............. 2,000 .................... 2,000 ....................

SOLANO PROJECT .......................................................................... 1,248 1,513 1,248 1,513
69

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .................... 842 .................... 842 ....................

COLORADO

ANIMAS LAS PLATA PROJECT, CRSP SECTION 5 AND 8 ............... 33,000 .................... 35,000 ....................

COLLBRAN PROJECT ...................................................................... 122 1,212 122 1,212

COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................ 75 .................... 75 ....................

COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT ........................................... 12 10,265 12 10,265

COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT—HORSETOOTH DAM ......... .................... 31,100 .................... 31,100

FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT ..................................................... 41 118 41 118

FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT ................................................... .................... 6,785 .................... 6,985

GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ....................................... 224 612 224 612

LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT ....................... 582 1,552 582 1,552

MANCOS PROJECT ......................................................................... 28 50 28 50

PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ................................... 50 1,968 50 1,968

PINE RIVER PROJECT .................................................................... 58 65 58 65

SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT ........................................................... 399 4,066 399 4,066

UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT .............................................................. 143 113 143 113

IDAHO

BOISE AREA PROJECTS ................................................................. 2,714 3,192 2,714 3,192

COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT ...... 15,000 .................... 15,500 ....................

DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, BOISE PROJECT ................. 100 .................... 100 ....................

IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................ 578 .................... 578 ....................

MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS ........................................................... 3,282 2,194 3,282 2,194

MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .. 200 .................... 200 ....................

KANSAS

KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................. 235 .................... 235 ....................

WICHITA PROJECT ......................................................................... .................... 285 .................... 285

MONTANA

FORT PECK DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM ........................ .................... .................... 7,000 ....................

HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT ............................................................. .................... 300 .................... 300

MILK RIVER PROJECT .................................................................... 320 826 320 826

MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS ........................................................... 475 .................... 475 ....................

ROCKY BOYS INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ...................... 4,600 .................... 4,600 ....................

NEBRASKA

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT ............................................................... .................... 78 .................... 78

NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................................... 71 .................... 71 ....................

NEVADA

HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY .................................................. .................... .................... 390 ....................

LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT ........................................................... 6,215 2,339 6,215 2,339

LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM ..................................... 1,000 .................... 2,000 ....................

SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT ........................ .................... .................... 3,000 ....................

NEW MEXICO

ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER AND RECLAMATION

REUSE ....................................................................................... .................... .................... 400 ....................

CARLSBAD PROJECT ...................................................................... 1,644 1,126 1,644 1,126

EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY ....................................... .................... .................... 250 ....................

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT ..................................................... 7,200 8,263 19,200 18,763

NAVAJO GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT ................................... 300 .................... 300 ....................

NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................. 300 .................... 300 ....................

PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT .......................... .................... 27 .................... 500

RIO GRANDE PROJECT .................................................................. 1,054 2,953 1,054 2,953

SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .................... 243 .................... 243 ....................

SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................................................ 196 .................... 196 ....................
70

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

TUCUMCARI PROJECT .................................................................... 19 .................... 19 ....................

UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .............. 165 .................... 165 ....................

NORTH DAKOTA

DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................... 239 .................... 239 ....................

DAKOTAS TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .............................. 400 .................... 400 ....................

GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT .......................................................... 20,662 4,577 24,000 4,577

OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT ...................................................................... .................... 193 .................... 193

MCGEE CREEK PROJECT ............................................................... .................... 452 .................... 452

MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT ............................................................ .................... 306 .................... 306

NORMAN PROJECT ......................................................................... 225 208 225 208

OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................ 207 .................... 507 ....................

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT .............................................................. .................... 742 .................... 742

W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT ................................................................... .................... 293 .................... 293

OREGON

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT ............................................................ 301 546 301 546

DESCHUTES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT ........................ 500 .................... 750 ....................

DESCHUTES PROJECT .................................................................... 382 152 382 152

DESCHUTES PROJECT-WICKUP DAM ............................................. .................... 12,300 .................... 12,300

DESCHUTES PROJECT, TUMALO, BEND FEED CANAL .................... .................... .................... 1,300 ....................

EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS ....................................................... 308 275 308 275

GRANDE RONDE WATER OPTIMIZATION STUDY ............................. 150 .................... 150 ....................

KLAMATH PROJECT ........................................................................ 13,644 623 19,377 623

OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................ 333 .................... 333 ....................

ROUGE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, SAVAGE RAPIDS PUMPING

PLANT ....................................................................................... .................... .................... 250 ....................

ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION ........................ 454 169 454 169

TUALATIN PROJECT ........................................................................ 238 125 238 125

TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY ................ 25 .................... 25 ....................

UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT, PHASE III STUDY ............................... 50 .................... 300 ....................

UMATILLA PROJECT ....................................................................... 408 2,363 408 2,363

WILLOW LAKE NATURAL TREATMENT SYSTEM .............................. .................... .................... 650 ....................

SOUTH DAKOTA

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM .................................. 2,000 .................... 7,000 ....................

MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT .......................................... 10,000 40 17,860 40

MNI WICONI PROJECT ................................................................... 23,292 8,228 30,772 8,228

PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER SALVAGE PROJECT ................... .................... .................... 4,300 ....................

RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM .................................... .................... 27 .................... 27

TEXAS

BALMORHEA PROJECT ................................................................... .................... 71 .................... 71

CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT ........................................................... .................... 109 .................... 109

LEON CREEK QUARRY/MITCHELL LAKE WATER REUSE PROJECTA ........................................................................................ .................... .................... 500 ....................

LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCE CONSERVATION .......................................................................................... .................... .................... 500 ....................

NUECES RIVER .............................................................................. .................... 392 .................... 392

SAN ANGELO PROJECT .................................................................. .................... 307 .................... 307

TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................ 217 .................... 217 ....................

UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT ........................................................................... 120 24 120 24

MOON LAKE PROJECT .................................................................... 43 53 43 53

NAVAJO SANDSTONE AQUIFER RECHARGE STUDY ........................ 100 .................... 100 ....................

NEWTON PROJECT ......................................................................... 52 21 52 21

NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .............................. 301 .................... 301 ....................
71

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

OGDEN RIVER PROJECT ................................................................ 350 44 350 44

PROVO RIVER PROJECT ................................................................. 677 493 677 493

SCOFIELD PROJECT ....................................................................... 97 27 97 27

SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................... 279 .................... 279 ....................

STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT .................................................... 107 7 107 7

WEBER BASIN PROJECT ................................................................ 1,455 399 1,455 399

WEBER RIVER PROJECT ................................................................ 52 71 52 71

WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT ........................................................... 4,485 6,346 4,885 6,346

SALMON CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION, WA ......................... .................... .................... 250 ....................

WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ..................................... 518 .................... 518 ....................

YAKIMA PROJECT ........................................................................... 598 6,156 598 6,156

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT ............... 11,900 .................... 15,775 ....................

WYOMING

KENDRICK PROJECT ...................................................................... 4 2,568 4 2,568

NORTH PLATTE PROJECT ............................................................... 10 1,324 10 1,324

SHOSHONE PROJECT ..................................................................... 10 1,232 10 1,232

WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .......................................... 37 .................... 37 ....................

VARIOUS

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE II:

1PROGRAM AND COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY

IMPROVEMEN ............................................................................ 10,087 .................... 10,087 ....................

COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 5 ....................... 7,178 2,302 7,178 2,302

COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 8, R&F&WL ....... 3,970 22 3,970 22

COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ..... 150 .................... 150 ....................

DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:

DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM ................................. .................... 1,275 .................... 1,275

INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION ..................................... .................... 21,910 .................... 21,910

SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS ............................. .................... 14,315 .................... 14,315

SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION STUDIES ................ .................... 50 .................... 50

DEPARTMENTAL IRRIGATION DRAINAGE PROGRAM ....................... 2,600 .................... 3,350 ....................

DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ............................................ 899 .................... 5,399 ....................

EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM .............................................. 3,087 .................... 3,087 ....................

EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM .... .................... 334 .................... 334

ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION .................. 12,747 .................... 12,747 ....................

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION .............................. 1,706 .................... 1,706 ....................

ENVIRONMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................ 1,890 .................... 1,890 ....................

EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ..................................... .................... 5,597 .................... 5,597

FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM .......................... .................... 1,390 .................... 1,390

GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES ....................................................... 2,195 .................... 2,195 ....................

LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................................ 9,689 .................... 9,689 ....................

LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................. 275 .................... 275 ....................

LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ...................... 12,421 .................... 12,421 ....................

MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS .......................... .................... 594 .................... 594

NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION ................................. 850 .................... 850 ....................

NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM ......................................... 8,500 .................... 8,500 ....................

NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING ....... 1,185 .................... 1,185 ....................

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ........... 420 921 420 921

PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN—OTHER PROJECTS ...................... 2,828 30,759 2,828 30,759

POWER PROGRAM SERVICES ........................................................ 969 244 969 244

PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM ...................................... 420 .................... 420 ....................

RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION ........................................... 4,469 .................... 4,469 ....................

RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT—TITLE XXVIII ........... 2,800 .................... 2,800 ....................

RECREATION & FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION .......................................................................................... 2,292 .................... 2,292 ....................

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY:

ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT DESALINATION PROGRAM .. 1,310 .................... 1,310 ....................
72

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title

Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

Resources

management

Facilities

OM&R

APPLIED SCIENCE /TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT ........ 3,490 .................... 3,490 ....................

DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM .. 100 .................... 4,000 ....................

HYDROELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION/

ENHANCEMEN .................................................................. 900 .................... 900 ....................

TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT ............................................... 350 .................... 350 ....................

WATERSHED/RIVER SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...... 1,000 .................... 1,000 ....................

SITE SECURITY .............................................................................. .................... 28,440 .................... 28,440

SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION ........................................... 326 .................... 326 ....................

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES ............................................. 1,942 .................... 1,942 ....................

TITLE XVI, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM ............. 1,500 .................... 3,500 ....................

UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES—TECHNICAL SUPPORT ......................................................................................... 67 .................... 67 ....................

WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM ................ 6,581 .................... 7,081 ....................

WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................ 3,117 .................... 3,117 ....................

UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON ANTICIPATED DELAYS ... ¥37,942 .................... ¥74,341 ....................

TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES ..................... 381,164 344,983 459,991 356,156

LOAN PROGRAM

CALIFORNIA

CASTROVILLE IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY PROJECT .................... 1,239 .................... 1,239 ....................

SALINAS VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION ........................................ 401 .................... 401 ....................

SAN SEVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT ......................................... 5,575 .................... 5,575 ....................

VARIOUS

LOAN ADMINISTRATION ................................................................. 280 .................... 280 ....................

TOTAL, LOAN PROGRAM ................................................... 7,495 .................... 7,495 ....................

Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, AZ.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Bureau of

Reclamation to continue design and Environmental compliance activities for water management reservoirs to be constructed along

the All American Canal.

Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, CO.—The Committee has provided

an additional $200,000 for the reevaluation report.

Central Valley Project, CA.—The Committee recommendation

provides an additional $30,000,000 for this project for activities in

support of the California Bay-Delta Restoration. These activities

are more fully described under the heading for the California BayDelta Restoration.

CVP, Sacramento Division.—The Committee has provided

$400,000 above the budget request to continue the Colusa Basin Integrated Resource Management Plan.

Lake Tahoe Regional Wetlands Development, California.—The

Committee has provided $3,000,000 to continue the environmental

restoration projects in the vicinity of Lake Tahoe, California and

Nevada.

The Bureau of Reclamation is authorized hereafter to negotiate

and enter into financial assistance agreements with public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions for activities under

the Lake Tahoe Regional Wetlands Development Program. Costs

associated with such activities will be non-reimbursable.
73

Animas Las-Plata Project, Colorado.—The bill contains

$35,000,000 for the Animas Las-Plata, Colorado Project. 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.

Arrowrock Dam, Idaho.—The Committee expects continued and

full compliance by the Bureau with Section 206 of Public Law 107–

066, with regard to the Valve Rehabilitation Project at the

Arrowrock Dam on the Arrowrock Division of the Boise Project in

Idaho, for the full period of recovery of expenses prescribed in that

Section.

Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project, ID, OR, and

WA.—The Committee has provided $500,000 above the budget request for continued fishery habitat improvements in the John Day

River Subbasin Project, OR.

Lucky Peak, Idaho.—The Committee is aware of the Bureau collecting from water users for NEPA compliance work associated

with the Lucky Peak water service contract renewals. The Committee believes that, with respect to these water service contracts,

the Bureau of Reclamation should incur these costs as part of its

regular activities and shall report to the Committee within 180

days within enactment of this bill on how it intends to address this

situation.

Halfway Wash, NV.—The Committee recommendation has pro- vided $390,000 to studies of Halfway Wash in Mesquite, County,

NV.

Middle Rio Grande Project, NM.—The Committee is aware of the

pending biological opinion in effect on the Rio Grande. When combined with the drought conditions facing New Mexico, and municipalities, farmers and the silvery minnow all competing for the

same scarce resource, water, a delicate balance must be maintained. The recommendation includes funding for the following activities: $5,100,000 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; $130,000 to combat nonnative species endangering the silvery minnow; $650,000 for Bureau of Reclamation’s repayment obligations under the agreement;

$950,000 for water quality studies and improvements; and

$2,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation’s purchase of water. In

addition, the Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service on silvery minnow monitoring and habitat efforts. Finally, the Committee has included

statutory language which requires the Bureau to submit a report

on the status and results of fiscal year 2002 funding and, to submit

to the Committee for approval, a detailed spending plan for fiscal

year 2003 within 60 days of enactment.

Middle Rio Grande Levees, New Mexico.—The Committee is very

concerned about the state of disrepair of the Middle Rio Grande

levees due to the lack of sufficient and regular maintenance within

the river bed, including both the levees and the low-flow channel.

The Committee has included an additional $10,000,000 to address

this problem and expects the Bureau to expedite its work in order

to begin the repair of the project in order to address the life and

safety issues. Additionally, the Committee expects that the Bureau
74

will take all steps necessary to maintain the project in a responsible manner such that additional levees will not be at risk. Finally

the Commissioner is directed to submit an annual report to the

Senate Appropriations Committee on the status of the levee repairs.

Pecos River Basin Water Supply Salvage Project, New Mexico.— The Committee is aware that the Bureau of Reclamation carries

out the Pecos River Basin Water Supply Salvage project in collaboration with the State of New Mexico. The Committee directs the

Bureau of Reclamation, within funds appropriated for the Facility

Maintenance and Rehabilitation, not to provide less than $500,000

for this eradication effort.

Bandon Cranberry Water Control District, Oregon.—The Committee is aware that over the last several years, the Bureau of Reclamation has been working with the Bandon Cranberry Water Control District on several proposals for water storage capacity and

reservoir upgrades. The Committee encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to continue its work in an effort to determine the Federal

interest in these projects and the needs of the water district.

Garrison Diversion Unit, ND.—The Committee recommendation

includes $24,000,000. While this is an increase over the budget request, it is still far below the amount needed to fund the project

at an optimum level.

Klamath Project, OR.—The Committee recommendation includes

$19,377,000. The additional funds are for continued construction of

the A-Canal fish screen.

Mni Wiconi Project, SD.—The Committee has provided $30,772,000 for the Mni Wiconi Project. While this is an increase

over the budget request, it is still far below the amount needed to

fund the project at an optimal level.

Columbia Basin Project, WA.—The Committee recommendation

includes $400,000 above the president’s request for design documents, plans and specifications for stream habitat restoration along

Icicle Creek, WA.

Salmon Creek Watershed Restoration Feasibility Study, WA.—

The Committee has provided $250,000 for feasibility studies to improve fisheries habitat in the Salmon Creek Watershed.

Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.—The Committee recognizes the progress the WateReuse Foundation program

has accomplished in providing important research into the science

and technological aspects of water reclamation and public health.

The Committee is further aware that the Foundation has continued

to meet its cost share is requirement as directed. Accordingly, the

Committee provides that within funds provided, the Bureau of Reclamation is to provide $2,000,000 to support the WateReuse Foundation in its research activities. A high priority of this research

shall be related to aquifer storage and recovery.

Within funds provided for the Title XVI Program, the Bureau is

directed to undertake feasibility studies of the potential for water

reclamation and reuse in North Las Vegas, NV in cooperation with

the Southern Nevada Water Authority.

Science and Technology, Desalination Research and Development

Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for

desalination research and development. Within the funds provided,
75

the Commissioner is directed to assess the potential use of advanced water treatment technologies as a resource to create net

new water supplies and to evaluate project benefits, economic values and environmental effects. Further, the Commissioner should

identify resource needs that can be met through these technologies

and interparty transfers and to identify obstacles to be overcome

(physical, financial, institutional, and regulatory). The assessment

should include an assessment of life cycle cost effectiveness and

validate new technology and practices.

Drought Emergency Assistance.—The Committee has provided $5,399,000. Within the funds provided, $3,500,000 is for a regional

weather damage modification program and $1,000,000 is for assistance to the State of Montana, now in its fourth year of drought.

The Committee is concerned about the impact of the current

drought on farmers, municipalities, and other water users. Unfortunately, being that this issue was unanticipated, the President’s

budget did not contain any significant funds to address drought.

Therefore, the Committee expects that the Bureau will utilize its

drought emergency assistance program which enables the Bureau

to construct temporary facilities and provide assistance in the form

of contingency planning for communities in an effort to minimize

the impacts of drought.

From the funds appropriated for drought emergency assistance,

the Committee urges the Bureau to provide full and fair consideration of the request for drought assistance from the State of Hawaii and fund, if meritorious.

Water Management and Conservation Program.—The Committee

has provided $500,000 above the President’s budget for urban

water conservation programs within the service area of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program.—The Committee has

provided $750,000 above the budget request for the Uncompahgre

Valley Water Users Association Selenium Remediation Demonstration Project.

Nonreimbursability of Security Funding.—Funds made available

in Public Law 107–117 for Water and Related Resources to respond

to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States

and sums appropriated under this heading for increased site security/counter-terrorism activity shall be nonreimbursible.

BUDGET LIMITATIONS AND REDUCTIONS

Constrained spending limits have made it difficult for the Committee to formulate a balanced Energy and Water Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. In order to adhere to the subcommittee’s allocations, address the critical ongoing activities, correct program imbalances contained in the President’s fiscal year

2003 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
76

bill. However, in an effort to support and honor the congressional

authorizing committees’ jurisdiction, the Committee has not included new project authorizations.

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $55,039,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 48,904,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 48,904,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $48,904,000, the

same as the budget request for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.

The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of Public Law

102–575. This fund was established to provide funding from project

beneficiaries for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition,

and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of California. Revenues are derived from payments

by project beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project

beneficiaries include several required by the Act (Friant Division

surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to non-CVP users,

and tiered water prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation and restoration payments.

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. ...........................

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... $15,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ...........................

This account funds activities that are consistent with the

CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18

State and Federal Agencies and representatives of California’s

urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals of

the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water supply

reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California’s water distribution system.

The CALFED Program was established in May 1995, for the purpose of developing a comprehensive, long-term solution to the complex and inter-related problems in the San Francisco Bay-Delta

area of California. The program’s focus is on the health of the ecosystem and improving water management. In addition, this program addresses the issues of uncertain water supplies, aging levees, and threatened water quality.

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
77

California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Project is reauthorized.

The Committee has provided an additional $30,000,000 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.—$15,000,000 to acquire water

and ground water storage.

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

Delta Division Oversight.—$2,500,000 to continue coordination,

administration, planning, performance tracking and science activities in coordination with CALFED Program Implementation Plan.

STORAGE

Shasta Division.—$3,000,000 to continue evaluating the potential

impacts of the proposed Shasta raise.

Delta Division.—$250,000 to continue evaluations of the Delta

Wetlands project and other in-delta storage proposals. $2,000,000

for Reclamation to continue participating in planning activities associated with enlarging Los Vaqueros reservoir.

Friant Division.—$1,750,000 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.—$5,000,000 to construct the Tracy Test Fish Facility.

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $52,968,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 54,870,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 54,870,000

The Committee recommendation for general administrative expenses is $54,870,000. 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.
78

Section 202 of the bill includes language concerning Drought

Emergency Assistance.

Section 203 of the bill includes language concerning natural

desert terminal lakes.

Section 204 of the bill includes language concerning private sector contracting percentages.

Section 205 of the bill includes language directing the Bureau to

undertake studies for the North Central Montana Rural Water

Supply project using prior appropriated funds.

Section 206 of the bill includes language to make changes to Section 8 of Public Law 104–298.

Section 207 of the bill includes language regarding the San Luis

Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
(79)

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 2003, 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.

ENERGY SUPPLY

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $666,726,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 693,934,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 815,306,000

RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $396,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 407,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 448,062,000

The Committee recommendation provides $448,062,000, for renewable energy resources.

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.

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.

Each year the Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Conference Report contains a handful of ‘‘Congressionally-directed

activities’’ (to use the Department’s description). To date, the Renewable Energy Resources Office has funded fifteen of these Congressionally-mandated activities for fiscal year 2002. This is an unacceptable rate at this point in the fiscal year. These activities are

not optional and are to be given the same priority as the rest of

the fiscal year spending program. The Committee fully expects the
80

Department to address this situation before the Conference Committee completes action on the final funding bill.

Although the Renewable Energy Resources Office is currently undergoing a reorganization, it is not yet complete. It is both unwise

and impractical to appropriate funds to accounts that may or may

not exist at the start of the fiscal year. For that reason, the Committee recommendation appropriates funds generally in accordance

with the Administration’s fiscal year 2003 budget request. If the reorganization is complete when the Conference Committee convenes,

the Committee will consider re-aligning the accounts.

Solar energy.—The Committee recommendation for solar energy programs is $95,000,000. This account is broken up into three subaccounts, each of which is described below.

Solar building technology research.—The Committee recommends

$12,000,000 to fund solar building technology development, including enhanced support to the zero energy building program.

Photovoltaic energy systems.—The Committee recommends

$77,000,000 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

$6,000,000 for concentrating solar power. The Department is directed to begin implementation of a program to deploy 1000 MW

of new solar capacity supplying the Southwestern United States by

the year 2006.

Biomass/biofuels—energy systems.—The Committee recommendation includes $100,000,000 for biomass/biofuels energy

systems. The final Energy and Water Development Conference Report for fiscal year 2002 combined the power systems and transportation subaccounts to increase the programmatic flexibility available to the Department. Thus far, the Committee is encouraged

with the results of this consolidation and has maintained the new

program structure.

Not less than $27,000,000 shall be used for a competitive solicitation for Biomass Integrated Biorefinery Process Development which

shall be funded from within the totals available under the biomass/

biofuels energy account.

The Department has indicated a desire to end direct support to

the Regional Biomass Energy Program (RBEP). The Committee believes that the RBEP has been a successful partnership with the

five distinct regions it has served. The Committee recommendation

includes $5,000,000 and directs the Department to work with regional governors’ organizations to make RBEP even more successful. The Committee recommendation also includes $2,500,000 for

the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, a successful consortium of 34 universities and 33 agribusinesses and trade associations.

Wind.—The Committee recommendation includes $50,000,000 for

wind. The Committee expects the Department to utilize the additional funds to accelerate development and deployment of low wind

speed turbines. The Wind Powering America initiative is to be con-
81

tinued at last year’s funding level. The Committee continues to recognize the need for a set-aside for small wind programs.

Renewable energy production incentive.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the renewable energy production incentive.

Renewable program support.—The Committee recommendation

includes $6,059,000 for technical analysis and assistance within renewable program support. The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 to continue the collaboration and integration of

multi-program activities by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to develop renewable energy resources and address

the electric power needs of the Southwestern United States. NREL

will provide expertise through a virtual laboratory or site office in

Nevada that enables partnerships among universities, researchers,

technology developers, and those interested in deployment.

Departmental Energy Management.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for departmental energy management.

International renewable programs.—The Committee strongly supports the U.S. international joint implementation program funded

in this account and recommends $6,500,000 for that purpose. The

Committee supports efforts to increase international market opportunities for the export and deployment of advanced clean energy

technologies—end-use efficiency, fossil, renewable, and nuclear energy technologies. The Committee is pleased that the Administration has decided to expand its international renewable energy activities.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory.—The Committee recommendation includes $6,800,000, 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 and $800,000 is for construction.

Geothermal.—The Committee recommends $37,000,000 for geothermal technology development, including continued funding (at

current year levels) for GeoPowering the West. The Committee is

concerned that the Department appears to be cutting funds for

these important research efforts prematurely. The decision to cut

funds for geothermal technology development flies in the face of the

recommendations of the President’s Committee of Advisors on

Science and Technology (PCAST) made in 1997. The PCAST report

recommends an escalation of funding over a short period of time to

$50,000,000–$60,000,000. 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.

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 $45,000,000.

The Committee continues to encourage demonstration of a dedicated fleet of vehicles, including buses, powered by hydrogen.

Industrial consumption of hydrogen, especially by the petrochemical and fertilizer communities is large and growing. The rate

of petro-chemical hydrogen consumption necessary for gasoline-
82

powered vehicles will accelerate as global reserves of sweet crude

oil diminish. The dominant resource for hydrogen production today

is natural gas whose reformation into hydrogen and carbon dioxide

contributes significantly to atmospheric greenhouse gases. Moreover, natural gas reserves are insufficient to service simultaneously

domestic heating and electricity requirements, industrial hydrogen

consumption, and future demands by hydrogen powered vehicles

and other fuel cell applications that would accompany the future

‘‘Hydrogen Economy.’’ Accordingly, the Committee supports investment in exploration of feasible concepts for renewable production of

hydrogen with no greenhouse gas emissions and no other waste

products by adding $2,000,000 for an engineering study and evaluation of solar-powered thermo-chemical production of hydrogen

from water.

Hydropower.—The Committee recommends $7,489,000 for hydropower.

Renewable Indian energy resources.—The Committee recommendation includes $9,307,000 for Indian renewable energy resource development. The Committee expects these funds to be administered as competitively awarded grants to federally-recognized

tribes throughout the United States. Within available funds, the

Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for the Council of

Renewable Energy Resource Tribes (CERT) to provide technical expertise and training of Native Americans in renewable energy resource development and electric generation facilities management.

Electric energy systems and storage.—The Committee recommendation includes $75,000,000 for electric energy systems and

storage.

This program provides funding for transmission reliability, energy storage systems and high temperature superconductivity research and development.

The Committee strongly supports the activities of the high temperature superconductor development program, which will revolutionize the way electric power is generated, transmitted and ultimately used by the consumer, and therefore urges the Department

of Energy to submit as part of future budgets an independent funding request for HTS research and development, as it does for programs such as wind, solar and geothermal power.

The Committee recommendation includes $50,000,000 for high

temperature superconductor research and development and

$25,000,000 for distributed energy systems. The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of $9,000,000 for the effort jointly led by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Los Alamos

National Laboratory to develop high-performance, low-cost, secondgeneration, high-temperature superconducting wire.

Renewable program direction.—The Committee recommendation

includes $16,907,000 for program direction within this account.

Use of prior year balances.—The recommendation includes the

use of $15,000,000 of prior year funds to be carried over from fiscal

year 2002 to offset the fiscal year 2003 funding requirements. The

Department may not cut congressionally-directed activities to implement this offset.
83

NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $226,773,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 249,798,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 324,108,000

The Committee recommendation provides $324,108,000 for nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy presently contributes about 21 percent of our nation’s electrical power and emits no atmospheric pollutants, although disposal of spent fuel remains a major technical and social

challenge. 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. The Committee recommendation

includes enhanced funding for the advanced accelerator applications program as described below.

University reactor fuel assistance and support.—The Committee

recommends $19,500,000 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.

The Committee notes the progress of the Department in carrying

out congressional direction to establish and support regional university reactor consortia. Although progress is visible, the Committee remains concerned about the ability of the Nation to respond to the growing demand for trained experts in nuclear science

and technology in the face of financial and other challenges affecting engineering programs and research reactor facilities at American universities. The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $3,000,000 over the request to fund additional consortia

and strongly encourages the Department to request sufficient funding in future years to fund all meritorious proposals.

Nuclear energy plant optimization.—The Committee recommends

a total of $5,000,000, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request. The Department is encouraged to continue 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 $29,000,000, an increase of $4,000,000 over the

budget request. The Department’s budget request would not allow

for any new NERI projects in the coming year. The proposed increase is necessary to continue to grow the scope of the technology

and the people for a growing nuclear industry.
84

Nuclear Energy Technologies.—The Committee recommends a

total of $48,500,000. The Committee directs the Department to prepare a report by March 31, 2003, regarding how it intends to carry

out the results of the Generation IV Roadmap.

To further the introduction of advanced reactors, especially those

that are not conventional, it is important to establish a process by

which research/demonstration reactors can be built and tested in a

manner that will allow a regulatory process to focus on the safety

of the technologies for which there is not a large regulatory history.

It is thus recommended that $1,000,000 be allocated to a joint DOE

and NRC development of a licensing process employing ‘‘risk information’’ that would be technology neutral for future licensing of advanced reactors that would lead to eventual certification.

The Committee supports the Department’s efforts to establish

the fuels resource and infrastructure ultimately essential to the realization of the President’s vision for the future ‘‘Hydrogen Economy.’’ Accordingly, the Committee provides an additional

$3,000,000 for the purpose of accelerating the engineering evaluation of an integrated sulfur/iodine thermo-chemical water-splitting

cycle for coupling with a high temperature nuclear reactor power

source. Of the additional $3,000,000, the Committee directs that

$1,000,000 be provided to the Research Foundation of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas for the purpose of establishing a publicprivate partnership to develop and evaluate innovative high temperature heat exchangers.

The Committee remains interested in the potential use and application of small modular reactors with attractive characteristics

for remote communities that otherwise must rely on shipments of

relatively expensive and environmentally undesirable fuels for

their electric power. To be acceptable, such a reactor would have

to be inherently safe, be relatively cost effective, contain intrinsic

design features which would deter sabotage or diversion, require

infrequent refuelings, and be largely factory constructed and deliverable to remote sites. The Committee recommendation includes

$3,000,000 to begin design work for a plant to demonstrate the viability of such small modular reactors.

Radiological facilities management.—The Committee recommendation includes $92,699,000, $9,600,000 above the request,

for radiological facilities management.

The Committee funding recommendation includes $600,000 in

additional funding for the Cyclotron Isotope Research Center.

Within available funds the Department is also directed to provide

$7,000,000 for hot cell upgrades/establishment of the Bethel Valley

Hot Cell Complex; and $5,000,000 for Pu238 production and Np237

storage. Construction projects are funded at the level of the administration’s request.

Production of Medical Isotopes.—The Committee commends the

Department for issuing a request for proposal to dispose of U233

in building 3019 at the Oak Ridge Reservation and to process that

material to produce medical isotopes. The Committee’s long support

of this effort is a matter of record, and the Committee again emphasizes the importance of this project for the treatment of cancer.

Initial human trials utilizing thorium-229, which can be derived

from the uranium-233 stored in Building 3019, have yielded tre-
85

mendously encouraging results which indicate this radio-isotope

may be able to effectively treat leukemia and other cancers. The

Committee also recognizes that an essential part of this project is

the disposition of the U233 at the Oak Ridge Reservation. The

Committee, cognizant that 1,800 people in the United States die

every month of leukemia, is frustrated that the Department is now

2 years behind schedule on this project and has proposed a schedule that includes unusually long pauses between phases (such as

the proposed 6 months between completion of phase I and initiation of phase II). The Committee recommendation makes available

$5,000,000 for this project in fiscal year 2003. The Department is

directed to fully fund the disposition of U233 and the processing of

the material to produce medical isotopes in future years and proceed with this project as swiftly as possible.

Fast flux test facility.—The Committee has provided the budget request of $36,100,000 for the FFTF. The Committee expects the

Department to move forward quickly on the permanent deactivation of this facility.

Advanced fuel cycles program.—The Committee recommendation

includes $77,870,000 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Program of

which $18,000,000 is allocated to EBR–II Spent Fuel Treatment.

This program subsumes the Advanced Accelerator Applications

program and its activities and will focus on the development of advanced fuel cycles, including recycle or reprocessing of spent fuel,

and transmutation technologies. The Committee intends the Department to use national laboratory, university and industrial expertise to perform research in advanced nuclear materials recycle

technologies, proliferation-resistant nuclear fuels, and transmutation systems, including both reactor- and accelerator-based approaches. The program goals shall include enabling better utilization of uranium resources and minimizing the amount and toxicity

of final waste products. The program shall begin pre-conceptual design of an advanced recycle facility for performing research on scalable recycle technologies that are proliferation resistant, economical, and minimize environmental impact. The program shall use

international collaborations to provide cost effective use of research

funding and expand both university collaborations and domestic industry participation.

The University of Nevada Las Vegas shall continue research activities in the area of transmutation science and testing of spallation target technology established under the Advanced Accelerator

Applications program. Funding of $4,500,000 is provided for these

efforts. The program shall undertake evaluation and may initiate

design and development of a fuels and materials testing station

using the LANSCE accelerator facility.

Finally, the program shall be coordinated with other programs

such as Generation IV and Nuclear Power 2010, but shall maintain

separate program and financial management. Within the increased

funding levels, the Department is directed to continue the advanced accelerator applications program, including funding for the

UNLV program at current year levels and the Idaho Accelerator

Program at $3,500,000. Additionally, the Department is directed to

restore the nuclear energy program funding to current year levels

at Argonne National Lab and ANL-West.
86

Left unchecked, the administration’s budget cut would dismantle

the last remaining nuclear development team in the United States.

Such an action is completely inconsistent with the Administration’s

Nuclear Power 2010 goals. The Committee is pleased that the Department has agreed that the Nuclear Energy Program is an appropriate home for this robust research and development effort.

University Consortium for Transmutation Research.—As discussed above, the right mix of treatment and transmutation technologies must be found to reduce the amount of highly-toxic spent

nuclear fuel and waste slated to be buried in a geologic repository,

and to avoid the need for more repositories. High-energy accelerators could be central to a future strategy to transmute spent nuclear fuel into less toxic, shorter-lived materials.

Innovative transmutation technologies promise to be the most

cost-effective and proliferation-resistant means of reducing nuclear

waste toxicity. Accelerator-based research on transmutation of radioactive waste would also supply facilities for medical diagnostics

and therapy and become a national source of large-scale isotope

production for radio-pharmaceuticals.

The Department of Energy is urged to establish a consortium of

U.S. universities to develop accelerator-based technologies for

transmutation of radioactive waste. The consortium should include,

at a minimum, the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, University of

New Mexico, New Mexico State University, Washington State University, Idaho State University, the University of Texas, Texas

A&M University, and the University of California at Santa Barbara, Berkeley and Davis.

Program direction.—The Committee recommendation includes

$23,439,000 for program direction, the amount of the request.

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $30,500,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 29,211,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 19,211,000

The Committee recommendation includes $19,211,000 for non-defense environment, safety, and health which includes $13,871,000

for program direction.

ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $7,770,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 7,925,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,925,000

Technical information management.—The Committee recommendation for the technical information management program

is $1,400,000.

Program direction.—The Committee recommendation for program direction is $5,525,000.

ENERGY SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. ...........................

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $17,000,000
87

The Committee recommendation provides $17,000,000 for energy

supply infrastructure.

The energy supply infrastructure program provides assistance,

technical support, and project funding to specific energy projects.

The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the Upper

Lynn Canal power supply project, $5,000,000 to the Swan LakeLake Tyee segment of the Southeastern Alaska Intertie System,

and $2,000,000 to the Tok to Glenallen transmission project.

The Committee recommendation also includes $5,000,000 for the

National Center on Energy Management and Building Technologies.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

(NONDEFENSE)

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $236,372,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 166,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 176,000,000

The Committee recommendation provides $176,000,000 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.

Site Closure.—The Committee directs the Department to continue to monitor the groundwater at the Weldon Springs, Missouri,

site and to immediately utilize whatever funds may be necessary

to completely remediate the site if the results from the on-going

monitoring or other studies indicate additional treatment is required.

Site completion.—The Committee recommendation provides

$67,272,000 for site completion. The Committee recommendation

includes an additional $15,000,000 for the Brookhaven National

Laboratory; and $1,000,000 in additional funding for the Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory.

Post 2006 completion.—The Committee recommendation provides

$123,887,000. The Committee recommendation includes an additional $3,134,000 for remediation of the Atlas mill tailings site at

Moab, Utah; and an additional $3,000,000 for the Energy Technology Engineering Center in California.

West Valley.—The Committee recommendation includes an additional $5,000,000 for the West Valley Demonstration Project. The

Committee is concerned that the Department and State of New

York have not yet entered into an agreement regarding the scope

of the clean-up at the site.

Excess Facilities.—The Committee recommendation provides

$1,841,000 for the transfer of excess facilities at the Brookhaven
88

National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Oak

Ridge from other DOE organizations.

URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $418,425,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 382,154,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 471,154,000

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning.—

The Committee recommendation provides $334,523,000 for the uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund.

The Committee provides a total of $134,048,000, an increase of

an additional $34,000,000 for clean-up at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant to ensure compliance with applicable State and Federal obligations. The Committee directs the Department to fund the

Kentucky Consortium for Energy and Environment from within

available funds.

The Committee recommendation also includes $65,000,000 in additional funding for the East Tennessee Technology Park.

Other Uranium Activities.—The Committee recommends

$136,631,000. The Committee recommendation includes

$10,000,000 in support of preliminary environmental planning,

siting studies, and related activities for the Depleted Uranium

Hexafluoride (DUF–6) projects at that gaseous diffusion plants at

Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, consistent with the direction (ignored for many years by the Department but reiterated

legislatively by Congress this year) of Section 1 of Public Law 105–

204 (112 Stat. 681) as amended.

The Committee recommendation includes uranium program activity funding of $16,381,000 for East Tennessee Technology Park,

$19,737,000 for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and

$89,714,000 for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL FUND

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $95,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 209,702,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 56,000,000

The Committee recommendation includes $336,000,000 for nuclear waste disposal. Of that amount, $56,000,000 is derived from

the nuclear waste fund, and $280,000,000 shall be available from

the ‘‘Defense nuclear waste disposal’’ account.

The Committee has provided $6,000,000 for the State of Nevada

and $2,500,000 for affected units of local government in accordance

with the statutory restrictions contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

The Committee directs that $2,500,000 from within the amount

provided to Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal for Yucca Mountain

Site Characterization be provided to the Research Foundation of

the University of Nevada, Las Vegas for the purpose of continuing

and expanding its efforts in ground water characterization and research into the transport and fate of radionuclides in the vicinity

of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository.
89

SCIENCE

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $3,233,100,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 3,279,456,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,329,456,000

Investment in the physical sciences and engineering plays a critical role in enabling U.S. technological innovation and global economic leadership. It is essential to the development of our energy

resources and utilization as well as our defense, environment, communications and information technologies, health and much more.

Over the past 50 years, half of U.S. economic growth has come

from prior investment in science and technological innovation. Life

expectancy has grown from 55 years in 1900 to nearly 80 years

today.

The Department of Energy is the leading source of Federal investment for R&D facilities and fundamental research in the physical sciences. Yet investment in the Department’s R&D has declined in constant dollars from $11,200,000,000 in 1980 to

$7,700,000,000 in 2001. As a percentage of GDP, total Federal investment in the physical sciences and engineering has been cut

roughly in half since 1970.

Shrinking investment in the physical sciences and engineering

poses serious risks to DOE’s ability to perform its mission. It also

threatens the nation’s science and technology enterprise. DOE

faces a shortage of nearly 40 percent in its technical workforce over

the next 5 years. To meet it needs, it must compete for a shrinking

pool of skilled workers with industry, many of whose leaders also

report serious shortages of scientists and engineers.

American educational institutions are failing to attract sufficient

numbers of U.S. students, especially women and minorities, into

undergraduate and graduate programs in the physical sciences and

engineering. For these skills we now are more heavily dependent

on foreign nations than ever before. The H1–B visa has become a

main element of U.S. technology policy.

As fewer foreign students choose to pursue their education in the

United States and too few U.S. students enter these fields, our vulnerability grows. NSF reports that between 1996 and 1999, the

number of Ph.D.s in science and engineering awarded to foreign

students declined by 15 percent. Only 5 percent of U.S. students

now earn bachelors degrees in natural science or engineering. Since

1986 the total number of bachelors degrees in engineering is down

15 percent. Between 1994 and 2000, the number of Ph.D.s awarded

in physics in the United States declined by 22 percent.

These trends must be reversed. Many DOE user facilities do not

operate at their designed capacity. As a result, opportunities and

momentum are lost as researchers and students encounter barriers

to the pursuit of inquiry of national importance, including promising research opportunities at the boundaries of the life sciences,

physical sciences, engineering and computer sciences. Future U.S.

global leadership and technological leadership will rely upon today’s investment in research in all the sciences and engineering.

The Committee strongly supports and encourages increased investment in the research and education initiatives of the DOE Office of Science.
90

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $716,100,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 724,990,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 729,980,000

The Committee recommendation includes $729,980,000 for high

energy physics. The Committee has included an additional

$5,000,000 for the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. The Committee recognizes that the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel has

recommended that the Next Linear Collider (NLC) at the Stanford

Linear Accelerator Center should proceed into design and construction.

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $360,510,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 382,370,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 387,370,000

The Committee recommends $387,370,000 for nuclear physics.

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, 2002 ............................................................................. $527,405,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 504,215,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 531,215,000

The Committee recommendation includes $531,215,000 for biological and environmental research. The recommendation includes

an additional $10,000,000 above the requested level for the

Genomes to Life program and $25,000,000 in total funding for the

low dose effects program. The recommendation also continues the

free air carbon dioxide experiments at the current year level and

$3,000,000 in additional funding for the EMSL computer.

The Committee strongly encourages the Department to budget

for additional resources for the Genomes to Life Program in fiscal

year 2004. This program shows tremendous potential and deserves

enhanced support.

Environmental Remediation.—The Committee recommendation

includes an additional amount of $6,000,000 for a program to

evaluate improved technologies for removal of arsenic from municipal water supplies, with a focus on minimization of operating costs

and reducing energy requirements. This program shall include

peer-reviewed research projects as well as cost-shared demonstration projects conducted with municipal water systems. Demonstration programs shall focus on technologies applicable in the arid

southwestern United States. The program shall be administered

through contracts with the American Water Works Association Research Foundation, which shall utilize capabilities of WERC, A

Consortium for Environmental Education and Technology Development, for evaluations of cost effectiveness of alternative treatment

methodologies.
91

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $1,003,705,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 1,019,600,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,044,600,000

The Committee recommendation includes $1,044,600,000. 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 Research and $4,500,000 in additional funding to complete preliminary engineering and design (PED) and move to construction at the

Center for Integrated Nanotechnology. Within available funds the

Committee recommendation includes full funding for the operation

of the National Synchrotron Light Source, the Spallation Neutron

Source, and the Nanoscale Science Centers Initiative, including

$24,000,000 for design and construction of the Center for

Nanophase Materials Sciences and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Construction projects are all funded at the level of the administration’s request.

The Committee is pleased with the progress of the Department’s

Nanoscience Initiative. The Committee understands the Department has recently announced its intention to fund a Nanocenter at

Brookhaven National Laboratory. The Committee has included

$1,000,000 to begin preliminary engineering and design in fiscal

year 2003 for the Nanocenter at Brookhaven (Project 02–SC–2).

The Committee strongly supports the nanoscale science research

centers.

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.

Advanced Scientific Computing Research.—The Committee recommendation provides $169,625,000 for advanced scientific computing research.

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommendation provides $48,127,000 for safeguards and security.

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation provides $134,837,000 for

science program direction.

SCIENCE LABORATORIES FACILITIES SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $42,735,000, the amount of the request, for science energy laboratories facilities support. The program supports infrastructure activities at the five national labs

under the direction of the Office of Science.
92

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $248,495,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 257,310,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 259,310,000

The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is

$259,310,000, an amount that is $2,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee is aware of significantly increased neutron

yields from compressed fuel elements heated by an extremely short

pulse, high power laser beam. Such advances promise significant

acceleration of the schedule for achieving ignition of compressed fusion pellets. Accordingly, the Committee adds $2,000,000 to Fusion

Energy Sciences for the purpose of evaluating this so-called ‘‘fast

ignition’’ concept. The Department is directed to report back to the

Committee no later than August 1, 2003 with the results of this

evaluation along with any recommendations the Department would

make regarding the schedule and milestones of the High Energy

Density Physics Program.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $210,853,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 299,220,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 235,000,000

(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $137,810,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 137,524,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 137,524,000

The Department recommends $235,000,000 for departmental administration, a net appropriation of $97,476,000.

The Committee has been underwhelmed by the timeliness and

level of detail in the Department’s responses to the Committee’s requests for the additional budget information required to evaluate

the administration’s requests to Congress. The Department needs

to focus on providing timely, detailed, and transparent budget information to Congress when making requests for appropriations.

International affairs.—The Committee strongly urges the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, U.S. AID, and other

Federal agencies associated with the Clean Energy Technology Exports Program to finalize and implement the strategic plan and establish the advisory board. The strategic plan is a critical component of a broad range of international and domestic policy interests, including those promoting economic development, energy,

trade, employment, environmental, and climate change policies.

INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $32,430,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 37,671,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 37,671,000

The Committee has provided $37,671,000 for the Office of the Inspector General.
93

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 Administration 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, 2002 ............................................................................. $5,429,238,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 5,867,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,108,959,000

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 spirit 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 capitalized and maintained physical plants

and supporting infrastructure, and exceptionally focused and dedicated management.

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

An appropriation of $1,234,467,000 is recommended for the directed stockpile work of the NNSA.

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.

Stockpile research and development.—The Committee recommends $467,149,000, the same as the budget request. Stockpile

R&D provides for assessment, certification, surveillance and maintenance research and development for systems comprising our enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. The additional $118,149,000

above the current year is meant to support acceleration in stockpile

life extension research and development activities for the W80 and

W76 systems, necessary additional sub-critical experiments at the
94

Nevada Test Site for pit certification, and a vigorous program in

advanced concepts research and development.

Stockpile maintenance.—The Committee recommends

$401,157,000 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 $197,184,000

to support new material laboratory tests, new material flight tests,

stockpile laboratory tests, stockpile flight tests, quality evaluations,

special testing, and surveillance of weapons systems to support assessment of the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile, all of which contributes to the Annual Certification to the

President.

Dismantlement/disposal.—The Committee recommends

$24,378,000. The program includes all activities associated with

weapon retirement and disassembly. The slight decrease below current year reflects reduced activity involving the W–56 at Y–12 and

contractor efficiencies at Pantex.

Production Support.—The Committee recommends $137,706,000.

CAMPAIGNS

An appropriation of $2,148,210,000 is recommended for the cam- paigns of the NNSA, an increase of $80,376,000 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 $47,159,000

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

$90,594,000. The Committee commends the administration for its

investment in the future through university grants, partnerships

and cooperative agreements. Using $5,000,000 of the available

funds, the Administration is directed to make full use of existing

and developing capabilities for materials properties studies, including the subcritical experiments at the U1a facility, Joint Actinide

Shock Physics Experimental Research facility and the Atlas facility

at the Nevada Test Site, and the High Pressure Collaborative Access Team facility at the synchrotron light source at Argonne National Laboratory. The Committee understands that this materials

work is essential to predicting the safety and reliability of nuclear

weapons in the absence of nuclear weapons testing.

The Committee recommendation includes $8,110,000 for University Partnerships, a reduction of $5,000,000 from the request.

Advanced radiography.—The Committee recommends

$82,925,000, an increase of $30,000,000 over the request. The recommendation includes $25,000,000 to continue research, develop-
95

ment, and conceptual design activities for an advanced

hydrodynamics test facility, including further development and

evaluation of proton radiography. 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. The

additional $5,000,000 is provided to fund other experiments that

might be conducted in the Contained Firing Facility, the U1a tunnel complex, or other appropriate experimental facilities. The Committee also directs the Department to fully support the DHART facility, proton radiography, and radiation flow diagnostics.

Secondary certification and nuclear systems margins.—The Committee recommends $47,790,000 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, partnerships and cooperative agreements.

Enhanced surety.—The Committee recommends $32,000,000, an

amount comparable to current year, to develop and demonstrate

advanced initiation concepts and enhanced use denial concepts, and

to enhance efforts to establish high precision, micro system technologies for enhanced surety of future weapon systems.

Weapons systems engineering certification.—The Committee recommends $27,007,000 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 $23,394,000

to develop and validate tools to simulate nuclear environments for

survivability assessments and certification; restore the capability to

provide nuclear-hardened microelectronics and microsystem components for the enduring stockpile; and accelerate the qualification

and certification of the neutron generator and the arming, fusing

and firing system for the refurbished W76.

ICF ignition and high yield.—The Committee recommends

$487,293,000.

The Committee recommendation includes $214,045,000 for National Ignition Facility construction, Project 96–D–111, and

$273,248,000 is for the ICF ignition and high yield program.

The National Ignition Facility (NIF) was originally justified as a

way of attracting, training, and evaluating the next generation of

nuclear weapons scientists, who would then help maintain the capabilities of our existing nuclear stockpile. The Department of Energy has long maintained that achieving ignition with this multibillion dollar facility was a top priority for the Stockpile Stewardship

and Management Program, because the scientific and engineering

challenges of achieving ignition with the NIF could be used to induce first-rate scientists to contribute to the nuclear weapons program. It was the ignition objective that determined the original

size, performance criteria, and cost of the multibillion dollar NIF

construction project, and the ignition objective that has justified

continued support by this Committee in spite of large cost overruns

and long delays.
96

The Committee is therefore disturbed to see that the NNSA has

now changed the title of its campaign from ‘‘Inertial Confinement

Fusion Ignition and High Yield’’ to ‘‘High Energy Density Physics’’,

in other words, from a focus on achieving the specific goal of ignition to a generalized physics research program. Ignition is now only

one of several objectives for the NIF.

The Committee is likewise concerned that the NNSA will downgrade the NIF Project’s long-standing ‘‘Functional Requirements

and Primary Criteria’’ into a set of ‘‘eventual goals’’ and adopt new

reduced performance criteria for acceptance testing of the NIF

beams that are significantly below what is required to support ignition experiments.

The possibility of these various changes leaves the Committee

with the overall impression that NNSA is not committed to the

NIF Project and might down scope the project to the point where

laser performance that is needed to evaluate ignition targets would

never be realized. And that would raise the question of the appropriate size for the NIF, and its future funding level. This is an

alarming prospect, given NIF’s estimated project cost of more than

$3,500,000,000, and the greater amounts that will eventually be required to operate and maintain the facility for various experiments.

At this late stage in the construction project, the Committee has

every right to expect that the confidence in achieving the ignition

objective should be increasing, not decreasing. The apparent retreat from ignition signified in this budget request raises anew the

question of the appropriate size and role of the NIF Project within

the overall Stewardship Program, and its future level of funding.

The Committee rejects this re-prioritization and down-scoping.

Ignition is now and will remain the primary objective for the National Ignition Facility. The Committee fully expects the NIF to

meet its original ‘‘Functional Requirements and Primary Criteria’’

and to perform at the levels required for ignition and directs the

NNSA to maintain the original scope of the project. Additionally,

the Committee rejects the proposed name change and expects the

fiscal year 2004 request to revert to Inertial Confinement Fusion

and High Yield.

The Committee is disappointed that the administration, while

apparently committed to the construction of the multi-billion dollar

National Ignition Facility (NIF), has not requested funds that are

essential to the achievement of the ignition goal. Accordingly, the

Committee adds $15,000,000 to the administration’s request for the

NIF Director to support the development of cryogenic targets and

essential NIF diagnostics. The Committee, recognizing the ‘‘national’’ character of NIF, encourages the participation of appropriate entities of the national technical community in these activities.

Petawatt lasers.—Short pulse, petawatt class lasers will significantly increase the capabilities of the administration’s high energy

density facilities such as the Z-pinch pulsed power facility at

Sandia National Laboratories, the Trident Laser at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Omega Laser at the Laboratory for Laser

Energetics of the University of Rochester, and the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
97

The Committee recommendation includes an additional

$13,000,000 to realize the benefits of such laser technology. Within

this amount, $5,000,000 is provided to modify the beamlet laser at

Sandia National Laboratories; $3,000,000 is provided to continue

petawatt laser development at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; $2,000,000 is provided for technical community activities

in developing critical short-pulse, high power laser technology, such

as damage resistant gratings; and $3,000,000 is provided for

petawatt laser development at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics

(LLE) at the University of Rochester. This funding will allow the

LLE to continue operations of the OMEGA laser at full capacity.

The Department should provide a report before December 31, 2002,

addressing the need for a new high energy OMEGA–EP (extended

performance). The Committee is concerned that the existing facility

will be unable to meet national science-based stockpile stewardship

requirements in light of the current oversubscription of OMEGA.

The Committee also includes an additional $4,500,000 for university grants and other support. Within this amount, $2,000,000 is

provided for short pulse, high power laser development at the University of Texas; and $2,500,000 is provided to continue short

pulse, high power laser development and research at the University of Nevada, Reno.

Advanced simulation and computing.—The Committee recommends $704,335,000, an amount that is $20,527,000 below the

budget request.

The Committee notes the intriguing development of the Japanese

vector-based Earth Simulator Computer which is now several times

faster than any current ASCI computer and 33 percent faster than

the NNSA’s newest platform, the Q machine. The NNSA has put

forth a credible case for their decision to abandon custom-designed

chips and vector architecture for the much cheaper commodity

chip-based, massively parallel, scalar systems which are the foundation of ASCI.

However, the Committee is not convinced that the NNSA is aggressively pursuing alternative hardware architectures or software

solutions that will result in better interconnection and more efficient use of the NNSA’s substantial computer investment. The

Committee requires more evidence that the current ASCI approach

is the most cost-effective and efficient way of achieving the desired

capability and capacity when needed.

While the Committee recognizes the central importance of the

ASCI program to the success of stockpile stewardship, the Committee remains unconvinced that the NNSA’s platform acquisition

strategy is driven by identified requirements, rather than a well intentioned, but insufficiently justified, desire to aggressively acquire

larger and faster computing assets on an accelerated time-scale.

The NNSA procurements represent a very small percentage of the

U.S. supercomputing market, and the Committee is not convinced

that the NNSA’s acquisition strategy is taking full advantage of the

steady fall in the price per teraflop that characterizes this market.

The NNSA is directed to commission an independent National

Academy of Sciences (NAS) report that includes the following elements. First, the report should include an assessment of the alter-
98

native computer architectures and the applicability of the requirements of the stockpile stewardship program.

In addition to the NNSA, the NAS should consult with the Department’s Office of Science and the National Security Agency and

include their perspectives as to the appropriate computer architectures necessary to meet the needs of the broader scientific community and other elements of the national security community.

Second, the report should identify the distinct requirements of

the stockpile stewardship program and its relation to the ASCI acquisition strategy. The report should clearly describe the linkage

between the development of software applications and the acquisition of hardware capability and capacity, with the needs of the

stockpile life extension programs and the underlying science programs.

Finally, the report should include an evaluation of the cost tradeoffs between the dates on which specific computing resources are

required and reduced future costs for computational power. This report is due to the appropriate congressional committees on May 1,

2002.

The Committee recommends the following amounts for ASCI construction projects:

Project 01–D–101 Distributed information systems laboratory,

SNL, Livermore, CA.—The Committee recommends $13,305,000.

Project 00–D–103 Terascale simulation facility, LLNL, Livermore,

CA.—The Committee recommends $35,030,000.

Project 00–D–107 Joint computational engineering laboratory,

SNL, Albuquerque, NM.—The Committee recommends $7,000,000.

Pit manufacturing and certification.—The Committee recommendation includes a total of $246,000,000 for the Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign, an increase of $51,516,000 over

the budget request. This amount includes $242,000,000 to support

the manufacturing and certification of a W88 pit as the September,

2001, project baseline indicated. The recommendation also includes

the requested amount of $2,000,000 for pit manufacturing capability and $2,000,000 for the modern pit facility.

The Committee remains greatly concerned about the NNSA’s refusal to request funds consistent with its own project plan submitted less than 1 year ago. Although the Committee acknowledges

the NNSA is reporting substantial progress in the effort, the NNSA

has not revised its September, 2001, project baseline to reflect a

lower and presumably more accurate cost projection.

Instead, the Committee has been forced to reduce other items in

the budget request to fully fund a program both the Congress and

the NNSA have identified as one of the most important tests of the

success of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management program.

The Committee directs the NNSA to revise as appropriate the pit

production and certification plan and submit the report to the relevant congressional committees before the end of the current fiscal

year, and annually thereafter.

Stockpile readiness campaign.—The Committee recommends

$61,027,000 for the stockpile readiness campaign. This program,

initiated in fiscal year 2001, enables the Y–12 National Security

Complex to replace or restore production capability and to modernize aging facilities. At present, the critical manufacturing capa-
99

bilities required for weapons refurbishments at Y–12 do not exist.

The Committee agrees that ‘‘stockpile readiness campaign’’ is a

more appropriate and indicative program title than ‘‘secondary

readiness campaign’’.

High explosives manufacturing and weapons assembly/disassembly readiness.—The Committee recommends $12,093,000 to

establish production-scale high explosives manufacturing and qualification; to deploy and validate technologies and facilities for production re-qualification; and, to demonstrate and validate Enterprise Integration and Collaborative Manufacturing.

Non-nuclear readiness.—The Committee recommends

$22,398,000 to deploy commercial products and processes for components supporting the B61, W80, and W76 stockpile life extension

programs; to modify existing tritium loading and cleaning facilities

to support stockpile life extension programs; and, to support neutron target loading and detonator production.

Tritium readiness.—The Committee recommendation includes

$112,899,000 for the tritium readiness campaign, including the

budget request of $70,165,000 for construction and $42,734,000 for

operations, a reduction of $13,400,000 from the request. The NNSA

has acknowledged that the Tritium Extraction Facility construction

project has experienced serious cost-overruns and schedule delays.

The NNSA has proposed initiating the use of commercial reactors

for the irradiation of tritium producing rods in fiscal years 2004

and 2005. This schedule would have required the delivery of fuel

in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003. However, the delays in

the construction of the Tritium Extraction Facility and the resulting delays in start of facility operations will necessitate a delay in

the commercial light water reactor tritium production program. As

such the Committee recommends a reduction of $13,400,000 from

the budget request.

Cooperative agreements.—The Committee recognizes that cooperative agreements with universities are important resources for developing essential technical data for stockpile stewardship. Additionally, such long-term relationships with universities allow considerable opportunity for promoting advanced studies and recruiting the future workforce in technical areas that are critical to the

continuing stewardship enterprise. The Committee understands

that the NNSA has established a new office to be responsible for

administering university partnerships, cooperative agreements and/

or other long-term university relationships. The Committee remains supportive of this activity and directs the administration to

honor existing cooperative agreements as this new office implements its responsibilities.

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

An appropriation of $1,849,812,000 is recommended for readiness

in technical base and facilities. 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

$1,026,000,000 to maintain warm standby readiness for all RTBF
100

facilities with some allowance for inflation. Within available funds,

$6,000,000 is provided for full single shift operations of Sandia National Laboratories’ Z-pinch pulsed power facility, and $56,725,000

is provided for continuing operations of the Device Assembly Facility, the Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research facility, operations associated with the Atlas relocation project, U1a operations, general plant projects and other NTS support facilities.

For continued facility upgrades, refurbishments, operations and

maintenance costs associated with and for the National Center for

Combating Terrorism, an additional $27,000,000 is provided.

The Committee recommendation also includes an additional

$10,000,000 for facility operations at Pantex and an additional

$10,000,000 for operation of facilities at Y–12.

Technology transfer and industrial partnerships.—The Committee recognizes that partnerships with industry may enable the

weapons complex to accomplish its mission more efficiently. Such

partnership can provide access to new technologies, processes and

expertise that improve NNSA’s mission capabilities. One of the

most successful technology transfer and commercialization efforts

in the Department of Energy has occurred with the not-for-profit

Technology Ventures Corporation around Sandia National Laboratories, resulting in over 30 start-up ventures and thousands of jobs

created. The Committee has included an additional $3,000,000 and

directs the NNSA to use this successful public/private partnership

at the other interested NNSA laboratories and the Nevada Test

Site.

Program readiness.—The Committee recommends $218,000,000,

an increase of $9,911,000 above the budget request, to enhance

readiness and maintain materials processing and component manufacturing readiness. Within available funds $64,201,000 is provided for test site readiness including archiving, resumption planning, activities required

for enhanced test readiness planning including test scenarios and

cost/benefit trade offs. Funds are also provided for Testing

Drillback Borehole management as well as experimental and direct

stockpile activities included in DSW and campaigns which contribute to the test readiness posture.

Special projects.—The Committee recommendation includes

$50,500,000 for special projects. Within available funds, $600,000

is provided as the Federal contribution to the Oral History of the

Nevada Test Site; $6,900,000 is provided for the New Mexico Education Enrichment Foundation; $2,500,000 is provided for the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History relocation project;

$500,000 for the design, fabrication, and installation of exhibits at

the Atomic Testing History Institute; and $1,000,000 is provided

for the UNLV Research Foundation, which is integrating the Nevada community reuse organization during fiscal year 2003, for operations in support of stockpile stewardship and homeland security

activities at the Nevada Test Site. The Los Alamos County Schools

Program is funded at the level of the President’s request.

As a result of the events of September 11, 2001, which have

placed increased demands, and a heightened availability requirement on the aircraft required for Aerial Measurements, Sensing

and Monitoring, the Committee is concerned that asset deployed at
101

NNSA facilities at Nellis Air Force Base and Andrews Air Force

Base may not be safely deployed due to dated avionics. In order to

assure the safety and reliability of these assets under all conditions, the Committee recommends $4,000,000 to update aircraft

navigational and other related avionics.

The Committee encourages the Administration to support a joint

Air Force/NNSA research and development program in physical security systems and technologies at the Sandia National Laboratory.

The National Laboratories have long served as test beds for the

development and deployment of advanced technologies. The Committee is impressed with laboratory work designed to protect critical U.S. transportation infrastructure and encourages the Department to continue research and deployment in this area. Within

available funds, the Department is directed to conduct a field installation of the truck stopping device developed at Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory and to build a prototype of a portable, remotely controlled truck stopping device for positive control

of trucks in critical areas. The Committee further directs the Department to continue research regarding suspension bridges and

new techniques for scanning shipping containers.

Material recycle and recovery.—The Committee recommends

$98,816,000, the amount of the budget request.

Nuclear weapons incident response.—The Committee recommends $96,000,000, to enhance the state of response readiness

at various locations, particularly in light of the events of September

11, 2001. The Committee is very pleased with the performance of

DOE’s Emergency Response assets in the aftermath of September

11, 2001. These emergency response teams have done remarkable

work with relatively meager resources. The Department is encouraged to maintain these programs in a robust posture and provides

$5,000,000 in additional funding for this purpose.

Construction projects.—The Committee recommends an appropriation of $328,182,000, 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 01–D–108 Microsystems and engineering science applications, SNL.—The Committee recommends $123,000,000, an increase of $48,100,000 above the budget request.

Project 03–D–102 LANL administration building (SM–43) replacement project, LANL.—The Committee recommendation includes $16,000,000, an increase of $16,000,000 above the Administration’s request.

01–D–103 PED, Various locations, TA–18 relocation at LANL.—

As a result of the NNSA’s announced preferred option that this

equipment and material be transferred to the Device Assembly Facility, the Committee recommends the NNSA suspend planning related to relocation of the facility at Los Alamos and instead utilize

previously appropriated funds to support planning consistent with

the eventual Record of Decision. The Committee recommends no

funding.
102

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $242,512,000, to support re-capitalization of existing operational facilities to halt their deterioration

and restore the robust and enduring mission readiness that relies

on them.

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

The Committee recommends $152,989,000. Of the amount appro- priated, $100,863,000 is provided for operations and equipment,

and $52,126,000 is provided for program direction.

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $509,954,000. The Committee recommendation includes $8,900,000 for construction of the nuclear material safeguard and security upgrade project

at Los Alamos.

The Committee directs the NNSA to continue to improve its ability to build an integrated multiyear budgeting process and eliminate the separate line-item treatment of the security budget in a

manner consistent with April 2002 Report of the Commission on

Science and Security (‘‘Hamre Commission’’).

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $803,586,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 1,113,630,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,115,630,000

The Committee recommendation provides $1,115,630,000 for defense nuclear nonproliferation.

The fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Development Appropria- tions Act provided $861,419,000 for nuclear nonproliferation activities. Since that time, Congress has appropriated an additional

$326,000,000 for defense nuclear nonproliferation in supplemental

appropriations bills. Unfortunately, a substantial portion of the

total appropriated funding for fiscal year 2002 remains unspent

and unobligated.

These programs of are critical interest to this Committee and to

Congress as a whole. However, the Committee is concerned that

the rate of expenditure for nonproliferation programs lags substantially behind that of the rest of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Carry-over rates of 40 percent are not uncommon. Although the Committee recognizes the difficulty in implementing

nonproliferation activities in Russia, the Committee strongly urges

the Department to improve on this level of performance. However,

the Committee does not expect the Department to carry out these

programs with any less rigorous oversight in ensuring efficient and

cost-effective implementation. The securing and safeguarding of

fissile nuclear material abroad is a critical component of our Nation’s terrorism prevention effort.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities of the NNSA are directed to reducing the serious global danger of the proliferation

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 De-
103

partment of Energy laboratories to implement its nonproliferation

programs. 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 and secure manner pending disposition. The Committee continues to strongly support these important

national security programs.

Nonproliferation and verification research and development.—The

Committee recommends $293,407,000.

The recommended level continues the important remote sensing

and verification technology research, development and deployment,

and continues to invest in the development of essential technologies

for responding to the growing threat of chemical and 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, the Committee has provided $15,000,000

to support on-going activities at the Remote Sensing Test and Evaluation Center including sensor test bet development, support for

field testing, and deployment of sensors, applied technology activities, the HAZMAT Spill Center, the RSL, and the STL. Within

available funds, the Committee recommendation also includes

$500,000 for the Remote Sensing Test and Evaluation Center to

conduct a site-wide survey of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant

(IAAP) in Middletown, Iowa, for radiological contamination. This

study shall be done in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Iowa. The Committee recommends

$2,500,000 in support of the 3-year research effort by the Caucasus

Seismic Information Network. The Committee recommendation includes $5,250,000 for the Incorporated Research Institutions for

Seismology PASSCAL Instrument Center.

The Committee recommendation includes an additional

$10,000,000 in support of the nuclear and radiological national security program. The NNSA is directed to provide for the sustained

development of advanced technologies needed to counter nuclear

terrorism threats and should focus on improving capabilities

through research and development in threat assessment and prediction, basic nuclear understanding, sensors and detection systems, consequence mitigation, forensics and attribution and rendersafe technologies.

Nonproliferation and International Security.—The Committee

recommends $92,668,000 for Nonproliferation and International Security.

The Department’s Nonproliferation and International Security

program 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
104

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 Committee recommendation includes $8,100,000 for

continuing the efforts for disposition of spent nuclear fuel in

Kazakhstan.

The Committee commends the NNSA for engaging the wider US

scientific community in contributions to the treaty monitoring program. The Committee will not continue direction that the NNSA

compete a specific portion of the treaty monitoring program, but

strongly encourages the laboratories to continue to incorporate

more industry and academic involvement and to establish metrics

that will allow the Committee to track progress in this effort.

Russian Transition Initiatives.—The Committee recommends

$39,334,000 for Russian Transition Initiatives. The recommendation is meant to continue important activities that counter ‘‘brain

drain’’ to potential proliferant states and terrorist organizations

from the nuclear weapons complex laboratories and production

plants of the former Soviet Union. The request includes

$16,748,000 for the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI), and

$22,586,000 for Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP).

International materials protection, control, and accounting.—The

recommendation provides $233,077,000 for international material

protection, control, and accounting (MPC&A) activities. 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 from fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations and the fiscal year 2003 recommendation 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. In addition, the Committee supports the

NNSA pursuing opportunities to work with the Russian Strategic

Rocket Forces in securing additional weapon sites. The Committee

continues to believe that these activities are critical elements of the

United States non-proliferation efforts.

Within available funds, the Committee recommendation includes

$10,000,000 to accelerate the blend-down of highly enriched uranium. The Administrator of the NNSA is directed to explore new

approaches, in addition to the current 500 MT HEU blend-down

program, that could increase the rate at which HEU is modified to

render it incapable of weapons use in a manner consistent with

section 3157 of S. 2514, the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2003.

Second Line of Defense.—From within available funds, an additional $10,000,000 is provided for expanded activities within

NNSA’s Second Line of Defense (SLD) program. This program is

responsible for improving border and transportation security

against the illicit movement of material used in weapons of mass

destruction (WMD). The Committee supports expanded program

work in major transit/transportation hubs and ports in countries

other than Russia and the Newly Independent States.
105

HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) Transparency Implementation.—The Committee recommendation includes $17,229,000, 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

$14,576,000 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.

Elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production.—The Committee recommendation includes $49,339,000 for the elimination of

weapons-grade plutonium production program. The Committee supports the administrations request to transfer the Elimination of

Weapons-Grade Plutonium program (EWGPP) from the Department of Defense to the NNSA. However the Committee is concerned with the inherent complexity, and the concomitant problems

of cost increases and schedule slippage, when working in the Russian weapons complex closed cities. The Committee directs the department to provide a report by December 31, 2002, detailing the

proposed program plan, including cost, schedule, and project milestones that can be used to track program progress.

Fissile materials disposition.—The Committee recommends

$448,000,000, to maintain operations in the United States and in

Russia according to the plan under the budget request.

Excess weapons grade plutonium in Russia is a clear and present

danger to the security of the United States because of the possibility that it will fall into the hands of non-Russian entities 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 $194,000,000 for U.S.

surplus materials disposition, the same as the budget request.

The Committee urges the Department to continue the thoriumbased fuel cycle program currently being conducted by the Russian

Research Initiative in conjunction with their U.S. industrial partners.

Construction.—

Project 99–D–141 Pit Disassembly & Conversion Facility.—The

Committee recommends $33,000,000, the same as the budget request.
106

Project 99–D–143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility.—The Committee recommends $93,000,000, the same as the

budget request.

Project 01–D–407 Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Blend Down

Project.—The Committee recommends $30,000,000, the same as the

budget request.

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $688,045,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 706,790,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 706,790,000

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 $706,790,000, the amount of the budget request.

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $312,596,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 335,929,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 335,929,000

The Committee has included $335,929,000 for the expenses of the

Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).

The NNSA is taking the long-overdue steps necessary to re-engineer the entire nuclear weapons complex to reflect new national security realities. In the field, the Operations Offices are being converted to Service Centers and the 8 Site Offices are being given

greater authority over the contractors. The NNSA has announced

its first major Headquarters re-engineering to consolidate management and oversight.

When fully implemented, the layers of Federal Headquarters

management will be reduced. The Committee recognizes that there

will be increased cost for permanent change of station associated

with re-deploying existing staff. The committee expects the NNSA

to aggressively pursue these efforts without negatively impacting

critical national security missions.

The National Nuclear Security Administration Act and subsequent Appropriations Acts have included requirements or direction

to develop and implement a planning, programming, and budgeting

system. The Committee directs the Department conduct an independent assessment of the NNSA’s PPBS process and structure, including its comparability to that of the Department of Defense. The

review should also determine whether the NNSA’s PPBS is capable

of being used as the central decision making process for resource

allocation decisions and the extent to which it has been incorporated by NNSA M&O contractors.
107

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, 2002 ............................................................................. $5,234,576,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 4,544,133,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,406,532,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,406,532,000

for Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

programs for fiscal year 2003. This is $862,399,000 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 ‘‘Defense environmental restoration and waste management’’ appropriation is organized into two program accounts, site/project completion and post-2006 completion to reflect the emphasis on project

completion and site closures.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CLEAN-UP REFORM

The Department’s top-to-bottom review of the Environmental

Management Program concluded that cleaning up the legacy of the

Cold War is costing billions more than it should and will take

many years longer than anticipated to complete. The Department’s

position, correct in the view of the Committee, is that the status

quo is unacceptable. The Department, during the last year, has embarked on a mission to quickly and markedly improve the program’s performance in achieving clean-up and closure, and ensure

that the primary goal is reducing risk to workers, the public, and

the environment.

In the fiscal year 2003 budget submittal, the Department recommended the creation of an $800,000,000 clean-up reform account

in an attempt to lure sites and States into re-negotiating binding

agreements to accelerate clean-ups throughout the DOE complex.

In a relatively flat budget request, this pot of money was created

by cutting fiscal year 2003 funding levels at nearly every DOE

clean-up site. The Department wanted the $800,000,000 to be completely unallocated by Congress as an incentive to bring States and

sites to the bargaining table quickly rather than risk not receiving

any of the funding. The general unfairness and inequity of such a

tactic is not lost on the Committee.

This approach seems to have worked because the Department

has entered into negotiations with the vast majority of the sites in
108

the complex. There was no shortage of States or sites willing to line

up to accept additional funding now in exchange for, at best, a

vague promise to complete work on their clean-up years ahead of

schedule. The Committee remains skeptical that the addition of a

relatively small increase in funds today at, for example, Hanford,

will result in a savings of 35 years and $40,000,000,000–

$50,000,000,000. The Department has utilized this ‘‘more money

now, great savings later’’ strategy in a number of other areas, with

limited success to date. However, the Committee is in full agreement that the current situation is untenable.

Of greater concern to the Committee is the fact that the budget

tally for the re-negotiated agreements totals approximately

$1,100,000,000, a figure that the Department has, since early in

this year’s budget process, treated as if it was the actual budget

request. It is completely unacceptable for the Department to enter

into binding legal agreements with States when it is clear there is

no money in the budget request to fully fund the final agreements.

This behavior is in no way mitigated by the submittal of a budget

amendment weeks after the Committee had issued 302(b) allocations to each of the Subcommittees.

The result of such a cynical action is to force the Committee into

making one of two equally unappealing choices: (1) Forego funding

for critically important nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear weapons stockpile programs, including the pit manufacturing and certification program that is the cornerstone of science-based stockpile

stewardship; or (2) allow the Department to renege on agreements

with States, due to insufficient funding, mere months after entering into them.

The Committee reluctantly chooses the former approach if only

because this administration has already proved far too eager to

trample on the rights of the States if it serves its interests to do

so. This administration has also shown no greater long-term commitment to fulfilling legally binding clean-up agreements with

States than its immediate predecessors.

The Committee recommendation does not include a separate

clean-up reform account. The Committee is unwilling to provide a

completely unallocated $1,100,000,000 to the Department. Rather,

the recommendation appropriates funds to each of the affected sites

in accordance with the State agreements and in the existing cleanup appropriation accounts.

The fact that the (less than timely) $300,000,000 budget amendment arrived with less detail about the uses and sites for the dollars than was contained in the public affairs press releases trumpeting each new State agreement, provides the Committee with no

confidence whatsoever that the Department is planning to fulfill

each individual clean-up commitment. The complete lack of detailed information from the Department to Congress concerning the

specific tasks to be performed with $1,100,000,000 of the taxpayers

money is as shocking as it is arrogant.

Given the lack of adequate budget justification material for each

of the sites, the Committee is compelled to withdraw the internal

reprogramming authority that has traditionally been provided to

the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. Any proposed reprogramming shifts between accounts and sites of all Envi-
109

ronmental Management funds, both current and prior years, available to the Department during fiscal year 2003, must be submitted

to the appropriate House and Senate Committees for approval.

In conclusion, the Committee reiterates its support for the Department’s efforts to expedite the clean-up of the legacy of the Cold

War in an efficient and effective manner. To the extent that the

clean-up reform initiative has improved the legally binding agreements between the Department and the States, the Committee is

pleased. However, once these agreements are in place, the Committee expects the annual budget submission from this and future

administrations to fully fund the Federal portion of each of these

agreements. If not, the balances will be made up from the Environmental Management Program Direction and Departmental Administration accounts.

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 concerning the need and requirement for each

individual support service contract, and duplicative and overlapping organizational arrangements and functions.

SITE AND PROJECT COMPLETION

An appropriation of $981,350,000 is recommended for site and

project completion activities, including $973,106,000 for operation

and maintenance, and $8,244,000 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.

The Committee recommendation includes additional funding

above the level of the administration’s request for the following activities: $40,000,000 to accelerate cleanup at Savannah River Site

in South Carolina; $5,000,000 for cleanup activities at Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho;

$141,000,000 for accelerated cleanup at the Hanford site in Washington; $8,000,000 to accelerate cleanup activities at Sandia National Lab in New Mexico; and $5,000,000 for accelerated cleanup

at the Pantex site in Texas.

The Committee provides $1,000,000 to the State of Oregon to

cover costs of its clean-up effort, including emergency drills, planning activities, technical review of DOE’s waste management and

clean-up plans, participation in the Hanford Advisory Board meetings and other meetings at Hanford.
110

The Committee recommendation includes an additional

$1,500,000 for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory and recommends that the Department continue its relationship with the

University of South Carolina’s Center for Water Resources at current year levels.

The Committee understands the Department is prepared to

transfer up to 2,000 acres for the use of Pueblo of San Ildefonso

and approximately 100 acres to the County of Los Alamos. The

Committee recommendation includes an additional $4,000,000 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 $3,353,098,000, which includes $2,211,240,000 in operating

expenses for post-2006 completion, $455,256,000 in operating expenses for the Office of River Protection, and $671,732,000 for ORP

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 above the level of the administration’s request for the following activities: $229,000,000 for

vitrification plant work at the Office of River Protection in Washington; $176,000,000 to accelerate cleanup and nuclear materials

stabilization at Savannah River Site in South Carolina;

$105,000,000 for cleanup activities at Idaho National Engineering

and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho; $63,000,000 for accelerated cleanup of the River Corridor and tank waste management at

the Hanford site in Washington; $54,000,000 to accelerate remediation, waste management, and nuclear materials stewardship activities at Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico; $40,000,000 for

accelerated cleanup at the Oak Ridge National Lab and Oak Ridge

Reservation in Tennessee; $33,000,000 for accelerated cleanup at

the Nevada Test Site in Nevada; $22,000,000 for accelerated cleanup at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab; and $2,000,000 for

cleanup activities in Alaska.

The Department is expected to continue making PILT payments

to counties that have the Hanford reservation within their boundaries at last year’s level.

Within available funds, the Committee also directs the Department to fund the Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program and

the HAMMER programs at levels consistent with fiscal year 2001

levels.

The Department is directed to pay its Title V air permitting fees

at the INEEL consistent with prior year levels.
111

Last year the Committee encouraged the Department to utilize

alternative dispute resolution to resolve the Pit 9 issue currently

in Federal court. The Committee is aware the district court has ordered the parties to enter into mediation. The Committee commends that initiative and encourages the pursuit of the action to

avert continued costly and protracted litigation. The Committee expects the Department to participate directly in that mediation, not

through the M&O contractor. If mediation is not successful, the

Committee expects the Department to initiate and participate in

arbitration to resolve this dispute.

Carlsbad Field Office.—The recommendation includes an additional $14,000,000 for Carlsbad to accelerate shipping and disposing of transuranic waste around the complex; an additional

$5,000,000 to continue the U.S. Mexico Border Health Commission/

Materials Corridor Partnership Initiative. The recommendation

also includes an additional $3,500,000 which shall be made available to the Carlsbad community for educational support, infrastructure improvements, and related initiatives to address the impacts

of accelerated operations.

In order to provide more timely information in a useable format

to citizens, researchers, stakeholders and regulators, the Committee directs the Department to consolidate at Carlsbad all record

archives relevant to the operations of WIPP and the TRU waste in

the repository.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommendation includes $77,000,000 for science

and technology, $15,000,000 below the administration’s request.

The Committee notes that the administration’s request is a cut of

nearly $164,000,000 from the current year.

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 is aware of the Department’s plan to ‘‘re-focus’’

the Science and Technology Program and to discontinue all focus

area activities, all technology applications activities, as well as

other university and industry programs under this account. This

recommendation is a result of the Department of Energy’s recent

Top-to-Bottom Review of the Environmental Management program.

The Committee disagrees with this decision and is skeptical that

a robust Science and Technology program can be maintained given

the $164,000,000 cut. Long-term investment in research and development is the single most important thing the Department can do

to ensure that clean-ups are completed quickly and efficiently. The

solutions to many of the technical problems facing clean-up sites

throughout the DOE complex have not yet been invented. Sharp

cuts to science and technology are not the answer and the Committee hopes the Department will reconsider for fiscal year 2004.

Within available funds, the Committee provides $7,000,000 for

the Western Environmental Technology Office; $3,150,000 to con-
112

duct advanced conceptual design of the Subsurface Geosciences

Laboratory; $6,000,000 for the Subsurface Science Research Institute (operated by the Inland Northwest Research Alliance and

INEEL; $5,000,000 for the National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program;

$6,000,000 for the Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory; $3,000,000 to continue micro-sensing technology development and prototype development and prototype deployment for the

Underground Test Area; and $4,350,000 for the University Research Programs in Robotics. An additional $5,000,000 is provided to establish the Critical Infrastructure Testbed at INEEL to implement the recommendations

of the Energy Infrastructure Assurance Task Force.

Within available funds, the Committee provides additional fund- ing of $7,500,000 to INEEL for the research and development of

technologies to address environmental challenges.

The Committee urges the Department to continue its previous

commitment to seek alternative cost-effective technologies from

outside the Department in cleaning up legacy waste. The Committee is aware that the international agreement with AEA Technology has been successful in accomplishing this vital task and

urges the Department to expand use of this Agreement.

The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for basic

science experiments requiring the specialized underground environment of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, including continuation of

evaluation of the mass of the neutrino through study of double beta

decay of xenon-136 as initiated in fiscal year 2002. The Committee

recommends close coordination between the Office of Science and

the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management to assure

that basic science studies at WIPP do not interfere with the TRU

waste responsibilities of WIPP. The Committee also notes with concern that funds provided to initiate this work in fiscal year 2002

were not released by the Department until well into that fiscal

year, seriously jeopardizing progress, and directs that funds be

promptly released in fiscal year 2003.

The Committee agrees with DOE testimony that proven innovative technology should be deployed in clean-up operations as quickly as possible. As in previous years, the Committee continues to

support proving out the advanced vitrification technology, which

holds the potential to significantly lower clean-up costs and future

appropriation requirements. The advanced vitrification system also

represents technology and innovation which have been invented,

developed, and produced in the United States and should be a national security priority for government-funded nuclear waste management programs.

Therefore, the Committee directs the Department, from within

available funds, to develop the vitrification-in-the-final-disposalcontainer AVS system in accordance with the work plan.

Finally, the Department is directed to renew its cooperative

agreement with the University of Nevada-Las Vegas through its

Research Foundation.

EXCESS FACILITIES

The Committee recommendation for excess facilities is

$1,300,000, which is the same as the budget request. These funds
113

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 2003 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.

MULTI-SITE

The Committee recommendation includes $479,871,000 for multisite activities.

This program account supports management and oversight for

various crosscutting Environmental Management and Department

initiatives, including the program’s contribution to the Uranium

Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.

Within available funds, the Committee provides $14,000,000 for

the National Energy Technology Laboratory to support the implementation of an integrated program for closing small DOE cleanup sites and to serve as the DOE field service center for the longterm stewardship of former DOE sites in the eastern United

States. The Committee further directs that no action shall be taken

to diminish the fiscal year 2002 Environmental Management employee levels at NETL in any was as the laboratory’s workload

transitions from the science and technology program.

The Department shall continue its support of WERC, the Consortium for Environmental Education and Technology Development, at

current year levels consistent with its contractual obligations and

shall extend the Tribal Colleges Initiative grant, involving

Crownpoint Institute of Technology, Dine ́ College, Southwestern

Indian Polytechnic Institute, to develop high-quality environmental

programs at tribal colleges.

Within available funds, the Committee provides additional funding of $7,500,000 to INEEL for the research and development of

technologies to address environmental challenges.

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommendation for safeguards and security is

$228,260,000, the same as the budget request.

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation for program direction totals

$324,000,000, which is the same as the budget request.

Program direction provides the overall direction and administrative support for the environmental management programs of the

Department of Energy.

The Assistant Secretary shall provide a report to the relevant

House and Senate Appropriations Committees by November 1,

2002, detailing the reassignment of all the Senior Executive Service (SES) employees paid in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002

from the Environmental Management program direction account.

The report should name all reassigned Federal managers, their

title and position at the beginning of the calendar year 2001, date

of reassignment, title and position as of September 30, 2002, rationale for reassignment, and the unique capabilities or experience

the individual brings to the reassignment position.
114

DEFENSE FACILITY CLOSURE PROJECTS

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $1,092,878,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 1,091,314,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,125,314,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,125,314,000 for the site closure program, an increase of $34,000,000 over the request.

The ‘‘Site closure’’ account includes funding for sites where the

environmental management program has established a goal of completing the cleanup mission by the end of fiscal year 2006. After

the cleanup mission is complete at a site, no further DOE mission

is envisioned, except for limited long-term surveillance and maintenance. This account provides funding to cleanup the Rocky Flats,

Fernald, Mound, Ashtabula, and Columbus sites.

The Committee recommendation includes additional funding

above the administration’s request to maintain the 2006 closure

goal at the following sites in Ohio: $25,000,000 for Fernald;

$4,000,000 for the Mound site; $5,000,000 for the Columbus Environmental Management Project.

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $153,537,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 158,399,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 158,339,000

An appropriation of $158,339,000 is recommended for the environmental management privatization initiative.

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES

Details of the Committee’s recommendations are included in the

table at the end of this title.

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $544,044,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 468,664,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 537,664,000

ENERGY SECURITY AND ASSURANCE

The Committee recommendation for energy security and assur- ance is $56,686,000. This program supports the national security of

the United States by working to protect the Nation against severe

energy supply disruptions by working with the private sector and

the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center

(NISAC) to provide technical response support during an emergency. The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for a

pilot project in Washington, DC, to be carried out in conjunction

with the local power provider and the Washington Metropolitan

Council of Governments, to protect and harden electricity infrastructure in the Nation’s Capital, an area uniquely susceptible to

terrorist attack.

The Committee recommendation includes a total of $30,000,000

in support of the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis

Center. This funding will enable the continuation of work authorized in the USA Patriot Act to develop sophisticated models and
115

simulation capabilities for critical infrastructures. The additional

resources are to be available for additional operations, construction

of general plant projects and acquisition of equipment to support

the center.

The Committee recommendation also includes $16,000,000 for

the National Energy Technology Laboratory to assist the Office of

Energy Assurance in support of research and development to monitor and protect the physical assets of the U.S. energy infrastructure, including power plants, pipelines, transmissions lines, gaseous and liquid fuel storage, and depots, processing plants, and refineries.

The Committee strongly urges the Department, when conducting

critical infrastructure assessments, use entities with a proven global information technology infrastructure, and with experience in

cyber security and energy information management.

INTELLIGENCE

The Committee recommendation totals $41,246,000 for intelligence.

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

The Committee recommendation for security and emergency operations is $185,515,000.

Nuclear Safeguards.—The Committee recommendation provides

$91,102,000 for nuclear safeguards.

Security Investigations.—The Committee recommendation provides $45,870,000, the amount of the budget request.

Program Direction.—The Committee recommendation provides

$48,543,000 for program direction.

Coordination with local communities.—The Committee recognizes

the unique emergency response role carried out by local governments adjacent to Departmental facilities and directs the Department to use available resources to improve local government emergency response capabilities through better communications and

stronger coordination of training and response activities.

INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

The Committee recommendation provides $22,430,000 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.
116

COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

An appropriation of $45,955,000, the amount of the request, is

provided for the counterintelligence activities of the Department of

Energy.

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.

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

The Committee recommendation provided $114,041,000 for Environmental, Safety and Health activities including $17,149,000 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 recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue

the DOE worker records digitization project through the Research

Foundation at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.

The Committee continues to be concerned that the Department

has failed to recognize the importance of automating records management processes and continues to encumber extraordinary costs

by employing labor intensive procedures in support of these requirements. Though the Committee recommended a Departmentwide standardization of processes to ensure data preservation and

access, the Committee is not aware of a comprehensive coordinated

effort being undertaken within the Department. The Committee is

also aware that even within the Environment Safety & Health organization, parallel activities were undertaken to digitize worker

records while another part of the organization sought the

digitization of similar worker records to support the Employee

Compensation Initiative. To the extent that there is a desire to

digitize records in support of the ECI, the Committee strongly encourages the Department to utilize the existing program at UNLV.

The Committee is concerned that the Department is waivering in

its commitment to medical screening and health studies of current

and former workers. Many of these medical screenings are required

by law. The Committee expects the Department to expend

$60,000,000, a slight increase above the current year rather than

the $7,000,000 cut proposed by the Administration, on health studies.

The Committee recommends $5,200,000, an increase of

$4,150,000 above the request, for medical monitoring at the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, and

Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This will fully fund, as required by law, the

worker screening program for both current and former workers.

The Committee strongly supports and requires the continued use

of helical low-dose CAT scanning for early lung cancer detection in

workers with elevated risks of lung cancer. Such tests may detect

lung cancers at an early stage even when they are not visible with

conventional x-rays. The program in place at the gaseous diffusion
117

plants is successfully identifying early lung cancers at a stage

when they are treatable and can be expected to dramatically increase survival rates. The recommendation also includes $1,000,000

for health studies at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant.

The Committee directs the Department to initiate a beryllium

screening and outreach program for those workers employed at

vendors in the Worcester, Massachusetts, area who supplied beryllium to the Atomic Energy Commission for use in the nuclear

weapons program. The DOE is directed expedite the screening program by using one of the DOE’s existing former worker medical

screening program providers. The Committee recommends

$250,000 for this program.

Energy Employees Compensation Initiative.—The Committee recommendation includes $16,000,000, the amount of the request, for

the Energy Employees Compensation Initiative. Title 36 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (Public Law 106–398) established the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program to provide benefits to DOE contractor workers made

ill as a result of exposures from nuclear weapons production. The

Department is responsible for establishing procedures to assist

workers in filing compensation claims.

The Committee understands that a proposed final rule implementing Part D of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness

Compensation Program is currently under review within the Administration. Any final rule implementing Part D should prohibit

contractor challenges, specify that a majority determination of the

Physicians’ Panel is sufficient, and rely on the independent judgment of a physicians’ panel with respect to burden of proof and

medical causation.

WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION

The Committee has provided an appropriation of $25,683,000 for

these activities for fiscal year 2003. 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.

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $50,587,000 for national security programs administrative support. This fund pays for

departmental services that are provided in support of the National

Nuclear Security Administration.

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

An appropriation of $2,933,000 is recommended for the Office of

Hearings and Appeals. The Office of Hearings and Appeals conduct
118

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, 2002 ............................................................................. $280,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 315,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 280,000,000

The Committee recommends $280,000,000 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.

Purchase power and wheeling.—The Committee is recommending

the elimination of the phase out by the end of fiscal year 2004 of

the use of receipts by the Southeastern Power Administration, the

Southwestern Power Administration, and the Western Area Power

Administration for purchase power and wheeling.

This approach was originally proposed in the Administration’s

fiscal year 2001 budget request and endorsed in the Energy and

Water Development Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2002 (Public

Law 106–377). In recognition of the Western energy crisis during

the previous year, the Committee did not adhere to the Public Law

106–377 limitations on purchase power and wheeling in fiscal year

2002, with the largest increase being for the Western Area Power

Administration. The budget request for fiscal year 2003 proposed

resuming the phase-out of purchase power and wheeling along the

schedule contained in Public Law 106–377. However, the Committee finds that there is no compelling reason to continue the

phase out of purchase power and wheeling, particularly since this

activity is budget neutral.

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2003 maintains

purchase power and wheeling activities at the fiscal year 2002
119

level. The Committee will continue to establish ceilings on the use

of receipts for purchase power and wheeling, and also establish the

amount of offsetting collections.

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.

Borrowing Authority.—Bonneville Power Administration presently has available $3,750,000,000 in permanent borrowing authority, authorized by the Transmission System Act (Public Law 93–

454). For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommendation includes

an estimate of use of $630,800,000 of authorized borrowing authority, the same as the budget request and $256,300,000 more than

fiscal year 2002. This borrowing authority is available for capital

investments in power systems (including fish and wildlife measures), transmission systems, and capital equipment. Bonneville

forecasts that it will fully utilize its remaining borrowing authority

during fiscal year 2004.

The Administration has submitted a legislative proposal to in- crease the current Bonneville borrowing authority by $700,000,000,

for a new total borrowing authority of $4,450,000,000. The Committee recommendation does not include this additional borrowing

authority at this time because the matter is presently committed

to the House-Senate conference on energy legislation.

Limitation on direct loans.—The Committee recommends that no

new direct loans be made in fiscal year 2002.

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
120

Bonneville to obligate borrowing authority in excess of such

amounts.

The Committee recommendation includes $34,463,000 for purchase power and wheeling activities, the same as the current year

and consistent with the terms described above.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $4,891,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 4,534,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,534,000

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.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $28,038,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 27,378,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 27,378,000

The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing agent

for the power generated at Corps of Engineers’ hydroelectric plants

in the six-State area of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana with a total installed capacity of 2,158

megawatts. It operates and maintains some 1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating projects, and 24 substations, and sells

its power at wholesale primarily to publicly and cooperatively

owned electric distribution utilities.

The Committee recommendation includes $2,200,000 for purchase power and wheeling activities, the same as the current year

and consistent with the terms described above.

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $171,938,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 162,758,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 168,858,000

The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for marketing electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation, the

Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water

Commission which operate hydropower generating plants in 15

Central and Western States encompassing a 1.3-million-squaremile geographic area. Western is also responsible for the operation

and maintenance of almost 17,000 miles of high-voltage trans-
121

mission 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, $6,100,000 shall be transferred to the Utah Reclamation

Mitigation and Conservation Commission.

The Committee recommendation includes $186,124,000 for purchase power and wheeling activities, the same as the current year

and consistent with the terms described above.

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 $2,734,000, 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, 2002 ............................................................................. $184,155,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 192,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 192,000,000

SALARIES AND EXPENSES—REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $184,155,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 192,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 192,000,000

The Committee recommendation provides $192,000,000, the

amount of the budget request, for the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC). Revenues are established at a rate equal to

the amount provided for program activities, resulting in a net appropriation of zero.
122

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 Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

ENERGY SUPPLY

RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Renewable energy technologies:

Biomass/biofuels energy systems .................................................................................. 86,005 100,000

Geothermal technology development ............................................................................. 26,500 37,000

Hydrogen research ......................................................................................................... 39,881 45,000

Hydropower ..................................................................................................................... 7,489 7,489

Solar energy ................................................................................................................... 87,625 95,000

Wind energy systems ..................................................................................................... 44,000 50,000

Total, Renewable energy technologies ...................................................................... 291,500 334,489

Electric energy systems and storage ..................................................................................... 70,447 75,000

Renewable support and implementation:

Departmental energy management ............................................................................... 3,000 3,000

International renewable energy program ....................................................................... 6,500 6,500

Renewable energy production incentive program ......................................................... 4,000 5,000

Renewable Indian energy resources .............................................................................. 8,307 9,307

Renewable program support .......................................................................................... 2,059 6,059

Total, Renewable support and implementation ........................................................ 23,866 29,866

National renewable energy laboratory .................................................................................... 4,200 6,000

Construction: 02–E–001 Project engineering and design, NREL Golden, CO ....................... 800 800

Total, National renewable energy laboratory ............................................................ 5,000 6,800

Program direction .................................................................................................................... 16,187 16,907

Subtotal, Renewable Energy Resources .................................................................... 407,000 463,062

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ¥15,000

TOTAL, RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES ................................................................ 407,000 448,062

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Advanced radioisotope power system ..................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Isotopes:

Isotope support and production .................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Construction ................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

99–E–201 Isotope production facility (LANL) ............................................................... ........................ ........................

Subtotal, Isotope support and production ................................................................ ........................ ........................

Offsetting collections .............................................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Total, Isotopes ........................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

University reactor fuel assistance and support ..................................................................... 17,500 19,500
123

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

Research and development:

Nuclear energy plant optimization ................................................................................ ........................ 5,000

Nuclear energy research initiative ................................................................................. 25,000 29,000

Nuclear energy technologies .......................................................................................... 46,500 48,500

Total, Research and development ............................................................................. 71,500 82,500

Fast flux test facility (FFTF) ................................................................................................... 36,100 36,100

Radiological facilities management:

Radiological facilities .................................................................................................... 78,977 88,638

ANL–West operations ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Test reactor area landlord ............................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................... 78,977 88,638

Construction:

99–E–2–1 Isotope production facility (LANL) ............................................................... 1,721 1,721

99–E–200 Test reactor area electrical utility upgrade, Idaho National Engineering

Lab, ID ....................................................................................................................... 1,840 1,840

95–E–201 Test reactor area fire and life safety improvements, Idaho National Engineering Lab, ID .......................................................................................................... 500 500

Subtotal, Construction .......................................................................................... 4,061 4,061

Total, Radiological facilities management ........................................................... 83,038 92,699

Nuclear facilities management:

EBR–II shutdown ............................................................................................................ ........................ ........................

Disposition of spent fuel and legacy materials ............................................................ ........................ ........................

Disposition technology activities ................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Total, Nuclear facilities management ....................................................................... ........................ ........................

Advanced fuel cycle ................................................................................................................ 18,221 77,870

Program direction .................................................................................................................... 23,439 23,439

Subtotal, Nuclear Energy ........................................................................................... 249,798 332,108

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ¥8,000

TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY ......................................................................................... 249,798 324,108

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense) ...................................................... 10,340 5,340

Program direction .................................................................................................................... 18,871 13,871

TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH ............................................................ 29,211 19,211

ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Technical information management program ........................................................................ 1,400 1,400

Program direction .......................................................................................................... 6,525 5,525

TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ....................................................................... 7,925 6,925

ENERGY SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE

Energy Supply Infrastructure .................................................................................................. ........................ 17,000

TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................... ........................ 17,000

Subtotal, Energy supply ............................................................................................. 693,934 815,306
124

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

General reduction .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY ............................................................................................ 693,934 815,306

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Site closure ............................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Site/project completion ........................................................................................................... 51,272 67,272

Post 2006 completion ............................................................................................................. 112,887 123,887

Fast flux test facility (FFTF) ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Long-term stewardship ........................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Excess facilities ...................................................................................................................... 1,841 1,841

Subtotal, Non-Defense Environmental Management ................................................ 166,000 193,000

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ¥17,000

TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ............................................ 166,000 176,000

URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund:

Decontamination and decommissioning ........................................................................ 234,523 333,523

Uranium/thorium reimbursement ................................................................................... 1,000 1,000

Total, Uranium enrichment D&D fund ...................................................................... 235,523 334,523

Other Uranium Activities:

Maintenance and pre-existing liabilities ....................................................................... 146,631 136,631

02–U–101 Depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion project, Paducah, KY and

Portsmouth, OH ......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

96–U–201 DUF6 cylinder storage yard, Paducah, KY .................................................. ........................ ........................

Total, Other uranium activities ................................................................................. 146,631 136,631

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

TOTAL, URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION ............................... 382,154 471,154

SCIENCE

High Energy Physics:

Research & Technology .................................................................................................. 258,545 263,555

Facility operations .......................................................................................................... 446,352 446,332

Construction: 98–G–304 Neutrinos at the main injector, Fermilab ............................. 20,093 20,093

Total, High energy physics ........................................................................................ 724,990 729,980

Nuclear physics ....................................................................................................................... 382,370 387,370

Biological and environmental research .................................................................................. 504,215 531,215

Construction: 01–E–300 Laboratory for Comparative and Functional Genomics, ORNL ...... ........................ ........................

Total, Biological and environmental research .......................................................... 504,215 531,215

Basic energy sciences:

Research:

Materials sciences and engineering research ...................................................... 547,883 553,383

Chemical sciences, geosciences and energy biosciences .................................... 220,146 234,146

Engineering and geosciences ............................................................................... ........................ ........................

Energy biosciences ................................................................................................ ........................ ........................

Subtotal, Research ........................................................................................... 768,029 787,529

Construction:

03–SC–002 Project engineering & design (PED) SLAC. ............................................... 6,000 6,000

03–R–312 Center for nanophase materials sciences, ORNL ....................................... 24,000 24,000

03–R–313 Center for Integrated Nenotechnology ......................................................... ........................ 4,500
125

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

02–SC–002 Project engineering and design (VL) ......................................................... 11,000 12,000

99–E–334 Spallation neutron source (ORNL) ............................................................... 210,571 210,571

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................... 251,571 257,071

Total, Basic energy sciences ..................................................................................... 1,019,600 1,044,600

Advanced scientific computing research ............................................................................... 169,625 169,625

Energy research analyses ....................................................................................................... 1,020 1,020

Science laboratories infrastructure:

Infrastructure support .................................................................................................... 1,020 1,020

Oak Ridge landlord ........................................................................................................ 5,079 5,079

Excess facilities disposal .............................................................................................. 5,055 5,055

Construction:

03–SC–001 Science laboratories infrastructure project engineering and design

(PED), various loc. ............................................................................................ 3,355 3,355

MEL–001 Multiprogram energy laboratory infrastructure projects, various locations .................................................................................................................. 28,226 28,226

02–SC–001 Multiprogram energy laboratories, project engineering design, various locations ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................. 31,581 31,581

Total, Science laboratories infrastructure ................................................... 42,735 42,735

Fusion energy sciences program ............................................................................................ 257,310 259,310

Safeguards and security ......................................................................................................... 48,127 48,127

Science workforce development .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Science program direction:

Field offices .................................................................................................................... 70,163 65,000

Headquarters .................................................................................................................. 58,224 64,377

Science education .......................................................................................................... 5,460 5,460

Technical information management program ............................................................... ........................ ........................

Energy research analyses .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Total, Science program direction .............................................................................. 133,847 134,837

Subtotal, Science ....................................................................................................... 3,283,839 3,348,819

General reduction .................................................................................................................... ........................ ¥14,980

Less security charge for reimbursable work .......................................................................... ¥4,383 ¥4,383

TOTAL, SCIENCE ......................................................................................................... 3,279,456 3,329,456

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Repository program ................................................................................................................. 146,713 ........................

Program direction .................................................................................................................... 62,989 56,000

TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL ........................................................................... 209,702 56,000

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations:

Salaries and expenses:

Office of the Secretary .......................................................................................... 4,645 4,645

Board of contract appeals .................................................................................... 743 743

Chief information officer ...................................................................................... 30,862 28,862

Congressional and intergovernmental affairs ...................................................... 4,953 4,953

Economic impact and diversity ............................................................................ 5,121 5,121

General counsel ..................................................................................................... 22,813 21,813

International affairs .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation ................................................... 106,536 94,536

Policy office ........................................................................................................... ........................ ........................
126

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Policy and international affairs ............................................................................ 16,840 14,840

Public affairs ........................................................................................................ 4,531 4,531

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ...................................................................... 197,044 180,044

Program support:

Minority economic impact ..................................................................................... 1,400 1,400

Policy analysis and system studies ..................................................................... 800 800

Energy security and assurance ............................................................................ 2,000 2,000

Environmental policy studies ................................................................................ 1,200 1,200

Engineering and construction management reviews ........................................... ........................ ........................

Cybersecurity and secure communications .......................................................... 32,027 32,027

Corporate management information program ...................................................... 20,420 8,420

Subtotal, Program support ............................................................................... 57,847 45,847

Total, Administrative operations ...................................................................... 254,891 225,891

Cost of work for others ........................................................................................................... 69,916 69,916

Subtotal, Departmental Administration .................................................................... 324,807 295,807

Use of prior year balances and other adjustments ............................................................... ........................ ¥10,000

Funding from other defense activities ................................................................................... ¥25,587 ¥50,587

Total, Departmental administration (gross) ............................................................. 299,220 235,000

Miscellaneous revenues .......................................................................................................... ¥137,524 ¥137,524

TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net) ......................................................... 161,696 97,696

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Office of Inspector General ..................................................................................................... 37,671 37,671

TOTAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ................................................................... 37,671 37,671

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Directed stockpile work:

Stockpile research and development ............................................................................. 467,149 467,149

Stockpile maintenance ................................................................................................... 401,157 401,157

Stockpile evaluation ....................................................................................................... 197,184 197,184

Dismantlement/disposal ................................................................................................ 24,378 24,378

Production support ......................................................................................................... 137,706 137,706

Field engineering, training and manuals ...................................................................... 6,893 6,893

Total, Directed stockpile work ................................................................................... 1,234,467 1,234,467

Campaigns:

Science campaigns:

Primary certification ............................................................................................. 47,159 47,159

Dynamic materials properties ............................................................................... 87,594 90,594

Advanced radiography ........................................................................................... 52,925 82,925

Secondary certification and nuclear systems margins ........................................ 47,790 47,790

Subtotal, Science campaigns ........................................................................... 235,468 268,468

Engineering campaigns:

Enhanced surety ................................................................................................... 37,713 32,000

Weapons system engineering certification ........................................................... 27,007 27,007

Nuclear survivability ............................................................................................. 23,394 23,394
127

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Enhanced surveillance .......................................................................................... 77,155 77,155

Advanced design and production technologies .................................................... 74,141 74,141

Subtotal, Engineering campaigns .................................................................... 239,410 233,697

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield. ............................................................. 237,748 273,248

Construction: 96–D–111 National ignition facility, LLNL ............................................. 214,045 214,045

Subtotal, ILF Ignition ................................................................................................. 451,793 487,293

Advanced simulation and computing ..................................................................................... 669,527 649,000

Construction:

01–D–101 Distributed information systems laboratory, SNL, Livermore, CA ...... 13,305 13,305

00–D–103, Terascale simulation facility, LLNL, Livermore, CA ........................... 35,030 35,030

00–D–105 Strategic computing complex, LANL, Los Alamos, NM ...................... ........................ ........................

00–D–107 Joint computational engineering laboratory, SNL, Albuquerque,

NM .................................................................................................................... 7,000 7,000

Subtotal, Construction ...................................................................................... 55,335 55,335

Subtotal, Advanced simulation and computing .............................................. 724,862 704,335

Pit manufacturing and certification ....................................................................................... 194,484 246,000

Readiness campaigns:

Stockpile readiness ........................................................................................................ 61,027 61,027

High explosives manufacturing and weapons assembly/disassembly readiness ......... 12,093 12,093

Non-nuclear readiness ................................................................................................... 22,398 22,398

Materials readiness ....................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Tritium readiness ........................................................................................................... 56,134 42,734

Construction: 98–D–125 Tritium extraction facility, SR ............................................... 70,165 70,165

Subtotal, Tritium readiness ....................................................................................... 126,299 112,899

Subtotal, Readiness campaigns ............................................................................... 221,817 208,417

Total, Campaigns ...................................................................................................... 2,067,834 2,148,210

Readiness in technical base and facilities:

Operations of facilities .................................................................................................. 949,920 1,026,000

Program readiness ......................................................................................................... 208,089 218,000

Special projects .............................................................................................................. 37,744 50,500

Material recycle and recovery ........................................................................................ 98,816 98,816

Containers ...................................................................................................................... 17,721 17,721

Storage ........................................................................................................................... 14,593 14,593

Nuclear weapons incident response .............................................................................. 91,000 96,000

Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and fac ....................................................... 1,417,883 1,521,630

Construction:

03–D–101 Sandia underground reactor facility SURF, SNL, Albuquerque, NM .. 2,000 2,000

03–D–102 LANL Administration Building (LANL) ................................................. ........................ 16,000

03–D–103 Project engineering and design various locations ............................. 15,539 15,539

03–D–121 Gas transfer capacity expansion, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City,

MO .................................................................................................................... 4,000 4,000

03–D–122 Prototype purification facility, Y–12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN ............... 20,800 20,800

03–D–123 Special nuclear materials requalification, Pantex plant, Amarillo,

TX ...................................................................................................................... 3,000 3,000

02–D–103 Project engineering and design, various locations ............................ 27,245 27,245

02–D–105 Engineering technology complex upgrade, LLNL ................................ 10,000 10,000

02–D–107 Electrical power systems safety communications and bus upgrades, NV ........................................................................................................ 7,500 7,500

01–D–103 Project engineering and design (PE&D), various locations ............... 6,164 ........................

01–D–107 Atlas relocation, Nevada test site ...................................................... 4,123 4,123

01–D–108 Microsystems and engineering sciences applications complex

(MESA), SNL ...................................................................................................... 75,000 123,000
128

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

01–D–124 HEU materials facility, Y–12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN .......................... 25,000 25,000

01–D–126 Weapons Evaluation Test Laboratory Pantex Plant, Amarillo, TX ...... 8,650 8,650

01–D–800 Sensitive compartmented information facility, LLNL ......................... 9,611 9,611

99–D–103 Isotope sciences facilities, LLNL, Livermore, CA ................................ 4,011 4,011

99–D–104 Protection of real property (roof reconstruction—Phase II), LLNL,

Livermore, CA ................................................................................................... 5,915 5,915

99–D–106 Model validation & system certification center, SNL, Albuquerque,

NM .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

99–D–108 Renovate existing roadways, Nevada Test Site, NV ........................... ........................ ........................

99–D–125 Replace boilers and controls, Kansas City plant, Kansas City,

MO .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

99–D–127 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Kansas City plant,

Kansas City, MO ............................................................................................... 29,900 29,900

99–D–128 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Pantex consolidation, Amarillo, TX .............................................................................................. 407 407

98–D–123 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Tritium factory modernization and consolidation, Savannah River, SC ......................................... 10,481 10,481

98–D–124 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Y–12 consolidation,

Oak Ridge, TN .................................................................................................. ........................ ........................

97–D–123 Structural upgrades, Kansas City plant, Kansas City, MO ............... ........................ ........................

96–D–102 Stockpile stewardship facilities revitalization (Phase VI), various

locations ........................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................. 270,346 328,182

Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities. ..................................... 1,688,229 1,849,812

Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program .......................................................... 242,512 242,512

Secure transportation asset:

Operations and equipment ............................................................................................ 100,863 100,863

Program direction .......................................................................................................... 52,126 52,126

Total, Secure transportation asset ............................................................................ 152,989 152,989

Safeguards and security ......................................................................................................... 501,054 501,054

Construction: 99–D–132 SMRI nuclear material safeguards and security upgrade

project (LANL), Los Alamos, NM ................................................................................ 8,900 8,900

Total, Safeguards and security ............................................................................ 509,954 509,954

Subtotal, Weapons activities ................................................................................ 5,895,985 6,137,944

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

General reduction .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Less security charge for reimbursable work .......................................................................... ¥28,985 ¥28,985

Subtotal, Weapons activities ..................................................................................... 5,867,000 6,108,959

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–117) ................................................................. ........................ ........................

TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................... 5,867,000 6,108,959

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ................................................................................. 5,055,873 ........................

Nonproliferation and verification, R&D .................................................................................. 283,407 293,407

Construction:

00–D–192 Nonproliferation and international security center (NISC), LAN ........ ........................ ........................

Total, Nonproliferation and verification, R&D .................................................. 283,407 293,407

Nonproliferation and international security ............................................................................ 92,668 92,668

Nonproliferation programs with Russia:

International materials protection, control, and cooperation ....................................... 233,077 233,077

Russian transition initiative .......................................................................................... 39,334 39,334

HEU transparency implementation ................................................................................ 17,229 17,229

International nuclear safety .......................................................................................... 14,576 14,576

Elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production program .................................... 49,339 49,339
129

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

Fissile materials disposition:

U.S. surplus materials disposition ................................................................................ 194,000 194,000

Russian surplus materials disposition .......................................................................... 98,000 98,000

Construction:

01–D–407 Highly enriched uranium (HEU) blend down, Savannah River, SC ... 30,000 30,000

99–D–141 Pit disassembly and conversion facility Savannah River, SC ........... 33,000 33,000

99–D–143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah River, SC ................ 93,000 93,000

Subtotal, Construction ...................................................................................... 156,000 156,000

Subtotal, Fissile materials disposition ............................................................ 448,000 448,000

Total, Nonproliferation programs with Russia ................................................. 801,555 801,555

Program direction .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Subtotal, Defense nuclear nonproliferation .............................................................. 1,177,630 1,187,630

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ¥64,000 ¥72,000

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–117) ................................................................. ........................ ........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ....................................................... 1,113,630 1,115,630

NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development ................................................................................................... 671,290 671,290

Construction:

03–D–201 Cleanroom technology facility, Bettis atomic power lab, West Mifflin, PA ............................................................................................................... 7,200 7,200

01–D–200 Major office replacement building, Schenectady, NY ........................ 2,100 2,100

90–N–102 Expended core facility dry cell project, Naval Reactors Facility, ID .. 2,000 2,000

Subtotal, Construction ...................................................................................... 11,300 11,300

Total, Naval reactors development .................................................................. 682,590 682,590

Program direction .................................................................................................................... 24,200 24,200

TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS .......................................................................................... 706,790 706,790

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Office of the Administrator ..................................................................................................... 335,929 335,929

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ................................................................... 335,929 335,929

TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION .......................................... 8,023,349 8,267,308

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT.

Site/project completion:

Operation and maintenance .......................................................................................... 779,706 973,106

Construction:

02–D–402 Intec cathodic protection system expansion project, INEEL, Idaho

Falls, ID ............................................................................................................ 1,119 1,119

02–D–420 Plutonium packaging and stabilization, Savannah River ................. 2,000 2,000

01–D–414 Preliminary project, engineering and design (PE&D), various locations .................................................................................................................. 5,125 5,125

99–D–402 Tank farm support services, F&H area, Savannah River site, Aiken,

SC ..................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

99–D–404 Health physics instrumentation laboratory (INEL), ID ....................... ........................ ........................

98–D–453 Plutonium stabilization and handling system for PFP, Richland,

WA ..................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

96–D–471 CFC HVAC/chiller retrofit, Savannah River site, Aiken, SC ............... ........................ ........................
130

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

86–D–103 Decontamination and waste treatment facility (LLNL), Livermore,

CA ..................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................. 8,244 8,244

Total, Site/project completion ...................................................................... 787,950 981,350

Post 2006 completion:

Operation and maintenance .......................................................................................... 1,702,241 2,211,240

Construction: 93–D–187 High-level waste removal from filled waste tanks, Savannah River, SC ............................................................................................................ 14,870 14,870

Office of River Protection: Operation and maintenance ............................................... 226,256 455,256

Construction:

03–D–403 Immobilized high-level waste interim storage facility, Richland,

WA ..................................................................................................................... 6,363 6,363

01–D–416 Hanford waste treatment plant, Richland, WA .................................. 619,000 619,000

97–D–402 Tank farm restoration and safe operations, Richland, WA ............... 25,424 25,424

94–D–407 Initial tank retrieval systems, Richland, WA ..................................... 20,945 20,945

Subtotal, Construction ...................................................................................... 671,732 671,732

Subtotal, Office of River Protection ................................................................. 897,988 1,126,988

Total, Post 2006 completion ............................................................................ 2,615,099 3,353,098

Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution ......................................................................... ........................ ........................

Science and technology .......................................................................................................... 92,000 77,000

Excess facilities ...................................................................................................................... 1,300 1,300

Multi-site activities ................................................................................................................. 479,871 479,871

Safeguards and security ......................................................................................................... 228,260 228,260

Program direction .................................................................................................................... 344,000 324,000

Subtotal, Defense environmental management ........................................................ 4,548,480 5,444,879

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ........................ ¥34,000

General reduction .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Less security charge for reimbursable work .......................................................................... ¥4,347 ¥4,347

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–117) ................................................................. ........................ ........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRON. RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT ................................. 4,544,133 5,406,532

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CLEANUP REFORM

Environmental management cleanup reform ......................................................................... 800,000 ........................

DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS

Site closure ............................................................................................................................. 1,054,153 1,088,153

Safeguards and security ......................................................................................................... 37,161 37,161

TOTAL, DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS ..................................................... 1,091,314 1,125,314

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION

Privatization initiatives, various locations ............................................................................. 158,399 158,399

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. PRIVATIZATION ....................................... 158,399 158,399

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ..................................................... 6,593,846 6,690,245

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Other national security programs:

Energy security and assurance:

Energy security ...................................................................................................... 23,411 52,411
131

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee

recommendation

Program direction ................................................................................................. 4,275 4,275

Subtotal, Energy security and assurance ........................................................ 27,686 56,686

Office of Security:

Nuclear safeguards and security ......................................................................... 91,102 91,102

Security investigations .......................................................................................... 45,870 45,870

Corporate management information program ...................................................... ........................ ........................

Cyber security and secure communications ......................................................... ........................ ........................

Program direction ................................................................................................. 48,543 48,543

Subtotal, Office of Security .............................................................................. 185,515 185,515

Intelligence ..................................................................................................................... 41,246 41,246

Counterintelligence ......................................................................................................... 45,955 45,955

Independent oversight and performance assurance ..................................................... 22,430 22,430

Advanced accelerator applications ................................................................................ ........................ ........................

Environment, safety and health (Defense) .................................................................... 81,892 96,892

Program direction—EH .................................................................................................. 17,149 17,149

Subtotal, Environment, safety & health (Defense) ................................................... 99,041 114,041

Worker and community transition ................................................................................. 22,965 22,965

Program direction—WT ................................................................................................. 2,718 2,718

Subtotal, Worker and community transition ............................................................. 25,683 25,683

National Security programs administrative support ..................................................... 25,587 50,587

Office of hearings and appeals .................................................................................... 2,933 2,933

Subtotal, Other defense activities ........................................................................ 476,076 545,076

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ¥6,700 ¥6,700

Less security charge for reimbursable work .......................................................................... ¥712 ¥712

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–117) ................................................................. ........................ ........................

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES .......................................................................... 468,664 537,664

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Defense nuclear waste disposal ............................................................................................. 315,000 280,000

TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES .......................................................... 15,400,859 15,775,217

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:

Purchase power and wheeling ....................................................................................... 20,000 34,463

Program direction .......................................................................................................... 4,606 4,606

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ...................................................................... 24,606 39,069

Offsetting collections .............................................................................................................. ........................ ¥8,000

Offsetting collections (Public Law 106–377) ......................................................................... ¥20,000 ¥26,463

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ¥72 ¥72

TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION ..................................................... 4,534 4,534

SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:

Operating expenses ........................................................................................................ 3,814 3,814

Purchase power and wheeling ....................................................................................... 288 2,200

Program direction .......................................................................................................... 17,933 17,933
132

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Construction ................................................................................................................... 6,031 6,031

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ...................................................................... 28,066 29,978

Offsetting collections .............................................................................................................. ........................ ¥1,912

Offsetting collections (Public Law 106–377) ......................................................................... ¥288 ¥288

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ¥400 ¥400

TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................... 27,378 27,378

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:

Construction and rehabilitation ..................................................................................... 17,784 17,784

System operation and maintenance .............................................................................. 37,796 37,796

Purchase power and wheeling ....................................................................................... 30,000 186,124

Program direction .......................................................................................................... 108,378 108,378

Utah mitigation and conservation ................................................................................. ........................ 6,100

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ...................................................................... 193,958 356,182

Offsetting collections .............................................................................................................. ........................ ¥152,624

Offsetting collections (Public Law 106–377) ......................................................................... ¥30,000 ¥33,500

Use of prior year balances ..................................................................................................... ¥1,200 ¥1,200

TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION ..................................................... 162,758 168,858

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................... 2,734 2,734

TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS ......................................................... 197,404 203,504

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal energy regulatory commission ................................................................................... 192,000 192,000

FERC revenues ........................................................................................................................ ¥192,000 ¥192,000

GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ...................................................................... 20,528,876 20,961,784

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

The following list of general provisions are recommended by the

Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions which

have been included in previous Energy and Water Development

Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:

Language under section 301 prohibits the use of funds to award,

amend or modify a contract in a manner that deviates from the

Federal Acquisition Regulations unless on a case-by-case basis, a

waiver is granted by the Secretary of Energy. Similar language was

contained in last year’s Energy and Water Development Act, Public

Law 107–66.

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, 2002, Public Law 107–66.
133

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, 2002, Public

Law 107–66.

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, 2002,

Public Law 107–66.

Language is included under section 306 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, 2002, Public Law 107–66.

Language is included under section 307 which provides that the

Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration

may authorize 2 percent of the amount allocated to a nuclear weapons production plant for the production plant to engage in research,

development, and demonstration activities with respect to the Engineering and manufacturing capabilities of the plant in order to

maintain and enhance such capabilities at the plant. A similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water Development Act,

2002, Public Law 107–66.

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 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.
(134)

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $71,290,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 66,290,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 74,400,000

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed of

the Governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a Federal cochairman who is appointed by the President.

The Committee recommendation for the Appalachian Regional

Commission totals $74,400,000, $8,000,000 more than the request.

The Committee recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the

newly authorized telecommunications program within the ARC.

This program will broaden the availability of advanced telecommunications services throughout Appalachia.

Consistent with the administration’s budget request, the Committee recommendation does not include funding for ARC highways. Funding for ARC development highways is provided through

the highway trust fund in fiscal years 1999 through 2004 consistent with provision contained in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.

The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and investment opportunities to the Appalachian region, and is encouraged

by a preliminary trade report determining that Appalachian firms

might find significant trade and investment opportunities, particularly in the energy, high technology, and transportation sectors, in

the Republic of Turkey and the surrounding region. In this regard,

the Committee supports the Appalachian-Turkish Trade Project

(ATTP), a project to promote opportunities to expand trade, encourage business interests, stimulate foreign studies, and to build a

lasting and mutually meaningful relationship between the Appalachian States and the Republic of Turkey, as well as the neighboring regions, such as Greece. The Committee commends the ARC

for its leadership role in helping to implement the mission of the

ATTP. The Committee expects the ARC to continue to be a prominent ATTP sponsor.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $18,500,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 19,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 19,000,000

An appropriation of $19,000,000, the amount of the request, is

recommended for fiscal year 2003. This is the same as the budget

request.
135

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by the

Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The Board,

composed of five members appointed by the President, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy regarding

public health and safety issues at the Department’s defense nuclear

facilities. The Board is also responsible for investigating any event

or practice at a defense nuclear facility which has or may adversely

affect public health and safety. The Board is responsible for reviewing and evaluating the content and implementation of the standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy.

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $10,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 10,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,000,000

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 $15,000,000 for

the Delta Regional Authority. The recommended appropriations

will be used to carry out the activities of Authority during fiscal

year 2003.

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $38,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 29,939,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 50,000,000

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 $50,000,000 for the

Denali Commission.

From within those funds, $5,000,000 shall be made available for

basic infrastructure and facilities for those communities without

running water including Red Devil and Kaktovik; $10,000,000 for

community facilities that can serve multiple purposes in villages

such as Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Brevig Mission, Elim, Gambell,

Koyuk, Savoonga, St. Michael, Stebbins, Teller, Unalakleet, and

Barrow. None of the funds may be used for clean-up of leaking fuel

tanks.

The Committee recommendation also includes funding for the Pt.

MacKenzie gas line extension, Nome power upgrades, Fire Island

power upgrade, North Slope grid upgrade, Calista power generation, and the Parks Highway electric line extension. The Com-
136

mittee recommendation includes up to $1,000,000 to study the

rural development opportunities, costs and logistics of shipping and

marketing new domestic water supplies outside of Alaska.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $516,900,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 578,184,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 578,184,000

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $473,520,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 492,545,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 520,087,000

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $79,380,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 85,639,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 58,097,000

The Committee recommendation includes $578,174,000, the same

amount as the request, for the Commission.

Nuclear energy received a strong endorsement in the National

Energy Policy of May 2001 and serious industry interest has

emerged in building a new generation of nuclear power plants in

the United States to meet the Nation’s electricity demands. Three

nuclear utilities have announced intentions to submit early site

permit applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Others are also expected to submit early site permit applications

over the next few years. Industry has proposed a new risk-informed

regulatory framework to license the next generation of plants. The

framework would build on the successful structure of the revised

reactor oversight process and be reactor design neutral. NRC

should evaluate the merits of this approach and establish the new

framework through rulemaking.

Because the NRC needs to ensure that its regulatory infrastructure can be responsive to these new applications, some of which

may involve new technologies not previously licensed by the NRC,

the Committee provided $10,000,000 in additional budget authority

to the NRC for fiscal year 2002 so that it can adequately prepare

for and respond to these new reactor initiatives without jeopardizing the safety of operating facilities and without impeding ongoing initiatives on license renewals, power uprates, and moving toward a more risk-informed regulatory environment. While the

Committee expects the NRC to continue to support these important

national initiatives in fiscal year 2003, funds for maintaining these

programs should be realized through implementing internal efficiencies in the NRC.

Recognizing the impact of September 11 on NRC’s safeguards

mission, an additional $36,000,000 was added to the NRC budget

authority for fiscal year 2002. The Committee recognizes that these

funds were used to strengthen the NRC’s ability to respond to ter-
137

rorist threats and to assess and enhance security requirements at

nuclear facilities. The Committee understand that work is well underway with orders issued to all operating and decommissioned

commercial nuclear energy plants. Looking to fiscal year 2003, the

focus of security will begin to shift from strengthening security regulations and the response capability of the NRC to the implementation of required enhancements by the licensee. The Committee expects that the funds for oversight of these licensee programs should

be realized through implementing internal efficiencies in the NRC.

The Committee recommendation for the NRC is $578,184,000.

This amount is offset by estimated revenues of $520,087,000 resulting in a net appropriation of $58,097,000.

Fee Recovery.—Pursuant to the agreement reached in fiscal year

2001, the NRC is required to recover 94 percent of its budget authority, less the appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund, by assessing license and annual fees.

Reports.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to

provide monthly reports on the status of its licensing and other

regulatory activities. In addition, continued congressional oversight

is necessary to ensure the NRC streamlines its business processes

to improve regulatory efficiency while reducing unnecessary burden

on licensees. NRC should report to the Congress by March 31,

2003, on efficiencies gained through implementation of the reactor

oversight process. NRC should report to the Congress by June 30,

2003, on regulatory efficiencies that would be gained by consolidating or eliminating regional offices.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $6,180,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 6,800,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,800,000

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $5,933,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 6,392,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,392,000

This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector General of

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee recommends

an appropriation of $6,800,000 for fiscal year 2003.

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $3,100,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 3,102,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,200,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,200,000 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.
(138)

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS

The following list of general provisions are recommended by the

Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions which

have been included in previous Energy and Water Development

Appropriations Acts:

Language is included under section 501 which provides that none

of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress, other than

to communicate to Members of Congress as described in section

1913 of Title 18, United States Code. A similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2000, Public

Law 106–60.

Language is included under section 502 which requires that

American-made equipment and goods be purchased to the greatest

extent practicable. A similar provision was contained in the Energy

and Water Development Act, 2000, Public Law 106–60.

Language is included under section 503 which extends the existing authority for the Denali Commission.
(139)

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 2003, 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, on July 24, 2002, the

Committee ordered S. 2784, an original Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, 2003, subject to amendment and each

subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 29–0, a

quorum being present. The vote was as follows:

Yeas Nays

Chairman 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

Mrs. Landrieu

Mr. Reed

Mr. Stevens
140

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.

With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the Committee that

it is necessary to dispense with these requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate.
141

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC.

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED

[In millions of dollars]

Budget authority Outlays

Committee

allocation 1

Amount

of bill

Committee

allocation 1

Amount

of bill

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations

to its subcommittees, fiscal year 2003: Subcommittee on

Energy and Water Development:

Discretionary ........................................................................ 26,300 26,300 25,823 2 25,704

Mandatory ............................................................................ NA .................... NA ....................

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:

2003 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3 16,909

2004 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 7,816

2005 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 1,400

2006 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 111

2007 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 74

Financial assistance to State and local governments for

2003 ......................................................................................... NA 129 NA 24

1 Levels approved by the Committee, as modified on July 18, 2002.

2 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

3 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.
142

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2002 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2002

appropriation Budget estimate

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers—Civil

General investigations .......................................................................................................................................................... 154,350 102,483 148,304 ¥6,046 ∂45,821Construction, general ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,715,951 1,415,612 1,745,102 ∂29,151 ∂329,490Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and

Tennessee ......................................................................................................................................................................... 345,992 280,671 337,937 ¥8,055 ∂57,266

Operation and maintenance, general .................................................................................................................................. 1,874,803 1,913,760 1,956,182 ∂81,379 ∂42,422

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–117) ...................................................................................................... 139,000 .......................... .......................... ¥139,000 ..........................

Regulatory program .............................................................................................................................................................. 127,000 144,252 144,252 ∂17,252 ..........................FUSRAP ................................................................................................................................................................................. 140,000 140,298 140,298 ∂298 ..........................Flood control and coastal emergencies ............................................................................................................................... .......................... 20,227 20,227 ∂20,227 ..........................

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... ¥25,000 .......................... .......................... ∂25,000 ..........................

General expenses .................................................................................................................................................................. 153,000 155,651 155,651 ∂2,651 ..........................

Total, title I, Department of Defense—Civil .......................................................................................................... 4,625,096 4,172,954 4,647,953 ∂22,857 ∂474,999

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Central Utah Project Completion Account

Central Utah project construction ........................................................................................................................................ 24,169 23,643 23,643 ¥526 ..........................Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation ................................................................................................ 10,749 11,259 11,259 ∂510 ..........................

Subtotal ....................................................................................................................................................................... 34,918 34,902 34,902 ¥16 ..........................

Program oversight and administration ................................................................................................................................ 1,310 1,326 1,326 ∂16 ..........................

Total, Central Utah project completion account .................................................................................................... 36,228 36,228 36,228 .......................... ..........................
143

Bureau of Reclamation

Water and related resources ................................................................................................................................................ 762,531 726,147 816,147 ∂53,616 ∂90,000

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–117) ...................................................................................................... 30,259 .......................... .......................... ¥30,259 ..........................

Loan program ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7,495 .......................... .......................... ¥7,495 ..........................

(Limitation on direct loans) ........................................................................................................................................ (26,000) .......................... .......................... (¥26,000) ..........................

Central Valley project restoration fund ................................................................................................................................ 55,039 48,904 48,904 ¥6,135 ..........................California Bay-Delta restoration .......................................................................................................................................... .......................... 15,000 .......................... .......................... ¥15,000Policy and administration .................................................................................................................................................... 52,968 54,870 54,870 ∂1,902 ..........................

Total, Bureau of Reclamation ................................................................................................................................. 908,292 844,921 919,921 ∂11,629 ∂75,000Total, title II, Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................... 944,520 881,149 956,149 ∂11,629 ∂75,000

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy supply ....................................................................................................................................................................... 666,726 693,934 815,306 ∂148,580 ∂121,372Non-defense environmental management ........................................................................................................................... 236,372 166,000 176,000 ¥60,372 ∂10,000Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation ............................................................................................................... 418,425 382,154 471,154 ∂52,729 ∂89,000Science ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,233,100 3,279,456 3,329,456 ∂96,356 ∂50,000Nuclear Waste Disposal ....................................................................................................................................................... 95,000 209,702 56,000 ¥39,000 ¥153,702Departmental administration ............................................................................................................................................... 210,853 299,220 235,000 ∂24,147 ¥64,220

Miscellaneous revenues ............................................................................................................................................... ¥137,810 ¥137,524 ¥137,524 ∂286 ..........................

Net appropriation .................................................................................................................................................... 73,043 161,696 97,476 ∂24,433 ¥64,220

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................ 32,430 37,671 37,671 ∂5,241 ..........................Environmental restoration and waste management:

Defense function ......................................................................................................................................................... (6,489,191) (6,593,846) (6,690,245) (∂201,054) (∂96,399)Non-defense function .................................................................................................................................................. (654,797) (548,154) (647,154) (¥7,643) (∂99,000)

Total ........................................................................................................................................................................ (7,143,988) (7,142,000) (7,337,399) (∂193,411) (∂195,399)

Atomic Energy Defense Activities

National Nuclear Security Administration:

Weapons activities ...................................................................................................................................................... 5,429,238 5,867,000 6,108,959 ∂679,721 ∂241,959

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–117) ............................................................................................. 131,000 .......................... .......................... ¥131,000 ..........................

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ................................................................................................................................ 803,586 1,113,630 1,115,630 ∂312,044 ∂2,000

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–117) ............................................................................................. 226,000 .......................... .......................... ¥226,000 ..........................

Naval reactors ............................................................................................................................................................. 688,045 706,790 706,790 ∂18,745 ..........................
144

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2002 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2002

appropriation Budget estimate

Office of the Administrator ......................................................................................................................................... 312,596 335,929 335,929 ∂23,333 ..........................

Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration ............................................................................................... 7,590,465 8,023,349 8,267,308 ∂676,843 ∂243,959

Defense environmental restoration and waste management .............................................................................................. 5,234,576 4,544,133 5,406,532 ∂171,956 ∂862,399

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–117) ...................................................................................................... 8,200 .......................... .......................... ¥8,200 ..........................

Defense environmental management cleanup reform ......................................................................................................... .......................... 800,000 .......................... .......................... ¥800,000Defense facilities closure projects ....................................................................................................................................... 1,092,878 1,091,314 1,125,314 ∂32,436 ∂34,000Defense environmental management privatization ............................................................................................................. 153,537 158,399 158,399 ∂4,862 ..........................

Subtotal, Defense environmental management ..................................................................................................... 6,489,191 6,593,846 6,690,245 ∂201,054 ∂96,399

Other defense activities ....................................................................................................................................................... 544,044 468,664 537,664 ¥6,380 ∂69,000

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–117) ...................................................................................................... 3,500 .......................... .......................... ¥3,500 ..........................

Defense nuclear waste disposal .......................................................................................................................................... 280,000 315,000 280,000 .......................... ¥35,000

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................................................................................. 14,907,200 15,400,859 15,775,217 ∂868,017 ∂374,358

Power Marketing Administrations

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ...................................................................................... 4,891 4,534 4,534 ¥357 ..........................Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ..................................................................................... 28,038 27,378 27,378 ¥660 ..........................Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western Area Power Administration ........................................ 171,938 162,758 168,858 ¥3,080 ∂6,100Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ...................................................................................................... 2,663 2,734 2,734 ∂71 ..........................

Total, Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................................................. 207,530 197,404 203,504 ¥4,026 ∂6,100

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 184,155 192,000 192,000 ∂7,845 ..........................Revenues applied ................................................................................................................................................................. ¥184,155 ¥192,000 ¥192,000 ¥7,845 ..........................
145

Total, title III, Department of Energy ..................................................................................................................... 19,869,826 20,528,876 20,961,784 ∂1,091,958 ∂432,908

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission ...................................................................................................................................... 71,290 66,290 74,400 ∂3,110 ∂8,110Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board .............................................................................................................................. 18,500 19,000 19,000 ∂500 ..........................Delta Regional Authority ...................................................................................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 15,000 ∂5,000 ∂5,000Denali Commission ............................................................................................................................................................... 38,000 29,939 50,000 ∂12,000 ∂20,061Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 516,900 578,184 578,184 ∂61,284 ..........................

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107–117) ............................................................................................. 36,000 .......................... .......................... ¥36,000 ..........................

Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥473,520 ¥492,545 ¥520,087 ¥46,567 ¥27,542

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 79,380 85,639 58,097 ¥21,283 ¥27,542

Office of Inspector General ......................................................................................................................................... 6,180 6,800 6,800 ∂620 ..........................Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥5,933 ¥6,392 ¥6,392 ¥459 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 247 408 408 ∂161 ..........................Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................................................................................................................... 79,627 86,047 58,505 ¥21,122 ¥27,542

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ............................................................................................................................... 3,100 3,102 3,200 ∂100 ∂98

Total, title IV, Independent agencies ..................................................................................................................... 220,517 214,378 220,105 ¥412 ∂5,727Grand total:

New budget (obligational) authority .............................................................................................................. 25,659,959 25,797,357 26,785,991 ∂1,126,032 ∂988,634

Appropriations ....................................................................................................................................... (25,111,000) (25,797,357) (26,785,991) (∂1,674,991) (∂988,634)Emergency appropriations .................................................................................................................... (573,959) .......................... .......................... (¥573,959) ..........................Rescissions ........................................................................................................................................... (¥25,000) .......................... .......................... (∂25,000) ..........................

Æ