[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 104 (Friday, September 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8277-S8283]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S8277]]
                    ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS


                       national ignition facility

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) is a 
major part of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which is a set of 
programs and facilities that are designed to allow the United States to 
maintain the safety and reliability of our nation's vital nuclear 
deterrent.
  It is hoped that at some point in 10 to 20 years that the stockpile 
Stewardship Program can be a replacement for actual nuclear testing. 
The jury is still out on whether it can in fact eventually accomplish 
this goal. I support the Stockpile Stewardship Program because it will 
improve our knowledge about our nuclear weapons. The fact is that, 
despite our technical expertise, there is much we still do not 
understand about our own nuclear weapons. As C. Paul Robinson, Director 
of the Sandia National Laboratory has said, ``Some aspects of nuclear 
explosive design are still not understood at the level of physical 
principles.''
  America's nuclear weapons are the most sophisticated in the world. 
Each one typically has thousands of parts, and over time the nuclear 
materials and high explosive triggers in our weapons deteriorate and we 
lack experience predicting the effects of these changes. Some of the 
materials used in our weapons, like plutonium, enriched uranium, and 
tritium, are radioactive materials that decay, and as they decay they 
also change the properties of other materials within the weapon. We 
lack experience predicting the effects of such aging on the safety and 
reliability of our weapons. We did not design our weapons to last 
forever. The shelf life of our weapons was expected to be about 20 
years. In the past, we did not encounter problems with aging weapons, 
because we were fielding new designs and older designs were retired.
  As the Department of Energy said in its review of the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program completed on November 23, 1999, ``The NIF is one of 
the most vital facilities in the stockpile stewardship program.'' This 
facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California is 
roughly the same size as a stadium, and is designed to produce the 
intense pressures and temperatures needed to simulate in a laboratory 
the thermonuclear conditions achieved in nuclear explosions. The NIF 
will accomplish this goal by focusing 192 laser beams on a ``dime-
sized'' piece of plutonium. When completed, the NIF will be the world's 
most powerful laser facility, about 60 times more powerful than the 
next largest DOE laser facility, the NOVA laser.
  As a review conducted in 1994 by the so-called, JASON panel, a 
Defense Department panel of nuclear experts said ``The NIF is without 
question the most scientifically valuable of the programs proposed for 
the Science Based Stockpile Stewardship program, particularly in regard 
to research and `proof-of-principle' for ignition, but also more 
generally for fundamental science. As such, it will promote the goal of 
sustaining a high-quality group of scientists with expertise related to 
the nuclear weapons program.''
  There is a consensus among the three national laboratories and at the 
National Nuclear Security Administration that additional funding above 
the level in the current version of the Energy and Water Appropriations 
bill for the NIF program needs to be increased. In a joint statement 
dated September 6, 2000, Dr. Bruce Tarter, the Director of the Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory, Dr. John Browne, the Director of the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, Dr. Paul Robinson, the Director of Sandia 
National Laboratory, and Madelyn Creedon, the Deputy Administrator for 
Defense Programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration 
stated.

       NIF supports the SSP, and is a vital element of the SSP in 
     three important ways: (1) the experimental study of issues of 
     aging or refurbishment; (2) weapons science and code 
     development; and (3) attracting and training the exceptional 
     scientific and technical talent required to sustain the SSP 
     over the long term. NIF is an integral part of the SSP 
     providing unique experimental capabilities that complement 
     other SSP facilities including hydrotests, pulsed power, and 
     advanced radiography. NIF addresses aspects of the relevant 
     science of materials that cannot be reached in other 
     facilities.
       We concur that the NIF offers a unique, critical capability 
     within a ``balanced'' SSP. As with other elements of the SSP, 
     its long-term role must be integrated within the overall 
     requirements of the Program. Options should not be foreclosed 
     or limited but should be maintained to allow for its further 
     development. At this critical juncture, we agree that in 
     order to maintain the NIF within a balanced program, an 
     additional $95 million [above the President's original budget 
     request] is necessary in FY 2001 for the NIF Project.

  The NIF program has recently experienced delays and cost overruns. 
But new management for the program is in place. The facility has 
undergone and passed intensive scientific and programmatic reviews that 
were recently conducted. And the management problems and lack of 
oversight that led to the earlier delays and cost overruns are 
understood and should therefore be preventable.
  We are well along toward completion of the NIF facility. Construction 
of the facility to house the laser beams, a $260 million project 
itself, is about 90% complete. 80% of the large components for the 
infrastructure for the laser beams has been procured and is either on 
site or on the way. The NIF program at Lawrence Livermore Lab has 800 
scientists and technicians on the project. Delaying the program, which 
would result in a standing army of technicians, or canceling it, which 
would prevent the achievement of the goals of the Stockpile Stewardship 
Program simply makes no sense.
  There is bipartisan support for this program and the Administration 
supports the program. Undersecretary of State John Holum said in a 
letter on June 12, 2000 that, ``I strongly support this essential 
national security program. We must avoid the complacency of not doing 
enough in stewardship. We need to make a long-term commitment to use 
our scientific prowess to maintain a safe and reliable stockpile of 
nuclear weapons. . . . The problems with NIF are not scientific. . . . 
I urge you to support the program.''
  The NIF is essential to our Stockpile Stewardship Program, which 
itself is an essential to maintain our nuclear weapons.


                     dredging of the delaware river

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with 
the distinguished Senators from our neighboring state of Delaware, 
Senators Roth and Biden. Each of us has communicated with members of 
the Appropriations Committee on a matter of deep concern to us and our 
constituents that has been included in the FY 2001 Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations bill. The Army Corps of Engineers' Delaware 
River Deepening Project seeks to deepen over 100 miles of the Delaware 
River channel from the current authorized 40-foot depth to 45 feet. The 
project would dredge 33 million cubic yards of bottom sediments, 
placing some 23 million cubic yards in dredge disposal areas in New 
Jersey, and 10 million cubic yards along Delaware shores.
  This project continues to be highly controversial in our states for a 
number of reasons. First, there remain significant environmental 
concerns regarding the material to be dredged and its ultimate disposal 
and impacts on the environment of the Delaware Bay. The Corps of 
engineers has been criticized for its method of evaluating toxic and 
polluted sediments--using an averaging method, which many believe can 
mask the potential impact of dredging toxic hot spots and more 
concentrated polluted material. Our citizens continue to have strong 
concerns about the impacts of dredging and disposal on water quality, 
on drinking water supplies, on important recovering shellfish areas, 
and on the environment in the vicinity of proposed disposal areas.
  A number of members of the New Jersey and Delaware congressional 
delegations and state agencies have made requests to the Corps of 
engineers to address a number of these issues. Earlier this year, 
Representative Andrews and I made a request to the General Accounting 
Office to conduct a review of the cost-benefit and environmental 
analyses in light of many of the concerns that have been raised about 
this project. In addition, Representatives Saxton and LoBiondo also 
sent a similar request to the GAO regarding the economic and 
environmental issues regarding the Delaware Deepening project. The GAO 
responded that it could not conduct and complete the study as quickly 
as would be necessary for conclusions to assist in the consideration of 
the FY 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriation.

[[Page S8278]]

  I want to state here that I intend to continue to pursue these issues 
and over the course of the next several months to engage the General 
Accounting Office, the Army Inspector General, the Army Corps of 
engineers, and any other appropriate agencies to get answers to the 
questions that I believe are critical to my constituents. For the 
record, Mr. President, I would like to enter into the record copies of 
study requests made by members of the New Jersey delegation to the 
General Accounting regarding the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening 
project.
  If I may address the distinguished senior Senator from Delaware, have 
you not also made known your concerns to the Committee on 
Appropriations and to the Army Corps of Engineers?
  Mr. ROTH. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and I would answer 
his question, indeed we have.
  In May of this year, Senator Biden and I wrote to the Chairman of the 
energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, the 
distinguished Senator from New Mexico, indicating that the response of 
the Corps of Engineers to the list of concerns raised by the State of 
Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 
regarding necessary permitting, environmental studies, and 
environmental protection has been entirely inadequate. In our letter, 
we indicated that this project must not proceed until environmental 
information and permitting concerns raised by Delaware's Department of 
Natural Resources and Environmental Control are satisfactorily 
addressed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
  As a strong supporter of the Coastal Zone Management Plan, I am 
concerned about the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 
channel deepening. I strongly urge the Corps to continue negotiating in 
good faith with the State of Delaware to resolve outstanding 
informational and permitting issues through a legally enforceable 
agreement that will safeguard Delaware's natural resources. If an 
agreement cannot be reached through good faith negotiations, then the 
State of Delaware should pursue this matter in court.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator for that clarification. Does that 
also describe the concerns and sentiments of the Senator from Delaware, 
Senator Biden?
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator from New Jersey and the senior Senator 
from Delaware for their remarks, and wish to indicate my concurrence 
with the points that they have made. I have had questions about this 
project, the planning process, its economic justification, and the 
potential for environmental harm for a number of years. I further 
understand that the State of Delaware's capital bond bill committee in 
July indicated in writing its intention to withhold all state money for 
the Deepening project until the State's Department of Natural Resources 
and Environmental Control is satisfied and necessary permits obtained.
  I believe we need to continue to pursue a resolution to these 
environmental issues and that the Corps should not move forward to 
construction unless and until appropriate permits have been issued, and 
the Congress has before it the information needed to determine that the 
project is safe and truly justified.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record, several letters from 
the Delaware DNREC which discuss the State's concerns.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 2000.
     Mr. David Walker,
     Controller General, General Accounting Office, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Walker: We are writing to request that a cost-
     benefit and environmental analysis be conducted as soon as 
     possible on plans by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to 
     bring the depth of the Delaware River to 45 feet. This 
     channel deepening project was authorized as part of the Water 
     Resource Development Acts of 1992 (section 101(6)) and 1999 
     (section 308).
       The Plan is estimated to cost $311 million, two-thirds of 
     which would be provided by the federal government. Proponents 
     of the Plan argue that the channel needs to be deepened to 
     accommodate the next generation of cargo ships and that cost 
     saving benefits will be realized by area oil refineries. 
     However, many of our constituents have called into question 
     these benefits and the necessity of channel deepening in 
     keeping the port competitive. Therefore, we are eager to 
     identify the benefits of this project to the nation, and 
     whether these justify the taxpayer cost.
       In addition to this central and legally mandated issue of 
     national benefit, we would like to request an analysis of 
     three additional issues by the General Accounting Office 
     (GAO).
       First, there is a question as to whether the project 
     sponsors have complied with all of the provisions of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Environmental 
     Impact Statement associated with this project appears to be 
     deficient in five ways: (a) there was no assessment of the 
     ecological issues pertaining to the disposal sites for 
     dredged materials because the sites were not identified when 
     the EIS was done: (b) there was no assessment of the impact 
     of any dredging of the private berths of the oil refinery (if 
     any takes place) which is functionally a part of this 
     project; (c) the habitat assessment part of the EIS may not 
     adequately assess the impact of the project on essential fish 
     and oyster habitats; (d) ``used mean values'' (averages) were 
     improperly used to assess the level of toxins in River 
     sediment and in so doing masked the existence of toxic ``hot 
     spots''; and (e) threats to drinking water supplies and water 
     quality have yet to be adequately analyzed and addressed.
       Second, the Delaware dredging project reportedly will 
     produce 33 million cubic yards of dredged materials. Ten 
     million yards are scheduled to be used for beach restoration 
     in the State of Delaware. The remaining 23 million cubic 
     yards will simply be dumped on the New Jersey side of the 
     river.
       With little effort, the planners of this project were able 
     to find a beneficial use for 10 million cubic yards of this 
     material. We are concerned that insufficient efforts has been 
     made to find more beneficial uses for the remaining 23 
     million cubic yards and that New Jersey has been asked to 
     bear too great a burden in its disposal. Thus, we request 
     that the GAO look at both the environmental and economic 
     impacts of placing 23 million cubic yards of dredged 
     materials on the riverfront of these New Jersey communities.
       Third, we also ask the GAO to investigate why almost no 
     commitments have yet been received from the businesses who 
     stand to benefit from this dredging. The argument has been 
     made that this project is necessary to keep shipping commerce 
     on the Delaware River. Yet few of these businesses have made 
     commitments to dredge their ports on the Delaware River to 
     match the depth of the main channel. If these businesses 
     truly need this project, we are curious as to why they are 
     not also working to make room for the larger ships this 
     project is meant to accommodate.
       As you can see, there are still many questions to be 
     answered regarding this project. Time is of the essence. 
     Congress will consider as part of its FY 2001 Appropriations 
     cycle future funding for this project. It is imperative that 
     this project receive objective scrutiny by the GAO 
     immediately. We offer our assistance in any way possible to 
     facilitate a cost-benefit analysis and evaluation of 
     environmental impacts in a timely manner. Thank you in 
     advance for your efforts and we look forward to your report.
           Sincerely,
                                             Robert G. Torricelli,
                                            United States Senator.
                                                Robert E. Andrews,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                     U.S. Environmental Protection


                                             Agency, Region 2,

                                      New York, NY, June 30, 1999.
     Mr. Robert Callegeri,
     Director, Planning Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/
         Philadelphia District, Wanamaker Building, Philadelphia 
         PA.
       Dear Mr. Callegeri: I am writing in reference to the 
     proposed Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project. In 
     particular, we have recently become aware of potential issues 
     associated with the project through letters from the Delaware 
     River keeper, and discussions stemming from the April 16, 
     1999 forum facilitated by the Delaware River Basin 
     Commission, as well as the June 11, 1999 meeting convened by 
     Congressman Castle's office.
       We have carefully considered these issues. For the most 
     part, we do not believe that they necessitate revising the 
     conclusions reached in the previous environmental impact 
     statement (EIS) process for the project. However, we believe 
     that the following two issues require further consideration 
     and effort prior to the project proceeding: the project's 
     benefit/cost (B/C) ratio and environmental issues raised 
     which may not have been fully evaluated or resolved during 
     the prior planning process.
       With regard to the project's B/C ratio, the original 
     project scope included six petroleum facilities as project 
     beneficiaries. Consequently, the benefits to these facilities 
     were included in the project's B/C ratio. However, we have 
     seen no documentation that any of these facilities plan to 
     dredge their private channels. To the contrary, the limited 
     documentation we have indicates that one or more of the 
     petroleum companies believe that it is not in their best 
     economic interest to participate. Accordingly, we would like 
     to see additional documentation showing any commitments made 
     by the companies involved and more explanation of how their 
     participation (or lack thereof) affects the B/C ratio 
     calculations. Moreover, if these

[[Page S8279]]

     facilities are not committed to participate, we would argue 
     that the scope of the project would be modified, which would 
     require the Corps' to recalculate the B/C ratio.
       In addition to the economic questions, numerous 
     environmental concerns about the project continue to be 
     raised. While we believe that many of these concerns have 
     been adequately addressed through the prior EIS process, 
     there may be a need for additional environmental analyses for 
     certain issues not fully covered in the prior EIS 
     documentation. For example, impacts related to the dredging 
     of the private facilities discussed above and several port 
     facilities owned or operated by the local sponsors, and 
     potential impacts associated with the development of new 
     sites for dredged material disposal were not fully evaluated 
     in the original EIS. Accordingly, these activities will have 
     to be evaluated under NEPA.
       Our final concern about the project relates to the 
     potential impacts associated with the dredging and disposal 
     operations. EPA, however, believes that these impacts can, 
     and should, be addressed through the development of specific 
     monitoring/management plans for the various dredging and 
     disposal phases of the project. The plans should be developed 
     to address specific goals and objectives designed to detect 
     and prevent adverse impacts from the proposed dredging and 
     disposal operations. At a minimum, monitoring for turbidity 
     changes using in situ recording devices during dredging and 
     disposal operations, bathymetry and sediment profiling 
     imagery at the aquatic disposal locations, and ground water 
     monitoring should be included. Additionally, the monitoring/
     management plans should provide for appropriate contingency 
     actions in the event that unforeseen circumstances (e.g., 
     high levels of contaminants) are encountered during the 
     dredging and disposal operations. We are available to assist 
     as necessary in the development of monitoring/management 
     plans. At the very least, we request the opportunity to 
     review such plans as they are being developed. Furthermore, 
     the monitoring/management plans must be in place prior to the 
     start of any dredging activity.
       We look forward to working with you as this project 
     progresses. Should you have any questions concerning this 
     letter, please contact Mark Westrate of my staff at (212) 
     637-3789.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Robert W. Hargrove,
     Chief, Strategic Planning and Multi-Media Programs Branch.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                      Washington, DC, May 5, 2000.
     Mr. David Walker,
     Comptroller General of the United States, General Accounting 
         Office, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Walker: On May 2, 2000, Representative Robert 
     Andrews and Senator Robert Torricelli wrote to you requesting 
     the General Accounting Office (GAO) review the cost-benefit 
     and environmental analysis of the U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineer's (USACE) project to dredge the Delaware River to 45 
     feet. In addition, they asked you to evaluate whether the 
     Corps of Engineers has complied with all provisions of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act, the environmental and 
     economic impacts of placing 23 million cubic yards of dredged 
     materials on the New Jersey riverfront, and why almost no 
     commitments to deepen their side channels have been received 
     from the oil refineries who are identified as receiving 80% 
     of the projects benefits. We support the request by 
     Representative Andrews and Senator Torricelli, and ask that 
     you address several other critical issues dealing with the 
     accuracy of the USACE's study of this project.
       Throughout this project, oil facilities located along the 
     Delaware have been identified as the major beneficiaries. 
     However, five of the six facilities have made no commitment 
     to invest the funds necessary to deepen their side-channels 
     and have indicated they are unlikely to do so. Therefore, we 
     request the GAO to recalculate the cost-benefit ratio of this 
     project if the oil facilities do not deepen their side-
     channels.
       The USACE has identified other potential beneficiaries of 
     the deepening project to include the Port of Philadelphia and 
     Camden. We ask that the GAO utilize its expertise in port 
     infrastructure and competitiveness and conduct a study 
     focusing on shipping trends in the North Atlantic Region. In 
     particular, we request the GAO to evaluate the viability of 
     the Port of Philadelphia and Camden becoming a major regional 
     hub port for deep draft container ships if the Delaware River 
     were deepened from 40 to 45 feet. There is no guarantee that 
     the new generation of container ships will ever call at the 
     Port of Philadelphia and Camden at a depth of 45 feet.
       In addition, studies prepared by the USACE Waterways 
     Experiment Station (WES) to determine the potential for 
     saltwater flow into the C&D Canal and the Delaware River may 
     have reached inappropriate conclusions to minimize potential 
     environmental impacts of the project. The studies have since 
     been sent back to the WES for reanalysis. We ask that the GAO 
     investigate discrepancies between the studies and determine 
     how they came about. We would also like the GAO to examine 
     all current Corps studies on the Delaware River Deepening 
     Project to determine if similar discrepancies exist.
       This information will be critical in helping Congress 
     determine whether the project's national economic benefits 
     are sufficient enough to invest over $200 million. Since 
     Congress will consider future funding for this project in the 
     FY2001 appropriations cycle, it is essential this project 
     receive objective scrutiny by the GAO immediately. We offer 
     our assistance in any way possible to facilitate a cost-
     benefit analysis, evaluate of environmental impacts, and a 
     review of the accuracy of the USACE studies of this project 
     in a timely manner. Thank you for your efforts and we look 
     forward to your report.
           Sincerely,
     Jim Saxton,
       Member of Congress,
     Frank A. LoBiondo,
       Member of Congress.
                                  ____

         Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 
           Control,
                                        Dover, DE, March 31, 2000.
     LTC Debra M. Lewis,
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wanamaker Building, 
         Philadelphia, PA.
       Dear Lieutenant Colonel Lewis: I am writing to follow up on 
     our numerous conversations and correspondence regarding the 
     proposed deepening of the Delaware River Main Channel. I 
     appreciate your willingness to address these issues and to 
     work constructively with the State of Delaware to ensure that 
     this project will not go forward unless it complies with our 
     environmental laws and that any environmental impacts from 
     this project will be minimal.
       This letter summarizes the remaining environmental issues 
     that the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 
     Control (DNREC) believes need resolution. In particular, it 
     is essential that the Corps demonstrate conclusively that the 
     project will comply with State of Delaware Surface Water 
     Quality Standards, the Wetlands Act, and the requirements of 
     the Subaqueous Lands Act. We also are beginning to formulate 
     the requirements for testing and monitoring that would apply 
     before, during, and after completion of the project should it 
     move forward.
       As you are aware, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration regulations (15 CFR 930) require that this 
     project be consistent with the Delaware Coastal Management 
     Program (DCMP) policies. That program issued a conditional 
     Federal Consistency determination to the Corps on 1 May 1997. 
     The extensive scope of this project necessitated that DCMP 
     review the project in phases. Now that the final design and 
     specification phase is underway, it is an appropriate time to 
     address remaining issues regarding the project. The 
     conditional approvals did not obviate the need to meet the 
     substantive requirements of other state permits.
       The outstanding issues include construction of material 
     placement facilities, placement of sandy dredged material on 
     beaches, the wetland creation project at Kelly Island, 
     various monitoring and reporting requirements, fisheries 
     concerns, and future maintenance burdens for the project.


            I. Construction of Confined Disposal Facilities

       Prior to any construction, it will be necessary to identify 
     and describe in detail the functions of all confined disposal 
     facilities (CDFs) to be used for the project--whether located 
     within the land area of the State of Delaware or discharging 
     into Delaware waters. It is our understanding that the only 
     Delaware-land sites slated for use are Reedy Point North and 
     South, both currently in existence. This list identifying the 
     disposal sites must include a description of the current 
     status of each site, expected future capacity, amount of 
     material to be deposited during the initial dredging cycle, 
     and ability to accept material for future maintenance cycles. 
     Additionally, there must be reasonable assurance that the 
     site is designed and operated in a manner which can ensure 
     compliance with Delaware State Water Quality Standards. The 
     rationale and justification supporting this assurance must be 
     provided in detail.
       In addition, an Erosion and Sediment Control plan is 
     required from the Division of Soil & Water for any landward 
     disturbance of 5000 square feet or more. Several of the 
     principles regarding erosion and sediment control are 
     included for general reference:
       An approved erosion and sediment control plan must be 
     followed. Any modifications to the plan must be approved as 
     revisions to the approved plan.
       Any site or portion thereof on which a land-disturbing 
     activity is completed or stopped for a period of fourteen 
     days must be stabilized either permanently or temporarily 
     following the specifications and standards in the Erosion and 
     Sediment Control Handbook.
       Unless an exception is approved, not more than 20 acres may 
     be cleared at any one time in order to minimize areas of 
     exposed ground cover and reduce erosion rates.
       A land-disturbing activity shall not cause increased 
     sedimentation or accelerated erosion off-site. Off-site means 
     neighboring properties, drainageways, public facilities, 
     public rights-of-ways or streets, and water courses including 
     streams, lakes, wetlands, etc.
       More specific criteria for vegetation and berm 
     stabilization can be found in the Delaware Erosion and 
     Sediment Control Handbook for Development.
       The Corps must also comply with any additional requirements 
     of the State NPDES program. A permit regulating the discharge 
     of effluent from the CDFs is likely. Additional

[[Page S8280]]

     NPDES Storm Water Regulations apply, since a NPDES 
     certification is required for land disturbing activities. 
     The ``Regulations Governing Storm Water Discharges 
     Associated with Industrial Activity, Part 2--Special 
     Conditions for Storm Water Associated with Land Disturbing 
     Activities'' (1998) states that ``Land disturbing 
     activities shall not commence and coverage under this Part 
     shall not apply until the Sediment and Stormwater 
     Management Plan for a site has been approved, stamped, 
     signed and dated . . .''.


           2. Placement of sandy dredged material on beaches

       To date, DNREC has not received official word of which 
     beaches have been chosen to receive sand from the southern 
     portion of the project. This information should be made 
     available as soon as it is determined so that we can evaluate 
     the permits and requirements needed. Please be advised that 
     DNREC expects that consideration be given to a number of 
     shoreline locations previously unnourished. A Section 401 
     Water Quality Certification and State Subaqueous Lands permit 
     will be necessary for beach nourishment activities. Our 
     intent is to ensure that state Water Quality Standards are 
     met. DNREC also wants to ensure that beach replenishment 
     activities will not take place during critical horseshoe crab 
     spawning periods (April 15-June 30). Also, sand placement 
     activities should not use barriers (i.e. silt fences, 
     bulkheads, rocks, etc.) that would interfere with spawning.


        3. Wetland creation/enhancement project at Kelly Island

       DNREC anticipates coordinating with the Corps on the final 
     design and monitoring plan for Kelly Island at a meeting on 5 
     April 2000. However, the following describes general 
     principles which would be applicable regardless of the 
     specific design criteria.
       An Erosion and Sediment Control plan is required from the 
     Division of Soil & Water Conservation. The general 
     requirements are listed above under item 1.
       The Corps must also comply with any additional requirements 
     of the State NPDES program. This includes the NPDES Storm 
     Water Regulations as well as the State Sediment and 
     Stormwater Regulations, since a NPDES certification is 
     required for land disturbing activities.
       Because the beneficial use project at Kelly Island will 
     take place in an existing wetland area, a Wetlands Permit 
     will be required from the Division of Water Resources. In 
     addition, a Subaqueous Lands Lease will also be necessary. 
     There are several standard conditions for mitigation projects 
     which should apply to the wetland creation/enhancement taking 
     place at that site. For example, standard mitigation projects 
     must demonstrate 85% survival of the planted vegetation after 
     the second growing season. If 85% is not achieved then a 
     report outlining corrective action must be submitted. Other 
     parameters for stabilization and flow should be developed by 
     Corps engineers and submitted to DNREC for final review and 
     approval.
       The Corps must also commit to maintaining the integrity of 
     the created site at Kelly Island and to do what is necessary 
     to evaluate and ensure the function of the new/enhanced 
     wetland area. In addition, the beach constructed at the 
     perimeter must be able to withstand a significant storm 
     event. The project should be examined and monitored annually 
     in order to ensure berm stability, vegetation viability, 
     flushing, and general ``success'' of revitalizing the wetland 
     habitat at that site. A monitoring report to this effect will 
     be required annually.
       The DNREC, Division of Fish and Wildlife, has concerns 
     about increased silt load and sedimentation of adjacent 
     oyster habitat during construction of the perimeter sand sill 
     at Kelly Island and while the confined disposal area is being 
     filled. Seed beds of concern include ``Drum Bed,'' ``Silver 
     Bed,'' and ``Pleasanton's Rock,'' as these are the closest 
     seed beds to Kelly Island. Should an impact be noted on these 
     beds, it would indicate a need to monitor ``Ridge Bed'' which 
     is farther from the project area but has historically been 
     very productive.
       Monitoring of oyster population conditions and habitat 
     quality should begin prior to construction and continue 
     throughout. Checking for changes in sedimentation patterns 
     should be extensive and focused at broad areas of each bed 
     rather than be limited to discrete sections. In addition, it 
     may be necessary to monitor oyster habitat on leased grounds 
     south of the Mahon River mouth as they may be impacted by 
     sediments moved south by ebb tide currents.


                      4. Monitoring and reporting

     Monitoring at confined disposal facilities
       Monitoring of confined disposal facilities (CDFs) must be 
     performed to determine whether return flows from the CDFs 
     cause or contribute to violations of Delaware Surface Water 
     Quality Standards. This is an issue of concern for the 
     Department because CDFs often discharge return flows into 
     ecologically sensitive, shallow water habitats which have 
     limited dilution and dispersion capacity. To evaluate whether 
     return flows are causing or contributing to violations of the 
     Standards, the Corps will need to collect data on flow rate, 
     duration, concentration, and toxicity of CDF discharges and 
     then determine the resulting concentration and toxicity in 
     the receiving water through a combination of fate and 
     transport modeling and in-stream sampling. Both near-field 
     (i.e., mixing zone) and far-field (i.e., complete mix) 
     concentrations and toxicity resulting from the discharges 
     must be determined and compared to applicable Standards.
       Sampling and analysis for the CDF should follow the general 
     approach taken by the Corps in evaluating the Pedricktown CDF 
     (i.e., ``Pedricktown Confined Disposal Facility Contaminant 
     Loading and Water Quality Analysis,'' June 1999). The Corps 
     will need to submit a sampling plan/scope of work to the 
     Department for review and approval prior to proceeding with 
     this work and prior to discharging from the CDFs. Close out 
     reports detailing the findings of the sampling and analysis 
     will also need to be submitted to the Department for review 
     and approval. If violations of applicable Standards are 
     identified, then the close out report should identify the 
     steps the Corps intends to take in order to eliminate future 
     violations. Based upon the findings of the initial studies, 
     the Department will determine the nature and extent of 
     subsequent testing that will need to be performed at the CDFs 
     in order to assess compliance with Delaware Surface Water 
     Quality Standards.
       In addition to the testing described above, the Corps will 
     also need to collect contaminant data for surface sediments 
     in the CDFs and assess potential impacts to terrestrial and 
     avian species that may use the disposal areas. A plan to 
     accomplish this work should be submitted to the Department 
     for review and approval, as should a close out report. If 
     unacceptable risks are identified as a result of this 
     assessment, then the Corps will need to develop a plan to 
     limit access to the site.
       Finally, the Corps will need to submit an annual letter to 
     the Department which summarizes the operational history and 
     structural integrity of any CDF used over the previous year. 
     The letter should address the following factors:
       Condition of containment berms, dewatering and stormwater 
     weirs, and other structures.
       Summary of disposal operations at the CDF over the past 
     year, including volumes of material placed into the CDF, as 
     well as volumes, mass loading, duration, and timing of return 
     flows.
       Summary of maintenance and management activities conducted 
     at the CDF.
       Summary of any material removed from the site.
       Analysis of available remaining disposal capacity at the 
     site.
       Summary of surface and groundwater monitoring programs not 
     otherwise covered in the study identified above.
     Monitoring during dredging operation
       It will be necessary to monitor during dredging operations 
     in order to ensure that the predictions of ``no significant 
     impacts'' are fulfilled. Therefore, the Corps should submit a 
     sampling plan to the Department for review and approval.
       Measuring the exact position of the dredge at all times is 
     essential to ensuring that the channel and bends are deepened 
     based upon the footprint of the original project. Sampling in 
     the water column surrounding the excavation will require, at 
     a minimum, collection of data on total suspended solids 
     concentrations, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, and any 
     contaminants of concern identified in the pre-dredge 
     evaluation. Suspended solids must be maintained between 25 
     and 250 mg/l at the edge of a two-hundred foot regulatory 
     mixing zone in order to meet water quality standards, 
     according to the report Metal Contamination of Sediments in 
     the Delaware River Navigation Channel (Greene, 1999). The 
     results from all sampling data must be compared to applicable 
     Delaware Surface Water Quality Standards, and any exceedances 
     must be reported immediately.
       The Corps must also work with DNREC to develop a protocol 
     that will come into effect if water quality violations are 
     identified. This would include events where total suspended 
     solids are higher than those determined to be sustainable 
     around the point of excavation.
       Additionally, the Corps must follow established protocol if 
     turtles, sturgeon, or other species of concern are identified 
     in the dredge slurry or if there is indication that these 
     species are excessively impacted.
       Standard best management practices should be used to the 
     extent practicable during the dredging operation in order to 
     minimize sediment suspension, impacts to aquatic organisms, 
     and water quality exceedances.
       If the Corps intends to use the practice of economic 
     loading during the Main Channel Deepening project, this must 
     be discussed with the DNREC. Permission must be granted for 
     economic loading and will be limited by geographical location 
     and material characteristics. Additional monitoring will also 
     be required.
     Bi-Annual Reporting
       In addition to the annual reporting information stated 
     above, I request that the Secretary of DNREC receive a bi-
     annual report detailing the progress of the Main Channel 
     Deepening project, including the locations dredged in the 
     previous twelve months, the status and capacity of CDFs, and 
     any unforeseen consequences and their remedies. I would 
     expect members of my staff to be in regular contact with 
     their peers at the Corps in order to ensure that the project 
     satisfies the requirements of the State of Delaware's 
     laws, regulations, and standards.


               5. Fisheries and living resource concerns

       Aquatic species of concern include sea turtles, several 
     species of whales, and shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, along 
     with several others. The Corps must follow the recommended 
     dredging windows as established

[[Page S8281]]

     by the Delaware River Basin Fish and Wildlife Cooperative and 
     as reported in the 1997 Supplemental Environmental Impact 
     Statement.
       In addition, the following concerns from the Division of 
     Fish and Wildlife must be addressed:
       Striped bass spawning is a concern from the Delaware 
     Memorial Bridge to Philadelphia April 15 to June 15. The 
     Delaware Basin Fish and Wildlife Cooperative May 1997 policy 
     entitled ``Seasonal restrictions for dredging, blasting and 
     overboard disposal in the mainstream of the Delaware River'' 
     should be followed in order to protect anadromous spawners 
     such as striped bass.
       Atlantic sturgeon spawning sites are located over rocky 
     bottom in the deepest portion of the river. Spawning season 
     is April 15 to June 15. Because the eggs adhere to the hard 
     surfaces, rock should not be blasted or removed from the 
     river through the end of June to protect sturgeon eggs and 
     larvae.
       Atlantic sturgeon wintering areas are located from 
     Artificial Island to Chester, Pennsylvania.
       An observer should be placed on hopper dredges to monitor 
     for sturgeon impacts on overwintering fish in the wintering 
     areas.
       The Corps will need an ``incidental take statement'' from 
     NMFS as required under the Endangered Species Act for sea 
     turtles and shortnose sturgeon. The Corps should ensure that 
     their agreement with NMFS reflects the most up-to-date 
     requirements. A copy of this statement should be provided to 
     the Division of Fish and Wildlife.
       In addition, a turtle observer should be on board the 
     dredge during the period of the year when sea turtles are 
     known to be present in our area. The report from this 
     observer, as well as any identified turtle parts, should be 
     forwarded to the Division of Fish and Wildlife as well.


                         6. Future Maintenance

       If the Main Channel is deepened, there will be increased 
     volumes of material removed during each maintenance cycle in 
     order to achieve the project depth. This material will place 
     additional burden on existing disposal areas, causing them to 
     fill at a more rapid rate than with the forty-foot project 
     depth. As a result, new disposal facilities must be sited or 
     beneficial uses must be developed for the material currently 
     contained in the facilities. The Corps must be prepared to 
     address dredged material placement needs in the context of 
     future maintenance related to the proposed deepening.
       We look forward to continuing our dialogue and working to 
     resolve the above issues before any plans for actual 
     construction take place. As the Department of Natural 
     Resources and Environmental Control, it is our mission to 
     ensure that projects are designed to avoid or minimize 
     adverse impacts on air and water quality, habitat, and living 
     resources. The above requests and requirements are in keeping 
     with this charge as it applies to the proposed deepening of 
     the Delaware River Main Channel.
           Sincerely,
                                           Nicholas A. DiPasquale,
     Secretary.
                                  ____

         Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 
           Control,
                                         Dover, DE, July 14, 2000.
     LTC Debra M. Lewis,
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wanamaker Building, 
         Philadelphia, PA.
     Re: Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project
       Dear Lieutenant Colonel Lewis: The Department of Natural 
     Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) has reviewed your 
     letter of June 9, 2000 and the updated matrix entitled 
     ``Assessment of Environmental Issues'' that you provided in 
     response to my March 31, 2000 letter regarding the deepening 
     of the Delaware River Main Channel. This letter also 
     addresses issues raised in your most recent correspondence to 
     me of July 9, 2000. Let me begin by thanking you and your 
     staff for meeting with me and members of my staff, discussing 
     our concerns and providing the organized response. Overall, 
     we appear to be in agreement on the means to resolve many 
     issues. Clarifications of DNREC requirements for specific 
     issues are outlined below. We still have several remaining 
     concerns.
       The following are comments from the Department regarding 
     the matrix ``Assessment of Environmental Issues.'' Comments 
     are organized by section.

     1.0  CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITIES
           1.1 & 1.2  The Corps will need to follow the 
             requirements for Delaware permit processing, 
             regardless of the eventual enforcement mechanism. 
             DNREC uses EPA Application Form 1--General 
             Information; EPA Application Form 2D--New Sources and 
             New Discharges and EPA Application Form 2E--
             Facilities Which Do Not Discharge Process Wastewater 
             to collect information to control discharges such as 
             those from CDFs. These forms must be filled out and 
             submitted to the Division of Water Resources for all 
             discharges that could impact Delaware waters. Copies 
             are attached.
           1.3  Procedures for effluent monitoring must be 
             submitted to DNREC for review and comment. This 
             should be sent along with the information required 
             for permit processing (above). State of Delaware 
             water quality standards attached.
           1.4  It appears that DNREC's concern for contaminants 
             might be deferred until post project. DNREC's 
             original comment reflected two concerns: potential 
             contaminant discharge during de-watering and 
             potential longer term impacts after de-watering. 
             These concerns need by addressed by the Corps before 
             the project commences.
     2.0  SAND PLACEMENT ON DELAWARE BEACHES
           2.1  See Attachment A for a list of Delaware's 
             preferred locations for sand placement.
           The FEIS does not address the impacts of placing 
             material on Delaware beaches. The EIS will not be 
             complete until it is amended to address this issue.
           2.2  It is unclear from your response whether you 
             intend to apply for Subaqueous Lands permits. Does 
             your acknowledgement of 401 Water Quality 
             Certification requirements include agreement on 
             Subaqueous Lands permits? A Subaqueous Lands permit 
             or its enforceable equivalent is needed.
           2.3  DNREC is satisfied with the agreement regarding 
             horseshoe crab protection measures.
     3.0  WETLAND CREATION/ENHANCEMENT
           3.1  If tidal wetlands are to be impacted during the 
             construction of Kelly Island, the substantive 
             requirements of a State of Delaware wetlands permit 
             must be obtained before any work can commence.
           If the de-watering of Kelly Island necessitates a 
             discharge into surface waters, the Crops will be 
             required to complete the same application forms 
             required for CDFs.
           3.2  DNREC will continue working with the Corps until a 
             final wetland design plan can be approved. Work 
             cannot commence until this plan is finalized. 
             Regardless of what the Kelly Island project is 
             referred to, we are targeting the survival rates 
             outlined in the March 31, 2000 letter as measures of 
             success.
           3.3  A post-construction monitoring plan to ensure 
             protection of water quality standards must be 
             developed by the Corps and submitted to DNREC for 
             review and approval before the project can commence. 
             In addition, the Corps must clarify how long it 
             intends to maintain the beach constructed in front of 
             the wetland area.
           3.4  A Subaqueous Lands permit or its enforceable 
             equivalent is required.
     4.0  OYSTER HABITAT MONITORING
           DNREC is awaiting the final oyster-monitoring plan from 
             the Corps for review and comment. The monitoring plan 
             should include widespread measures of sediment 
             coverage.
     5.0  WATER QUALITY MONITORING
           DNREC requires that a sampling plan at the point of 
             dredging be submitted for review and comment. This 
             plan is to include steps to be taken if TSS exceeds 
             250 mg/l.
           Corps regulations require that an EIS address water 
             quality impacts in states adjoining areas where side 
             channels and berthing areas are to be dredged. The 
             Corps is to assist the states where this dredging is 
             to occur in obtaining Section 401 Water Quality 
             Certification from the State where there could be 
             adverse impacts on water quality. The Corps has not 
             done this for the dredging that will occur at Marcus 
             Hook.
     6.0  ENDANGERED SPECIES
           6.1  DNREC requires the submission of protocols for 
             monitoring potential impacts to sea turtles and 
             short-nose sturgeon for review and comment before the 
             project commences.
           6.2  DNREC is satisfied with agreements regarding 
             protections of sea turtles.
     7.0  DREDGING
           7.1  DNREC is satisfied regarding adherence to dredging 
             windows.
           7.2  DNREC is satisfied regarding adherence to dredging 
             windows for striped bass.
           7.3  DNREC is satisfied regarding adherence to dredging 
             windows for Atlantic sturgeon.
           7.4  DNREC is satisfied regarding adherence to dredging 
             windows for Atlantic sturgeon.
           7.5  DNREC is satisfied regarding Atlantic sturgeon 
             overwintering monitoring for hopper dredge 
             activities.
           7.6  The extent of economic loading needs to be 
             finalized and approved by DNREC before the project 
             can commence.
           * Please note final comments regarding female 
             overwintering blue crabs.
     8.0 REPORTING

[[Page S8282]]

           8.1.  An outline for the CDF Annual Operational Report 
             must be submitted to DNREC for review and comment 
             before the project may commence.
           A description of current CDF site conditions must also 
             be submitted.
           8.2  DNREC is satisfied with agreements for bi-annual 
             progress reporting.
           8.3  DNREC is satisfied with agreements for CDF 
             capacity for maintenance.

       Please share with us as soon as possible the Corps' 
     proposed dredging schedule and dredging techniques. Over the 
     past years, we have discussed many dredging closure windows 
     and investigated the impacts of economic loading. If the 
     Corps plans to dredge the lower Delaware Bay during the 
     winter, we need to know what measures will be put in place to 
     avoid and reduce impacts to overwintering female blue crabs. 
     During cold winters female blue crabs hibernate in the 
     channel, particularly on the channel sides. They may be 
     torpid and unable to move away from the dredge as stated in 
     the Supplemental EIS. This, combined with the possibility of 
     economic loading depositing a burdensome amount of sediment 
     on top of them, should be accounted for and avoided. This 
     most important fishery must be protected.
       Also, we have gotten conflicting information regarding the 
     final quality of rock available after blasting. As you may be 
     aware, our conditional consistency determination required the 
     Corps to make this rock available to Delaware for habitat 
     improvement. This rock is a resource that belongs to 
     Delaware. Placement of rock in Delaware's eleven permitted 
     reef sites could serve as partial mitigation for unavoidable 
     fisheries impacts sustained during the dredging process.
       Additionally, a preliminary DNREC review of berthing area 
     sediment toxicity data has shown contamination levels of 
     concern. We are just now bringing this issue up because of 
     the length of time it took the Corps to provide the requested 
     data and the time it took our staff to convert the raw data 
     to an electronic format to facilitate analysis. I trust you 
     have shared this information with the state environmental 
     agencies of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It is our 
     understanding that Corps regulations and Section 401 of the 
     Clean Water Act require that an EIS address water quality 
     impacts in states adjoining areas where side channel berthing 
     areas are to be dredged and that the Corps is to assist 
     states to obtain Section 401 Water Quality Certification from 
     the affected state. DNREC requests that you document 
     potential effects to waters of the State of Delaware from 
     dredging activities in side channel/berthing areas in 
     adjoining states.
       Finally, as previously discussed on numerous occasions and 
     as we have maintained over the past decade, the State of 
     Delaware continues to assert that the Corps is subject to 
     state permitting requirements for this project. We have 
     provided your legal and technical staff with appropriate 
     statutory and regulatory requirements and permit application 
     forms. Before we will entertain any further discussion about 
     alternative mechanisms for satisfying these remaining 
     environmental and regulatory requirements, the U.S. Army 
     Corps of Engineers must provide to the Delaware Department of 
     Natural Resources and Environmental Control a written legal 
     justification that articulates why the Corps should be exempt 
     from applying for required State of Delaware permits.
           Sincerely,
                                           Nicholas A. DiPasquale,
                                                        Secretary.


                 Solar and Renewable Energy Activities

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Subcommittee for including $43.617 million for Solar and 
Renewable Energy activities, and to discuss briefly a renewable energy 
project in my home state of North Dakota.
  One of the most abundant sources of energy in the Upper Great Plains 
region is wind. My State of North Dakota ranks first in wind power 
production potential, and the Department of Energy has said that North 
Dakota alone could capture enough wind energy to supply 36 percent of 
the power needs of the lower 48 States. Not only does wind offer a 
clean and inexpensive form of energy, it also could provide our rural 
residents with an important source of income. DOE estimates that a 
1,000-acre farm could earn as much as $80,000 per year in wind 
royalties.
  One wind energy initiative of particular interest to me is being 
conducted on the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Reservation by the Center for 
New Growth and Economic Development at the Turtle Mountain Community 
College. I had hoped that the Committee would have designated $1 
million for this project, but the Subcommittee's current allocation was 
not at a level to accommodate funding for new start-up projects in the 
renewable energy accounts.
  I recognize that it is difficult to speculate about what the final 
budget allocation for this bill might allow, but I would ask the 
chairman and the ranking minority member to consider designating $1 
million for this project in conference should additional funds for the 
programs under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction become available.
  Mr. REID. I recognize the importance of wind energy development not 
only for North Dakota but also for the other states that might benefit 
from North Dakota's ability to harness this great resource. This 
project discussed by the Senator from North Dakota is particularly 
unique since it is being conducted by Native Americans in an effort to 
reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and to become more financially 
self-sufficient. Although we do not know, as the Senator points out, 
what our final allocation may be, the Senator can be assured that I 
will do my best to see that this initiative is funded, should the 
Subcommittee's allocation allow additional projects.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is my understanding that the funds being requested 
by the Senator would be used for a wind turbine and for educational 
purposes such as teaching others on the reservation and in the region 
how to establish and maintain ``wind farms''.
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes, the Senator's understanding is correct. The Center 
for New Growth and Economic Development will work with Turtle Mountain 
Community College to develop a curriculum on ``windsmithing'' so that 
others can learn the trade of wind energy. The Turtle Mountain Chippewa 
Reservation is located in the middle of a natural wind tunnel so this 
is a natural place to develop expertise relating to wind energy.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for this 
explanation, and agree that this Center has potential to provide an 
innovative approach to an old technology--the windmill.


       energy and water development appropriations bill, fy 2001

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
Senator Reid, the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Water 
Appropriations Committee.
  I want to raise an issue and briefly discuss an amendment that I 
filed regarding the University of Connecticut. The amendment requests 
that the Department of Energy release $7.9 million that was originally 
appropriate in 1993 for the construction of an Advanced Technologies 
Institute at the University of Connecticut. Because of initial problems 
with the siting of the facility, the University was granted no-cost 
extensions for the award. The problems have since been resolved and the 
University is ready to break ground. I believe that the University of 
Connecticut, like other institutions, may, without Congressional 
action, lose out on the receipt of money that was already set aside for 
them. It is my understanding that the Senate, in its wisdom, has 
resolved similar situations in recent months. I would ask the chairman 
and ranking member to continue to work with me to try and rectify the 
situation with the University of Connecticut.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from 
Connecticut has said. I would like to work with him on this issue as we 
move to Conference on this bill. Several of our colleagues have had 
similar problems with other projects and I will continue to work with 
the Senator from Connecticut as we move to Conference.


            great lakes sediment tributary transport models

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as co-chairs of the Senate Great Lakes 
Task Force, the distinguished Senator from Michigan and myself want to 
take this opportunity to reiterate our support for a program of great 
interest to our colleagues from the Great Lakes states.
  Section 516(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to construct sediment transport 
models for major tributaries of the Great Lakes. This is a project 
aimed at the prevention end of a complex of sediment-related problems 
in the Great Lakes region--problems which are costing this country 
millions of dollars each year to remediate. The potential benefits of 
these models are such that they will pay for themselves in terms of 
reduced dredging and disposal costs. The benefits of

[[Page S8283]]

the program are well-recognized nationally; the program is being used 
as a template for a similar authorization for the Upper Mississippi 
river system. In addition to their uses to the Corps of Engineers in 
planning for dredging needs of the region and development of cost-
effective alternatives to dredging, the tributary transport models are 
made available to local, state and federal partners involved in 
nonpoint source pollution control to help target their efforts to 
prevent erosion which results in sedimentation of harbors and channels. 
A total of approximately sixty Great Lakes tributaries qualify under 
the authorization guidelines, 25 of which are considered high priority 
based on their current dredging needs.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in each of fiscal 1998 and fiscal 1999 the 
Congress was able to provide $500,000 for this project--funds which 
were spent to begin construction of models for six priority 
tributaries. Models of the Nemadji River, and Saginaw River have been 
completed, but lack of funding in fiscal 2000 has delayed completion of 
models of the Maumee River, Menominee River, Buffalo River, and Grand 
Calumet River. Plans to begin development of additional models for 
priority tributaries in Mill & Cascade Creeks, PA and Grand River, MI 
have also been delayed. With the first models just finishing 
completion, we are already seeing the benefits of the program. In the 
case of the Nemadji River model, the county government is starting to 
use the model to explore potential effects of changes to forestry 
practices in the Nemadji River watershed to reduce bank erosion and 
soil loss to Lake Superior. Preliminary analysis carried out on the 
Maumee model indicate that soil conservation can reduce future dredging 
and disposal costs.
  We note that the House Committee has provided $500,000 in fiscal 2001 
funding for the modeling program and ask the distinguished ranking 
member to make funding for this program a high priority in conference 
with the House.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to thank our colleagues from the 
Great Lakes states for highlighting the importance of this program and 
its potential for long-term cost. And to the extent that resources are 
available, I will do my best to address the funding needs of this 
program in Conference.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank the chairman for his consideration and 
congratulate the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee for presenting the Senate with an Energy and Water 
Development appropriations bill which addresses so many of this 
nation's water resources infrastructure needs.


                            low lake levels

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to ask my distinguished 
colleague from New Mexico and Chairman of the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Domenici, if he is aware of a serious 
problem facing Ohio and the entire Great Lakes region. For the last 2 
years, water levels in the Great Lakes have been declining rapidly. 
This year, the water level fell below low water datum for the first 
time in nearly 35 years.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am aware of the extreme low water 
level problem and understand the difficulties that the Great Lakes 
region is facing as a result.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, dredging in Great Lakes harbors and 
navigation channels is authorized by reference to low water datum. 
During periods of extremely low water, like those today, lake levels 
drop below low water datum. These low water levels not only threaten to 
cripple Great Lakes industries that depend on waterborne 
transportation, but they also create a serious threat to the safety of 
the thousands of recreational and commercial boaters on the Lakes. 
Would my colleague from New Mexico agree that the Corps should ensure 
minimal operation depths consistent with the original authorized depths 
and current use of the channels and harbors when Great Lakes water 
levels are below the International Great Lakes Datum of 1985?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe that the corps should work 
toward this goal recognizing the constrained nature of the operation 
and maintenance budget recommended for fiscal year 2001 and existing 
traffic using the system.


     great lakes remedial action planning assistance and sediment 
                 remediation technology demonstrations

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal Year 
2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations, we would like to 
bring to the attention of the distinguished chairman and ranking member 
the critical problem which the Great Lakes region faces in dealing with 
a legacy of sediment contamination.
  In 1987, the International Joint Commission designated 43 Areas of 
Concern on the Great Lakes where human use of the aquatic resources is 
severely impaired. Of the 31 U.S. sites, none have been cleaned up to 
the point of de-listing in the 13 years which have passed since 
listing. In most cases, the remaining recalcitrant problem is sediments 
which are contaminated with persistent toxic substances.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the Army Corps of Engineers plays a key 
role in addressing the contaminated sediments problem in the Great 
Lakes region. Section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1990 authorized the Corps of Engineers to provide technical assistance 
to the Remedial Action Planning Committees for each of the Areas of 
Concern. This technical assistance is critical to developing a cost-
effective and scientifically sound approach to cleanup. One of the 
largest obstacles to cleanup of contaminated sediments in the Great 
Lakes region is the lack of availability of alternative technologies 
for remediation of contaminated sediments. The Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 amended Section 401 allowing technical 
assistance funds to be used for the development and demonstration of 
promising new remediation technologies.
  Since 1990, Congress has provided a total of just $3.25 million for 
the Section 401 program. Funding has never exceeded $500,000 in any 
fiscal year, a level far too low to support even a single technology 
demonstration while maintaining key technical assistance capabilities.
  We note that the House Committee has provided $600,000 in fiscal 2001 
funding for the Section 401 Program. While we welcome the prospect of 
this increase, even at this level funding remains woefully short of the 
amount needed for this key component of our regional battle to address 
the problem of sediment contamination in the Great Lakes. We ask the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member to make funding for this 
program a high priority in conference with the House and within any 
additional funding which may become available.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to thank our colleagues from the 
Great Lakes States for highlighting the importance of this program. To 
the extent that resources are available, I will do my best to address 
the funding needs of this program in conference.

                          ____________________