Senate Report 107-220 - ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 2003

[Senate Report 107-220]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 514
107th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 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

R E P O R T

[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
========================================================
__________________________________________________

C O N T E N T S

----------

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
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

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

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.
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.

ACCRUAL FUNDING OF RETIREMENT COSTS AND POST-RETIREMENT 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.

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.
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 on-going projects, and
providing minimal O&M funding for completed projects leads the
Committee to believe that the budget preparation may have been
influenced by very narrow interest groups as opposed to
providing for a robust national water resources development
program. The situation that the proposed budget poses to the
Nation's economy and quality of life leave the Committee no
option but to step forward in support of these vital projects.
The Committee recommendation for the Corps of Engineers
totals $4,647,953,000. 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 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Committee recommendation
Project title ---------------------------------------------------------
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 ...........
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, .............. ........... 400 ...........
CA...................................................
COYOTE DAM, CA........................................ 50 ........... 150 ...........
FOLSOM DAM, CA........................................ .............. ........... 100 ...........
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 VICIN- .............. 200 .............. 200
ITY..................................................
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 100 ........... 200 ...........
CREE.................................................
SAN JOAQUIN RB, WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, ORESTIMBA .............. 100 .............. 100
CREE.................................................
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, ARROYO PASAJERO, CA.......... 100 ........... 100 ...........
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, CONSUMNES AND MOKELUMNE 100 ........... 100 ...........
RIVERS...............................................
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, FRAZIER CREEK, CA............ 100 ........... 100 ...........
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA, 100 ........... 100 ...........
C....................................................
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 ...........
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 ...........
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 1,000 ........... 3,685 ...........
WI...................................................
UPPER MISS RVR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IL, IA, MO, MN AND 1,814 ........... 1,814 ...........
WI...................................................
UPPER MISS RVR SYS FLOW FREQUENCY STUDY, IL, IA, MN, 463 ........... 463 ...........
M....................................................
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 ...........
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 62 ........... 62 ...........
VT...................................................

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, 1,078 ........... 2,078 ...........
C....................................................
UPPER MISS RIVER WATERSHED MGMT, LAKE ITASCA TO L/D 2 400 ........... 400 ...........

MISSISSIPPI

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

MISSOURI

CHESTERFIELD, MO...................................... .............. 385 .............. 550
KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS............................... 400 ........... 575 ...........
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 AND R460-471, 100 ........... 331 ...........
MO...................................................
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 ...........

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 ...........
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 .............. 100 .............. 100
BORDER...............................................
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX....................... 410 ........... 410 ...........
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX................................... 200 ........... 500 ...........
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 300 ........... 400 ...........
216).................................................
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 ...........
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 SUP- 200 ........... 200 ...........
PORT.................................................
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
cost-shared 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.
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 so-called 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.
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
provided $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.
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
provided $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 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:

CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA

MOBILE HARBOR, AL....................... 200 200
WALTER F GEORGE POWERHOUSE AND DAM, AL 16,473 16,473
AND GA (MAJOR REH......................
WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA 2,852 2,852
(MAJOR REHAB)..........................

ALASKA

BETHEL BANK STABILIZATION, AK........... .............. 3,000
BUCKLAND ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, .............. 4,000
AK.....................................
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, 14,300 17,000
AZ.....................................

ARKANSAS

FOURCHE BAYOU BASIN, AR................. .............. 500
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION 3,360 3,360
SYSTEM, AR.............................
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, .............. 7,500
LA.....................................

CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM 4,900 4,900
MODIFICATIONS), C......................
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, 3,900 5,000
CA.....................................
HARBOR/SOUTH BAYWATER RECYCLING, CA..... .............. 7,000
IMPERIAL BEACH, SILVER STRAND SHORELINE, 200 600
CA.....................................
KAWEAH RIVER, CA........................ 10,151 11,000
LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CA.................. .............. 10,300
LOWER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE 1,680 1,680
RECONSTRUCTION, CA.....................
MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE 5,900 5,900
RECONSTRUCTION, CA.....................
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 2,600 2,600
PROJECT, CA............................
SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL, 250 400
CA.....................................
SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA 806 806
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA................
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA....... .............. 1,150
SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA................... 2,751 2,751
SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER PROJECT, .............. 500
CA.....................................
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 1,000 ..............
REIMBURSEMENT, CA......................
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 3,510 3,510
RECONSTRUCTION, CA.....................

DELAWARE

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET 500 1,200
TO LEWES BEACH.........................
DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE........... 294 294
DELAWARE COAST, REHOBOTH BEACH TO DEWEY 1,000 3,000
BEACH, DE..............................

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 19,526 19,526
RESTORATION, FL........................
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL................. 4,028 4,028
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, FL 1,742 1,742
AND GA (MAJOR R........................
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 2,493 2,493
(MAJOR REHAB)..........................
LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA AND SC... 250 250
OATES CREEK, RICHMOND COUNTY, GA (DEF 850 850
CORR)..................................
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND 1,000 1,000
SC.....................................
THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC 3,500 3,500
(MAJOR REHAB)..........................

HAWAII

HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT................. .............. 2,000
IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF 419 419
CORR)..................................
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, 2,037 2,037
IL (DEF CORR)..........................
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 10,000 10,000
AND MO (MAJOR REH......................
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 77,000 68,000
AND KY.................................
UPPER MISS RVR SYSTEM ENV MGMT PROGRAM, 12,200 15,000
IL, IA, MN, MO.........................

INDIANA

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS (ENVIRONMENTAL .............. 500
INFRASTRUCTURE)........................
INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL 6,800 6,800
FACILITY), IN..........................
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 .............. 1,400
GREENBELT, IA..........................
LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA 1,366 2,250
(MAJOR REHAB)..........................
LOCK AND DAM 12, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA 5,404 5,404
(MAJOR REHAB)..........................
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE 17,500 18,600
MITIGATION, IA, NE, K..................
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS 6,978 9,000
AND MO.................................
PERRY CREEK, IA......................... 4,000 4,500

KANSAS

ARKANSAS CITY, KS....................... 3,000 3,000

KENTUCKY

DEWEY LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY)............. 600 600
KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, 27,400 31,000
KY.....................................
MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY 6,192 13,000
AND IN.................................
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, BEARGRASS 3,838 3,838
CREEK, KY..............................
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY. 2,000 2,000

LOUISIANA

ASCENSION PARISH (ENVIRONMENTAL .............. 300
INFRASTRUCTURE), LA....................
COMITE RIVER, LA........................ 3,000 3,000
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH (ENVIRONMENTAL .............. 300
INFRASTRUCTURE)........................
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 4,900 7,000
(HURRICANE PROTECT.....................
LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE 410 410
PROTECTION)............................
LIVINGSTON PARISH (ENVIRONMENTAL .............. 300
INFRASTRUCTURE), LA....................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET, LA....... .............. 500
MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO 200 200
BATON ROUGE, L.........................
NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE 900 1,500
PROTECTION)............................
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 10,590 10,590
CHANNELS, MD AND VA....................
CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTOR AND .............. 2,000
PROTECTION, MD.........................
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND 2,000 3,000
VA.....................................
CUMBERLAND, MD.......................... .............. 5,000
POPLAR ISLAND, MD....................... 10,600 10,600

MASSACHUSETTS

CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, MA 8,500 8,500
(MAJOR REHAB)..........................
WEST HILL DAM, MA (MAJOR REHAB)......... 2,800 2,800

MICHIGAN

GENESEE COUNTY (ENVIRONMENTAL .............. 200
INFRASTRUCTURE), MI....................
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 3,000 3,000
(MAJOR REHAB)..........................
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
BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, .............. 200
MO.....................................
MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, 600 4,000
MO.....................................
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS 1,700 3,500
(REG WORKS), MO........................
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 750 750
AND SD.................................
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 500 1,000
(ABSECON ISLAND).......................
CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ.... 82 82
DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA AND 12,000 10,000
DE.....................................
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, 460 460
NJ.....................................
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, 2,000 2,000
NJ.....................................
PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL 3,000 3,000
STORAGE AREAS, N.......................
RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, MAHWAH, NJ AND 500 500
SUFFERN, NY............................
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- 5,000 7,000
BASIN, NJ..............................
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, 800 800
BERNALILLO TO BELE.....................
RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO 800 800
BOSQUE DEL APACHE......................

NEW YORK

ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO 450 450
NORTON POINT...........................
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET 1,000 1,000
AND JAMAICA BAY........................
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 120,000 110,000
NJ.....................................

NORTH CAROLINA

BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC............ 700 700
STANLEY COUNTY WASTEWATER, NC........... .............. 1,000
WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET, 1,200 1,200
NC.....................................
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC................... 24,650 41,000

NORTH DAKOTA

BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND 1,000 2,500
ACQUISITION............................
DEVILS LAKE, ND......................... .............. 5,000
GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR 6,500 6,500
REHAB).................................
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

OHIO

HOLES CREEK, WEST CARROLLTON, OH........ .............. 2,000
METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK 3,270 4,000
CREEK, OH..............................
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 8,913 8,913
WA (MAJOR REHAB).......................
COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, OR .............. 5,000
AND WA.................................
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS 5,800 5,800
SITES, OR AND WA.......................
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR...................... 1,000 1,000
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN BANK 100 100
PROTECTION, OR AND WA..................
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM 2,000 ..............
RESTORATION, OR AND WA.................
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 36,017 42,000
RIVER, PA..............................
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 4,539 6,500
WIDENING)..............................
HARTWELL LK,CLEMSON UPPER AND LOWER 5,791 5,791
DIVERSION, SC (DAM S...................
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 1,700 9,500
SIOUX, SD..............................
MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SD.......... 750 750
PIERRE, SD.............................. 1,426 6,000

TENNESSEE

BLACK FOX, OAKLANDS AND MURFREE SPRINGS .............. 2,300
WETLANDS, TN...........................

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, 19,487 36,000
TX.....................................
JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, 3,636 3,636
ARLINGTON, TX..........................
NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER 7,000 7,000
BARRIER, TX............................
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
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 6,600 6,600
(MAJOR REHAB)..........................
LYNCHBURG (COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW), VA. .............. 500
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (DEEPENING), 477 ..............
VA.....................................
RICHMOND (COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW), VA.. .............. 500
ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS 850 850
AREA, VA...............................
SANDBRIDGE BEACH, VA.................... .............. 1,400
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE 120 120
PROTECTION)............................

WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR 98,000 87,000
AND ID.................................
GRAYS HARBOR, WA........................ 50 50
HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, 5,776 7,500
WA.....................................
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE 4,600 4,600
COMPENSATION, WA, OR...................
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 3,000 3,000
AND OR (MAJOR REH......................

WEST VIRGINIA

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY)......... 8,500 13,100
LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER 10,400 16,900
CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V................
LONDON LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV 11,934 11,934
(MAJOR REHAB)..........................
LOWER MUD RIVER, WV..................... .............. 750
MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV.......... 10,978 58,500
ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, 1,500 1,500
WV AND OH..............................
WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, 200 200
WV.....................................

WISCONSIN

LAFARGE LAKE, WI........................ 4,361 4,361

MISCELLANEOUS

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 10,000 20,000
206)...................................
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM........... 3,000 5,000
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL 1,500 1,500
(SECTION 204)..........................
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY 5,000 10,000
CORRECTION PROGRAM.....................
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES 9,000 9,000
PROGRAM................................
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE 7,000 9,000
PROTECTION (SEC 14)....................
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION................. 20,000 20,000
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205).... 30,000 45,000
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD 45 45
EXPENSE................................
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS 185 185
EXPENSE................................
NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 500 2,000
111)...................................
NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107)....... 7,000 9,100
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF 16,000 23,000
THE ENVIRONME..........................
SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT 8,000 8,000
AND DEMONSTRATIO.......................
SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 5,000 5,000
103)...................................
SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECT (SECTION 1,000 1,000
208)...................................
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND -103,454 -228,360
SLIPPAGE...............................
ADJUSTMENT FOR ACTUAL RETIREMENT -2,388 ..............
ACCRUALS...............................
-------------------------------
TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL....... 1,415,612 1,745,102
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
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.
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 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, Lawton-
Verdi, 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.
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
includes $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 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 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 $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, Mississippi 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 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.

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

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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project title Budget estimate 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 180 180
LAKE, MS.............................
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, 36,690 36,690
MS, MO AND TN........................
FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH (EIGHT 750 750
MILE CREEK), AR......................
HELENA AND VICINITY, AR............... 660 660
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, 42,360 49,885
LA, MS, MO AND TN....................
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 25 25
AREAS, LA AND MS.....................
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA.......... 3,500 3,500
HORN LAKE CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES (INCL 300 300
COW PEN CREEK), MS...................
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 100 1,000
FLOODWAY, MO.........................
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, 66,465 66,465
MS, MO AND TN........................
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR.... 490 490
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, 7,185 8,130
LA, MS, MO AND TN....................
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO........... 10,580 11,180
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, 2,463 3,713
AR AND LA............................
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 -13,085 -21,474
SLIPPAGE.............................
ADJUSTMENT FOR ACTUAL RETIREMENT -329 ...............
ACCRUALS.............................
=================================
TOTAL, FLOOD CONTROL, 280,671 337,937
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND
TRIBUTARIES....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee believes that it is essential to provide
adequate resources and funding to the Mississippi River and
Tributaries program in order to protect the large investment in
flood control facilities. Although much progress has been made,
considerable work remains to be done for the protection and
economic development of the rich national resources in the
Valley. The Committee expects the additional funds to be used
to advance ongoing studies, initiate new studies, and advance
important construction and maintenance work. In conjunction
with efforts to optimize use of the additional funding
provided, the Committee expects the Corps to make the necessary
adjustments in lower priority activities and non-critical work
in order to maximize the public benefit within the Mississippi
River and Tributaries program.

Construction

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

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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA

ALABAMA-COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, 500 500
AL.....................................
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 7,094 7,644
``BILL'' DANNELLY LA...................
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 23,925 25,925
SYSTEM, AR.............................
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
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 4,338 4,338
CHANNEL, CA............................
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 1,271 1,271
CONTROL), CA...........................
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, 145 145
CA.....................................
SAN DIEGO HARBOR, CA.................... 150 150
SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY, CA..... 60 60
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL 1,181 1,181
STRUCTURE, CA..........................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY (DRIFT 2,072 2,072
REMOVAL), CA...........................
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

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 .............. 250
SOUND..................................
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT.................. 506 506

DELAWARE

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO 12,853 12,853
CHESAPEAKE BAY, D......................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO 45 45
DELAWARE BAY, D........................
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 1,110 1,110
REMOVAL), DC...........................
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 322 2,500
MIAMI, FL..............................
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL................. 4,040 4,040
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE 6,050 6,050
SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA................
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 1,444 4,709
RIVERS, GA, AL &.......................
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 7,548 7,548
SC.....................................
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 25,154 25,154
IN.....................................
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND 1,683 1,683
IN.....................................
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 41,820 42,320
(MVR PORTION)..........................
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS 15,443 15,443
(MVS PORTION)..........................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL........... 30 30
REND LAKE, IL........................... 4,520 4,520
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 111 111
WATERS, IL.............................
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 130 130
WATERS, IN.............................

IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA..................... 3,097 3,097
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA....... 78 78
MISSOURI RIVER-KENSLERS BEND, NE TO 147 147
SIOUX CITY, IA.........................
MISSOURI RIVER-RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS 5,613 6,113
AND MO.................................
MISSOURI RIVER-SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA 3,075 3,075
AND NE.................................
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

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 30,969 30,969
AND OH.................................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN 5,577 5,577
AND OH.................................
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, 14,681 15,681
BOEUF AND BLACK, L.....................
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA.............. .............. 2,000
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA.............. 794 794
BAYOU LACOMBE, LA....................... .............. 315
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP 1,085 1,085
WATERWAY, LA...........................
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
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 57,482 57,482
GULF OF MEXICO.........................
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 17 17
WATERS, ME.............................

MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), MD.... 500 500
BALTIMORE HARBOR (PREVENTION OF 663 663
OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS)..................
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), 18,444 18,444
MD.....................................
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 1,627 1,627
SINEPUXENT BAY, MD.....................
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 260 260
AREA, MA...............................
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 322 322
HURRICANE BARRIER......................
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
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 2,507 2,507
WATERS, MI.............................
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 45,405 45,405
(MVP PORTION)..........................
ORWELL LAKE, MN......................... 481 481
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN........... 72 72
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN.................. 126 126
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI 4,513 4,513
RIVER, MN..............................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 306 306
WATERS, MN.............................
TWO HARBORS, MN......................... 167 167

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, 5,959 5,959
MO.....................................
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 13,878 14,378
(REG WORKS), MO........................
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, 7,199 7,199
NE AND SD..............................
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE.................. 2,025 2,025
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE....... 78 78
MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL, 500 500
NE, IA, KS, MO.........................
MISSOURI RIVER BASIN COLLABORATIVE WATER 45 45
PLANNING (NWO..........................
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, 669 669
NE.....................................
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
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, 19,245 19,745
NJ, PA AND DE..........................
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO 3,470 3,470
TRENTON, NJ............................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ....... 65 65
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ.... 2,586 2,586
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC 75 75
RIVERS, NJ.............................
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, 55 55
NM.....................................

NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY......................... 457 457
ARKPORT DAM, NY......................... 246 246
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, 1,041 1,041
NY.....................................
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 5,300 5,300
NJ.....................................
NEW YORK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF 750 750
OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS)..................
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 760 760
PROJECTS, NY...........................
STURGEON POINT HARBOR, NY............... 20 20
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 595 595
WATERS, NY.............................
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, 45 45
NC.....................................
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC................ 5,100 5,400
NEW RIVER INLET, NC..................... 815 815
NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING 640 640
CHANNELS, NC...........................
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
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 175 175
WATERS, OH.............................
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 3,923 3,923
SYSTEM, OK.............................
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK........................ 2,360 2,360
OPTIMA LAKE, OK......................... 59 59
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE 34 34
CHEROKEES, OK..........................
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK..................... 1,187 1,187
ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND 4,648 4,648
RESERVOIRS, OK.........................
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 14,770 17,770
VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLA...............
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA.. 6,632 10,702
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND 526 526
THE DALLES, O..........................
COOS BAY, OR............................ 5,494 5,494
COQUILLE RIVER, OR...................... .............. 330
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR.................. 842 842
COUGAR LAKE, OR......................... 732 732
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 134 134
WATERS, OR.............................
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, 341 341
PA.....................................
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 488 488
WV.....................................
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 72 72
WATERS, PA.............................
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA................. 2,542 2,542
TIONESTA LAKE, PA....................... 2,032 2,032
UNION CITY LAKE, PA..................... 245 245
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 .............. 5,000
SIOUX, SD..............................
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 500 500
GAVINS PT, SD, MT......................
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 1,373 1,373
CONTROL--AREA VI.......................
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, 5 5
TX.....................................
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, 2,682 2,682
TX.....................................
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 1,835 1,835
GEORGETOWN, TX.........................
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 1,200 1,200
HBR (DRIFT REMOVAL.....................
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
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA.. 1,334 1,334
LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA..................... 225 225
NORFOLK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF 200 200
OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS), V...............
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 60 60
WATERS, WA.............................
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 3,260 3,260
OH.....................................
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
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 1,578 1,578
SHIP CANAL, WI.........................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 498 498
WATERS, WI.............................
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 1,180 1,180
MONITORING SYSTEM......................
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL 6,755 6,755
RESEARCH (DOER)........................
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT 1,545 1,545
(DOTS) PROGRAM.........................
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS PROGRAM FOR BUILDINGS 300 300
AND LIFELINES..........................
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 1,750 1,750
PROJECTS...............................
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM............. 45 45
NATIONAL DAM SECURITY PROGRAM........... 30 30
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS 4,120 4,120
(NEPP).................................
NATIONAL LEWIS AND CLARK COMMEMORATION 310 310
COORDINATOR............................
PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT 815 815
PROGRAM................................
PROTECTING, CLEARING AND STRAIGHTENING 50 50
CHANNELS(SEC 3.........................
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM 1,545 1,545
(RMSP).................................
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT 1,545 1,545
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM..................
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR 675 675
REHABILITATION.........................
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS............... 500 500
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT 725 725
(WOTS) PROGRAM.........................
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS.......... 4,745 4,745
HYDROPOWER MAINTENANCE.................. .............. -49,000
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND -19,091 -47,778
SLIPPAGE...............................
ADJUSTMENT FOR ACTUAL RETIREMENT -240 ..............
ACCRUALS...............................
-------------------------------
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
Nation's ports, harbors, and waterways open and able to
efficiently handle important national and international trade
activities. Yet, the Committee is aware that out-year budget
planning guidance for the Corps of Engineers projects that the
current appropriations for their critical operation and
maintenance activities will continue to decline for the
foreseeable future. If additional resources are not made
available, the Committee will be forced to cut back on
services, and begin to terminate and close many projects and
activities.
The Committee is aware of the Corps' efforts to stretch the
limited resources to cover all of its projects and to effect
savings through a variety of means. With an increasing number
of projects entering the inventory, and budgetary constraints
increasing, it is clear that the Corps will have to find
innovative ways of accomplishing required maintenance work,
while reducing operational and other costs. Adjustments in
lower-priority programs and noncritical work should optimize
limited resources while maximizing the public benefit.
The budget request has proposed that no navigation project
with less than one billion ton-miles of cargo be eligible for
maintenance dredging. The Committee believes that this is in
direct conflict with the way projects are analyzed. Project
analysis is based upon Economic and Environmental Principles
and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources
Implementation Studies (1983), the Corps of Engineers Planning
Guidance Notebook (2000), and other polices and procedures. For
navigation studies, the analysis centers on transportation
savings to the Nation considering the ultimate origins and
destinations of commodities to be moved. Operation and
maintenance costs are considered as a part of this analysis and
are figured into the benefit to cost ratio utilized to make the
investment decision. By applying an arbitrary ton-mile figure
to determine O&M funding decisions, the budget request has
essentially obviated the need for any of the previous studies
undertaken to determine the investment decision.
The Committee is concerned about the annual proposals for
reductions of maintenance funding for ``low use waterways and
ports''. These tributary waterways naturally do not enjoy the
same level of relative efficiencies as mainstem waterways. The
Mississippi and Ohio Rivers handle tremendous volumes of
traffic over long distances and so generate impressive ton-mile
statistics. Tributaries, by nature, provide generally short,
smaller channels with lower traffic densities. Consequently,
``ton-mile'' statistics for tributary waterways are dwarfed by
statistics for the mainstem waterways. It is important to
recognize that the commerce on the tributaries is usually only
a small part of the total journey between producer and
consumer. When these statistics are compared on a system basis,
nearly all of these waterways appear to ``pay their way'' and
are performing as the economic analysis indicated when they
were originally authorized.
Uncertainties in maintenance funding for lower use
projects, seriously impact their abilities to compete and
become higher use facilities. Without funding to provide a
stable channel and authorized depths and widths, industries and
shippers are reluctant to make the necessary investments in
using these projects. The Committee believes that proposed
elimination of maintenance funding for authorized projects is
not only a serious disservice to the public, but is
demonstrates a profound lack of respect for the congressional
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
additional $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 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 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
provided $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
provided $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.
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
provided $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 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.
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 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.

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 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Committee recommendation
---------------------------------------------------
Project title Resources Facilities Resources Facilities
management OM&R management 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 PROJ- ECT..... 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 PROJ- ECT...... 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 PROJ- ECT...... 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
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 ...........
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 PRO- JECTA..... ........... ........... 500 ...........
LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCE CONSERVA- TION...... ........... ........... 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 ...........
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 10,087 ........... 10,087 ...........
AND COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMEN................
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 ACTIVIT- IES.... 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 ADMINISTRA- TION.... 2,292 ........... 2,292 ...........
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY:
ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT DESALINATION PROGRAM........... 1,310 ........... 1,310 ...........
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 SUP- PORT.... 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 Bay-Delta 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.
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
provided $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 non-native 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 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, 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 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 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.
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.

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 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 sub-accounts, 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 continued 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
petro-chemical and fertilizer communities is large and growing.
The rate of petro-chemical hydrogen consumption necessary for
gasoline-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, second-generation, 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.

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 university-owned 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.
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 public-private 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 tremendously
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.
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

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 Lake-Lake 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 non-
defense 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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
campaigns 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,
development, 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.
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.
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
alternative 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 trade-offs 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 capabilities 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
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 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.

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
appropriated, $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
Appropriations 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 Department 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 render-safe 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 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.
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 thorium-
based 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.
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.

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 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 clean-up 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 Environmental 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.
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.
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
conduct 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
funding 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-disposal-container 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 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
multi-site 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
clean-up sites and to serve as the DOE field service center for
the long-term 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.

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
assurance 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 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.

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
Department-wide standardization of processes to ensure data
preservation and access, the Committee is not aware of a
comprehensive coordinated effort being undertaken within the
Department. The Committee is also aware that even within the
Environment Safety & Health organization, parallel activities
were undertaken to digitize worker records while another part
of the organization sought the digitization of similar worker
records to support the Employee Compensation Initiative. To the
extent that there is a desire to digitize records in support of
the ECI, the Committee strongly encourages the Department to
utilize the existing program at UNLV.
The Committee 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 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 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
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
increase 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 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-square-mile geographic area. Western is also
responsible for the operation and maintenance of almost 17,000
miles of high-voltage transmission lines with 258 substations.
Western distributes power generated by 55 plants with a maximum
operating capacity of 10,576 megawatts.
Western, through its power marketing program, must secure
revenues sufficient to meet the annual costs of operation and
maintenance of the generating and transmission facilities,
purchased power, wheeling, and other expenses, in order to
repay all of the power investment with interest, and to repay
that portion of the Government's irrigation and other nonpower
investments which are beyond the water users' repayment
capability. Under the Colorado River Basin power marketing
fund, which encompasses the Colorado River Basin, Fort Peck,
and Colorado River storage facilities, all operation and
maintenance and power marketing expenses are financed from
revenues.
Of the total resources available to the Western Power
Administration, $6,100,000 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

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.
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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
Project title estimate 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 291,500 334,489
technologies.....................

Electric energy systems and storage..... 70,447 75,000

Renewable support and implementation:
Departmental energy management...... 3,000 3,000
International renewable energy 6,500 6,500
program............................
Renewable energy production 4,000 5,000
incentive program..................
Renewable Indian energy resources... 8,307 9,307
Renewable program support........... 2,059 6,059
-------------------------------
Total, Renewable support and 23,866 29,866
implementation...................

National renewable energy laboratory.... 4,200 6,000

Construction: 02-E-001 Project 800 800
engineering and design, NREL Golden, CO
-------------------------------
Total, National renewable energy 5,000 6,800
laboratory.......................

Program direction....................... 16,187 16,907
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Renewable Energy 407,000 463,062
Resources........................
===============================
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 17,500 19,500
support................................

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 1,721 1,721
(LANL).............................
99-E-200 Test reactor area 1,840 1,840
electrical utility upgrade, Idaho
National Engineering Lab, ID.......
95-E-201 Test reactor area fire and 500 500
life safety improvements, Idaho
National Engineering Lab, ID.......
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction.......... 4,061 4,061
-------------------------------
Total, Radiological facilities 83,038 92,699
management.....................

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 10,340 5,340
(non-defense)..........................
Program direction....................... 18,871 13,871
-------------------------------
TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND 29,211 19,211
HEALTH...........................
===============================
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 .............. 17,000
INFRASTRUCTURE...................
===============================
Subtotal, Energy supply........... 693,934 815,306
===============================
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 166,000 193,000
Environmental Management.........
===============================
Use of prior year balances.............. .............. -17,000
===============================
TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL 166,000 176,000
MANAGEMENT.......................
===============================
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 146,631 136,631
liabilities........................
02-U-101 Depleted uranium .............. ..............
hexafluoride conversion project,
Paducah, KY and Portsmouth, OH.....
96-U-201 DUF6 cylinder storage yard, .............. ..............
Paducah, KY........................
-------------------------------
Total, Other uranium activities... 146,631 136,631

Use of prior year balances.............. .............. ..............
===============================
TOTAL, URANIUM FACILITIES 382,154 471,154
MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION......

SCIENCE

High Energy Physics:
Research & Technology............... 258,545 263,555
Facility operations................. 446,352 446,332
Construction: 98-G-304 Neutrinos at 20,093 20,093
the main injector, Fermilab........
-------------------------------
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 504,215 531,215
environmental research...........

Basic energy sciences:
Research:
Materials sciences and 547,883 553,383
engineering research...........
Chemical sciences, geosciences 220,146 234,146
and energy biosciences.........
Engineering and geosciences..... .............. ..............
Energy biosciences.............. .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Research............ 768,029 787,529

Construction:
03-SC-002 Project engineering & 6,000 6,000
design (PED) SLAC..................
03-R-312 Center for nanophase 24,000 24,000
materials sciences, ORNL...........
03-R-313 Center for Integrated .............. 4,500
Nenotechnology.....................
02-SC-002 Project engineering and 11,000 12,000
design (VL)........................
99-E-334 Spallation neutron source 210,571 210,571
(ORNL).............................
-------------------------------
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 3,355 3,355
infrastructure project
engineering and design (PED),
various loc....................
MEL-001 Multiprogram energy 28,226 28,226
laboratory infrastructure
projects, various locations....
02-SC-001 Multiprogram energy .............. ..............
laboratories, project
engineering design, various
locations......................
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction...... 31,581 31,581
-------------------------------
Total, Science laboratories 42,735 42,735
infrastructure.............

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 -4,383 -4,383
work...................................
-------------------------------
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 4,953 4,953
intergovernmental affairs......
Economic impact and diversity... 5,121 5,121
General counsel................. 22,813 21,813
International affairs........... .............. ..............
Office of Management, Budget and 106,536 94,536
Evaluation.....................
Policy office................... .............. ..............
Policy and international affairs 16,840 14,840
Public affairs.................. 4,531 4,531
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Salaries and 197,044 180,044
expenses.....................

Program support:
Minority economic impact........ 1,400 1,400
Policy analysis and system 800 800
studies........................
Energy security and assurance... 2,000 2,000
Environmental policy studies.... 1,200 1,200
Engineering and construction .............. ..............
management reviews.............
Cybersecurity and secure 32,027 32,027
communications.................
Corporate management information 20,420 8,420
program........................
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Program support..... 57,847 45,847
-------------------------------
Total, Administrative 254,891 225,891
operations...................

Cost of work for others................. 69,916 69,916
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Departmental 324,807 295,807
Administration...................
===============================
Use of prior year balances and other .............. -10,000
adjustments............................
Funding from other defense activities... -25,587 -50,587
-------------------------------
Total, Departmental administration 299,220 235,000
(gross)..........................
===============================
Miscellaneous revenues.................. -137,524 -137,524
===============================
TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION 161,696 97,696
(net)............................
===============================
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 6,893 6,893
manuals............................
-------------------------------
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 47,790 47,790
nuclear systems margins........
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Science campaigns... 235,468 268,468

Engineering campaigns:
Enhanced surety................. 37,713 32,000
Weapons system engineering 27,007 27,007
certification..................
Nuclear survivability........... 23,394 23,394
Enhanced surveillance........... 77,155 77,155
Advanced design and production 74,141 74,141
technologies...................
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Engineering 239,410 233,697
campaigns....................

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and 237,748 273,248
high yield.............................
Construction: 96-D-111 National 214,045 214,045
ignition facility, LLNL............
-------------------------------
Subtotal, ILF Ignition............ 451,793 487,293

Advanced simulation and computing....... 669,527 649,000
Construction:
01-D-101 Distributed information 13,305 13,305
systems laboratory, SNL,
Livermore, CA..................
00-D-103, Terascale simulation 35,030 35,030
facility, LLNL, Livermore, CA..
00-D-105 Strategic computing .............. ..............
complex, LANL, Los Alamos, NM..
00-D-107 Joint computational 7,000 7,000
engineering laboratory, SNL,
Albuquerque, NM...............
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction........ 55,335 55,335
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Advanced simulation 724,862 704,335
and computing................

Pit manufacturing and certification..... 194,484 246,000
Readiness campaigns:
Stockpile readiness................. 61,027 61,027
High explosives manufacturing and 12,093 12,093
weapons assembly/disassembly
readiness..........................
Non-nuclear readiness............... 22,398 22,398
Materials readiness................. .............. ..............
Tritium readiness................... 56,134 42,734
Construction: 98-D-125 Tritium 70,165 70,165
extraction facility, SR............
-------------------------------
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 1,417,883 1,521,630
base and fac.....................

Construction:
03-D-101 Sandia underground 2,000 2,000
reactor facility SURF, SNL,
Albuquerque, NM................
03-D-102 LANL Administration .............. 16,000
Building (LANL)................
03-D-103 Project engineering and 15,539 15,539
design various locations.......
03-D-121 Gas transfer capacity 4,000 4,000
expansion, Kansas City Plant,
Kansas City, MO................
03-D-122 Prototype purification 20,800 20,800
facility, Y-12 plant, Oak
Ridge, TN......................
03-D-123 Special nuclear 3,000 3,000
materials requalification,
Pantex plant, Amarillo, TX.....
02-D-103 Project engineering and 27,245 27,245
design, various locations......
02-D-105 Engineering technology 10,000 10,000
complex upgrade, LLNL..........
02-D-107 Electrical power 7,500 7,500
systems safety communications
and bus upgrades, NV...........
01-D-103 Project engineering and 6,164 ..............
design (PE&D), various
locations......................
01-D-107 Atlas relocation, 4,123 4,123
Nevada test site...............
01-D-108 Microsystems and 75,000 123,000
engineering sciences
applications complex (MESA),
SNL............................
01-D-124 HEU materials facility, 25,000 25,000
Y-12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN......
01-D-126 Weapons Evaluation Test 8,650 8,650
Laboratory Pantex Plant,
Amarillo, TX...................
01-D-800 Sensitive compartmented 9,611 9,611
information facility, LLNL.....
99-D-103 Isotope sciences 4,011 4,011
facilities, LLNL, Livermore, CA
99-D-104 Protection of real 5,915 5,915
property (roof reconstruction--
Phase II), LLNL, Livermore, CA.
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 29,900 29,900
restructuring initiative,
Kansas City plant, Kansas City,
MO.............................
99-D-128 Stockpile management 407 407
restructuring initiative,
Pantex consolidation, Amarillo,
TX.............................
98-D-123 Stockpile management 10,481 10,481
restructuring initiative,
Tritium factory modernization
and consolidation, Savannah
River, SC......................
98-D-124 Stockpile management .............. ..............
restructuring initiative, Y-12
consolidation, Oak Ridge, TN...
97-D-123 Structural upgrades, .............. ..............
Kansas City plant, Kansas City,
MO.............................
96-D-102 Stockpile stewardship 1,000 1,000
facilities revitalization
(Phase VI), various locations..
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction...... 270,346 328,182
-------------------------------
Total, Readiness in 1,688,229 1,849,812
technical base and
facilities.................

Facilities and infrastructure 242,512 242,512
recapitalization program...............
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 8,900 8,900
material safeguards and security
upgrade project (LANL), Los Alamos,
NM.................................
-------------------------------
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 -28,985 -28,985
work...................................
-------------------------------
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 283,407 293,407
verification, R&D............

Nonproliferation and international 92,668 92,668
security...............................
Nonproliferation programs with Russia:
International materials protection, 233,077 233,077
control, and cooperation...........
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 49,339 49,339
plutonium production program.......
Fissile materials disposition:
U.S. surplus materials disposition.. 194,000 194,000
Russian surplus materials 98,000 98,000
disposition........................
Construction:
01-D-407 Highly enriched uranium 30,000 30,000
(HEU) blend down, Savannah
River, SC......................
99-D-141 Pit disassembly and 33,000 33,000
conversion facility Savannah
River, SC......................
99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel 93,000 93,000
fabrication facility, Savannah
River, SC......................
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction........ 156,000 156,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Fissile materials 448,000 448,000
disposition..................
-------------------------------
Total, Nonproliferation 801,555 801,555
programs with Russia.........

Program direction....................... .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense nuclear 1,177,630 1,187,630
nonproliferation.................

Use of prior year balances.............. -64,000 -72,000
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107- .............. ..............
117)...................................
===============================
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR 1,113,630 1,115,630
NONPROLIFERATION.................
===============================
NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development.............. 671,290 671,290
Construction:
03-D-201 Cleanroom technology 7,200 7,200
facility, Bettis atomic power
lab, West Mifflin, PA..........
01-D-200 Major office 2,100 2,100
replacement building,
Schenectady, NY................
90-N-102 Expended core facility 2,000 2,000
dry cell project, Naval
Reactors Facility, ID..........
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction........ 11,300 11,300
-------------------------------
Total, Naval reactors 682,590 682,590
development..................
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 8,023,349 8,267,308
ADMINISTRATION...................
===============================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND
WASTE MGMT.

Site/project completion:
Operation and maintenance........... 779,706 973,106
Construction:
02-D-402 Intec cathodic 1,119 1,119
protection system expansion
project, INEEL, Idaho Falls, ID
02-D-420 Plutonium packaging and 2,000 2,000
stabilization, Savannah River..
01-D-414 Preliminary project, 5,125 5,125
engineering and design (PE&D),
various locations..............
99-D-402 Tank farm support .............. ..............
services, F&H area, Savannah
River site, Aiken, SC..........
99-D-404 Health physics .............. ..............
instrumentation laboratory
(INEL), ID.....................
98-D-453 Plutonium stabilization .............. ..............
and handling system for PFP,
Richland, WA..................
96-D-471 CFC HVAC/chiller .............. ..............
retrofit, Savannah River site,
Aiken, SC......................
86-D-103 Decontamination and .............. ..............
waste treatment facility
(LLNL), Livermore, CA..........
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction...... 8,244 8,244
-------------------------------
Total, Site/project 787,950 981,350
completion.................

Post 2006 completion:
Operation and maintenance........... 1,702,241 2,211,240
Construction: 93-D-187 High-level 14,870 14,870
waste removal from filled waste
tanks, Savannah River, SC..........
Office of River Protection: 226,256 455,256
Operation and maintenance..........
Construction:
03-D-403 Immobilized high-level 6,363 6,363
waste interim storage facility,
Richland, WA..................
01-D-416 Hanford waste treatment 619,000 619,000
plant, Richland, WA............
97-D-402 Tank farm restoration 25,424 25,424
and safe operations, Richland,
WA.............................
94-D-407 Initial tank retrieval 20,945 20,945
systems, Richland, WA..........
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction........ 671,732 671,732
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of River 897,988 1,126,988
Protection...................
-------------------------------
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 4,548,480 5,444,879
management.......................

Use of prior year balances.............. .............. -34,000
General reduction....................... .............. ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable -4,347 -4,347
work...................................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107- .............. ..............
117)...................................
===============================
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRON. 4,544,133 5,406,532
RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT.......
===============================
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 1,091,314 1,125,314
PROJECTS.........................
===============================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PRIVATIZATION

Privatization initiatives, various 158,399 158,399
locations..............................
-------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. 158,399 158,399
PRIVATIZATION....................
===============================
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL 6,593,846 6,690,245
MANAGEMENT.......................
===============================
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Other national security programs:
Energy security and assurance:
Energy security................. 23,411 52,411
Program direction............... 4,275 4,275
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Energy security and 27,686 56,686
assurance....................

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 22,430 22,430
performance assurance..............
Advanced accelerator applications... .............. ..............
Environment, safety and health 81,892 96,892
(Defense)..........................
Program direction--EH............... 17,149 17,149
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Environment, safety & 99,041 114,041
health (Defense).................

Worker and community transition..... 22,965 22,965
Program direction--WT............... 2,718 2,718
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Worker and community 25,683 25,683
transition.......................

National Security programs 25,587 50,587
administrative support.............
Office of hearings and appeals...... 2,933 2,933
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Other defense 476,076 545,076
activities.....................

Use of prior year balances.............. -6,700 -6,700
Less security charge for reimbursable -712 -712
work...................................
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 15,400,859 15,775,217
ACTIVITIES.......................
===============================
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 24,606 39,069
maintenance......................

Offsetting collections.................. .............. -8,000
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106- -20,000 -26,463
377)...................................
Use of prior year balances.............. -72 -72
-------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER 4,534 4,534
ADMINISTRATION...................
===============================
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
Construction........................ 6,031 6,031
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and 28,066 29,978
maintenance......................

Offsetting collections.................. .............. -1,912
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106- -288 -288
377)...................................
Use of prior year balances.............. -400 -400
-------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER 27,378 27,378
ADMINISTRATION...................
===============================
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 193,958 356,182
maintenance......................

Offsetting collections.................. .............. -152,624
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106- -30,000 -33,500
377)...................................
Use of prior year balances.............. -1,200 -1,200
-------------------------------
TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER 162,758 168,858
ADMINISTRATION...................
===============================
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND
MAINTENANCE FUND

Operation and maintenance............... 2,734 2,734
===============================
TOTAL, POWER MARKETING 197,404 203,504
ADMINISTRATIONS..................
===============================
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.
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.

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.
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, non-profit
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
Committee 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 terrorist 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.

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.

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
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.

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 Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation \1\ bill allocation \1\ 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 NA 129 NA 24
for 2003............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.

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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2002 Budget estimate Committee ---------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 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 +45,821
Construction, general.............................................. 1,715,951 1,415,612 1,745,102 +29,151 +329,490
Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, Arkansas, 345,992 280,671 337,937 -8,055 +57,266
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and
Tennessee.........................................................
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 ............... ...............

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 ............... ............... -15,000
Policy and administration.......................................... 52,968 54,870 54,870 +1,902 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Bureau of Reclamation................................. 908,292 844,921 919,921 +11,629 +75,000
====================================================================================
Total, 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 +121,372
Non-defense environmental management............................... 236,372 166,000 176,000 -60,372 +10,000
Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation..................... 418,425 382,154 471,154 +52,729 +89,000
Science............................................................ 3,233,100 3,279,456 3,329,456 +96,356 +50,000
Nuclear Waste Disposal............................................. 95,000 209,702 56,000 -39,000 -153,702

Departmental 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 ...............
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 ............... ............... -800,000
Defense facilities closure projects................................ 1,092,878 1,091,314 1,125,314 +32,436 +34,000
Defense 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 171,938 162,758 168,858 -3,080 +6,100
Area Power Administration.........................................
Falcon 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 ...............
====================================================================================
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 +8,110
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............................ 18,500 19,000 19,000 +500 ...............
Delta Regional Authority........................................... 10,000 10,000 15,000 +5,000 +5,000
Denali Commission.................................................. 38,000 29,939 50,000 +12,000 +20,061

Nuclear 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 +5,727
Grand 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) ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------